Are Hillary and Obama are being protected?

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Has anyone else noticed that the Press never asks Obama or Hillary about their fraudulent Steele Dossier and their illegal FISA warrants?
Would the Press protect them if they were Republicans?

 

[rightwinger]

Evidently, there is nothing there

 

[hunarcy]

Evidently, there is nothing there

There's never anything "there" when you willfully close your eyes.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ever consider that the reason reporters don't ask them those questions is because they are no longer in office, and press conferences are not part of their regular routine anymore?

Besides..............if there really was something there, the Republicans would have been screaming about it from the rooftops.

 

[rightwinger]

Evidently, there is nothing there

There's never anything "there" when you willfully close your eyes.

The Great Obama ran a scandal free administration

As many times the Republicans investigated......they came up with
NOTHING

 

[rightwinger]

Ever consider that the reason reporters don't ask them those questions is because they are no longer in office, and press conferences are not part of their regular routine anymore?

Besides..............if there really was something there, the Republicans would have been screaming about it from the rooftops.

Republicans call the shots now......why haven’t they investigated?

 

[Desperado]

The Press is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party there is no way they would ever question the Hildabeast or Obama

 

[hunarcy]

Evidently, there is nothing there

There's never anything "there" when you willfully close your eyes.

The Great Obama ran a scandal free administration

As many times the Republicans investigated......they came up with
NOTHING

Stonewalling works when half the nation closes their eyes to the wrong doing.

 

[hunarcy]

Evidently, there is nothing there

There's never anything "there" when you willfully close your eyes.

The Great Obama ran a scandal free administration

As many times the Republicans investigated......they came up with
NOTHING

NOTHING...except:

State Department email. In an effort to evade federal open-records laws, Mr. Obama’s first secretary of state set up a private server, which she used exclusively to conduct official business, including communications with the president and the transmission of classified material. A federal criminal investigation produced no charges, but FBI Director James Comey reported that the secretary and her colleagues “were extremely careless” in handling national secrets.

Operation Fast and Furious. The Obama Justice Department lost track of thousands of guns it had allowed to pass into the hands of suspected smugglers, in the hope of tracing them to Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was used in the fatal 2010 shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Congress held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt when he refused to turn over documents about the operation.

IRS abuses. Mr. Obama’s Internal Revenue Service did something Richard Nixon only dreamed of doing: It successfully targeted political opponents. The Justice Department then refused to enforce Congress’s contempt citation against the IRS’s Lois Lerner, who refused to answer questions about her agency’s misconduct.

Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. With less than two months to go before the 2012 election, the State Department falsely claimed the attack was not a terrorist attack but a reaction to an anti-Muslim film. Emails from the secretary later showed that she knew the attack was terrorism. Justice Department prosecutors even convinced a magistrate judge to jail the filmmaker.

Hacking. Mr. Obama presided over the biggest data breach in the federal government’s history, at the Office of Personnel Management. The hack exposed the personnel files of millions of federal employees and may end up being used for everything from identity theft to blackmail and espionage. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta, the president’s former political director, had been warned repeatedly about security deficiencies but took no steps to fix them.


Veterans Affairs. At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at a Phoenix VA facility, many of whom had been on a secret waiting list—part of an effort to conceal that between 1,400 and 1,600 veterans were forced to wait months for appointments. A 2014 internal VA audit found “57,436 newly enrolled veterans facing a minimum 90-day wait for medical care; 63,869 veterans who enrolled over the past decade requesting an appointment that never happened.” Even Mr. Obama admitted, in a November 2016 press conference, that “it was scandalous what happened”—though minutes earlier he boasted that “we will—knock on wood—leave this administration without significant scandal.”

All of these scandals were accompanied by a lack of transparency so severe that 47 of Mr. Obama’s 73 inspectors general signed an open letter in 2014 decrying the administration’s stonewalling of their investigations.

 

[hunarcy]

Ever consider that the reason reporters don't ask them those questions is because they are no longer in office, and press conferences are not part of their regular routine anymore?

Besides..............if there really was something there, the Republicans would have been screaming about it from the rooftops.

Republicans call the shots now......why haven’t they investigated?

????????? They are too busy trying to deal with the loony Left's impeachment farce.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Evidently, there is nothing there

There's never anything "there" when you willfully close your eyes.

The Great Obama ran a scandal free administration

As many times the Republicans investigated......they came up with
NOTHING

NOTHING...except:

State Department email. In an effort to evade federal open-records laws, Mr. Obama’s first secretary of state set up a private server, which she used exclusively to conduct official business, including communications with the president and the transmission of classified material. A federal criminal investigation produced no charges, but FBI Director James Comey reported that the secretary and her colleagues “were extremely careless” in handling national secrets.

Operation Fast and Furious. The Obama Justice Department lost track of thousands of guns it had allowed to pass into the hands of suspected smugglers, in the hope of tracing them to Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was used in the fatal 2010 shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Congress held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt when he refused to turn over documents about the operation.

