Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 127

Thread: LEAKERS.....AS PATRIOTS?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725

    LEAKERS.....AS PATRIOTS?

    Daniel Ellsburg, Edward Snowden, Julain Assange.....current WH or ?? leakers protecting our freedoms from governmental corruption and deceit....or "really, really" bad guys?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,117
    If republicans didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    Which administraton prosecuted more leakers than any other and targeted the media to do so?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    Cue the crickets
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,117
    Obama did. I think the question is why are some leakers ok, and some not so much.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CardsFan66 View Post
    Obama did. I think the question is why are some leakers ok, and some not so much.
    I think anyone who leaks classified information or otherwise violates the law in leaking should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I have pretty consistently held that position. It's the Left that celebrates leakers undermining the GOP while declaring war on anyone who undermines a a Dem President.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    Is revealing Kushners attempt to establish a secret communication channel with the Russians to be celebrated or condemned?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Is revealing Kushners attempt to establish a secret communication channel with the Russians to be celebrated or condemned?
    It depends on the source of the information. If it came from classified sources, the leak is a crime and should be prosecuted. If it wasn't classified, then no crime.

    As the NYT story demonstrated, it's a nothing. The idea was for Flynn to be able to communicate on strategy for Syria.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    It depends on the source of the information. If it came from classified sources, the leak is a crime and should be prosecuted. If it wasn't classified, then no crime.

    As the NYT story demonstrated, it's a nothing. The idea was for Flynn to be able to communicate on strategy for Syria.
    Yes, yes, of course...... It's perfectly plausible...to a guy like you.....that young Jared was best serving the interests of the USA by establishing a secret, absolutely untappable line based out of the Russian embassy to Putin himself.....for purposes of furthering "close" coordination of the US - Russian conducting of the Syrian war. I mean, they had been such close allies on the matter in the recent past.

    Or.......

    Young Jared needed a link to further business interests with the sanctioned Russian bank linked to Putin. Perhaps, the same bank that provided Jared's "family business" with certain "state supported" loans that The Donald's tax returns might include? I think this going to be quite interesting....no?

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2017/0...kushner-probe/
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Yes, yes, of course...... It's perfectly plausible...to a guy like you.....that young Jared was best serving the interests of the USA by establishing a secret, absolutely untappable line based out of the Russian embassy to Putin himself.....for purposes of furthering "close" coordination of the US - Russian conducting of the Syrian war. I mean, they had been such close allies on the matter in the recent past.

    Or.......

    Young Jared needed a link to further business interests with the sanctioned Russian bank linked to Putin. Perhaps, the same bank that provided Jared's "family business" with certain "state supported" loans that The Donald's tax returns might include? I think this going to be quite interesting....no?

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2017/0...kushner-probe/
    My statement is what the NYT reported about the proposed back channel. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.

    Further it was never set up. Nothing about the back channel would have been illegal. Virtually every President-elect has back channels with foreign powers between election and inauguration.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    My statement is what the NYT reported about the proposed back channel. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.

    Further it was never set up. Nothing about the back channel would have been illegal. Virtually every President-elect has back channels with foreign powers between election and inauguration.
    He's got no evidence and no clue. BUT, he's got his tequila and his hyper-partisanship. So, that's "something"
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    My statement is what the NYT reported about the proposed back channel. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.

    Further it was never set up. Nothing about the back channel would have been illegal. Virtually every President-elect has back channels with foreign powers between election and inauguration.
    I just DID provide evidence to the contrary.

    And, BTW, could you specify exactly WHICH other President's had back channels, specifically to the Russians. Should be easy since "virtually every" POTUS had them.

    I wonder why for the first time in years.....President Trump refuses to release his recent taxes. It's just a matter of time until this sordid little story will unfold. Fascinating, isn't it......?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    I just DID provide evidence to the contrary.

    And, BTW, could you specify exactly WHICH other President's had back channels, specifically to the Russians. Should be easy since "virtually every" POTUS had them.

    I wonder why for the first time in years.....President Trump refuses to release his recent taxes. It's just a matter of time until this sordid little story will unfold. Fascinating, isn't it......?
    A link to a conspiracy site positing what might have been the basis for the back channel with no evidence that the subject was even discussed is no evidence. Do you have specific evidence which negates the NYT's reporting?

    The backchannel between the BHO campaign and Iran is well-known. The BHO campaign used it to promise Iran a better deal if BHO was elected than what GWB was offering at the time.

    As far as others:

    https://www.infowars.com/mainstream-...nd-state-dept/

    Note JFK used his brother to set up a back channel to Russia.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    A link to a conspiracy site positing what might have been the basis for the back channel with no evidence that the subject was even discussed is no evidence. Do you have specific evidence which negates the NYT's reporting?

