|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 9:54:59 GMT -8
Trust me, I know exactly how you feel...better hope trump doesn't win reelection. Impeachment whine: Trump thinks Republicans weren't tough on Obama. Believe me, we were.What would Republicans have done to Barack Obama? Everything Democrats are doing to Trump and more. I know because I choreographed the GOP barrage.
President Donald Trump started his Saturday morning routine with a tweet: “Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!”
Setting aside the appalling use of the word “savages” to describe two Jewish members of Congress and a woman of color, the president’s “what if” scenario reveals how ignorant he is of some very recent history. This very decade opened with Republicans launching an investigatory barrage into the presidency of Barack Obama.
I know, because I was there choreographing it.
An acute case of Trump amnesia?
From 2009 to 2013, I was the spokesperson and senior adviser for Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under the leadership of Rep. Darrell Issa. During their time in the majority, the Oversight Committee alone issued more than 100 subpoenas to the Obama administration. Upon becoming chair of the committee, Issa declared his intention to hold “seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks.”
In the spring of 2011, a government whistleblower prompted House and Senate Republicans to initiate an investigation into the “Operation Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking operation. The investigation lasted for more thansix years and included an Oversight Committee vote to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over what Republicans believed was an abuse of executive privilege.
In case Trump is suffering from an acute attack of amnesia, he should be reminded that in the summer of 2012, House Republicans filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in federal court over its use of executive privilege and ultimately won, with Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruling that “Congress could seek to enforce its duly issued subpoena.”
For House Republicans, Fast and Furious was just act one of their oversight agenda. In the fall of 2012, Republicans launched what would turn out to be afour-year investigation into the attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. This is the investigation that would unearth then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, a move that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy openly admitted was part of a “strategy to fight and win” the 2016 election.
We didn't have corruption evidence
Just for context, the investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller lasted for a little less than two years. While in control of Congress, House Republicans launched not one, not two but three multiyear investigations that each lasted longer than the Mueller probe. The third of these investigations was initiated in 2013 into the IRS’ alleged targeting scandal. It was eventually debunked as baseless, with even the Trump administration declaring in 2017 that prosecuting the matter “would not be appropriate based on the available evidence.”
The reality is our committee never had anything close to the severity and volume of smoking gun evidence of corruption that exists right now, and we still managed to hold hundreds of oversight hearings, issue hundreds of subpoenas and conduct multiple multiyear investigations.(emphasis added) www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/30/impeachment-trump-forgets-republicans-investigated-obama-column/3813132002/I'd have to say that you should just "get over it". |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 31, 2019 11:53:53 GMT -8
This ass hat has zero interest (Neither ability) to rationally discuss any given topic.
I am not sure why anyone bothers.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 12:40:51 GMT -8
Hey shit-for-brains, I thought you had me on ignore. Go figure.
I am discussing the topic, moron.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 31, 2019 16:30:08 GMT -8
Heh, heh, heh...
If ass hat is answering me, I’m going out on a limb, here, and guessing he still doesn’t comprehend the “ignore” feature.
What a Beavis.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 31, 2019 20:00:36 GMT -8
Trust me, I know exactly how you feel...better hope trump doesn't win reelection. Impeachment whine: Trump thinks Republicans weren't tough on Obama. Believe me, we were.What would Republicans have done to Barack Obama? Everything Democrats are doing to Trump and more. I know because I choreographed the GOP barrage.
President Donald Trump started his Saturday morning routine with a tweet: “Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!”
Setting aside the appalling use of the word “savages” to describe two Jewish members of Congress and a woman of color, the president’s “what if” scenario reveals how ignorant he is of some very recent history. This very decade opened with Republicans launching an investigatory barrage into the presidency of Barack Obama.
I know, because I was there choreographing it.
An acute case of Trump amnesia?
From 2009 to 2013, I was the spokesperson and senior adviser for Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under the leadership of Rep. Darrell Issa. During their time in the majority, the Oversight Committee alone issued more than 100 subpoenas to the Obama administration. Upon becoming chair of the committee, Issa declared his intention to hold “seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks.”
In the spring of 2011, a government whistleblower prompted House and Senate Republicans to initiate an investigation into the “Operation Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking operation. The investigation lasted for more thansix years and included an Oversight Committee vote to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over what Republicans believed was an abuse of executive privilege.
In case Trump is suffering from an acute attack of amnesia, he should be reminded that in the summer of 2012, House Republicans filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in federal court over its use of executive privilege and ultimately won, with Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruling that “Congress could seek to enforce its duly issued subpoena.”
For House Republicans, Fast and Furious was just act one of their oversight agenda. In the fall of 2012, Republicans launched what would turn out to be afour-year investigation into the attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. This is the investigation that would unearth then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, a move that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy openly admitted was part of a “strategy to fight and win” the 2016 election.
We didn't have corruption evidence
Just for context, the investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller lasted for a little less than two years. While in control of Congress, House Republicans launched not one, not two but three multiyear investigations that each lasted longer than the Mueller probe. The third of these investigations was initiated in 2013 into the IRS’ alleged targeting scandal. It was eventually debunked as baseless, with even the Trump administration declaring in 2017 that prosecuting the matter “would not be appropriate based on the available evidence.”
The reality is our committee never had anything close to the severity and volume of smoking gun evidence of corruption that exists right now, and we still managed to hold hundreds of oversight hearings, issue hundreds of subpoenas and conduct multiple multiyear investigations.(emphasis added) www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/30/impeachment-trump-forgets-republicans-investigated-obama-column/3813132002/I'd have to say that you should just "get over it". Thank you for reminding us of all the corruption that went on during Obama's eight years in Washington, D.C. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 1, 2019 2:49:37 GMT -8
Hey Butthead, you're the one supposed to be ignoring me...please do.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 1, 2019 3:00:16 GMT -8
No problem, but I don't suppose you'll remember how little there was by tomorrow. How many people were jailed as a result of these many scandals? Do you know? Can you guess? I think you can.
Do you also remember the numerous multi-year investigations perpetrated by angry Republicans that found NOTHING who are now hypocritically complaining about the investigations of trump?
Don't forget..."Just for context, the investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller lasted for a little less than two years. While in control of Congress, House Republicans launched not one, not two but three multiyear investigations that each lasted longer than the Mueller probe. The third of these investigations was initiated in 2013 into the IRS’ alleged targeting scandal. It was eventually debunked as baseless, with even the Trump administration declaring in 2017 that prosecuting the matter “would not be appropriate based on the available evidence.”
How many angry republicans were shouting about the IRS scandal being "worse than watergate" and it turned out to be completely baseless....go figure.
But hey...if you really want to talk about the scandals that plagued Obama we can do that. It won't make trump look better, but....
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 1, 2019 11:34:46 GMT -8
No problem, but I don't suppose you'll remember how little there was by tomorrow. How many people were jailed as a result of these many scandals? So now corruption is evidence of a lack of scandal? Wow... Remember the phrase "One lies and the other swears to it"? That is the Obama administration in a nutshell. Scandals went unchecked because the Obama administration chose not to investigate or prosecute, despite clear evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 1, 2019 12:46:13 GMT -8
I know...that's the way you think...lack of evidence of a crime just proves there was a cover-up. I'm left awestruck by your critical thinking skills.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 1, 2019 13:17:14 GMT -8
I know...that's the way you think...lack of evidence of a crime just proves there was a cover-up. I'm left awestruck by your critical thinking skills. VP, my response was a reasonable rejoinder with nothing personal. You chose to respond with snark. If you want our conversations to return to our previous versions, I'll will be happy to oblige. However, if I make the effort to not make personal attacks in our back & forth, I am asking you to do the same. Fair enough? There was never a lack of evidence with the Obama scandals. For example, Hillary had a personal email server. That is not lack of evidence, that is an accepted fact by everyone. EVERYONE. The fact that she was not prosecuted for this crime was the corruption. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Nov 1, 2019 22:49:38 GMT -8
No problem, but I don't suppose you'll remember how little there was by tomorrow. How many people were jailed as a result of these many scandals? Do you know? Can you guess? I think you can. Are you seriously proposing this as a criteria to determine whether an administration engaged in wrongdoing? If no one was "jailed" it's like it never happened? This kind of juvenile logic might hold water with dim bulbs like Wabash, but not here. Just stop embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 2, 2019 1:39:41 GMT -8
Well, when you can't argue the point I made, make one of your own and argue against that...
I didn't say there wasn't any evidence did I?
What I said, and what you can't dispute, is that there was NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. Argue that.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 2, 2019 1:53:25 GMT -8
Yes, of course that's the criteria we should use. We should, using our criminal justice system, prosecute criminal wrongdoers. If we are unable to do this for some reason, we shouldn't refer to those people as criminals...since they haven't been convicted of a crime. Now, I'm perfectly ok with calling someone a criminal if they were convicted of a crime but were not "jailed", but I'm not ok with calling someone a "criminal" because you don't like them, they have a "D" in front of their name or some other silly reason.
Anyone jailed in Obama's "scandals"? No? Forgive me, but those aren't really very big or important scandals are they.
Oh, so you've come up with better system of determining who's committed crimes and who hasn't? Let's hear it. I await your response with no embarrassment whatsoever.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 2, 2019 11:03:17 GMT -8
What I said, and what you can't dispute, is that there was NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. Argue that. To keep things on track, lets continue to use Hillary's server scandal as an example. The personal server used was evidence of a crime, that was never disputed. No one, from the FBI to both parties in Congress, ever contended that that evidence did not exist. It was the dead body found in the vacant apartment. Comey and the Dems argued that for Hillary to be convicted, she had to show intent that she knew it was a crime. The crime could be committed, they contended, but if she did not show intent, she would not be prosecuted. Their contention was not based on law, it was a false standard that they created in order to not charge her. Hence, the corruption led to the lack of an arrest. A crime was committed, the person who committed it was known & the the prosecutor chose to not charge them. That is not a sign of a lack of scandal, that is a sign of corruption. As an aside, as I wrote this I realized how similar the summary of this was to the Jussie Smollett scandal. Hillary Smollett?  |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 2, 2019 11:18:37 GMT -8
... we shouldn't refer to those people as criminals...since they haven't been convicted of a crime. I am going to address this from the context of people having a conversation, not folks being in a courtroom. The problem with choosing to not refer to people who broke the law as criminals is that it excludes incompetence or corruption from the picture. As examples, following the original OJ trial, Simpson was a criminal who had not been convicted of the crime. Richard Nixon died as a criminal who had never been convicted of his crime. Yet following the standard above, we wouldn't refer to either of them as criminals when a reasonable person can plainly see that they are. If you witness a man stealing from a store but no charges are ever brought, that man is still a criminal. Maybe not in the eyes of the law, but in your eyes who saw the crime being committed. In me having a conversation with you, we do not have the standards of a court of law nor do we have a presumption of innocence. There is nothing inappropriate about calling Richard Nixon a criminal or saying that he ordered the Watergate break-ins even though he was never convicted of that crime. |
|
