Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, that was what we were told yesterday, but today according to Trump and Rosenstein both, it was definitely Trump that called for Comey's removal.

Ohio bought Trump's story.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ohio bought Trump's story.

We have had experience with WL and his "loyalty pledge" and saw the results of that. We need to respond to this threat. James says 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Comey did the right thing in refusing to swear a loyalty pledge to Trump. The assistant head of the FBI did the right thing in his testimony yesterday. We cannot sit idly by as a political hack is put in charge of the FBI who swears allegiance to Trump, while Trump is bringing Russians into the oval office with their tape measurers, cameras, and every other "gift" they might have for Trump.

[Ohio]

This is what happens if you mess with the swamp.

"All the swamp creatures begin snapping and writhing and yowling like angry cats in the dark. For the better part of a year now, the only thing everyone in Washington could agree upon was that now-ex FBI Director Jim Comey was an overreaching, underperforming dolt. He fancied himself to be attorney general after he had lost all confidence in Loretta Lynch, the actual attorney general. That was after Ms. Lynch had met privately on a jet with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix. This was at a time when Mr. Clinton’s wife was running for president while under investigation by the attorney general and the FBI for criminal misuse of classified emails.

Wearing his Big Boy AG shoes last summer, Mr. Comey delivered the most damning non-indictment of Mrs. Clinton in the history of criminal justice. After listing a long rap sheet of inexcusable, reckless and conspiratorial handling of state secrets over a purposely concealed home email server — designed specifically to shield Mrs. Clinton from public scrutiny — Mr. Comey jarringly announced that he was recommending that no charges would be forthcoming. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” he said, concluding his withering damnation of Mrs. Clinton last July.

But, lest any mere mortals think they might get away with doing the same thing Mrs. Clinton had done, Mr. Comey was blunt. “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” he warned. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.” “But” he added, “that is not what we are deciding now.” In other words, if you are a former first lady who is about to be the next president and whose husband is a former president who just met privately on a plane on a tarmac, then you won’t be charged. But if you are a mere citizen or public employee with no such influence, you’re gambling with your life and your career.

Ahhh, life in the swamp.

Despite all of this baggage, Democrats nominated Mrs. Clinton anyway. But Mr. Comey was not finished with her yet. Like a swamp cat playing with a swamp rat, he toyed with her again and again up until the last weeks and days of the campaign. Mr. Comey was for her before he was against her. Then he was for her again. Life in the swamp can be disorienting — especially if you are the rat being toyed with. “If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president,” Mrs. Clinton said recently, referring to one of Mr. Comey’s final interferences in the campaign. The election, of course, was held a week later. And she lost.

Donald Trump was hired instead to drain the swamp Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey had inhabited for far too long.

Now, of course, Mr. Comey has been sacked and the Democrats are losing their minds. None of them seems to think Mr. Comey should not have been fired. They just think he should have been fired sooner. Truth is, they really just think he should have been fired by President Hillary Clinton. Which raises another interesting question. If the Democrats’ only complaint right now is that Mr. Trump did not fire Mr. Comey sooner, then shouldn’t they be mad at former President Barack Obama for not firing Mr. Comey after the election?

Or, even better, before the election?" -- Charles Hurt, Washington Times

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have had experience with WL and his "loyalty pledge" and saw the results of that. We need to respond to this threat. James says 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Comey did the right thing in refusing to swear a loyalty pledge to Trump. The assistant head of the FBI did the right thing in his testimony yesterday. We cannot sit idly by as a political hack is put in charge of the FBI who swears allegiance to Trump, while Trump is bringing Russians into the oval office with their tape measurers, cameras, and every other "gift" they might have for Trump.

All of a sudden you decided to put on some guts and grow a spine?

Did not Janet Reno swear in with a loyalty pledge to William Jefferson Clinton?

Did not Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch swear in with loyalty pledges to Barack Hussein Obama?

But it's OK it the Democrats do it cause the media is on their side and we'll never hear about it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All of a sudden you decided to put on some guts and grow a spine?

Did not Janet Reno swear in with a loyalty pledge to William Jefferson Clinton?

Did not Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch swear in with loyalty pledges to Barack Hussein Obama?

But it's OK it the Democrats do it cause the media is on their side and we'll never hear about it.