    The backchannel between the BHO campaign and Iran is well-known. The BHO campaign used it to promise Iran a better deal if BHO was elected than what GWB was offering at the time.

    As far as others:

    https://www.infowars.com/mainstream-...nd-state-dept/

    Note JFK used his brother to set up a back channel to Russia.
    He's got that evidence paperweighted by his fifth of Popov Vodka
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    A link to a conspiracy site positing what might have been the basis for the back channel with no evidence that the subject was even discussed is no evidence. Do you have specific evidence which negates the NYT's reporting?

    The backchannel between the BHO campaign and Iran is well-known. The BHO campaign used it to promise Iran a better deal if BHO was elected than what GWB was offering at the time.

    As far as others:

    https://www.infowars.com/mainstream-...nd-state-dept/

    Note JFK used his brother to set up a back channel to Russia.
    I guess Obama's back channel wasn't much of a back channel if a schlemiel like you knows about it.....ha ha.

    Very interesting though......you have no Republican presidents with such nefarious back channels. Only Democrats?

    Slurper extraordinaire, indeed....
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    A link to a conspiracy site positing what might have been the basis for the back channel with no evidence that the subject was even discussed is no evidence. Do you have specific evidence which negates the NYT's reporting?

    The backchannel between the BHO campaign and Iran is well-known. The BHO campaign used it to promise Iran a better deal if BHO was elected than what GWB was offering at the time.

    As far as others:

    https://www.infowars.com/mainstream-...nd-state-dept/

    Note JFK used his brother to set up a back channel to Russia.
    I think the Mueller investigation will quite likely shed additional light on young Jareds secret back channel to Russia over......"Syria", no?

    I guess Obama's back channel wasn't much of a back channel if a schlemiel like you knows about it.....ha ha.

    Very interesting though......you have no Republican presidents with such nefarious back channels. Only Democrats?

    Slurper extraordinaire, indeed....
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Collinsville
    Posts
    15,048
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    I guess Obama's back channel wasn't much of a back channel if a schlemiel like you knows about it.....ha ha.

    Very interesting though......you have no Republican presidents with such nefarious back channels. Only Democrats?

    Slurper extraordinaire, indeed....

    Reagan almost certainly had a back channel to Iran since he was negotiating arms for hostage deals during his tenure. Back channels are pretty much requisite since govt's can't afford everything to filter through the media. Of course Dem admins don't have to worry as much since the MSM will simply whitewash any impropriety which shows itself.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    I guess Obama's back channel wasn't much of a back channel if a schlemiel like you knows about it.....ha ha.

    Very interesting though......you have no Republican presidents with such nefarious back channels. Only Democrats?

    Slurper extraordinaire, indeed....
    You didn't read the link. It references Nixon's backchannels.

    Again, most incoming administrations have such contacts.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    You didn't read the link. It references Nixon's backchannels.

    Again, most incoming administrations have such contacts.
    Then we agree......Trump's leakers ARE patriots. Shoot....Trump spillin' the beans to the Russians about Israeli intel means HE's in on the fun himself....that rascal!
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    20,608
    LOL

    A single post containing both:

    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    A link to a conspiracy site positing what might have been
    And then linking to:

    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    www.infowars.com
    Has to make up its mind.
    Last edited by paulie walnuts; 05-30-2017 at 03:47 PM.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Collinsville
    Posts
    15,048
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Then we agree......Trump's leakers ARE patriots. Shoot....Trump spillin' the beans to the Russians about Israeli intel means HE's in on the fun himself....that rascal!
    No one in any government is a Patriot. A Patriot can agree with his government at times or even often but the prevalent definition is a person prepared at all times to defend his country against its government. Most of us fail badly at this because we're so partisan we're happy to look the other way when our side is winning, no matter how nefarious the method.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by paulie walnuts View Post
    LOL

    A single post containing both:



    And then linking to:



    Has to make up its mind.
    A guy who drinks his wine at the Church of Soros talking about unreliable sources is rich indeed.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    20,608
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    A guy who drinks his wine at the Church of Soros talking about unreliable sources is rich indeed.
    We can argue about sources all day, but linking to Infowars is a flat out fail. You lose that one, every time.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by paulie walnuts View Post
    We can argue about sources all day, but linking to Infowars is a flat out fail. You lose that one, every time.
    Identify a single inaccurate contention in the linked piece.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    20,608
    QuoteOriginally Posted by 85cards View Post
    No one in any government is a Patriot. A Patriot can agree with his government at times or even often but the prevalent definition is a person prepared at all times to defend his country against its government. Most of us fail badly at this because we're so partisan we're happy to look the other way when our side is winning, no matter how nefarious the method.
    This is some twisted ideology. A Patriot defends his country from all enemies, at home and abroad.

