Actually I do apologize. The joke only addressed a small group of people. I rephrased it. Sorry I wasn't more specific. It must be nice to sit on your high horse, refuse to admit your true intentions then avoid questions that would shine light on your actual motivations. You're not really that smart, but go ahead, cry about claims of violence to try to get me silenced. Liberals are great at lying and twisting facts, especially when the attention is on them.
I'm quite comfortable where I stand as I've been explicit and transparent. I'm also a person of my word so enjoy.
Okay let me recap what happened and why the inquiry is taking place. Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election. She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent. This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement. The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats. After her lost the Liberal Democrats swore to remove Trump from office because they wouldn't agree to the terms of the election and take their loss. They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket. Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?
Again, I ask you. Does what I wrote in my first paragraph sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt? If you answer "yes" to either of them please do explain your position. I'm waiting.
Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election.
Yes, that sounds fair and accurate. Case closed! (I kid, I understand what your questions are. I'm going through sentence by sentence to ensure I give a proper assessment.)
She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent.
Do we have sufficient evidence to support your claim of colluding with foreign governments? Has she been charged/sentenced or is under any active investigation?
I had a thread that discussed the legality of the Steele Dossier and how it differs. I would refer you to it. I'm presuming this is what you are referring to, if not then please let me know.
The TLDR: Oppo Research is part of our elections. Foreign nationals (Steele) who work as informants for our FBI and/or our US based research firms appears to give them a pass. Maybe it is open to interpretation as to whether or not this should be an appropriate loophole. I feel like our law is ambiguous on this matter. I can't say if that ambiguity is intentional but I can say that Trump's case is far more straightforward. I don't know if I agree with this on a personal level but DOJ and FEC seemed to not raise any objections and I can't find any direct statute that would prohibit a US based company from being prohibited to hire foreign nationals.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/legality-of-steele-dossier-in-terms-of-influencing-us-election.549535/
In case you are curious as I've had time to give this more thought; I'm not agreeable to foreign nationals influencing our elections, but it is unfathomable to allow government to restrict who a private company can hire. As long as the company is based in the US I think it can do whatever it damn well pleases despite the loophole this creates.
This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement.
Let's start with what is easy. She did not start the Birther movement but she did have supporters who perpetrate it. Trump has supporters who are white nationalists but I... ok questionable example as some debate on that point. Let's just move on to say that out of the two candidates one actually did support the Birther movement even as late as 2011 and got publicly roasted for it at a White House correspondence diner by Obama himself. The comedian that followed Obama then continued to roast Trump in a manner that irked him more than we will ever know. It was first discovered around 2004 apparently.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304
The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats.
I argue that the main stream media includes anything that is pro-corporate anti-union, so that includes both right and left leaning networks. Now, while we might disagree on who owns the media due to my definition of main stream media, I think I can still give some insight. Trump had a narrow victory in a few crucial battleground states and won the election.
Now if the mainstream media was only owned and operated by the pro-corporate individuals, why would they give Trump so much free air-time during the republican primary? Ratings, which translates into corporate profits. Why would they latch on to anything controversial? Same reason. During that point in time, I don't think they anticipated Trump would win, however, it wouldn't hurt their corporate earnings either way - refer back to Trump Tax Cut). Therefore, they had no financial disincentive for Trump to win.
If you are referring to smear campaigns, Clinton was the subject of many for over two decades. I don't think Trump received anymore negative coverage during the general election than Clinton.
As far as the democrats cheating. Well I don't know was there gerrymandering or election fraud on behalf of the democrats that you can bring to my attention? Trump's own administration cleared doubts that illegal voters were voting in a post-election investigation.
They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket.
I've seen the multiple year old tweet of some obscure lawyer that now represents the whistle-blower. I'm sure there were people who would have been ready to call foul if Clinton won and those same people will do so if a Democrat won 2020. There are always going to be bad actors on both sides. The investigation into 2016 election meddling was required. We as a nation had to ensure our elections matter, and that they are not under any foreign influence. Trump had a Republican special counsel that worked in a professional manner. He didn't engage in political theater and did his job in a non-partisan approach. I don't know how much more you could ask for if you were an innocent man/woman. It's the ideal situation if you needed to clear your name.
That investigation wasn't fruitless btw, compared to the bengahzi and email scandal investigations for Clinton which produced not one indictment, the Mueller investigation led to multiple arrests and convictions.
As far as democrats or special interest spending in our media, this is done on both sides so I'm not sure how that would be unfair.
Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?
All this for the TLDR: based on all the points you have raised that I have provided my analysis - yes it sounds balanced - but I think the reason I will come to that conclusion and you will not is because we define mainstream media differently.
As far as whether or not Republicans should go along with the impeachment inquiry? If they have the evidence to refute any wrongdoing then, yes, absolutely. If they do not then I guess fight like hell and hope no other witnesses come forward and pray the courts somehow rule in your favor to not produce any related documents to an impeachment inquiry. I don't think democrats will wait for the courts to finish a ruling as it will just be appealed and hung up in courts for months. They will just move to serve an article of impeachment of obstruction of justice.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (
see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?
It took time to ensure I gave a thorough answer. Patience is a virtue.