I do not agree with Bill Clinton meeting with Janet Reno, I think they should be investigated and prosecuted if found guilty. Therefore it is consistent to hold Trump to the same standard. Trump condemned Clinton seeing Reno privately and yet confessed to the exact same conflict of interest.

I don't disagree that Trump ran on the pledge to drain the swamp, but with all the billionaires in place and the exact same crooked practices only more blatant and more in your face, this is not what I understood "drain the swamp" to mean.

I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that Russia hacked the DNC emails with the intention of damaging Hillary Clinton's campaign. It is also clear that Flynn had unethical ties to Russia and that Sessions is also too close to Russia to be a fair judge in the matter. Also Mannafort was far too close to Russia for 10 years to be a campaign manager for a US presidential election. Carter Paige and Roger Stone are just two more examples of a disturbing connection. Of course Jared Kushner's ties have to be investigated as well. Why did Trump gut the Republican party plank on Russia's invasion of the Ukraine?

That to me is enough to justify a demand to see Trump's tax returns and have a full and complete investigation. This is not politics, it is national security.

To make things worse Trump fired the acting AG and replaced her with Sessions who has ties to Russia. His appointment to National Security Advisor was compromised due to his ties to Russia. Finally, he fired the head of the FBI who was overseeing the investigation of collusion between Trump's administration and Russia.

And how exactly did this take place? Flynn was never vetted because they trusted Obama's vetting, only problem is Obama fired Flynn and warned Trump about him. So that is a completely bogus explanation for why you don't vet your NSA?!

Sally Yates was fired ostensibly because she felt his anti immigration policy was unconstitutional. It has since been judged to be unconstitutional. If Trump is to be believed she was fired for doing her job and being truthful to him. But it is also reasonable to think the real reason to fire her was to put his man in charge of the investigation into Russia's hacking and collusion.

Likewise the stories we heard about Comey's being fired were lies. Lots, and lots of lies. He was not fired because he was not nice to Hillary Clinton as was first alleged. He was not fired because of the Assistant AG's recommendation. The second version of what took place. He was fired because he did not do a loyalty pledge to Trump. The chairman of the House intelligence committee investigation (Devin Nunez) has had to step away due to his coordination with the Trump administration.

In 2014 Reuters reported Eric Trump saying that they had access to $100million in funding from Russia. Yet yesterday Trump tells us he doesn't have any assets in Russia. This is why we need to see the tax returns.

In 2008 Eric said that they were seeing a disproportionate amount of funding coming in from Russia.

But yesterday Donald Trump tweets "I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!"

Something does not smell right to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But yesterday Donald Trump tweets "I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!"

Something does not smell right to me.

I have a lot of respect for Senator Rand Paul, not that I agree with all of his policies, but the guy is honorable and trustworthy. Here is what he said recently:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) earlier this week revealed that another senator had told him that he was surveilled by the Obama administration. “I know one other senator [Rubio?, Cruz?, Graham?] who’s already confided to me that he was surveilled by the Obama administration, including his phone calls,” he told Fox News on Wednesday. “So when this all comes out, if there are political figures from the opposition party, it’s a story bigger than any of the allegations with regard to Russian collusion,” he said.

Earlier this month, Paul announced that sources have told him that he has been surveilled by the Obama administration, and that he has requested information from the White House and the congressional intelligence committees on whether he has ever been surveilled, unmasked, or searched for in intelligence reports. “It’s about your own government spying on the opposition party, that would be enormous if true,” he said. “I don’t know the truth. We’ve asked the intel committees, House and Senate, and I’ve also asked the White House, because there is this whole discussion of Susan Rice unmasking people,” he said.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper revealed that last year, 1,934 Americans’ names were unmasked. Last month it was reported that Susan Rice had unmasked Trump campaign officials — which she has not denied, but only claimed that it was not illegal.

“There was no reason for her to unmask people. Hers was not a position of investigation. Hers was a political position. And for her to get involved with unmasking Trump officials is alarming. If it happened to other people, it’s even more alarming,” he said. “But we’re going to try to get to the bottom of this. And it’s a very secret world. You have to realize that it’s a world so secret most members of Congress are never allowed.”

