Senators to Loretta Lynch: No, You Cannot Punish Climate Change Deniers

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Sillyolme


Derp Derp ... crystal ball. Cute.


Comey " She's guilty but we are not recommending prosecution".
Lynch "I, as the head of the Department, did want my subordinates told me to do".
Hillary "Did I wipe my server? You mean with a rag?".
Obama "Not a smidgen of corruption".

Now it's "think like us or face punishment". Your team sucks. If I cared about you at all, I would feel sorry for you.

... and the response of the Republicans, if it had any validity at all, is not exactly the same as "think like us or face punishment"?

LOL ... yes, the teams are really different on that score.

Derp.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Show a Republican administration doing what this administration has done.

Deflection is your forte.

So, show me.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Show a Republican administration doing what this administration has done.

Deflection is your forte.

So, show me.

Doing "what this Administration has done?"

That's kind of a tall order 200 ... what would you like an example of ... doing its best to tend to the People's business in the face of a do-nothing obstructionist Congress? following the governance agenda of the man elected by the American people to be the President of the United States?

What can I give you a specific example of 200Plus? ... you're going to have to narrow it down from "what this Administration has done in 7.5 years"

Derp again.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Massaging data is also falsification.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Grimpachi

Massaging data is also falsification.

So is blatant over-generalization.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I don't need such a tall order fulfilled.

Let's keep it super simple.

How about ... four department heads destroying evidence of crimes and either failing to testify, pleading the fifth, citing executive privilege (about something the President denies knowledge of) or being found to have violated law, with all four not facing any charges whatsoever.


That's a fairly easy task I would assume. Seeing as "Republicans do it too".

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I don't need such a tall order fulfilled.

Let's keep it super simple.

How about ... four department heads destroying evidence of crimes and either failing to testify, pleading the fifth, citing executive privilege (about something the President denies knowledge of) or being found to have violated law, with all four not facing any charges whatsoever.


That's a fairly easy task I would assume. Seeing as "Republicans do it too".

Sounds like the George W Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon Administrations to me ... next?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Cop out much?

It's as bad as saying America is currently like a historical tyrannical regime as a throw away line.

What department heads under those Presidents plead the fifth after destroying government property and/or evidence and were not charged with any crime?

What department heads were found by an FBI investigation to have violated federal law, but were not charged?

When did a President use EP to conceal evidence while simultaneously denying knowledge of the case?

Just saying Republicans do it too isn't proof. It's partisan rhetoric. It's weak. It's deflection. It's typical.

a reply to: 200Plus

What department heads under those Presidents plead the fifth after destroying government property and/or evidence and were not charged with any crime?

How about Bush and Cheney would only testify off the record and behind closed doors?

What department heads were found by an FBI investigation to have violated federal law, but were not charged?

During the Reagan admin it was harder to find one that wasn't being investigated than to find one that was being investigated.

Just saying Republicans do it too isn't proof. It's partisan rhetoric. It's weak. It's deflection. It's typical.

Not to mention the truth but right wingers have always had problems facing facts.

a reply to: 200Plus

Cop out? LOL.

You asked a ridiculously broad and loaded question that got a better answer than it deserved. And my god, you have zero sense of your own ironic actions do you? You're whining about partisan rhetoric? LOL.

First of all, you haven't proven that even one of those allegations has anything to do with the Obama administration.

Second, I'm not going to help you derail the thread any further. If you'd like to start a thread on your imagined Obama corruption, I'll be glad to respond there.

This is about Lynch, climate change and Congressional overreach. Got any questions about that I can help with?

a reply to: BlueAjah

The oil companies mis-led the world, for decades, regarding the effects of their business on the Earth's environment, and climate. Just like how cigarette manufactures were prosecuted for lying to us about what they knew and covered up about smoking. What the DOJ talked about was investigating the oil companies, who commissioned many studies that all revealed the harm they were doing to the planet, but never shared those finding with the world.

Why are you defending oil companies, anyway. Is there any doubt, anywhere, of the damage they caused to our environment, are causing right now, and unless stopped, will continue to cause forever? I suspect your hatred of Obama is your prime motive. What a shock that would be.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: 200Plus

How about Bush and Cheney would only testify off the record and behind closed doors?

That is interesting isn't it. I hadn't thought of that and I must thank you. A sitting President and a sitting Vice President, questioned behind closed doors and off the record. Matters of national security I have no doubt is the reasons given for such blatant disregard for procedure. Democrats and republicans were and still are up in arms about it. I can tell you remember it and it still upsets you (to be PC).

