Discussion:
Democrats ALWAYS Accuse Republicans of The EXACT SAME Things THEY Have Done Themselves To Hide The Fact That They HAVE
Add Reply
AlleyCat
2017-05-18 21:28:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Item one: Obama had the FBI back off of an investigation into Hillary
Clinton

What Trump is alleged to have done is actually no different than what
Barack Obama did in April last year when he made it known that he didn't
want Hillary prosecuted.

In fact, the Obama situation is actually worse. While Trump
indicated he didn't want Flynn charged, he did not order the case dropped,
because it's still going on. Trump indicated that he wanted Flynn not to
be charged, but he did not order the case to be dropped. And the case
continues. Grand juries have been impaneled now. In contrast, the FBI and
the Department of Justice dropped the Hillary investigation just as Obama
wanted them to, and they used exactly the rationales Obama used when he
made his public statements.

Obama, was saying there was no intent to harm the U.S., the degree
of classified emails that Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in is very
exaggerated. Obama went public with all this! He went public with his own
exoneration and thought that the investigation should be brought to a
screeching halt.

And it was!

Comey got together and they stopped the investigation, and that
allowed them and Hillary - for the rest of the campaign - to say she had
been cleared. That's why they got so mad at Comey when he did the July 5th
press conference, because back in April, Obama thought he'd taken care of
this.

The July 5th press conference was essentially to announce that there
wasn't going to be a prosecution of Hillary because there wasn't any
intent. This is what Obama had set up with public statements the previous
April, and I know you don't remember the media being jacked up about this.
I know you don't remember any anonymous sources leaking information to the
media that looked bad for Hillary and Obama. You just greeted this with,

"It's the usual Democrat-media corruption."

And they're saying that this is what Trump was trying to sneak through
here. He was trying to get Flynn to be cleared so that he could run around
and say, "Flynn didn't do anything. See? I'm clear!"

Here's what the allegation is gonna be, if it hasn't already
appeared the Drive-By Media. The allegation is gonna be that what Trump
wanted to do was to have the FBI clear Michael Flynn, and then use the
FBI's clearing him to argue that a thorough investigation had proved
nothing bad happened here. All right? Now, why did they think that's what
Trump would do? They're gonna say that Trump's plan was to rig the
investigation and then exploit the fact that there had been one. By
exploiting it, I mean, "Hey, look, man! Look at this detailed
investigation! It happened, and my buddy Flynn's clear."

The Democrats would know exactly how to do it because that's exactly
what Obama did with Hillary. If you're scratching your heads about this,
maybe you remember in April of 2016, when everybody was wondering, "Is
Hillary gonna be indicted?" Remember there was a drip, drip, drip? Every
day there seemed to be more news about Hillary's illegal server and
classified documents flying around, and every day people speculated who
was behind this, and everybody concluded that Obama was. And remember the
debates, the questions?

"Is Obama trying to take her out? Is Obama trying to destroy her? Is
it Obama does not want her to be president, doesn't trust her with this?"
Remember all of this stuff? And on the other side of it people were
saying, "Maybe Obama's trying to inoculate her. Maybe Obama's trying to
just dribble this stuff out so that it doesn't end up hurting her - a
little bit here, a little bit there." But the conventional wisdom was that
if he was doing anything, he was trying to hurt her, because it just
prolonged everything.

I offer those simply as reference points. You might remember those
things being discussed at the time. This is April of 2016. And that's why
the Democrats would know how to accuse Trump. There's no evidence this is
what Trump was trying to do. There's no evidence for anything here. We
have allegations. We have a memo that may or may not exist. We have a memo
that may exist without any context. We don't have anybody that can tell
you what crime Donald Trump has committed yet to this day.

But Obama actually did, with Hillary Clinton, exactly what they are
accusing Trump of trying to do through Comey at that dinner (where Comey
only got one scoop of ice cream) to protect Flynn. If you think back to
April 2016, there was no way they were ever gonna have Hillary Clinton
indicted. Obama ran the DOJ, and he was running Loretta Lynch, and Obama
was running Comey, and there was no way Hillary was ever gonna be
indicted. You know it and I know it. But they used the fact that the FBI
had ostensibly done a thorough investigation in order to clear her.

