Replies: 49
| visibility 1,005
|
CU Guru [1446]
TigerPulse: 65%
Posts: 1342
Joined: 8/15/15
|
So now that it’s proven Obama was spying
May 11, 2020, 11:52 AM
|
|
What should be the next steps? The man weaponized the letter agencies in an attempt to take down Trump before he ever set foot in office. This is treason at its highest form and an indictment needs to happen
|
|
|
|
All-In [34600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41424
Joined: 4/20/01
|
LuLu Graham will get 'em***
May 11, 2020, 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54502
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Howdy Gowdy!
May 11, 2020, 11:59 AM
|
|
Trey!
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
If something not-just-immoral-but-illegal happened,
May 11, 2020, 12:10 PM
|
|
and if the evidence is solid, and if the politicians involved dont have some sort of weasel immunity, and if they get Trey Gowdy on the prosecution team...they a$$ is toast.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I'm guessing there will be a lot of big talk
May 11, 2020, 12:15 PM
|
|
from your normal hot air bags.
They will probably say some random IG guy is investigating and there will be hearings on The Hill. Then come December and you'll never hear of it again.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Hearings, maybe, and likely wait until Sept or Oct to
May 11, 2020, 12:24 PM
|
|
crank those out. If illegalities occurred, harder to control the timing of a trial. By Dec it wont matter as much politically (That's the playbook we got from Feinstein, isn't it?), but once prosecutors are involved they wont quit.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So pretty much Benghazi hearings all over again
May 11, 2020, 12:27 PM
|
|
When was the last time any political witch hunt (Benghazi, Impeachment, etc) lead to anything?
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
its been a while. But the lies to the FISA court
May 11, 2020, 12:35 PM
|
|
are more objective and documented than things we have seen previously.
But you have a point that the goal will be to show - before Nov - that the previous administration engaged in election tampering that fits the idea of treason if not the letter of it. All they will have to work with to do that will be what Comey/Strzok/Clinton actually did. We'll see.
Regardless, they will be following the blueprint that those activities have given us: endless hearings for hearings' sake, If you loved them then, dont say you dont want what's coming.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
all true, but nothing will ever happen***
May 11, 2020, 12:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
What's been proven? I'm outside the Pubpaganda bubble.***
May 11, 2020, 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
i think the lies to the FISA court are a given now.
May 11, 2020, 12:28 PM
|
|
If so, that is not a small matter.
Just to be clear, you're on board with needing proof now?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
OK, two proven, given facts now.
May 11, 2020, 1:10 PM
|
|
#1 Obama was spying, and #2 there were lies to the FISA court.
Link? To either?
If you don't know, that's fine. Maybe someone else does.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
What kind of links do you want? That information in
May 11, 2020, 1:32 PM
|
|
the Steele file was presented to the court as reason for the warrants? That the people applying for the warrants knew that the information was false? What particular pieces of it were false (which is a lot)? Or that the file was paid for by a rival political party, a fact not given to the judge? That exculpatory info was withheld? That IG Horowitz, an Obama appointee, has stated all this? You need a link for that?
On borderline legal stuff, do you wants links to people in the Obama administration saying they had 'evidence' Trump was colluding with a foreign country, while at the same time, while under oath, telling a closed house committee meeting that they had no evidence? And that dem members of that committee would then go to the nearest cnn camera and say they did had evidence, having just heard that there was none?
No, spoon, I am not going on an errand to bring you information that has been well documented. If you want to publicly say you dont know this bottom shelf stuff, fine.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
there's a reason he doesn't know any of this
May 11, 2020, 2:06 PM
|
|
cnn and msnbc doesnt report it.
I dont blame him.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41424
Joined: 4/20/01
|
Libbies ghana be in for a shock. Dont forghet about Lying
May 11, 2020, 2:35 PM
|
|
Dickthroat Schiff
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: there's a reason he doesn't know any of this
May 11, 2020, 3:52 PM
[ in reply to there's a reason he doesn't know any of this ] |
|
Sorry, I don't get my news from garbage like you do. I don't touch CNN or MSNBC for information, nor do I go to the cesspools of propaganda that you allow to manipulate you.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
PBS isn't covering this?***
May 11, 2020, 5:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41424
Joined: 4/20/01
|
l0l!!84!!***
May 11, 2020, 8:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5001
Joined: 10/31/04
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34600]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41424
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Water be wet, HAHAHAHAHA***
May 11, 2020, 10:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
nothing proven, but a really bad look for Obama
May 11, 2020, 1:23 PM
[ in reply to What's been proven? I'm outside the Pubpaganda bubble.*** ] |
|
as seen in the evidence released on the fbi spying. Its early, but it was assumed he knew nothing of this spying. Looks like he was right in the middle of it.
