• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats must be VERY forgetful

jaeger19 said:
When trump calls into question us intelligence credibility..he puts us lives at risk. We often need to act on us intelligence abroad to save American lives..and we need foreign cooperation often to do it. When trump claims that us intelligence is not credible before the whole world..he puts us lives at risk.
Click to expand...

Then the IC shouldn't engage in politics so much, which clearly they have.

Wow..no..no.no.no.no..the Federal law enforcement nor and intelligence community ARE NOT SWORN TO THE PRESIDENT..
THEY ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!
Cripes sake man..they are not to be stooges for an authoritarian president whomever is elected.
Click to expand...
They are members of the executive branch of government and as such they are obligated and sworn to follow and comply with the president's direction, policies and orders up until those direction, policies and orders violate the law. They are not to engage in active acts of sabotage of a legitimately and lawfully elected president and his administration. That's called a coup.

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office

www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...

The Oaths are relatively straightforward, but what do they mean? I see the oath as having 3 important aspects. First, the employee swears to support and defend the Constitution against enemies. Second, they swear allegiance to the Constitution. Finally, the employee promises to do their job well.

The oath of office and what it means

Why do public servants take an oath of office? The reason is simple – public servants are just that – servants of the people.
federalnewsnetwork.com
Click to expand...

Does the 'promises to do their job well' include active acts of sabotage of a legitimately and lawfully elected president and his administration?
 
eohrnberger said:
Then the IC shouldn't engage in politics so much, which clearly they have.


They are members of the executive branch of government and as such they are obligated and sworn to follow and comply with the president's direction, policies and orders up until those direction, policies and orders violate the law. They are not to engage in active acts of sabotage of a legitimately and lawfully elected president and his administration. That's called a coup.





Does the 'promises to do their job well' include active acts of sabotage of a legitimately and lawfully elected president and his administration?
Click to expand...
The ic didn't engage in politics. Thats another trump fallacy.
Exactly they comply as long as they follow the law and the constitution. When trump started obstructing investigations..tampering with witnesses..pressuring investigations..he tried to force the fbi and the doj to break the law.
By sabotage..you mean following the law and the constitution and not bowing to the unconstitutional demands of trump.
 
jaeger19 said:
The ic didn't engage in politics. Thats another trump fallacy.
Click to expand...

Oh that's just so much bullshit. There is no bureaucracy in the world that doesn't engage in politics which they perceive to be to their benefit, especially after the Obama administration which has made practice of politicizing and weaponizing federal agencies for use as political weapons. 'Come on man!'.

Exactly they comply as long as they follow the law and the constitution. When trump started obstructing investigations..tampering with witnesses..pressuring investigations..he tried to force the fbi and the doj to break the law.
By sabotage..you mean following the law and the constitution and not bowing to the unconstitutional demands of trump.
Click to expand...
No, I mean picking up the habit of leaking any and all information that would be damaging to that administration.
If you look back at all the politically damaging leaks since 1/20/2017, hard to imagine that it is anything buy a coordinated effort. 'Come on man!'.
 
eohrnberger said:
If you look back at all the politically damaging leaks since 1/20/2017, hard to imagine that it is anything buy a coordinated effort. 'Come on man!'.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. The question is, are you going to do anything about Ivanka and her plans or are you also a part of the Deep State?
 
eohrnberger said:
Oh that's just so much bullshit. There is no bureaucracy in the world that doesn't engage in politics which they perceive to be to their benefit, especially after the Obama administration which has made practice of politicizing and weaponizing federal agencies for use as political weapons. 'Come on man!'.


No, I mean picking up the habit of leaking any and all information that would be damaging to that administration.
If you look back at all the politically damaging leaks since 1/20/2017, hard to imagine that it is anything buy a coordinated effort. 'Come on man!'.
Click to expand...
No you "come on" . The fbi..the justice department the intelligence community for decades have been apolitical. In fact going out of their way to remain apolitical.
Now..all of a sudden..Trump and his friends get in hot water and trump tries to use his influence to obstruct justice and manipulate investigations..
And suddenly the fbi..the doj and any agency that doesn't follow the trump line..are corrupt and political.
Wait..oh that's right..its obamas fault..the old go to whenever a Trumper cannot reconcile his faith in trump..with the truth.
Leaks that would be damaging to the administration???
Gee ..does that mean the administration is doing things they shouldn't?
 
phoenix2020 said:
Agreed 100%. The question is, are you going to do anything about Ivanka and her plans or are you also a part of the Deep State?
Click to expand...
As a mere member of the US electorate, other than voting, what exactly do you believe could be, or should be, done?
 
jaeger19 said:
No you "come on" . The fbi..the justice department the intelligence community for decades have been apolitical. In fact going out of their way to remain apolitical.
Click to expand...

