- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 44,397
- Reaction score
- 31,670
- Location
- The Bay
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
We were talking about civil liberties. You do understand there is a difference?
Who voted that hurt your civil rights?
Not even close, I don't remember the GOP trying to overthrow the will of 63 million Americans.
Do you remember when Obama refused to cooperate with Congress on their various investigations? Did anyone think that was impeachment worthy? No... gee what changed? Oh a Republican is in office, you were told to be outraged, and turn on the hate.... you obliged.
Forgot Clinton already? All he did was have sex with an intern and lie about it.
Made up crap. Didn't happen. One "Can't remember" what never happened. If there were facts to support such tripe one could cite to it.
If anyone thinks Clinton's impeachment had anything to do with sex or lying they weren't paying attention. Clinton was the most popular and effective president Republicans had ever seen at that point, and Gingrich was determined to take him down by any means. How soon people forget their own history.
That is revisionist history bs if I ever saw it. Clinton was a sex predator abusing his position of power to take advantage of a young woman working for him, and he lied under oath and you're saying that was A-OK... I guess metoo doesn't apply if you're a Democrat?
Nice deflection, care to try disproving any of them>
We were talking about civil liberties. You do understand there is a difference?
I didn't see anything about millions of undocumented workers casting votes in CA. Saying something happened is quite different from claiming an event happened. You might want to read this one...
Mexican Man Who Said He’s A Trump Supporter Convicted Of Voter Fraud In California – CBS Sacramento
Wait, you really think I made that up?
Obama Administration Scandals: Inspectors General Systematically Stymied, Ignored | National Review
The "current leadership" was OBAMA appointees. In the letter, they specifically noted"while current Department leadership has supported our ability to access records, agency leadership changes over time, and our access to records should not turn on the views of the Department’s leadership.
Further, we understand that other Department components that exercise oversight over Department programs and personnel, such as the Department’s office of professional responsibility, continue to be given access to these same materials without objection."
“In each of these instances, we understand that lawyers in these agencies construed other statutes and law applicable to privilege in a manner that would override the express authorization contained in the IG Act,” the IGs wrote. “These restrictive readings of the IG Act represent potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”
....
“Even when we are ultimately able to resolve these issues with senior agency leadership, the process is often lengthy, delays our work, and diverts time and attention from substantive oversight activities. This plainly is not what Congress intended when it passed the IG Act.”
Are you denying that illegal aliens voted in the presidential election?
The birding is on the accuser.
Didn't read it, did you. I thought not. If you had, you'd have realized a) it's an opinion piece of a Trump acolyte, b) it's not credible, and c) it is internally inconsistent - using the very "IG reports" that were supposedly "stymied" to make its assertions, which are not supported by facts. I've read the Congressional testimony and that letter "of 47 IGs" brought to Congress. I'll bet you didn't. I'll bet you didn't read the testimony of the IGs either. I have. For example, IG Horowitz stated, "while current Department leadership has supported our ability to access records, agency leadership changes over time, and our access to records should not turn on the views of the Department’s leadership.
Further, we understand that other Department components that exercise oversight over Department programs and personnel, such as the Department’s office of professional responsibility, continue to be given access to these same materials without objection." In the letter, they specifically noted
They weren't complaining about stonewalling, as rightwing pundits alleged, they were concerned about statutory conflicts. That's why Obama supported and signed the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016. "This afternoon, President Obama signed into law H.R. 6450, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, a landmark piece of legislation welcomed by IGs and all advocates of government accountability and efficiency." It is apparent critical thinking was not on your educational curriculum.
I just provided factual evidence they did. I am denying that millions of undocumented aliens voted in CA in 2016.
Wait, you really think I made that up?
Obama Administration Scandals: Inspectors General Systematically Stymied, Ignored | National Review
No burden, these are all in the public record. The first one refers to the $2million dollar fine djt had to pay for using his 'charitable' foundation funds for his personal use. One charity he said he supported and didn't was involved in childhood cancer research. Deny it?
No that isn't stealing. Kindly explain a lack of theft conviction if that is stealing.
Yep every one of your claims was.bogus most likely.
You're basing your defense of the President on the definition of stealing? Too funny. Because it was a civil issue there was no conviction. There was a finding of fraud, and djt had to pay a $2million fine. I wonder if he'll use another charity to pay his legal fees (that was another reason he had to pay the fine)? So if a phone huckster steals from your elderly mother, promising her things that were never going to be delivered, you'd be okay with that because there was no actual theft? The depths you'll go to protect your combover king is truly amazing. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you wouldn't be so forgiving if it was President Clinton.
People loose lawsuits all the time for dubious reasons.
But I would like to see a link in this saying it was fraud.
People loose lawsuits all the time for dubious reasons.
But I would like to see a link in this saying it was fraud.
They damaged your civil liberties?
Ok, Who voted that hurt your civil liberties?
blah blah blah
If someone chooses not to understand, does that mean they are stupid or just ignorant?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?