leh-nerd skin-erd

It’s interesting that you mentioned the Clinton investigation as evidence of how it used to be. I recall stonewalling, a President attempting to redefine the English language, a Presidential address designed to mislead the American people, an ill-tempered spouse demonizing the women involved as bimbos, and a former future almost president raging about a vast right wing conspiracy. I also recall his supporters nearly in lockstep that there was nothing to see there. We know what happened after—in spite of missteps, unsavory actions, false testimony, victim shaming, predatory behavior and crazy allegations of conspiracies, with Bill’s WH dance card expired, democrats went to the JV team for more Clinton leadership. Nothing is new here.

They declined because they knew it was a political tribunal, and that the goal of the committee was to shape the narrative moving forward. That’s what political parties do. They also knew that should something nefarious have occurred, gathering evidence of a crime and prosecuting that crime would be handled by law enforcement. I’m actually surprised that you don’t know that. Be that as it may…it’s been nearly a year and a half. What’s the Jan 6th committee uncovered with respect to Donald Trump on a criminal basis as it relates to the actions of the god-awful morons that behaved criminally on January 6?

It’s presumptuous to assume others don’t “truly care” about the country when they hold opinions other than yours. It’s foolish to refuse to acknowledge the inherent bias and manipulative tendencies of a political committee in Washington. However, kudos to you if you feel that search for the greater good is the common thread running through all these gatherings regardless of which party is in charge. I look to the appropriate law enforcement agency to investigate issues regarding the “rule of law”. While imperfect, there are standards of professional conduct and rules of engagement that do not exist in the underworld of Washington investigatory committees. The interesting part to me is that we likely agree on all this, or will when if the house flips later this year and the subjects/targets of political committees change sides.

There seems to be no political will to answer this question, probably the very type of question a non-biased political tribunal should investigate. Instead, we get this crazy carnival game. It’s an appropriate place to remind ourselves that Biden’s approval numbers, as bad as they are, are certainly better than those of our leaders in Congress. Very few people trust these numbskulls, deservedly so.

50 years as one of the most powerful men in the county. 8 in place as one of most powerful people in the world. 1.5 as THE most powerful person in the world. What’s outrageous is how little he’s accomplished. Sure, screaming about someone being sued is grist for the mill, and he is a lawyer, but this is just an old man yelling out the window.

Right. So a pro 2A gun enthusiast looks at how a law that should have prevented this tragedy was completely disregarded and mass murder ensued. They then consider that they, as good and decent citizens, never shot anyone, never threatened anyone, are of no threat to anyone, and simply want to be left alone. Thereafter, politicians they view as not working in their best interest, who designed the law that was ignored that might have prevented the tragedy, come around and propose new, perhaps more restrictive laws to be followed, likely soon to be ignored again. All the while, the pro 2A gun enthusiast is painted as the crazy in this scenario by people who hold different values and want to blame these tragedies on them. I don't own guns, and I'm for sensible gun regulation, but it's completely understandable why these folks feel this way.

Deek, like most of us here, I’ve interacted with him from time to time. Sometimes for fun, sometimes to get some feedback, rarely learning anything new and walking away thinking “It must suck be that negative that often”. Sadly there isn’t much beyond cult conspiracy chatter coming from him, and I can handle that the first hundred times. I don’t really care about the insults either. What I’ve been seeing of late is a ratcheting up of the animosity, and while I’m sure he’s generally harmless, it’s like watching a slow moving train wreck.

The rhythm of this board is pretty funny, once you get past the allegations that people are in cults, support fascism and the like. At any given point in time, someone is accusing someone else of supporting someone who is out purely for political gain, or someone is supporting someone pursuing action for the greater good, all while someone is always disappointed that someone failed to prosecute a case politically or civilly while someone else is mocking them for the loss forgetting it was just a short time ago their someone had a similar failure. Meanwhile, the current leadership of both parties just missed the cutoff for military service in the First World War. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Yes. It’ describes a grassroots campaign designed to work within the framework of election laws to ensure a fair election. Volunteers are suddenly a bad thing? Working at a granular level is a problem? Folks engaged in the political process is a bad thing? Are we not Barracking a vote anymore? What are you worried about that’s specifically outlined here? 2020 was the safest election ever—everyone knows this. Why would 2022 suddenly be an issue?

Why are you worried if there are challenges at voting time? Surely you know the history of such challenges. We’re a year and a half past the Biden election, there have been no criminal charges filed against the Trump campaign. The 1/6 committee is languishing and another poster shared today that a substantial percentage of Dems have concerns about election security. If there is no wrongdoing or funny business, there is nothing to be concerned about.

It's this type of unmitigated arrogance that causes some people to hate the French, Frenks.

Must be the vax hesitant dems, it's the only thing that makes sense!

He sought clarity. That's politics. See Gore, Al

Exactly.

It’s not bribery, it’s not extortion—it’s Brextortion!

I’ve never seen it. Ever since I was a victim in the Fleecing of Solaris, I don’t trust. This perspective is the most interesting of the left talking points. It goes hand in hand with “Trump is so dumb they couldn’t get him. I think this goes to the brilliance of the Democrat plan—-they knew, likely after extensive study into what makes liberal voters tick, that tying Trump to Russia had little to do with actually proving he committed something approximating treasonous activity. It had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the investigation…they relied on the cumulative arrogance of their core to walk away wondering how every single player was dumb or incompetent for not seeing what was so clear to them—solid evidence of nothing was obviously proof of everything. Credit to them, it was a solid plan.

The investigation was undertaken by political actors, the entire report prepared by political actors, Goose. If I want manufactured intrigue and dramatic retelling of events that conclude with a plot that implodes, I’ll rent a George Clooney movie.

Actually, in this case, you're a man, typing on a message board, accusing another of "...blatant...intentional...misreading of the facts" because he views things differently than you do. You should take those issues up with Mueller or Barr, perhaps both.

Hogwash. I don't make the rules up, I just observed what was alleged, what was said, the actions of key players and the outcome. I'd love a fair and equitable distribution of power and a move away from weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents. Sadly, it doesn't exist in Washington and folks like you are part of the problem. You seem inordinately comfortable with seeds of distrust being sown, you just want to choose the seeds. A thorough review of the Mueller manifesto by AG Barr and the DOJ led to an entirely different conclusion than that which you've offered over these past few days and weeks. You know this but simply choose to disregard that analysis. I've done nothing more than consider the totality to the multi-year-multi-million-dollar investigation, the actions and words of democrats in positions of leadership and reject your summary as superficial and biased. I do want you to know that if I could absolutely prove you were not guilty of personal bias, I would be willing to say it.

Gene Freckle gets it. Russiagate 2.0 Ukrainamania 2.0 Mueller 2.0 Durham 2.0 (I don't understand the point.o system so to be safe i went with 2point0 like you, Gene)

The short, and correct version of the bottom line is no collusion, no obstruction, just a whole lot of people sowing seeds of distrust in our political process.

Fair take. A prosecutor does his research, sets the table and does the best he/she can in prosecuting the case regardless of obstacles. All that matters now is the political capital to be gained from this outcome, if any.

We’re not that far removed from NYS leadership taking people with a potentially fatal virus and requiring them to be placed in direct proximity to the most vulnerable citizens in the country, in a closed environment, family members prohibited from visiting and overseeing care, and having a “Holy Crap” moment when they decided the best course of action was to cook the death count books hoping nobody would notice thousands of deaths. They are just scratching the surface here.

I think a government board charged with formulating/propagating the one true truth was idiotic, so you don’t have to sell me here—by some elected officials think it’s a crackerjack idea. I was just wondering how Radio Free Tom missed that particular board. Maybe he used “Free” in the ironic sense?

All those stations, and Radio Free Tom has never heard Joe Biden speak? Now that's weird.