Some names flipped around, but the same arguments, evidence (or lack thereof), and process?
Be honest.
lol apparently none!
Dems agreed with whatever Obama did, whether it was deporting kids and families or dropping bombs on Syrian refugees, they said nothing and supported him.
They allowed him to bypass a complete branch of government and enact policy via executive order. If you ask me, that's proof of indoctrination and ZERO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT.
shareThey would scream blue murder over the GOP hurting their darling little brown demigod.
shareSo no Democrats would support impeaching Obama if this same case had been brought against him?
For the record neither would I. There were so many better reasons to impeach Obama, though even on those (e.g. IRS abuse, Fast and Furious) I would have supported real investigations by a special prosecutor to elicit all the pertinent facts before deciding whether to support impeachment or not.
Well said. This case would never have been brought against Obama as this case has no supporting evidence and isnβt a case at all.
share[deleted]
I'm not a democrat but I would fully support impeachment of Obama if he had been guilty of the same crimes.
I would hope all democrats would feel the same way. Partisanship is destroying our country.
And the creep-o-publicans have created this environment. Remember "You lie"? Why is Gorsuch even on the Supreme Court? Pubs have been pushing partisanship hard for decades, while delivering mediocre candidates who gut the middle class for the enrichment of the 1%. The outrage they claim now is utterly disingenuous and of their own making. I feel like our whole democracy is being stealthily undermined by a movement that supports autocrats and oligarchs. And they hide behind Patriotism as a diversion for their awful abuse to gain power to make us all weaker.
shareAgreed. The autocrats and oligarchs seem to win no matter what. They rig the system to benefit them, and if someone complains about it or tries to un-rig the system one iota, that person is declared a commie.
Unfortunately it has to do with the willingness that conservatives have to be ruled. They get off on authority figures that exude dominance.
Which explains why they push their fake-Christian agendas so much: One god to rule them all. That is where they fail, however, as the bible clearly states that the ANTICHRIST will come along claiming to be "the chosen one" and will amass a following. That's exactly what Donald Trump is doing.
Now, I don't believe he's the Antichrist (I gave up the Christian religion many years ago and became rather agnostic over the years), but I find it frightening how much Donald fits the bill if you read some of those passages that describe him: Blonde-haired/blue-eyed, hails from the east (wasn't Donald's family from Germany originally?), will lead the biggest empire of the world (America has been referred to as such in the past), will strike a 7-year peace treaty with Israel (isn't Donald all about 'making Israel great again' these days? Many Trumpers even THINK he fulfills this prophecy and are HAPPY about it, which confuses me since it only would confirm he's the Antichrist), refers to himself as a chosen one by god, his officials think of him as such, his followers think of him as such, will build a temple in Israel (haven't we heard rumblings about him wanting to build something there?), will require people to receive a mark in order to buy/sell goods (hasn't he entertained the idea of "marking" immigrants before?), will establish a one-world government (With how authoritarian and isolationist Donald and his policies are, it's not inconceivable to think that he'd love for America to envelop the entire world), etc. The list goes on and on.
While I don't put any stock in the bible anymore, I must say that Donald really fits the bill, doesn't he? There's only one caveat here--the Antichrist is supposed to be young and handsome so that puts ol' Cheeto shit out of luck, LOL!
Bottom line, Donald Trump is proof that a theoretical Antichrist could amass such a prophesied following of supporters who would think he's the son of God and it's frightening to contemplate.
Now, I don't believe he's the Antichrist (I gave up the Christian religion many years ago and became rather agnostic over the years), but I find it frightening how much Donald fits the bill if you read some of those passages that describe him: Blonde-haired/blue-eyed,
hails from the east (wasn't Donald's family from Germany originally?)
Of course. That's been obvious from Day 1. Just look at at Donald at his rallies. JUST like a dictator. Look at how nicely he treats the likes of Putin and Kim. Look at how one of his favorite presidents was Andrew Jackson. ANDREW...JACKSON. And then there's the matter of that book about Hitler's rallies that someone brought up. Apparently, that's the one book Donald WILL read.
shareI'm sure it would be divided among democrats.
What wouldn't be divided are the republicans who would all declare him a criminal, just like they did to Hillary for owning a private email server.
Divided? Conflicted maybe, but virtually zero democrats would want to impeach Obama for that. I'm sure it would be a scandal, but democrats would be running defense. A tiny few wanted to impeach him for war crimes, but some BS about forcing a country to investigate a candidate's corruption? Not buying it. As far as the Hillary thing, leaking classified info, anyone else would have gone to jail, so I can't really sympathize.
shareNo. Divided. We've never seen Obama do anything like this so it's all hearsay anyway.