    Those guys who were stabbed in Portland, Oregon while defending a muslim woman from racist taunts are 100% Patriots. They were defending freedom of religion. The perp was a domestic terrorist. They gave their lives upholding our founding principles.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Then we agree......Trump's leakers ARE patriots. Shoot....Trump spillin' the beans to the Russians about Israeli intel means HE's in on the fun himself....that rascal!
    i never said that. I limited my comment to under what circumstances leakers should be prosecuted.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by paulie walnuts View Post
    This is some twisted ideology. A Patriot defends his country from all enemies, at home and abroad.

    Those guys who were stabbed in Portland, Oregon while defending a muslim woman from racist taunts are 100% Patriots. They were defending freedom of religion. The perp was a domestic terrorist. They gave their lives upholding our founding principles.
    Yes they should be lauded for protecting a helpless woman from a rabid Bernie Sanders supporter. To suggest that he was a domestic terrorist reveals the intellectual vacuity of the Left. Muslim terrorists are not motivated by their adherence to a death cult l, but a real nutball like the Portland attacked is readily identified as a domestic terrorist without any delving into what motivated him b
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    If the perp is the right color, we can skip all that due process stuff
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    i never said that. I limited my comment to under what circumstances leakers should be prosecuted.
    Ok....then lets go down the list, ready? Patriot or traitor...

    -Daniel Ellsbury............
    - Edward Snowden......
    -Julian Assange..........
    -Flynn, Manifort, Kushner leakers....
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Ok....then lets go down the list, ready? Patriot or traitor...

    -Daniel Ellsbury............
    - Edward Snowden......
    -Julian Assange..........
    -Flynn, Manifort, Kushner leakers....
    Ellsbury, Snowden and the Flynn leakers leaked classified information and should be (have been) prosecuted.

    Assange didn't leak, he was a conduit, like the NYT. He may have committed crimes, but he was not a leaker.

    It appears the Manifort leaker disclosed classified information, but it is not clear. We don't know enough about how the Kushner leaker obtained the information to reach a conclusion.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bham, WA
    Posts
    5,196
    I'd vote for Snoden for president before Clinton or Trump.

    For example. Here's a quote from today:

    “Terrorists don’t hate us for our freedom, they don’t even know what our freedoms are... Terrorists are incapable of destroying our rights or diminishing our society they lack the strength – only we can do that.”

    “Rights are lost by cowardly laws that are passed in moments of panic. Rights are lost to the cringing complicity of leaders who fear the loss of their office more than the loss of our liberties.”
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by maest View Post
    I'd vote for Snoden for president before Clinton or Trump.

    For example. Here's a quote from today:

    “Terrorists don’t hate us for our freedom, they don’t even know what our freedoms are... Terrorists are incapable of destroying our rights or diminishing our society they lack the strength – only we can do that.”

    “Rights are lost by cowardly laws that are passed in moments of panic. Rights are lost to the cringing complicity of leaders who fear the loss of their office more than the loss of our liberties.”
    Your silence on BHO's massive spying on US citizens is interesting.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bham, WA
    Posts
    5,196
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    Your silence on BHO's massive spying on US citizens is interesting.
    I had criticized Obama's record on the 4th Amendment by now in his first term.

    http://birdsonthebat.org/showthread....t=obama+spying
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    16,720
    QuoteOriginally Posted by maest View Post
    I had criticized Obama's record on the 4th Amendment by now in his first term.

    http://birdsonthebat.org/showthread....t=obama+spying
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Collinsville
    Posts
    15,048
    QuoteOriginally Posted by paulie walnuts View Post
    This is some twisted ideology. A Patriot defends his country from all enemies, at home and abroad.

    Those guys who were stabbed in Portland, Oregon while defending a muslim woman from racist taunts are 100% Patriots. They were defending freedom of religion. The perp was a domestic terrorist. They gave their lives upholding our founding principles.
    IMO, that makes them heroes, not Patriots. Your definition is taken from the oaths taken when sworn into some version of governmental service. That's fine except when the government is seen AS the country, which it is by many. I don't expect us to agree on this.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    Ellsbury, Snowden and the Flynn leakers leaked classified information and should be (have been) prosecuted.

    Assange didn't leak, he was a conduit, like the NYT. He may have committed crimes, but he was not a leaker.

    It appears the Manifort leaker disclosed classified information, but it is not clear. We don't know enough about how the Kushner leaker obtained the information to reach a conclusion.

