Consistency

[Arkady]

I invite you ALL to ask yourself if you're being driven by principles or party politics, when it comes to the question of Trump's obstruction of justice.

Here's a way to test what's really driving you. Imagine it was this time last year, and the topic were Hillary Clinton's email server instead of Flynn's Russia contacts. Now imagine Obama had done what Trump did. Would you be taking the same position on the issue as you are? In other words, picture if Obama had demanded assurances of personal loyalty from Comey, then told him in a private meeting he hoped he'd lay off Clinton, then fired him after he didn't, while admitting on tape that he was thinking of "this email thing" when he made the decision to fire him. Would your position about that be the same as your position about what has happened with Trump and Comey?

I believe my position would be consistent. I'm on record, here, multiple times, criticizing Obama for improperly pressuring the Department of Justice not to do its job with regard to illegal conduct:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/the-irs-wants-you.51719/page-2#post-717409
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...-grilling-treasury-on-hsbc.48972/#post-664666
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...nt-is-nothing-but-hogwash.73862/#post-1154496

I'm a strong believer in prosecutorial independence, and when Obama infringed on that in MUCH subtler ways than Trump did, I called Obama out for it. I characterized that behavior as corrupt and called it one of the biggest disgraces of the Obama era. Yet all Obama ever did was exert pressure openly and generically, to encourage the DoJ to overlook certain crimes -- he didn't, as far as we know, demand assurances of personal loyalty, nor arrange one-on-one meetings with any individual law enforcement people to let them know he didn't want one of his cronies investigated, and he certainly never fired the head of the FBI. So, if I bashed Obama that harshly for much less corrupt behavior, I think I'm on solid ground bashing Trump, as a matter of principle, rather than just party politics.

How about you on the right? Can you point to similar cases supporting the idea you'd be on the same side if the shoe were on the other foot? For example, are you on record defending Obama against charges of corrupt use of his powers, in some similar scenario? Or do your views alter by party?

 

[4/15]

I think you scared the reich off with your theme. Honesty is not something they partake in.

 

[Sickofleft]

The idea that Obama had to pressure his Department of Slush Funds....I mean the DOJ to do anything is comical.

Even so, all things being equal its pretty simple: Pressure does not equal Obstruction, so none of what either of them did rises to that level.

You should know this.

 

[Caroljo]

Why did Lynch tell Comey to not call Hillary's criminal investigation a criminal investigation and to call it a "matter". This after she met with Billy on that plane.....and he obliged (even though he didn't understand why). Comey got what he had coming.

 

[Sickofleft]

I think you scared the reich off with your theme. Honesty is not something they partake in.

No better comedy on the planet then a fascist who isn't even smart enough to realize he is one. Hysterical......go hang out with ANTIFAH.....they are geniuses......

 

[Spamature]

I invite you ALL to ask yourself if you're being driven by principles or party politics, when it comes to the question of Trump's obstruction of justice.

Here's a way to test what's really driving you. Imagine it was this time last year, and the topic were Hillary Clinton's email server instead of Flynn's Russia contacts. Now imagine Obama had done what Trump did. Would you be taking the same position on the issue as you are? In other words, picture if Obama had demanded assurances of personal loyalty from Comey, then told him in a private meeting he hoped he'd lay off Clinton, then fired him after he didn't, while admitting on tape that he was thinking of "this email thing" when he made the decision to fire him. Would your position about that be the same as your position about what has happened with Trump and Comey?

I believe my position would be consistent. I'm on record, here, multiple times, criticizing Obama for improperly pressuring the Department of Justice not to do its job with regard to illegal conduct:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/the-irs-wants-you.51719/page-2#post-717409
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...-grilling-treasury-on-hsbc.48972/#post-664666
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...nt-is-nothing-but-hogwash.73862/#post-1154496

I'm a strong believer in prosecutorial independence, and when Obama infringed on that in MUCH subtler ways than Trump did, I called Obama out for it. I characterized that behavior as corrupt and called it one of the biggest disgraces of the Obama era. Yet all Obama ever did was exert pressure openly and generically, to encourage the DoJ to overlook certain crimes -- he didn't, as far as we know, demand assurances of personal loyalty, nor arrange one-on-one meetings with any individual law enforcement people to let them know he didn't want one of his cronies investigated, and he certainly never fired the head of the FBI. So, if I bashed Obama that harshly for much less corrupt behavior, I think I'm on solid ground bashing Trump, as a matter of principle, rather than just party politics.

How about you on the right? Can you point to similar cases supporting the idea you'd be on the same side if the shoe were on the other foot? For example, are you on record defending Obama against charges of corrupt use of his powers, in some similar scenario? Or do your views alter by party?

On it's face the act itself would be even worse if Obama had done it. Because there wouldn't even be the excuse that he didn't know what he was doing was absolutely wrong. Also this is no where near the end and Obama really has some explaining to do.

Imagine the reverse. What if the attacks were done to favor Clinton and Obama had known about the attacks not only on Trump but on the other Democratic Party candidates and he did not inform the public about them ?

What do you think Republicans would be doing today ? They would be outraged enough to rise up in revolt. And you really couldn't blame them if they were. This is the biggest security failure ever bigger than Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and it sits squarely in his lap In a way I blame him for his inaction, regardless of whether or not congressional Republicans opposed him on it or not, way more than I would blame any of this on Trump for colluding in it.

This is far and away his biggest failure and it should follow him into history.

 

[Arkady]

The idea that Obama had to pressure his Department of Slush Funds....I mean the DOJ to do anything is comical.

Even so, all things being equal its pretty simple: Pressure does not equal Obstruction, so none of what either of them did rises to that level.

You should know this.

You seem to have forgotten the Obama years. Yes, from the start, Obama pressured the DOJ not to prosecute anyone from the Bush administration. Obama was smarter than Trump, so he didn't do it in a seedy way, with one-one-one backroom meetings where he could tell his subordinates how much he wished they'd let his own cronies off the hook. But the impact was similar. The way he did it was to repeatedly push the theme that we were going to "look forward, not back." A careful legal mind, Obama couched his rhetoric with caveats about the DOJ being free to go forward with prosecutions if evidence of lawbreaking was found, but he clearly signaled they weren't supposed to look for such evidence, and made sure no personnel and funds were made available to do so. Anyone in the DOJ with career ambitions got the message: the Bush team was off limits, by order of Barrack Obama. And so, even when we had clear-cut and admitted felonies (e.g., Bush's ordering of warrantless electronic surveillance of US persons), there would be no justice.

 

[Arkady]

Why did Lynch tell Comey to not call Hillary's criminal investigation a criminal investigation and to call it a "matter". This after she met with Billy on that plane.....and he obliged (even though he didn't understand why). Comey got what he had coming.

Lynch understandably wanted to deescalate the overheated rhetoric that had taken hold in Washington. But that's just semantics -- it made no practical difference to the work.

 

[Sickofleft]

You seem to have forgotten the Obama years. Yes, from the start, Obama pressured the DOJ not to prosecute anyone from the Bush administration. Obama was smarter than Trump, so he didn't do it in a seedy way, with one-one-one backroom meetings where he could tell his subordinates how much he wished they'd let his own cronies off the hook. But the impact was similar. The way he did it was to repeatedly push the theme that we were going to "look forward, not back." A careful legal mind, Obama couched his rhetoric with caveats about the DOJ being free to go forward with prosecutions if evidence of lawbreaking was found, but he clearly signaled they weren't supposed to look for such evidence, and made sure no personnel and funds were made available to do so. Anyone in the DOJ with career ambitions got the message: the Bush team was off limits, by order of Barrack Obama. And so, even when we had clear-cut and admitted felonies (e.g., Bush's ordering of warrantless electronic surveillance of US persons), there would be no justice.

I wish I could forget the Obama years.

Nice synopsis but it still does not change the fact that... pressure does not equal obstruction.

 

[Caroljo]

Lynch understandably wanted to deescalate the overheated rhetoric that had taken hold in Washington. But that's just semantics -- it made no practical difference to the work.

Lol! I'm sure you be saying the same thing if it had been Trump under a criminal investigation and Melania met privately with the AG, then tells the head of the FBI to call it a "matter". You people are full of excuses, aren't you?

 

[Arkady]

Lol! I'm sure you be saying the same thing if it had been Trump under a criminal investigation and Melania met privately with the AG, then tells the head of the FBI to call it a "matter". You people are full of excuses, aren't you?