For me this is the far bigger story than some Russian collusion with the Trump administration, which explains why they apparently have found no evidence for election tampering after all these months. And until they do, I have to believe, based on the history of Obama operatives, that RussiaGate is nothing more than smokescreen. The real investigations ought to be centered on Hillary and Susan Rice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have a lot of respect for Senator Rand Paul, not that I agree with all of his policies, but the guy is honorable and trustworthy. Here is what he said recently:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) earlier this week revealed that another senator had told him that he was surveilled by the Obama administration. “I know one other senator [Rubio?, Cruz?, Graham?] who’s already confided to me that he was surveilled by the Obama administration, including his phone calls,” he told Fox News on Wednesday. “So when this all comes out, if there are political figures from the opposition party, it’s a story bigger than any of the allegations with regard to Russian collusion,” he said.

Earlier this month, Paul announced that sources have told him that he has been surveilled by the Obama administration, and that he has requested information from the White House and the congressional intelligence committees on whether he has ever been surveilled, unmasked, or searched for in intelligence reports. “It’s about your own government spying on the opposition party, that would be enormous if true,” he said. “I don’t know the truth. We’ve asked the intel committees, House and Senate, and I’ve also asked the White House, because there is this whole discussion of Susan Rice unmasking people,” he said.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper revealed that last year, 1,934 Americans’ names were unmasked. Last month it was reported that Susan Rice had unmasked Trump campaign officials — which she has not denied, but only claimed that it was not illegal.

“There was no reason for her to unmask people. Hers was not a position of investigation. Hers was a political position. And for her to get involved with unmasking Trump officials is alarming. If it happened to other people, it’s even more alarming,” he said. “But we’re going to try to get to the bottom of this. And it’s a very secret world. You have to realize that it’s a world so secret most members of Congress are never allowed.”

For me this is the far bigger story than some Russian collusion with the Trump administration, which explains why they apparently have found no evidence for election tampering after all these months. And until they do, I have to believe, based on the history of Obama operatives, that RussiaGate is nothing more than smokescreen. The real investigations ought to be centered on Hillary and Susan Rice.

I agree that this would be a very big story, but since the Republicans control the Senate, House and Whitehouse you would think it would be easy to investigate this and get to the bottom of it. Therefore, are they doing that? If so, why make allegations until you have the facts? That comes across as throwing mud to create a distraction.

Yes, everyone agrees that the allegation, if true, is very serious. The problem is the people making this allegation are in power. Why are they acting impotent like they cannot get the truth?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that this would be a very big story, but since the Republicans control the Senate, House and Whitehouse you would think it would be easy to investigate this and get to the bottom of it. Therefore, are they doing that? If so, why make allegations until you have the facts? That comes across as throwing mud to create a distraction.

Yes, everyone agrees that the allegation, if true, is very serious. The problem is the people making this allegation are in power. Why are they acting impotent like they cannot get the truth?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Thy bias runneth over!

Where are all the facts the democrats have? They been throwing mud since Nov 8. The Repubs have evidence, otherwise Flynn would never have resigned.

The Repubs have no power until the swamp is drained. Even then, with the Democrats controlling the media, who is really in power?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that this would be a very big story, but since the Republicans control the Senate, House and Whitehouse you would think it would be easy to investigate this and get to the bottom of it. Therefore, are they doing that? If so, why make allegations until you have the facts? That comes across as throwing mud to create a distraction.

Yes, everyone agrees that the allegation, if true, is very serious. The problem is the people making this allegation are in power. Why are they acting impotent like they cannot get the truth?

Rand Paul, as much I don't like the crazy senator (like his father - who I liked but thought went off the rails with crazy at times - I like Rand the same way) but he's right to oppose all the mass surveillance by NSA.

I said it long ago, to folks around here (in Rand Paul land) but they told me, "if you've got nothing to hide then there's no problem." But there is a problem. I said, "but eventually they will be surveilling everyone, including judges, lawyers, politicians, congressmen, senators, and everyone else in government.

Let's face it, the legislators okayed it, and now it's coming back to bite THEM in the rear.

The sun sets on the Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the end of this year. Rand Paul is pushing to allow it to expire. So I doubt all these claims by Paul about Obama wiretapping everyone is true. He's just trying to make a point that all this surveillance is bad. And he's right.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All of a sudden you decided to put on some guts and grow a spine?

Did not Janet Reno swear in with a loyalty pledge to William Jefferson Clinton?

Did not Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch swear in with loyalty pledges to Barack Hussein Obama?

But it's OK it the Democrats do it cause the media is on their side and we'll never hear about it.

In what parallel universe were Reno, Holder, and Lynch FBI directors?