The problem with Trump defenders is you assume the narrative that what Biden did was corrupt. The only way it's corrupt is if Shokin did not deserve to be removed as prosecutor general. No Trumper even attempts to come to Shokin's defense, yet you all say Biden was corrupt for doing it.
The reality is Trump didn't even care whether Zelensky investigated Biden or not. Trump just wanted Zelensky to make a public announcement, and then he'd get his aid. Any investigation like this should not only be started by the DOJ and not the president, but it should be kept quiet as to not interfere with anything. Trump specifically wanted it to interfere, which is why he asked for a public announcement.
Also, Hillary didn't leak classified info. She was guilty of sending classified emails to people who were allowed to see them, but she marked them incorrectly. And obviously it had no connection to Benghazi. All political theater.
After all the "lock her up" talk, not a single republican has tried to even indict her for anything. Trump cohorts are being indicted left and right. "Lock her up" was just a bullshit meme Trumpers repeated to help get Trump elected. It never had any legal teeth to it.
I'm starting to remember some of these details now. Apparently the emails weren't marked as Hillary told them not to, because her private server wasn't receiving them with the markings attached. We don't have any evidence that she intentionally leaked anything, but the whole point of not using your own server is they are easy to hack. We have no idea if the server was hacked, because she destroyed the evidence, reportedly with coffee and a hammer. As a cynic, I wouldn't be surprised if she intentionally set it up to be hackable by someone. I still say anyone else would be in jail.
I don't dispute your narrative of what Trump implied as far as a public announcement of an investigation, I just doubt strongly that Obama era democrats would say let's impeach Obama. I think emoluments is the thing to impeach Trump on, but they didn't include it, so I have a hard time believing they actually want to impeach. I figure this is just a distraction from the patriot act renewal. Pelosi admitted Trump helps her fundraising, she probably wants him reelected. This is why I'm not a democrat.
The FBI checked all classified emails that were sent out. They were all to people that were allowed to see them. The right-wing conspiracy theory is that there's something evil in the 30,000+ emails that were deleted by the IT guy who used the program Bleachbit. She asked him to set emails to delete automatically every month, something nobody would've cared about. But because he forgot and panicked, using Bleachbit to do it all in a hurry, she's now permanently condemned for deleting something nefarious.
The whole point of her private server was to keep republicans out. Repubs wanted to go through her emails to find another 'blue dress' moment like they did in the 90s. Her server prevented it. So they made the server itself the 'blue dress.'
It's not her server that was incorrectly protected. It was her lack of password security on her mobile devices. And the reason they were smashed is because she would often get a newer model of phone and use it for a few days, then go back to the older one because she understood how to use it better. The people working for her would destroy the newer models, but the sim data would be transferred to her phone. No data was ever destroyed or hidden by the smashing of phones. That's a complete misunderstanding of how cell phones work.
Her server is the one we know for a fact did not get hacked. The DNC server got hacked by Guccifer 2.0 (Russia's Fancy Bear). That was released through Wikileaks. Certain members of the RNC got their emails hacked, also by Guccifer 2.0. That was released through DC Leaks. Yet not a single leak from Hillary's server was ever released. There are other ways to trace unwanted IP's that are peering in. None of that was ever discovered. Her server was never hacked.
Creating that private email server was potentially the smartest thing Hillary did. But when it came to her mobile devices, she needed to be smarter in case somebody nabbed one of them. Thankfully nobody did.
Guccifer 2.0 was a proven hoax, so you either don't know what you're talking about or are a deliberate propaganda pusher.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
I'm not talking about her destroying mobile devices, I'm talking about her destroying the actual server the data was stored on.
And you can't know for a fact, because the server was never investigated. That's just a complete misunderstanding of how evidence destruction works.
Also, Podesta was the victim of a basic phishing scam, not a remote hack.
Either way, after that comment about "smartest thing Hillary did" I'm about ready to write you off as too ridiculous to even take seriously. If there's any more propaganda you'd like to throw at someone who clearly has a grasp of the material, do so quickly.
You are talking out of your conspiratorial ass. Guccifer 2.0 was proven on multiple occasions to be Russians impersonating Romanians. They got busted using a Russian-to-Romanian translator. They got busted failing to turn on their VPN, pinging themselves right in the goddamn Kremlin.
The ones pushing that bullshit narrative that Guccifer 2.0 is a hoax is Roger Stone and INFOWARS. So they concocted another conspiracy involving Crowdstrike, the outfit that discovered Guccifer 2.0 is Russian. That is why Trump included an investigation into Crowdstrike in his conversation with Zelensky.
The FBI investigated her server. I have no idea what you're on about, and I doubt you do either. You can't articulate a valid counterpoint that stays on track. All you're doing is engaging in Obama Kenyan birth certificate, Seth Rich, Sandy Hook false flag nonsense, and then whining because I had a personal opinion about something. If there's nothing leaked from a server, that is infinitely more evidence that it was not hacked, than there is evidence that it was hacked or hackable. Trump asked Russia to hack into a government server, suggesting there would be a reward, and still got nothing. Hell, if Obama just did that alone, repubs would've impeached.
You haven't discredited anything I wrote, just made contrary assertions. If you could back up your shit with logic, how about doing so? "It was proven" isn't logic, that's you regurgitating some shit you were spoonfed. What's the actual proof? Do you even know?? Anyone can read the link I posted to see you discredited on the DNC Wikileaks issue. RIP Seth Rich
shareIn September 2015, FBI investigators were engaged in sorting messages recovered from the server.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/fbi-said-to-recover-personal-e-mails-from-hillary-clinton-server
Lol, "To continue reading this article, you must be a Bloomberg News subscriber.
Try 3 months for $105 $6. Cancel anytime."
So apparently the story is they eventually recovered the deleted emails, which seems to suggest they had access to the server. Fine, I can't assert that didn't happen. And I had no idea about the guy claiming to be Guccifer being Romanian, guess I never cared.
Actually, I'm ready to stop citing the VIPS report, because I looked into it further and the main claim that had me convinced, the part about the transfer speeds, was called into question. Trying to base a "conspiracy" conclusion off of the rest of the report is just not worth doing, because even if it turns out that Guccifer did hack the emails and was a Kremlin agent, it wouldn't matter to me, as far as what the emails revealed. That would just be evidence that countries hack each other, which I already knew. But you did convince me to stop firmly asserting that there was no hack. I will keep an open mind.
Fair enough. It would appear you are not neck deep in conspiracy land as I had previously assumed.
The Seth Rich conspiracy theory has indeed been debunked though. The only thing that ever made it appear legitimate was Julian Assange's little head nod when asked if Seth Rich was the leaker, where Assange said Wikileaks doesn't reveal their sources. It was a terrible move on his part. In his defense, he didn't know Guccifer 2.0 was Russian either. The premise was that Guccifer 2.0 was the Romanian protege of the legendary Guccifer who indeed is Romanian. Assange fell for it as did many back in 2016.
Ok, I see you edited your post. Well, the info in my link just says they pasted into a Russian language template, so I have no idea where the Romanian thing comes in, or where to see who can explain what they mean on that. I also can't say where you got the idea that the server was investigated, but it's theoretically possible that it happened and people just claimed otherwise. I'd have to research into that, so cheers for posting something that couldn't be debunked instantly.
And yep, Seth Rich is the most probable leaker. But that's a whole other matter based on a lot of circumstantial and hearsay.
You are neck deep in conspiracy land. Everything about Seth Rich being the leaker has been debunked from the evidence of his mugging down to the lack of access he was privy to. That's why Hannity stopped talking about it.
You cannot be rationalized with if you believe these things. I mean, think about it. You started this conversation saying Hillary leaked classified info. Then when you got caught talking out of your ass, you changed it to 'well we could've found out if she didn't delete her stuff.' You are not interested in an actual discussion about truth or facts.
You're also not interested in hearing the truth about Trump. None of the Trumptards are. They say "maybe Hunter did something we don't know about, and maybe we can use that as a reason to justify a Joe Biden investigation" yet the guy that knows everything is Rudy Giuliani. None of you want to hear from Giuliani, the actual source of everything, because you want Trump to get away with it.
If Trump gets away with it, that means any president can ask a foreign country to publicly announce an investigation into a political opponent during an election year or any time for that matter. If any president other than Trump tried that crap, you'd call for his head. But since it's Trump, it's all good.
You're sure it would be divided among democrats? How do you know this, exactly?
You left out the harboring classified docs on her private server and you left out she bleached the server AFTER the emails were subpoenaed. Just FYI.
Nope. Discussed all of that with Carter. You just didn't care to read. Because you're just here to waste my time.
shareYour answer sucks. The thread question is a hypothetical and you answer saying that Obama would never do something like that. What kind of a stupid answer is that to a hypothetical? Oh yeah. Ducking and dodging. What else is new, eh angry phony boy? π€ͺπ€ͺπ€ͺ
share