You are trying to tell me that with a straight face after what Comey, Strzok, Page and the rest of them pulled prior to the 2016 election? And have since done? Seriously?

Already well established that Obama and his administration politicized and weaponized federal agencies including DOJ and FBI and used them as political weapons. And here you are claiming that the DOJ and FBI have gone out of their way to be 'apolitical'. There's no credibility in this position in the least.

Now..all of a sudden..Trump and his friends get in hot water and trump tries to use his influence to obstruct justice and manipulate investigations..
And suddenly the fbi..the doj and any agency that doesn't follow the trump line..are corrupt and political.
Wait..oh that's right..its obamas fault..the old go to whenever a Trumper cannot reconcile his faith in trump..with the truth.
Leaks that would be damaging to the administration???
Gee ..does that mean the administration is doing things they shouldn't?
Click to expand...
You are right in that the DOJ and FBI, as well as the CIA, DIA, etc. etc. all need to remain apolitical. They have not been in recent years. I look forward to when there will again be apolitical.
 
eohrnberger said:
As a mere member of the US electorate, other than voting, what exactly do you believe could be, or should be, done?
Click to expand...

Well first you should join me in condemning the overt fraud in TX and FL and call for an immediate investigation into irregularities in rural parts of these states. Then you and I should begin a private investigation into the links between Ted Cruz and the murder of JFK. Finally we should Stand Back and Stand By.
 
phoenix2020 said:
Well first you should join me in condemning the overt fraud in TX and FL and call for an immediate investigation into irregularities in rural parts of these states. Then you and I should begin a private investigation into the links between Ted Cruz and the murder of JFK. Finally we should Stand Back and Stand By.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: So nothing serious or practical then.
Good to know.
 
eohrnberger said:
:rolleyes: So nothing serious or practical then.
Good to know.
Click to expand...

hey do you have contact info for Mitch? Maybe he can look into this for us. He seems to be the only one pushing for the truth here. I mean he even is pushing back on Trump’s socialist $2,000 Welfare checks.
 
phoenix2020 said:
hey do you have contact info for Mitch? Maybe he can look into this for us. He seems to be the only one pushing for the truth here. I mean he even is pushing back on Trump’s socialist $2,000 Welfare checks.
Click to expand...
A laugh. Had I contact information for Mitch I would have already made use of it to give him a piece of my mind, at least on a number of occasions these last few years.
 
eohrnberger said:
You are trying to tell me that with a straight face after what Comey, Strzok, Page and the rest of them pulled prior to the 2016 election? And have since done? Seriously?

Already well established that Obama and his administration politicized and weaponized federal agencies including DOJ and FBI and used them as political weapons. And here you are claiming that the DOJ and FBI have gone out of their way to be 'apolitical'. There's no credibility in this position in the least.


You are right in that the DOJ and FBI, as well as the CIA, DIA, etc. etc. all need to remain apolitical. They have not been in recent years. I look forward to when there will again be apolitical.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. I am claiming they have been apolitical.. but you go ahead lets see your evidence..
Lets see how Obama "weaponized" the doj..and the fbi.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. I am claiming they have been apolitical.. but you go ahead lets see your evidence..
Lets see how Obama "weaponized" the doj..and the fbi.
Click to expand...
Oh geez. That's worth 100's pages of posts, most of which are already all posted all over this forum in a bunch of different threads. Don't tell me you missed them all.
I guess the thead title 'Democrats must be VERY forgetful' sees quite appropos.

How about we start with the texts between Strok and Page, reassuring each other the Trump would never become president if they had something to do with it?
We can then go to where Page, Strok and their boss were discussing an insurance policy in case Trump was elected in 2016.
From there we can go to why the CIA had an agent, Mifsud, trying to mole his way into the Trump campaign from a dozen different directions with a dozen different contacts.
How about we talk about the fraudulent FISA warrant submission to the court?