Fast forward to two weeks ago. An ex-Secretary of State was also questioned behind closed doors and off the record. National security has never been mentioned (except to say it was never compromised), so why the need for utter secrecy. Are you as upset about the circumstances surrounding Clinton's questioning as you are about Bush's. Will you be using it in arguments online 5 years from now? Or is it all water under the bridge because she has that magical (D) next to her name?

edit on 13-7-2016 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

a reply to: 200Plus

So, you're fine with comparing a question about the classified markings of a few emails in a security review of a Secretary of State with the President and VIce President of the United States (whose Administration, by the way, not only maintained a private email server but deleted in the neighborhood of 22 million emails IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION?)

I heard about this the other day ... it's called Rank False Equivalency™.

(Also qualifies as Ridiculous Double Standards™)

huh ?

days before comeys announcement she said she would honor the FBI's recommendations, and she did

this is partisan drivel at its worst

a reply to: 200Plus

So we're on about Reagan, then? Horrible, horrible man.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: xuenchen
We now know the definition of a renegade administration.

Just like the IRS.
Obama controls the IRS too and was/is using them to punish those who were enemies of the administration.
Lynch controlled that mess too:
Jordan blasts attorney general on IRS investigation

The way that the Democrats protect Clinton and Lynch in these hearings show that they all have something to gain from a Clinton presidency.

The Clintons are smart. They have managed to get such a stronghold on all levels of government that its terrifying.

The entire government has to go, and hopefully be "punished" for their actions and conspiracy against the people. But the problem is far too large to fix piece by piece. You put a new healthy piece in place and the masses of the rotten cause this new piece to rot. You have to tear the whole thing down and start anew. There is no other way. Be it a revolution (bloody or not) or a meeting of the states...the federal government and everyone in it must be torn down.

Nothing else will work.

a reply to: TownCryer

I think you are missing the point.

Lynch was going after universities, scientists, and non-profits. She subpoenaed over 100 of them. It was a threat to free speech, to free scientific research and to independent thought.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: 200Plus

Cop out? LOL.

You asked a ridiculously broad and loaded question that got a better answer than it deserved. And my god, you have zero sense of your own ironic actions do you? You're whining about partisan rhetoric? LOL.

First of all, you haven't proven that even one of those allegations has anything to do with the Obama administration.

Second, I'm not going to help you derail the thread any further. If you'd like to start a thread on your imagined Obama corruption, I'll be glad to respond there.

This is about Lynch, climate change and Congressional overreach. Got any questions about that I can help with?

I can only assume you are being sarcastic. Because I have never seen you "help" with anything. Typically, you just like to berate others who have views you don't like. Your way or the highway pretty much. We used to call people like that either a bully or a prick. Considering you are incapable of threatening anyone...I'll go for the latter.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, you discovered "political misuse of government power" during a blatant political misuse of government power?

Isn't that ironic.

A few things, actually, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch ... and therefore, I know this is surprising, the Attorney General does actually answer to the President of the United States. Indeed, the AG and every other member of the Cabinet actually DOES serve at the pleasure of the President.

So your shock that Lynch "answers" to Obama and follows his agenda is ... a bit ... naive.

Secondly, climate change is not in question. The science is not in question. So, if our Department of Justice goes after companies that are breaking Federal law or regulations ... that's their job.

Because the Administration is not dancing to the Republican political agenda doesn't mean it's "gone rogue."

In fact, quite the opposite.

Oh...and now you're back to lying about climate change being a fact??? I thought I explained that to you before. Man-made climate change is a theory. It may very well be true, but it remains a theory. It is not a fact, the science isn't proven and there are lots of questions.

Please at least stop lying. Unless, of course you're a liberal in which case...that would be like asking you to stop breathing.

By the way...

From Scientific American

But green leaders maintain that even if some warming is consistent with millennial cycles, something is triggering the current change. According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, some possible (natural) explanations include increased output from the sun, increased absorption of the sun’s heat due to a change in the Earth’s reflectivity, or a change in the internal climate system that transfers heat to the atmosphere. But scientists have not been able to validate any such reasons for the current warming trend, despite exhaustive efforts. And a raft of recent peer reviewed studies—many which take advantage of new satellite data—back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment.

Regardless of the opinions...there is no proof that man has cause climate change.