|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 27 2019 05:34 JimmiC wrote:
Thank you for your opinion. Sadly the facts disagree with it. I mean we could go over it again or you could read the last few pages of this thread and the report itself.
On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant.
Do you know what "smoking gun" means?
It basically means conclusive evidence. the report clearly states that there is no conclusive evidence supporting charge that Trump committed a crime.
I will repost more of the excerpt i posted before.
"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Page 214
Youre acting like the Mueller report came to no conclusions and it merely punted the whole matter to Congress based on constitutional concerns, when the fact of the matter is that the report did present conclusions, while noting that Congress has to be the one to indict if necessary.
Also, are you both telling me that you have read the entire report yourselves?
It's over 400 pages
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime.
From the report directly:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did.
|
On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same.
Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost?
On April 27 2019 06:01 JimmiC wrote:
Don't forget that Trump would also likely be in jail for his Tax crimes and Charity crimes since those were being investigated by the NYT starting before he won.
None of the people with the ability (or political influence) to prosecute Trump discovered he was a tax cheat/criminal after he ran for president.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point?
I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it?
On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up.
|
On April 27 2019 06:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:01 BerserkSword wrote:On April 27 2019 05:34 JimmiC wrote:
Thank you for your opinion. Sadly the facts disagree with it. I mean we could go over it again or you could read the last few pages of this thread and the report itself. On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. Do you know what "smoking gun" means? It basically means conclusive evidence. the report clearly states that there is no conclusive evidence supporting charge that Trump committed a crime. I will repost more of the excerpt i posted before. "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Page 214 Youre acting like the Mueller report came to no conclusions and it merely punted the whole matter to Congress based on constitutional concerns, when the fact of the matter is that the report did present conclusions, while noting that Congress has to be the one to indict if necessary. Also, are you both telling me that you have read the entire report yourselves? It's over 400 pages Yes 400 pages is about the size of your average novel. And it makes sense that if you are going to call something a complete joke you should read it. And not just try to find the parts that support your preconceived notions. And the excerpt you quoted has been quoted a bunch because it clearly says not exonerated which is the exact opposite of the victory lap you took when the Barr report came out.
Wtf?
When did I take a victory lap when the Barr report came out? I didnt even post here when it happened
And Mueller's report, legally speaking, does not have the capacity to exonerate Trump anyway.
|
It's still not clear what the point is. Of course it would be less of a big deal if Trump had not been elected. A random rich guy possibly working with a foreign power is different to the actual president possibly working with a foreign power.
We all know this. What is your point?
|
On April 27 2019 06:12 Belisarius wrote:
It's still not clear what the point is. Of course it would be less of a big deal if Trump had not been elected. A random rich guy possibly working with a foreign power is different to the actual president possibly working with a foreign power.
We all know this. What is your point?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up.
That the idea this was a political witch hunt is largely born out by the results as is it's failure to get the leader of the coven. So I wouldn't trust the feds (for this and countless other reasons) if I was you guys that it was all on the up and up.
|
On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news.
But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all.
We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller.
And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes.
Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done.
|
On April 27 2019 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news. But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all. We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller. And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes. Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done.
who is "we" in this case?
|
Northern Ireland26736 Posts
Well this has been a wild ride.
If my hypothetical non-existent partner hires someone to proposition me in a bar and I accept and go back to their place, then outside of other issues with this poor analogy I’ve clearly shown some pretty dubious morality in this domain.
But bogus investigation, other people do it too!
You can strip away all the externalities and just look at Trum/ conduct and that of his entourage in isolation, and if you can actually defend some of that earnestly, well good luck to youS
If Biden did lean on the Ukrainians in the manner alleged and for the reasons alleged, then fuck him and whatever other people enabled it seems to be the general opinion here, why is that so difficult to do with the Donald sometimes?
|
On April 27 2019 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news. But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all. We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller. And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes. Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done. who is "we" in this case? Sorry I should have said "there would have been a report" since I don't think its standard practice for FBI reports to be made public.
And I don't get people that call the Mueller investigation a failure.
It investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and found a load of stuff about that.
And it investigated Trump's possible Obstruction of Justice and found a load of stuff about that.
Sounds like a successful investigation to me.
|
On April 27 2019 06:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well this has been a wild ride.
If my hypothetical non-existent partner hires someone to proposition me in a bar and I accept and go back to their place, then outside of other issues with this poor analogy I’ve clearly shown some pretty dubious morality in this domain.
But bogus investigation, other people do it too!
You can strip away all the externalities and just look at Trum/ conduct and that of his entourage in isolation, and if you can actually defend some of that earnestly, well good luck to youS
If Biden did lean on the Ukrainians in the manner alleged and for the reasons alleged, then fuck him and whatever other people enabled it seems to be the general opinion here, why is that so difficult to do with the Donald sometimes? Because Democrats are not as tribal as Republicans.
Its there a bit, but not to the extreme degree.
|
On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: Show nested quote +First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Show nested quote +Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did.
What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.”
|
Northern Ireland26736 Posts
An investigation doesn’t have to find any wrongdoing to be a worthwhile endeavour, It can find an individual is squeaky clean and the suspicions were baseless, if anything I’d like to see more scrutiny across the board, granted not necessarily such investigations.
|
On April 27 2019 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news. But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all. We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller. And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes. Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done. who is "we" in this case? Sorry I should have said "there would have been a report" since I don't think its standard practice for FBI reports to be made public. And I don't get people that call the Mueller investigation a failure. It investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and found a load of stuff about that. And it investigated Trump's possible Obstruction of Justice and found a load of stuff about that. Sounds like a successful investigation to me.
I don't think anyone here (besides the conservatives of course) maintains both the position that their hope for the investigation was that Trump would face re-election as the consequence and that Trump's behavior is being held accountable.
In order for the investigation to have been successful it's goal must have been political or remarkably inconsequential when one considers the grand total of time to be served, provided Trump doesn't pardon Manafort after the 2020 election.
|
The Democrats are not as aligned as Republicans because their voters from a large number of disparate groups that do not see eye to eye everything. The Republicans have to please a less diverse set of demographics and turn them out to the polls.
|
Northern Ireland26736 Posts
On April 27 2019 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well this has been a wild ride.
If my hypothetical non-existent partner hires someone to proposition me in a bar and I accept and go back to their place, then outside of other issues with this poor analogy I’ve clearly shown some pretty dubious morality in this domain.
But bogus investigation, other people do it too!
You can strip away all the externalities and just look at Trum/ conduct and that of his entourage in isolation, and if you can actually defend some of that earnestly, well good luck to youS
If Biden did lean on the Ukrainians in the manner alleged and for the reasons alleged, then fuck him and whatever other people enabled it seems to be the general opinion here, why is that so difficult to do with the Donald sometimes? Because Democrats are not as tribal as Republicans. Its there a bit, but not to the extreme degree.
I think they often can be, in Biden’s case I think his problem is that he’s not seen as part of the tribe any more, or at lest a growing chunk of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