Further back in the Obama admin history any number of scandals, all unacknowledged by the admin, all marginally covered by the media who's curiosity leaves them when it's about a Democrat.
(When Obama claims no scandals, it's about as truthful as 'you can keep your Dr', and 'you can keep your plan' neither of which turned out to be true).

Yeah, the media and the Democrats have sold you a bill of goods that simply isn't there, and never was. As nearly always is the case, that which the Democrats accuse others of is what they themselves are guilty of. This has turned out to the truth so frequently is simply can no longer be ignored, and has now become the safest starting position for any accusations Democrats make.
 
eohrnberger said:
Oh geez. That's worth 100's pages of posts, most of which are already all posted all over this forum in a bunch of different threads. Don't tell me you missed them all.
I guess the thead title 'Democrats must be VERY forgetful' sees quite appropos.

How about we start with the texts between Strok and Page, reassuring each other the Trump would never become president if they had something to do with it?
We can then go to where Page, Strok and their boss were discussing an insurance policy in case Trump was elected in 2016.
From there we can go to why the CIA had an agent, Mifsud, trying to mole his way into the Trump campaign from a dozen different directions with a dozen different contacts.
How about we talk about the fraudulent FISA warrant submission to the court?

Further back in the Obama admin history any number of scandals, all unacknowledged by the admin, all marginally covered by the media who's curiosity leaves them when it's about a Democrat.
(When Obama claims no scandals, it's about as truthful as 'you can keep your Dr', and 'you can keep your plan' neither of which turned out to be true).

Yeah, the media and the Democrats have sold you a bill of goods that simply isn't there, and never was. As nearly always is the case, that which the Democrats accuse others of is what they themselves are guilty of. This has turned out to the truth so frequently is simply can no longer be ignored, and has now become the safest starting position for any accusations Democrats make.
Click to expand...
Sure let's talk.
Link to exactly the emails and discussions with strok and page. Then link to how they falsified evidence. Then link to evidence that Obama got them to do it.
Yes then after that link about how and why the cia tried to initiate the campaign. Please link to the evidence of the damage to the campaign that came from that. The link to evidence of obamas personal involvement or knowledge.
Then link to the evidence of the fraudulent fish warrant.. and its purpose.and the damage it did.
I believe your evidence is as non existent as the Trump and his followers claim of systemic voter fraud.
So let's see your links please.
 
Nancy Pelosi, who is 80 years old, was re-elected Speaker of the US House of Representatives.
Democracy has always been a strong advocate for the succession of power, for young reformers, for bold experiments.
In other countries.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure let's talk.
Link to exactly the emails and discussions with strok and page. Then link to how they falsified evidence. Then link to evidence that Obama got them to do it.
Yes then after that link about how and why the cia tried to initiate the campaign. Please link to the evidence of the damage to the campaign that came from that. The link to evidence of obamas personal involvement or knowledge.
Then link to the evidence of the fraudulent fish warrant.. and its purpose.and the damage it did.
I believe your evidence is as non existent as the Trump and his followers claim of systemic voter fraud.
So let's see your links please.
Click to expand...
Not inclined to go on the wild goose chase, chase down citations for all your demands, present them just to have you re-state your disbelief.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not inclined to go on the wild goose chase, chase down citations for all your demands, present them just to have you re-state your disbelief.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. because you have nothing.
You have what.. a FBI lawyer.. and an FBI agent out of probably dozens that work on the Russian case... and you have extrapolated it to "a weaponized FBI".
You don;t have any evidence of Obama.. you have no evidence of any changing of evidence etc.
All you have is two FBI folks.. a lawyer and an agent.. who discussed the investigation into Russian influence into getting trump elected. and discussed which path the investigation should take based on whether Trump would get elected or not.
IF he was not going to get elected despite the Russians... it would be better to investigate slowly and surely and catch as many at it as you could. Going directly at the players could tip the russians off to the investigation and where they were and could cause some of the russians to get away or for them to hide their operation.
On the other hand.. if Trump was going to get elected because of help from the Russians... then maybe it was important to go hard at the Russians and stop them from influencing the election. Of course that would likely mean that the Russians would be able to hide assests,, and players etc.