IRS abuses. Mr. Obama’s Internal Revenue Service did something Richard Nixon only dreamed of doing: It successfully targeted political opponents. The Justice Department then refused to enforce Congress’s contempt citation against the IRS’s Lois Lerner, who refused to answer questions about her agency’s misconduct.

Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. With less than two months to go before the 2012 election, the State Department falsely claimed the attack was not a terrorist attack but a reaction to an anti-Muslim film. Emails from the secretary later showed that she knew the attack was terrorism. Justice Department prosecutors even convinced a magistrate judge to jail the filmmaker.

Hacking. Mr. Obama presided over the biggest data breach in the federal government’s history, at the Office of Personnel Management. The hack exposed the personnel files of millions of federal employees and may end up being used for everything from identity theft to blackmail and espionage. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta, the president’s former political director, had been warned repeatedly about security deficiencies but took no steps to fix them.


Veterans Affairs. At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at a Phoenix VA facility, many of whom had been on a secret waiting list—part of an effort to conceal that between 1,400 and 1,600 veterans were forced to wait months for appointments. A 2014 internal VA audit found “57,436 newly enrolled veterans facing a minimum 90-day wait for medical care; 63,869 veterans who enrolled over the past decade requesting an appointment that never happened.” Even Mr. Obama admitted, in a November 2016 press conference, that “it was scandalous what happened”—though minutes earlier he boasted that “we will—knock on wood—leave this administration without significant scandal.”

All of these scandals were accompanied by a lack of transparency so severe that 47 of Mr. Obama’s 73 inspectors general signed an open letter in 2014 decrying the administration’s stonewalling of their investigations.

there is a lot more, and the Press protects Corrupt Democrats

 

[toobfreak]

Has anyone else noticed that the Press never asks Obama or Hillary about their fraudulent Steele Dossier and their illegal FISA warrants?
Would the Press protect them if they were Republicans?

You've answered your own question.

THE BIGGEST QUESTION in the Mueller investigation was about the Steele Dossier upon which it was wholly based. Mueller refused to even ask it because it mainly led back to the Democrats and Hillary. The media never touches it because it would then lend legitimacy to the story. Just as with Obumma's birthplace and other matters, they leave it to right-leaning organizations then to inquire about it solely, then they can all line up and mock them as silly conspiracy theorists.

THE BIGGEST QUESTIONS NOW in this 'Impeachment Investigation,' aside from the fact that the outcome has been PREDETERMINED with the actual investigation merely an exercise in justifying it not being asked by the media is:

1. If Trump was inquiring about the Biden's role in Burmisa for political rather than legal reasons, where is the PROOF? That seems a simple enough question. All it would take is one recording of Trump actually SAYING he was asking in order to knock Biden out of the race! That would prove INTENTION. Conscious, knowing intent and desire. That makes it criminal and impeachable. The Democrats have already argued that Hillary committed felonies with destruction of government records, but did so WITHOUT knowing intention, which made it merely "reckless." All the Democrats have produced against Trump to date is tons of conjecture, supposition, accusation and opinion, but no proof, even if it is talked about by them as if their opinion WERE actual proof.
2. If the issue really is political vs. legal, then how can you possibly determine that without investigating, nay, SUPPRESSING the entire side of the story which involves the legal aspect? How do you determine it WASN'T legally (and justifiably) motivated when you refuse to even admit much less look at the actual details and actions surrounding Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, Burmisa and Ukraine? That is, unless there is actually something huge there you are trying to protect?
3. Can one really, legitimately argue that because one is in the running as a possible candidate in a future election that it is criminal to investigate their past deeds and integrity? That the inquiry cannot involve a foreign country even if the actions of concern took place overseas? And that there can be no legal interest even if it involved serious abuse of power by the #2 ranking officer in the nation because HE'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE NOW? And that it must be politically motivated even if said actions occurred years ago when he wasn't running for anything? Shouldn't presidential candidates be among the MOST scrutinized rather than the least? How can the media look at all this facing them with who might likely be the next democratic nominee for the White House and NOT feel it is a compelling topic of inquiry demanding answers? If not, do we even have real journalism in this country any longer?
   
4. How do you justify impeachment as an unavoidable constitutional "necessity" due to the "seriousness" of the threat to the nation when:

• You haven't any confession or clear proof of intent to commit any crime?
• You have no actual crime when BOTH parties on either side of the phone call have stated no quid pro quo happened?
• When back in the days of the Starr Investigation of Clinton, Nancy Pelosi herself argued AGAINST the very dangers and methods she now seeks to employ?
• That unlike the Watergate hearings where you had about 400 House members of both parties in favor of impeachment with only a few against, here you have a TOTALLY partisan effort with ZERO support from the other party, for an impeachment where they are rushing to push it through as fast as humanly possible as the quickest impeachment ever and with the thinnest paucity of evidence ever to support the charges in the history of the nation?

It is amazing that democrats and leftists can stand there with straight faces and defend this investigation simply because of their unmitigated hatred of Trump and desire to see him out of the way to remove him from even running again in 2020. The Democrats have chosen to blindly and viciously go down a road where there can be no winners in the outcome.