If we rewind to a point before Trump became president, and imagine a meeting between Melania Trump and the AG, during which nobody involved in the meeting has suggested any inappropriate discussions occurred, it wouldn't even be a story. The only reason this is a story is because it's the Clintons, and right-wingers are utterly deranged when the topic turns to the Clintons.

Think it through. Bill Clinton was a private citizen. He had no power whatsoever over Lynch. It's not like he could fire her if she didn't do what he said, the way Trump fired Comey when he didn't get the message about laying off Flynn. And Lynch hasn't said a word to suggest Clinton pressured her, nor even that he brought up the email matter, the way Comey has said Trump pressured him. I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges, but that's giving it way to much credit. You're comparing apples to fever dream visions of oranges. There's no there there.

 

[bdtex]

Not one straight answer.

 

[as seen on tv]

there is little doubt that Obama had personal loyalty of the highest order from his underlings. and that he repaid it.

how else to explain the lack of prosecutions for -

- fast and furious
- irs targeting of republican political organizations
- VA fraud and coverup
- millions spent on an obamacare website that went dark the moment it was turned on
- Hillary able to shake down foreign governments for "foundation support" while she was secretary of state
- warrantless surveillance
- unmasking and leaking in violation of the law, when they were not accused of crimes
- the Benghazi youtube lies

 

[Dawg]

Lynch understandably wanted to deescalate the overheated rhetoric that had taken hold in Washington. But that's just semantics -- it made no practical difference to the work.

after Bill surprise visit on Tarmac she had no other choice or become another dead # on C list

 

[Dawg]

Not one straight answer.

not one libs approve of

but you already knew that

 

[Dawg]

there is little doubt that Obama had personal loyalty of the highest order from his underlings. and that he repaid it.

how else to explain the lack of prosecutions for -

- fast and furious
- irs targeting of republican political organizations
- VA fraud and coverup
- millions spent on an obamacare website that went dark the moment it was turned on
- Hillary able to shake down foreign governments for "foundation support" while she was secretary of state
- warrantless surveillance
- unmasking and leaking in violation of the law, when they were not accused of crimes
- the Benghazi youtube lies

they dismiss Θ having staff call Comey for a Beer summit on the lawn or Θ personally calling Comey to see if he wanted to shoot some hoops in Comey's yard.....Θ wanted more than a beer and hoops........that's different

 

[Caroljo]

If we rewind to a point before Trump became president, and imagine a meeting between Melania Trump and the AG, during which nobody involved in the meeting has suggested any inappropriate discussions occurred, it wouldn't even be a story. The only reason this is a story is because it's the Clintons, and right-wingers are utterly deranged when the topic turns to the Clintons.

Think it through. Bill Clinton was a private citizen. He had no power whatsoever over Lynch. It's not like he could fire her if she didn't do what he said, the way Trump fired Comey when he didn't get the message about laying off Flynn. And Lynch hasn't said a word to suggest Clinton pressured her, nor even that he brought up the email matter, the way Comey has said Trump pressured him. I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges, but that's giving it way to much credit. You're comparing apples to fever dream visions of oranges. There's no there there.

It's a story because Hillary was under a criminal investigation and her husband met PRIVATELY with the AG. They were the ONLY onces involved in that meeting, so tell me...who in hell would have suggested anything inappropriate was discussed? Sorry, but golfing and kids is laughable!

 

[Arkady]

after Bill surprise visit on Tarmac she had no other choice or become another dead # on C list

As you know (since I've pointed this out repeatedly), the idea that the Clintons kill their political enemies simply doesn't line up with real world. Countless people who have crossed the Clintons went on to live very long lives. Kenn Starr? Juanita Broaddrick? Pauala Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Richard Mellon Scaife, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Susan Webber Brown, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, James Comey, etc. This is one of the many reasons right wingers sound so insane.

 

[Arkady]

It's a story because Hillary was under a criminal investigation and her husband met PRIVATELY with the AG

The FBI was looking into the matter of her email. The AG met with a private citizen and there's no evidence the topic of the investigation even came up. The reason it's a story is because it was the Clintons and the Republicans can see criminality in even the most mundane of things when they're involved.

so tell me...who in hell would have suggested anything inappropriate was discussed?

Lynch, obviously. As you'll recall, when Trump met with his Republican head of the FBI and discussed inappropriate thing, the Republican head of the FBI ratted him out.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Good topic, but our con friends have already embraced this defense.