    ??? None of the three of which you speak have been prosecuted. Should the "unmaskers?".....though they clearly serve the national purpose, despite, perhaps, doing so inconveniently from the Trump perspecitve?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    ??? None of the three of which you speak have been prosecuted. Should the "unmaskers?".....though they clearly serve the national purpose, despite, perhaps, doing so inconveniently from the Trump perspecitve?
    They broke the law and should face the consequences of their actions.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    ??? None of the three of which you speak have been prosecuted. Should the "unmaskers?".....though they clearly serve the national purpose, despite, perhaps, doing so inconveniently from the Trump perspecitve?
    Yes, police state tactics in the 'national interest'
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    They broke the law and should face the consequences of their actions.

    Yes....right after those they leaked on face theirs. Deal?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Yes....right after those they leaked on face theirs. Deal?
    Their criminal conduct is independent of anyone else's. However, if you can prove a crime by any subjects of the leaks I agree they should be prosecuted.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    Their criminal conduct is independent of anyone else's. However, if you can prove a crime by any subjects of the leaks I agree they should be prosecuted.

    Yes, well....those in government who are tasked with MAKING that determination are being met with partisan resistance, such as that offered by GOP hack Devin Nunes......hence, the need for patriotic leakers. The truth ALWAYS surfaces....one way or the other.....and it most certainly will in this case. We have all the time in the world to do so.......
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Yes, well....those in government who are tasked with MAKING that determination are being met with partisan resistance, such as that offered by GOP hack Devin Nunes......hence, the need for patriotic leakers. The truth ALWAYS surfaces....one way or the other.....and it most certainly will in this case. We have all the time in the world to do so.......
    What proof of your accusations do you have? Be specific.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    What proof of your accusations do you have? Be specific.
    We will OR won't have proof.......until a full, complete, unencumbered investigation takes place. The kind of investigation that the House and Senate feels is merited.....the kind that the DOJ determined to be required and headed by Robert Mueller. Simple patience will lead to that determination. Why are so many GOPers attempting to obstruct when ONLY thorough investigation can exonerate them of ALL suspicion. Since you are so certain of non-wrong doing....isn't that a GOOD thing ? What is it you (GOP) fears so much here?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    We will OR won't have proof.......until a full, complete, unencumbered investigation takes place. The kind of investigation that the House and Senate feels is merited.....the kind that the DOJ determined to be required and headed by Robert Mueller. Simple patience will lead to that determination. Why are so many GOPers attempting to obstruct when ONLY thorough investigation can exonerate them of ALL suspicion. Since you are so certain of non-wrong doing....isn't that a GOOD thing ? What is it you (GOP) fears so much here?
    The investigation ran unencumbered for 6 months under BHO and they still have nothing.

    Even Dem Sen. Warner who has been briefed on the investigation admitted yesterday there is still no smoking gun.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    The investigation ran unencumbered for 6 months under BHO and they still have nothing.

    Even Dem Sen. Warner who has been briefed on the investigation admitted yesterday there is still no smoking gun.

    And there are GOP congressmen who equally feel only a complete, non-partisan investigation will exonerate or condemn Trump. Isn't this what's best for the country? Isn't this what you want? Either way....its what's going to happen.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Here and There
    Posts
    1,250
    Jumping in late to clarify back channels- every administration has them. In Iraq, both under W and Obama we had ongoing discussions, through backchannels, to the the Iranians (and the Al Mahdi army). In Afghanistan and Pakistan, there was ongoing communications with both the Taliban and Russia through back channels.

    Discussing setting up a private comms channel is nothing, esp when it was never revisited much less implemented.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by Ogge View Post
    Jumping in late to clarify back channels- every administration has them. In Iraq, both under W and Obama we had ongoing discussions, through backchannels, to the the Iranians (and the Al Mahdi army). In Afghanistan and Pakistan, there was ongoing communications with both the Taliban and Russia through back channels.

    Discussing setting up a private comms channel is nothing, esp when it was never revisited much less implemented.

    I think setting up a back channel in the current Trump situational context is certainly suspicious, though not a crime in and of itself. Due diligence requires it to be investigated along with other circumstantial aspects. Where there's smoke maybe there ISNT fire.....or maybe there is. What's wrong with finding out?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  48. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    And there are GOP congressmen who equally feel only a complete, non-partisan investigation will exonerate or condemn Trump. Isn't this what's best for the country? Isn't this what you want? Either way....its what's going to happen.
    Sure thing. Mueller is so "non-partisan"
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,725
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    Sure thing. Mueller is so "non-partisan"
    Do you have proof otherwise?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  50. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    I think setting up a back channel in the current Trump situational context is certainly suspicious, though not a crime in and of itself. Due diligence requires it to be investigated along with other circumstantial aspects. Where there's smoke maybe there ISNT fire.....or maybe there is. What's wrong with finding out?
    No more suspicious than was BHO's backchannel to Iran which was actively undermining US foreign policy.

    I have no objection to findin out, but after nearly a year of investigation, nothing has been found. At some point there needs to be actual evidence of lawbreaking to justify a continued investigation.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •