colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
given how many rules obama's camp DID NOT follow, this is a rather odd statement. just because they're not following the same "rules" doesn't mean one side is better than the other when both sides are playing this "hardball".i would agree he needs to wait til done but people simply don't do that anymore; not just barr.i'm waiting for more evidence to come into play on obama. only fair. but yes it is fair to ask that his actions are viewed in the same potential and light as trumps. since barr has said he does see "abuses" but not "illegal" and doesn't see obama or biden as going to jail, then fine. decision made. unfortunately we have a horrible habit of labeling someone who doesn't go all out against the other side as a traitor. so we take it further into stupidity because we're not personally satisfied emotionally.Can we say the same about Obama without it being labeled “the biggest scandal in the history of the country”?if you only wish to see it as discrediting. however, since trump and many *do* buy into the other side being pure evil and always into something. if he felt biden was doing something wrong, would trump, or any president in this instance, be justified in asking someone to "look into it"?Oh Geez, another Trump centric screed. From your link..First sentence..i asked you for a complete history of russian interference into our elections going as far back as WWII.
Where in the hell are you pulling that from? I don't know what you are reading. The headline looks at events leading up to 2016, which marks a watershed moment in terms of interference. If you quit obsessing about Trump Trump Trump (and NOTE I have not mentioned him or made it about him - I merely provided the information you kept DEMANDING) then maybe you would SEE that.
what you can never seem to do, comprehend nor understand is I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT TRUMP.
GOOD. Then SHOW that but not focusing on TRUMP.
You are seriously deranged. Overactive Tump Defense System misfiring or something? What part of my link do you fail to understand? Regardless of where it ENDS, it provides a decent timeline of Russian activities PRIOR to 2016.
I ANSWERED your question - now MOVE ON if you can not refute the time line with better information.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I GAVE IF YOU CAN COMPREHEND IT INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON TRUMP!
the headline for the link you gave me is what again?
"Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#1986"
so you are only giving me russian interference as it related to the trump election.
at this point i honestly don't give a fuck anymore. you and i are so far apart on base reality of what simple things are that talking to you in a logical / linear fashion is impossible. i t-shoot technical problems quite often and think in a linear fashion. you tell me that an activity was escalated, then it means it's more than it was before.
i want to know what it was before said escalation so we have a base to show how much (if any) it actually was escalated.
your headline from the link is again:
Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#1986
and i asked for ALL RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, you keep giving me just as it relates to trump, or 2016, and act like this has a fuck-one thing to do with what i was searching for. at least colfax understands what i am asking. you don't. either you refuse to, don't want to, or simply can't comprehend a question that doesn't involve trump and frankly, i don't give a shit which it is. but your link had nothing to do with the entire history of russian interference in US elections OF WHICH has been my request this this bullshit hayride began.
have a day.
Earlier, before wiki, I linked to a Politico article that gave some historic background on Russian interference. This was the link: Russia’s Long and Mostly Unsuccessful History of Election Interference. Did you read that one?
If Politico doesn't suit you, here is another: Russian Meddling in the United States: The Historical Context of the Mueller Report
"Until the election of Donald Trump, no sitting president had ever requested a foreign government’s help to discredit a political rival."
The article does go on to prove Russian interference in past elections but the claim that the interference was 'unprecented' for Trump is just not there. Nice try though. I will say what I said before though, the only ones using Russian disinformation were the Democrats who used the fake Russian dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and then his Presidential transition team.
So before Trump, what president has requested a foreign government help to discredit a political rival?
Or is there a double standard.
i just see us doing a "oh you got away with...hold my beer" and we keep getting worse and worse all around on both sides pushing boundaries and seeing what we can get away with all in the name of getting even with the other side.
sooner or later that shit will stop. we can either stop it or we collapse under our own weight.
Barr needs to keep his mouth shut about ongoing investigations. Making vague comments about “abuses” is allowing some people’s imagination to run wild. But it does please Trump, so...
I just find it very hypocritical that 6 months ago we were told they Trump has complete authority to investigate a political opponent. Yet the same people (not necessarily you) complain that Obama was doing something wrong by investigating Trump.
You know what’s the biggest difference here? Trump actually was the one pushing the investigation into Biden. Obama did nothing of the sort, despite people claiming to have proof of it.
i would say the advocates saying trump can review their actions is a reaction to the over-reaction of russia to the right. when nothing was found, we simply line up and return fire. like i keep saying, "hold my beer". both sides do it and the fans of both sides minimize their "bad" and maximize the other sides "bad". then their "minions" go off and defend until death and making standard conversation so difficult to do.
Mueller did with Trump. Comey did with Trump. Everyone prosecuting Flynn, Stone, Manafort did it. That’s because they follow the rules. The rules say don’t talk about open investigations.
The rules don’t apply to Barr apparently, but everyone else has to follow them. So while Barr can badmouth his prosecutors and agents, the rules prevent them from fighting back.
“Returning fire” only works if you’re actually being fired on. Obamagate seems more like Gulf of Tonkin if you ask me.
was it cool to spy on congress?
reporters?
continue to take FISA liberties?
not here to pick apart one side and try to defend the other, neither are where i would wish we could all one day be. both need an overhaul.
For sure, the FBI and IC had problems with what they were doing. When have they not?
But they weren’t playing politics. They weren’t trying to harm Trump’s campaign. They weren’t out to get Democrats. Barr on the other hand has made no such effort to stay out of it.