So thats what you got.. and you have extrapolated those two individuals..among hundreds of agents... into a widespread conspiracy.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. because you have nothing.
You have what.. a FBI lawyer.. and an FBI agent out of probably dozens that work on the Russian case... and you have extrapolated it to "a weaponized FBI".
Click to expand...

Yes. There was.
​
Jun 13, 2018 — In reality, the FBI has been politically weaponized for almost a century. The FBI was in the forefront of the notorious Red Scare raids of 1919 and ...​

The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

Both these books heavily foot noted and cited, if you really care to get at the truth.

You don;t have any evidence of Obama.. you have no evidence of any changing of evidence etc.
Click to expand...

If there wasn't any evidence that the FBI lawyer altered evidence, why'd he plead guilty to exactly that?
​
Aug 19, 2020 — WASHINGTON — A former F.B.I. lawyer pleaded guilty on Wednesday to doctoring an email from the C.I.A. that he forwarded to a colleague ...​
​
Aug 19, 2020 — A former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty Wednesday to falsifying a document investigators relied on to renew court-authorized surveillance of former ...​
​
Aug 19, 2020 — Former FBI attorney pleads guilty in Durham probe. Kevin Clinesmith admitted to altering an email used to seek surveillance warrants against ...​
​

All you have is two FBI folks.. a lawyer and an agent.. who discussed the investigation into Russian influence into getting trump elected. and discussed which path the investigation should take based on whether Trump would get elected or not.
Click to expand...
No, there's far more to it than that. That's just the leftist media, DNC political propaganda arm, version of it.
IF he was not going to get elected despite the Russians... it would be better to investigate slowly and surely and catch as many at it as you could. Going directly at the players could tip the russians off to the investigation and where they were and could cause some of the russians to get away or for them to hide their operation.
On the other hand.. if Trump was going to get elected because of help from the Russians... then maybe it was important to go hard at the Russians and stop them from influencing the election. Of course that would likely mean that the Russians would be able to hide assests,, and players etc.

So thats what you got.. and you have extrapolated those two individuals..among hundreds of agents... into a widespread conspiracy.
Click to expand...
No, there's far more to that tangled web of deception, if you dare to look into it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes. There was.
​
Jun 13, 2018 — In reality, the FBI has been politically weaponized for almost a century. The FBI was in the forefront of the notorious Red Scare raids of 1919 and ...​

The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

Both these books heavily foot noted and cited, if you really care to get at the truth.



If there wasn't any evidence that the FBI lawyer altered evidence, why'd he plead guilty to exactly that?
​
Aug 19, 2020 — WASHINGTON — A former F.B.I. lawyer pleaded guilty on Wednesday to doctoring an email from the C.I.A. that he forwarded to a colleague ...​
​
Aug 19, 2020 — A former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty Wednesday to falsifying a document investigators relied on to renew court-authorized surveillance of former ...​
​
Aug 19, 2020 — Former FBI attorney pleads guilty in Durham probe. Kevin Clinesmith admitted to altering an email used to seek surveillance warrants against ...​
​


No, there's far more to it than that. That's just the leftist media, DNC political propaganda arm, version of it.

No, there's far more to that tangled web of deception, if you dare to look into it.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. again you have nothing. Yes.. there is no evidence that STRZOK AND LISA PAGE.. the "fbi agent and "fbi lawyer" you brought up.. doctored evidence. All there is some emails discussing how to go about the investigation based on whether Trump could win (which means that the investigation into russian interference might have to go faster and be more direct to end any russian influence)..or whether Trump was likely to lose.. which means the investigation could go more slowly and be more likely to get more of the bad actors.

You are confusing the emails of Strzok And PAGE with another FBI lawyer.

And what.. you have extrapolated that to A "weaponized FBI" and "it was obamas fault"... based on nothing.


And what did you link to? Gee.. an opinion piece and Amazon ads for two books. How about YOU do some reading.. and then maybe form an educated opinion and linking some actual evidence to it... not just "but but.. here is a book who has a title I like".

Come on man.

You say there is far more to it than that? Great.. bring it.. link to some actual evidence.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. again you have nothing. Yes.. there is no evidence that STRZOK AND LISA PAGE.. the "fbi agent and "fbi lawyer" you brought up.. doctored evidence. All there is some emails discussing how to go about the investigation based on whether Trump could win (which means that the investigation into russian interference might have to go faster and be more direct to end any russian influence)..or whether Trump was likely to lose.. which means the investigation could go more slowly and be more likely to get more of the bad actors.