But like i said in my previous post, i expect nothing to come over it. But i will say, if this was Trump, holy ####, the thunderstorm the media would be on right now, would be nuclear.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
oh, and those Obama leaks this weekend just
May 11, 2020, 1:25 PM
|
|
coincidentally coincide with these new revelations.
Take it for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Thanks. Where can one find this story?
May 11, 2020, 1:26 PM
|
|
Looking for a reliable source to learn more about this.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63824
Joined: 10/22/00
|
lol.***
May 11, 2020, 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
You're a funny guy.
May 11, 2020, 3:43 PM
[ in reply to first of all, branch out from huffpost, cnn and msnbc ] |
|
I don't spend much time on any of those media sources. If you want to pick on my news sources you need to go to the AP and Reuters, primarily.
But oh the hilarity when you come up with the "Washington Examiner" as your reliable source. But I'll read it anyway.
Shitface.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
heres a thought, google one that draws you pictures?
May 11, 2020, 3:54 PM
|
|
i aint your google asst
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: So now that it’s proven Obama was spying
May 11, 2020, 12:56 PM
|
|
Obama has a D beside his name, we democrats do no wrong. Js.
??
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I hereby certify that as true to the best of my knowledge.***
May 11, 2020, 5:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
I thought it was already known a long time ago Obama was
May 11, 2020, 1:06 PM
|
|
spying on Trump? Maybe I’m wrong. I haven’t been following the stuff recently, but what is illegal about spying? Our government spies on people all the time. And if one of his subordinates did something illegal in the act of spying, was it proven that it was ordered by Obama? Like I said, I haven’t been following this too closely recently, so maybe that was proven. If so, then I see your point.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16899
Joined: 12/2/00
|
For every bad thing Trump is accused of
May 11, 2020, 1:39 PM
|
|
He creates more accusations against the other side to further confuse the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
uh, Trump didnt create anything. Docs were finally
May 11, 2020, 1:56 PM
|
|
released. but ok
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Um, how is that treason?***
May 11, 2020, 2:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Good question. If assigned the affirmative side in a
May 11, 2020, 3:25 PM
|
|
debate, the line of presentation that comes to mind:
- I would first define treason, and the meaning of the words used in the definition. - I would then discuss the fact that several of the people involved took legally binding oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies within and without. Their oath was not to lead the country, but to defend the Constitution. - I would propose to show that the events in question were an attack directly on that Constitution as opposed to mere political maneuvering, that these were personal violations rather than legal but unallowable acts. IE, a president can legally try to do things that are later shown to be unconstitutional, and those actions must then be stopped, failure to do so then being personally illegal. To subvert the Constitution - like a military coup - is per se personally illegal. One is not told to stop a coup attempt: he is arrested and jailed. I would propose that these actions are of that nature, if not literally a coup.
Moving to the facts:
- A president and his administration set out to derail the candidacy of a person of the opposing party. - To do this they decided to engage in espionage against a US citizen that is illegal, unless.... - They get warrants from a court specifically formed to approve such spying in terrorism cases. - To get those warrants they had to lie, because no actual illegal activity was happening. - To document the lies the president's party paid a third party to compile information to be used to get the warrants. - That company got much of its information from the Russians.
Resulting action:
The Obama administration sought and paid for information from a foreign source, one considered to be an enemy of the US (though that is not actually relevant), to use to directly and illegally determine the outcome of an election, and when that failed they continued that action to attempt to remove the elected person from office. IE, purchased false information from a foreign source which was then used for illegal activities to subvert the Constitution of the United States so that a person could first be prevented from attaining office, and then removed from office.. IE, a coup attempt.
The facts and actions will not be in doubt, so the debate will be about the definition of treason and the requirements to which one is agreeing when he/she takes an oath of office. The Affirmative side would argue that the administration did not merely fail to defend the Constitution, but worked with a foreign government to directly attack it.
You, the negative side, will have countering arguments. But it would be an interesting debate would it not? And an open minded person wouldn't bet a large sum against the affirmative, would he? In other words, it is worth a shot.
The news could get very interesting in the coming months. "A man who digs a hole for another will fall into it himself." A wise man said that a long time ago. While it is becoming fashionable to not listen to him anymore, the truth from which he spoke retains its nasty habit of hanging around.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Good question. If assigned the affirmative side in a
May 11, 2020, 3:39 PM
|
|
I see your points, but the definition of treason as mapped out by the Constitution does not define such a case. Treason is betraying your country, particularly to a foreign enemy. Spying on a presidential candidate, while perhaps illegal as defined by other laws, wouldn't qualify as such.
The treason word gets thrown out a lot, particularly by the extreme right wing because, well, they're just itching for a Dem to get executed. That's all it really is. But even somewhat mentioning this word in this regard is a very dangerous path for us to explore.
Simply put, if Obama did it, it's not treason.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
The "If the president does it, its not illegal" line
May 11, 2020, 5:26 PM
|
|
has been infamously used. Was not a good tactic.
But yes, I agree, the "treason" line is thrown around too much. But it would be an interesting case to make in front of the American people. The issue put to us would be: "If one takes an oath to tell the truth, yet does not, we know what crime that is. When one takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, then instead illegally uses the national police to unseat an elected office holder, what crime is that, if not a coup?" People can prosecute in the voting booth, a prospect the dems wont like no matter what legal defenses are given for that question.
How to back away from gotcha politics was a question we should have answered before it got this far. We maybe shouldn't back away from this one.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's still not treason
May 11, 2020, 11:22 PM
|
|
And definitely not a door we want to open for a sitting or former president.
Treason is very clearly defined in our Constitution. It involves either levying war against our nation, or assisting our enemies during wartime against us. That's it. It doesn't involve breaking the oath of the Constitution or illegally using law enforcement.
If that's the case, a lot of past presidents could be held under that. And Trump probably as well.
It would not be an "interesting" case. It would be a horrible precedent from which we cannot turn back.
Look up the list of people who have been convicted of treason in the U.S. None of them come close to this. They all either tried to levy military action against the U.S. or aided/joined the enemy during a war.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Prosecuting people who lied to the FISA court,
May 12, 2020, 12:29 AM
|
|
so a sitting president could authorize the use of the FBI for partisan purposes, is "a horrible precedent from which we can not turn back"? Whether a coup attempt - using the national police to subvert an election - is treason or not is something the American people should see argued. Call it treason or something else, but we have executed people for aiding foreign countries while in peacetime. Using information supplied by Russia to attempt a coup might fall under that.
I would like to see it argued on the grounds that it subverts the Constitution with foreign help, and it would be interesting because if it does fail it will do so only because of the technical wording of, not the intent of, that section. I thing it would do us good to see that argued. Tyrants - and that is what those who attempt coups are - have to be exposed and stopped.
You are seriously suggesting we let that go? Its not going to happen - the doj is right now determining the source of the entire Russian Collusion Hoax, and they are doing so because laws were likely broken - but you thing prosecuting that is a dangerous precedent?
It might go all the way to the top, as it now seems likely that Obama authorized the hit on Flynn while knowing Flynn had done nothing wrong. Certainly Obama was in meetings where going after Flynn was discussed, the dates of those meetings being after the FBI first concluded Flynn had done nothing wrong. You think it is a dangerous precedent to seek the highest charge possible for the worst thing a president could do? If this episode is not technically treason, it is a half step down, and getting false information from the Russians to do it puts it pretty close. We need to see the facts and dates laid out, and we need to see someone go to jail. That, or you think coups are okay when your side does it.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Nope, that's not what I said.
May 12, 2020, 9:48 AM
|
|
I said trying to slap a treason charge on something like this would be a horrible precedent. And assuming what you're saying actually happened, it's not a "coup". A coup would be overthrowing the government to seize power. If Trump is removed, Obama, Dems, et al, still do not seize power.
No, it shouldn't be argued as it does not fit the definition of treason in our Constitution. That definition very clearly addresses betraying our country during wartime, waging war on our nation, or assisting a wartime enemy. Why are you wanting the government to ignore the Constitutional definition in this case?
You are seriously suggesting we let that go? Its not going to happen - the doj is right now determining the source of the entire Russian Collusion Hoax, and they are doing so because laws were likely broken - but you thing prosecuting that is a dangerous precedent?
Again, I didn't say that. I said it's not treason.
And Flynn pleaded guilty and said he wasn't entrapped. His release is cronyism, pure and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Good question. If assigned the affirmative side in a
May 11, 2020, 3:28 PM
[ in reply to Um, how is that treason?*** ] |
|
debate, the line of presentation that comes to mind:
- I would first define treason, and the meaning of the words used in the definition. - I would then discuss the fact that several of the people involved took legally binding oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies within and without. Their oath was not to lead the country, but to defend the Constitution. - I would propose to show that the events in question were an attack directly on that Constitution as opposed to mere political maneuvering, that these were personal violations rather than legal but unallowable acts. IE, a president can legally try to do things that are later shown to be unconstitutional, and those actions must then be stopped, failure to do so then being personally illegal. To subvert the Constitution - like a military coup - is per se personally illegal. One is not told to stop a coup attempt: he is arrested and jailed. I would propose that these actions are of that nature, if not literally a coup.
Moving to the facts:
- A president and his administration set out to derail the candidacy of a person of the opposing party. - To do this they decided to engage in espionage against a US citizen that is illegal, unless.... - They get warrants from a court specifically formed to approve such spying in terrorism cases. - To get those warrants they had to lie, because no actual illegal activity was happening. - To document the lies the president's party paid a third party to compile information to be used to get the warrants. - That company got much of its information from the Russians.
Resulting action:
The Obama administration sought and paid for information from a foreign source, one considered to be an enemy of the US (though that is not actually relevant), to use to directly and illegally determine the outcome of an election, and when that failed they continued that action to attempt to remove the elected person from office. IE, purchased false information from a foreign source which was then used for illegal activities to subvert the Constitution of the United States so that a person could first be prevented from attaining office, and then removed from office.. IE, a coup attempt.
The facts and actions will not be in doubt, so the debate will be about the definition of treason and the requirements to which one is agreeing when he/she takes an oath of office. The Affirmative side would argue that the administration did not merely fail to defend the Constitution, but worked with a foreign government to directly attack it.
You, the negative side, will have countering arguments. But it would be an interesting debate would it not? And an open minded person wouldn't bet a large sum against the affirmative, would he? In other words, it is worth a shot.
The news could get very interesting in the coming months. "A man who digs a hole for another will fall into it himself." A wise man said that a long time ago. While it is becoming fashionable to not listen to him anymore, the truth from which he spoke retains its nasty habit of hanging around.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3520]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4253
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: So now that it’s proven Obama was spying
May 11, 2020, 3:33 PM
|
|
I would think the current administration least of all would have any interest in setting a precedent to charge/prosecute a former POTUS....
Whether there is anything material or not, this is really nothing more than noise to try and discredit Obama...and by extension, Biden. There will be a lot of bluster through the fall and then nothing, whether Trump wins re-election or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3520]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4253
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: So now that it’s proven Obama was spying
May 11, 2020, 4:06 PM
|
|
As far as I’m concerned, anything the previous administration may have done to keep Trump out of office was justified, and those involved true Patriots.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Has anyone called you a racist for making that claim?
May 11, 2020, 5:15 PM
|
|
Let me be the first. "You racist, if Obama wasn't black you wouldn't dare accuse him of spying on a political opponent."
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3520]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4253
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: Has anyone called you a racist for making that claim?
May 11, 2020, 5:30 PM
|
|
Well, to be fair...spying accusation aside...there’s a fair portion of the electorate to which President Obama’s race was indeed a factor....pro and con.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: So now that it’s proven Obama was spying
May 11, 2020, 8:05 PM
|
|
Fake news. You will believe anything.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 49
| visibility 1,005
|
|
|