Jump to content

The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:


Recommended Posts

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2007/03/surprise-clinton-fired-all-93-us-attorneys-in-1993/

 

Well this is a shocker…
Democrats are making a stink over the fact that Attorney General Gonzales firing 8 US attorneys despite the fact that when Bill Clinton came into office he fired all 93 US attorneys in 1993!
The Political Grapevine reported this news tonight:

News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office in 1993.

The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff, now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff’s job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in The New York Times and Washington Post, or in the AP’s story on the subject.

By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no Congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer.

Advertisement - story continues below

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2020 at 6:43 PM, CarpetCrawler said:

But he submitted a letter of resignation??

To be fair, this is basically the equivalent of 'but Flynn plead guilty'. I don't know your stance on that but please be consistent. Neither was given a choice. Either both are acceptable defenses, or neither is. 

 

I'm in the neither is a good rebuttal camp, though I disagree with Nadler's decision to investigate every Trump action.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

To be fair, this is basically the equivalent of 'but Flynn plead guilty'. I don't know your stance on that but please be consistent. Neither was given a choice. Either both are acceptable defenses, or neither is. 

 

I'm in the neither is a good rebuttal camp, though I disagree with Nadler's decision to investigate every Trump action.


In one case, a man was framed for a crime he did not commit by the United States government. In the other case, a person who serves at the leisure of the President of the United States was "asked to resign" to "save face" after not doing his job. 

Those are the same to you? :blink:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

In one case, a man was framed for a crime he did not commit by the United States government. In the other case, a person who serves at the leisure of the President of the United States was "asked to resign" to "save face" after not doing his job. 

Those are the same to you? :blink:

Insisting that the Flynn case must continue 'because he plead guilty' is the same as you can't investigate Berman's firing 'because he resigned'. Both are terrible rebuttals in my opinion regardless of where I stand on the actual issues surrounding the two.

Edited by BuffaloHokie13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Insisting that the Flynn case must continue 'because he plead guilty' is the same as you can't investigate Berman's firing 'because he resigned'. Both are terrible rebuttals in my opinion regardless of where I stand on the actual issues surrounding the two.


Flynn was FRAMED. If you think it is a-ok for the United States government to FRAME a person for crimes they did not commit, you are wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


Flynn was FRAMED. If you think it is a-ok for the United States government to FRAME a person for crimes they did not commit, you are wrong.

 

Not what I said or intended to imply. I'm speaking specifically about the faulty logic of a bad rebuttal, not about the circumstances. The 'he can't be innocent because he plead guilty' crowd is wrong and using bad logic. To use the same logic by saying 'but he wasn't fired. He resigned!' is stooping to their level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Not what I said or intended to imply. I'm speaking specifically about the faulty logic of a bad rebuttal, not about the circumstances. The 'he can't be innocent because he plead guilty' crowd is wrong and using bad logic. To use the same logic by saying 'but he wasn't fired. He resigned!' is stooping to their level.


ok

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

To be fair, this is basically the equivalent of 'but Flynn plead guilty'. I don't know your stance on that but please be consistent. Neither was given a choice. Either both are acceptable defenses, or neither is. 

 

I'm in the neither is a good rebuttal camp, though I disagree with Nadler's decision to investigate every Trump action.

Good analogy and I hadn't thought of that before I posted. My reaction was really pointed more at Nadler's seemingly knee jerk reaction to investigate anything Trump does.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film Producer and Political Donor Steve Bing Has Died After Reportedly Jumping from a Century City Building

 

Quote

Bing was well known for contributing large sums to political causes. He donated $1 million to the DNC to help fund the 2000 convention in L.A., spent an estimated $50 million to campaign for an oil production tax in 2006, and gave at least $10 million to Bill Clinton’s foundation. Bing reportedly also paid for the plane used by Clinton to rescue journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea in 2009. Both Clinton and Bing were part of a hard-partying group that included Burkle and Jeffrey Epstein.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crayola64 said:

Gosh, you all are really close to something!!!  All these re-postings of tweets from people that don’t know anything is really showing me something 

Oh come on, don't you think "Corruption Detector" is an informed source? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh
 

Fired NY prosecutor was given Biden-Ukraine allegations in 2018 but didn’t follow up, emails show
 

Ukraine prosecutors didn't want the political spectacle that became impeachment and simply sought to turn over evidence about Joe Biden and election interference to U.S. prosecutors, memos show.


</snip>
 

The memos show that well before Ukrainian prosecutors reached out to Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, in 2019 to talk about the Bidens and alleged 2016 election interference they first approached Berman’s office in New York in October 2018 via another American lawyer.
 

</snip>

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...