That was the purpose of the drip, drip, drip. The purpose - in
retrospect - of the drip, drip, drip was to get all the evidence out there
and then claim that it had been investigated, and then Comey magically
appears on July 5th to list all this stuff that everybody knew. There was
some of it that we didn't know, but he gets it all out there; then says,
"No reasonable prosecutor would proceed," and, BAM! She's cleared! The
difference between Obama and Trump is very simple. Obama's pressure on the
FBI to wipe the Hillary investigation off the map appears to have worked.

Regardless of what Trump may have said to Comey, the investigation of
Flynn continues. The investigation of the collusion of the Trump campaign
in Russia continues. So where is the obstruction? They're whispering
impeachment, obstruction of justice, violation of this and that. Where is
it? The investigations are ongoing elsewhere. The House Democrats
announced a new one today! Pencil Neck went out there, Adam Schiff, and
said, "You know, we're not gonna wait for a special counsel. We're gonna
do a special commission here in the House!"

So they've launched another investigation. Investigations aren't being
shut down. Some people, as I was saying, don't want to sit around and wait
for impeachment. They want whatever is gonna happen here to happen before
the 2018 midterms. So there are people suggesting - and one of them is
Ross Douthat of the New York Times, quote-unquote, "conservative
columnist" there. His suggestion - and many have now echoed it - is
(paraphrased), "Well, use the 25th Amendment! That's how we get rid of
Trump. "We don't have to worry about whether Republicans will join us now.

"Just use the 25th Amendment." What's the 25th Amendment say? The 25th
Amendment says that the cabinet, the president's cabinet can certify the
president's insane - mentally deranged, deluded, mentally unsound - and
get rid of him on the basis that he's not all there. On the golf course
over this weekend and the whole subject of impeachment came up. I said, "I
don't necessarily think that although I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't
be surprised with the way they're all setting this up. They're trying to
claim, 'Trump is unbalanced anyway! He never has been all there.'"

So there are many areas here at which they're aiming at Trump. Now,
Andy McCarthy has written a column about this Obama precedent that I just
talked about, and I want to give you a couple of paragraphs of this piece
here just to batten this down because this is important. What they're
accusing Trump of doing has already happened, and it was Obama protecting
Hillary and clearing her in the campaign year 2016.

"April 10, 2016 - President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton
showed 'carelessness' by using a private email server, but he also
strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not
endanger national security..." Again, intent is not an element of the
criminal statute. It's been totally made up by Comey. The statute does not
require intent in order for it to be violated. Comey just made it up and
attached it, and Obama used it before Comey did. On April 10, 2016, Obama
said publicly Hillary had not intended to endanger national security.

Of course not!

She's a great Democrat. She's a secretary of state. She's from the
Clinton dynasty. There is no way Hillary Clinton would intend to endanger
national security. "Come on, people," Obama said (paraphrased), "Who are
we talking about here? Are we serious? Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin would
want to purposely damage national security?" That's the route they took.
Obama suggested that in the greater scheme of things the importance of
what Hillary had done here had been way, way overestimated; way, way too
amplified.

She wasn't trying to traffic in national security! She wasn't trying
to endanger the United States of America. She wasn't doing half the stuff
she's been alleged to do. He said all this publicly - and next thing we
knew, July 5th, Comey publicly stated (in almost exact words that Obama
had used back in April) that Clinton had been "extremely careless." Obama
said she had "shown carelessness." Comey said Hillary had been "extremely
careless" in using a private email server to handle classified
information.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Muslims.
Muslims are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, they kill
homosexuals BY LAW and they treat women as slaves and chattel. Their old
men rape little boys and get away with it... oh, and they HATE you. Am I
leaving anything else out that you just LOVE about them?
Rudy Canoza
2017-05-18 21:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Item one: Obama had the FBI back off of an investigation into Hillary
Clinton
No need to read past that stupid sophomoric lie.
Schuman
2017-05-18 22:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
No need to read past that stupid sophomoric lie.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

Loading...