It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The entire Trump imvestigation is partisan tinged. #Resist isnt just a made up fabrication. When Trump elected i was not happy.
Then i saw the enormous conspiracy against him. It resulted in the investigation cum fishing expedition. The charter was to investigate actions which were not illegal and seem to be more applicable to Clinton (collusion with a foreign power).
I didnt and still don't like Trump. But the way he was treated was flat out seditious.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Lets be honest: if you go digging into any of the campaigns, you can find offenses to indict over.
But if you look at what has occured thus far, you have Manafort for stuff happening years ago (and that the FBI already knew about), Flynn who "lied" about something that was not illegal, and a bunch of Russian nationals alleged to have hacked.
Im not saying to shut it down....but damn. Its not like you can really argue there's any real validity to any of what has transpired based on whats resulted.
I say "conspiracy" because I saw #Resist embraced in a bipartisan way. And then saw his campaign investigated as a result of it.
RE: democrats being investigated....have we not seen that the conclusion of those investigations was determined before anyone was even questioned? You cannot seriously point to democrat investigations going nowhere when they were in power and accused of rigging the justice system.
No. We don't... All of this is HIGHLY unusual. Never before have I seen people so motivated to investigate an investigation while it is ongoing.
Republicans LOVE frivolous investigations that waste time and produce no convictions.
Nunes is a partisan Republican just like Trey Gowdy, so you are definitely talking about "Republicans". Claims are claims, but that doesn't mean that because a claim exists it needs to be investigated. Claims need to be credible first. These claims aren't credible. They are partisan tinged.
Negative. There are claims and proclamations made in right wing media that make it APPEAR that this is the case, but it isn't true because she'd be in jail if they were.
People like Kushner in the Trump admin LIED during their security clearance applications and they aren't in jail for their actions. That is a REAL crime, but I don't see you yelling for Kushner's head.
You seem to care about what Nunes thinks in lieu of facts.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Tell you what: don't let the subject of the investigation have her former president husband meet with the head of the department of justice in a plain on a tarmac, and I won't think that the fix is in.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yes, we do. Investigations are not conta-indicated because one group thinks there is nothing to investigate. They are there to establish facts and typically occur when there is disagreement as to whether or not claims are valid. If there were no disagreement on the facts of the case, there would be no need for an investigation.
This has nothing to do with Trump collusion with Russians, Mueller's defined investigation objective. This is more to do with Clinton's potential collusion with Russians using specious information gleaned during an election campaign for the express purpose of discrediting her opponent, and the use of said specious information to conduct domestic espionage against her opponent... a very serious charge. If there is any tie to the Mueller investigation, it is because the specified investigation objective was tied to only one potential conspirator. A proper investigation would cover anyone who attempted to commit the crimes being investigated, not ignore one potential criminal to focus attention on another.
Thus far, after over a year of investigation into Trump specifically, how many indictments, much less convictions, has Mueller provided? None, nada, zero, zilch against Trump. One serious indictment against Paul Manafort for money laundering, fraud, and concealing his position as a lobbyist for a foreign power, none of which have anything to do with Trump or his campaign.
And yet, we still hear how Trump colluded with Russia. And you claim the other side is the sole owner of frivolatry?
Yes, Nunes is a member of the Republican party, as is Gowdy. There is not a single official in Washington DC that is not a member of a political party! Does that mean all claims should be labeled as "partisan"?
Mueller is a Republican as well. So if we extend your premise...
False narrative: If one is guilty, one will be incarcerated. You completely ignore the possibility of corruption.
Probably because Kushner is already being heavily scrutinized. If he lied on his application through intent to fraudulently obtain a clearance, or even if he lied by gross negligence, I will indeed "call for his head"... that call being that he face any legal and normal charges commiserate with his actions and he be denied any present or future security clearance.
Incidentally, his interim clearance has already been suspended.
I certainly do care that there has been an allegation made that appears to me to be credible. Absolutely. I do not believe that we need to immediately round up Hillary Clinton and throw her in jail, nor Comey, nor Lynch, not even Obama. I am saying they need to be fairly investigated... that is different than convicted. Neither of us know the facts yet; that is what an investigation is for.
Unless, as you seem to think, an investigation into their activities would equate to a guaranteed conviction. That appears to be where you are arguing from.
TheRedneck
Really? You don't say? Because here I've been sitting here listening to conservatives tell me there is nothing to investigate against Trump for months now. Where is your indignation towards that? Oh wait, you probably agree with that opinion.
You just sound bitter that Trump is the focus and not Clinton.
Oh here we go. You are employing the, "Nothing to investigate here so the investigation should be ended" argument.
By contrast McCain, possibly due to his cancer diagnosis, isn't nearly as partisan as those two.
Oh I see what you are doing. You willfully misunderstood my point to make it seem like I was saying that all Republicans are partisan. Lol. Nice try. I am calling Nunes and Gowdy partisan for VERY specific reasons and they have little to do with their political party.
Negative. I haven't ignored that possibility. I just don't see the evidence it exists. I see a lot of claims of it existing from conservatives with sour grapes that Hillary isn't in jail, but I never see any hard evidence of it. So I don't believe the claim.
Any words about the months of him seeing classified intelligence while having this questionable security clearance? Surely you don't think that just because he had a temporary clearance at the time that it overrides the issues that later came to front that cause it to be revoked?
I disagree. I feel like they've been thoroughly investigated already, nothing came up, and you are just trying to fish for any small misdemeanor you can find to blow out of proportion.
I'm more of the kind that doing multiple investigations into the same thing that keep producing the same results (Benghazi, Uranium One, Obama collusion scandal, the deep state, etc) is a waste of time.