You are confusing the emails of Strzok And PAGE with another FBI lawyer.

And what.. you have extrapolated that to A "weaponized FBI" and "it was obamas fault"... based on nothing.


And what did you link to? Gee.. an opinion piece and Amazon ads for two books. How about YOU do some reading.. and then maybe form an educated opinion and linking some actual evidence to it... not just "but but.. here is a book who has a title I like".

Come on man.

You say there is far more to it than that? Great.. bring it.. link to some actual evidence.
Click to expand...
Not confusing anyone with anything. One FBI lawyer altered evidence. The other FBI lawyer had an affair with Strok and kept Corssfire-Hurrcain going, when it should have been closed. And, the same guy let Hillary slip out from under her email scandal.

No. It is you who are in error in believing that the DOJ / FBI weren't politicized, and weren't politicized during and by the Obama administration.

I gave you your starting point. Don't want to take it? Don't want to know. . . . Kinda figures.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not confusing anyone with anything. One FBI lawyer altered evidence. The other FBI lawyer had an affair with Strok and kept Corssfire-Hurrcain going, when it should have been closed. And, the same guy let Hillary slip out from under her email scandal.

No. It is you who are in error in believing that the DOJ / FBI weren't politicized, and weren't politicized during and by the Obama administration.

I gave you your starting point. Don't want to take it? Don't want to know. . . . Kinda figures.
Click to expand...

I have already read up on the issue. Thats how I know that there is no evidence of the Intelligence community being "weaponized"..in the last 40 years.. and in particularly.. no evidence of being weaponized by the obama administration.

I offered you an opportunity to give some solid evidence of your claims. You didn;t provide any evidence other than that one lawyer in the FBI lied about altering evidence and was convicted.. thats it.
I asked for any link that would establish a weaponized FBI or intelligence community.. and all you do is say "but but .. look it up". . Kinda figures.
 
jaeger19 said:
I have already read up on the issue. Thats how I know that there is no evidence of the Intelligence community being "weaponized"..in the last 40 years.. and in particularly.. no evidence of being weaponized by the obama administration.

I offered you an opportunity to give some solid evidence of your claims. You didn;t provide any evidence other than that one lawyer in the FBI lied about altering evidence and was convicted.. thats it.
I asked for any link that would establish a weaponized FBI or intelligence community.. and all you do is say "but but .. look it up". . Kinda figures.
Click to expand...
I give you citations and you disbelieve / refute them.
Why would my giving you yet more citations change that?
I don't believe that it would.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

Be well, and have a good evening. The events of the day have overtaken the priority of this conversation by far.
 
The Mark said:
2020 isn't 2016.

I was far more concerned that Trump would win in 2016, things look better this time around.

Biden doesn't have the baggage of Clinton, and people have had 4 years of Trump to contemplate on.

I think Biden will win, and possibly significantly.

I am, of course, not positive this will occur, it just seems likely.
Click to expand...
Joe is a liar, who didn't graduate at the top of his law school class with 3 degrees. He extorted the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor to protect his son who was peddling influence to the VP, and likely taking money himself. Joe set up his son to take millions from Russian,and from China and there is evidence Joe took money as well. Joe sniffed and fondled his way through Congress and even had a women accuse him of sexual assault, (ME TOO) doesn't matter now.
 
eohrnberger said:
I give you citations and you disbelieve / refute them.
Why would my giving you yet more citations change that?
I don't believe that it would.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

Be well, and have a good evening. The events of the day have overtaken the priority of this conversation by far.
Click to expand...
No.. you DIDN"T give me citations. You gave me a link to two BOOKS..and not even the books themselves but an Amazon advertisement.

You gave me an OPINON piece.. who didn't have any citations other than an opinion.

And you gave ONE link to an article that an FBI lawyer pled guilty to altering evidence.

So basically.. you gave me nothing..

So basically you should change it to "Eorhnberger can lead a person to the Kool Aid.. but he can;t make them drink".
Sorry dude.. I am not drinking your Kool Aid... provide some actual EVIDENCE.. something... and then we can discuss.. but so far.. you got nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom