Replies

I’m not sure how you could have read what I wrote to you on this thread, and not come up with these concepts.

All I know is that this last post of yours is filled with facts snd specifics examples, and I find it much easier to understand where you are coming from, and respond with follow up questions, etc.

In general terms, I shouldn't have to explain some things to you. We are both on a Conservative forum and certain communal thoughts here should be accepted as something we agree on.

Urging we abide by the law, enforce the law, and hold EVERYONE accountable should be a given. Do I really need to give you examples after saying something like this?

Should I have to explain that I mean we should simply apply the law where we have evidence of a crime? Should I have to explain I want the person to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

Should I have to explain that I don't want them mistreated legally? You should know that up front. I never suggested anyone be treated unfairly. I only asked that our laws be enforced. NOW!

If you and I ever debate something again, I hope we start out with a post like this last one.

This is how it started out here. These were your comments. LINK These were my comments in rebuttal. LINK

Honestly, I wouldn't change a word in my first post to you.

Regarding the subject at hand, I think your approach to investigating corruption and criminality would be fine for Trump’s AG and DOJ to pursue.

As do I, so why didn't you accept that I had good intentions in mind with my first response to you? I advocated nothing here that I hadn't there.

If I understand it correctly, you seem to be saying all activities should be looked at on their surface to see whether crimes may have been committed. If so, follow the evidence wherever it leads, but only according to due process. Nobody should be above the law. The punishment should fit the crime. All good axioms.

Look, I appreciate your nice comments here, really I do, but where did you come up with the idea I was advocating anything different than this anywhere on this thread?

Some things that come to mind that I think Trump should avoid:

Targeting the political opposition. Investigating a target and looking for a crime. This is what Mueller and whoever he is working for are doing to Trump and Trump associates. He’s not starting with a crime and following evidence, he’s not using due process - he’s on an endless political witch hunt - targeting a suspect and looking for a crime - and he won’t stop until he finds one.

I have not advocated Trump attack his political opposition. I have continued to maintain that there are known crimes that have been committed, and that the individuals who committed them should be brought to justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should have ongoing investigations of these people, indict them were warranted, prosecute them, and if found guilty, incarcerate them. Why should I have to spell this out for you? Are you under some mistaken impression you're the only one who wants to see true justice done here? As for his political opposition, even they should stand before the court if they have committed crimes. Hillary Clinton is exposed for setting up a private server to handle secret information, placing secret information on it, disbursing that information to another person without a security clearance, that person then having classified information they were not entitled to have, that person not reporting it, that information then existing at a separate unsecured location, and then a husband having access to that information. I mentioned this to you specifically. After having done so, you didn't address it acknowledging all this needed to be addressed.

What Mueller is doing is wrong. It would be tempting to retaliate - Trump should avoid retaliation and make sure his underlings avoid it. Retaliation is by definition targeting. Instead, identify potential crimes and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Do not pick suspected targets and look for crimes. That’s backwards.

This is exactly what I addressed when I mentioned Muller using a known falsified document to obtain FISA warrants. That is a crime. When it surfaced that he had used falsified documents, I mentioned that the judge had an obligation to address the criminality here, and took a pass. This implicated the judge in being complicit, if in no other way than allowing a crime to go unaddressed that took place in her presence, and that had defrauded the court.

Your admonition here to only go where the crimes are is insulting, and should be beneath you. I never advocated for going hunting for crimes. There are plenty on the surface in the FBI and perhaps some in the Department of Justice itself.

In a sense, a lot of conversations about this on FR start off on the wrong foot. We have our list of targets (basically the entire Obama administration. This gives the appearance of targeting suspects and looking for a crime - this is wrong.

Please stick to the topic, and show me one place on this thread where I advocated "looking for crimes". I have spoken about specific instances of crimes that we are all aware of. Hillary's server, her mishandling of classified information, her foundation where she was soliciting massive donations from foreign sources until the election, and then the spigot turned off in about 24 hours. Funds designated for Haiti should be reviewed. What happened to them? Why should I have to spell this stuff out for you? Every person or organization that took part in the creation of the Steele Document, should be investigated and prosecuted for not coming forward and explaining that it was a political opposition research document, totally a fabrication from the word go.

The correct way to go about it in my opinion is to go back for example to the point where the investigation into HRC improper use of email case got dropped and if it got prematurely dropped, then pick it up again - follow the evidence - not HRC. If it leads to HRC or somebody else or leads nowhere, then so be it.

You know, I am sure glad you are suggesting exactly what I have been since my first post to you. This didn't dawn on you from my first post? What a colossal waste of time this thread has been for both of us.

I think it is extremely important that the American people see the Justice system operate fairly and impartially under Donald Trump, especially after Obama administration abused it.

This is simply one more statement that echoes what I have been trying to tell you all along. Why did it take you this long to come up to speed?

Trump and his supporters have to do some real soul searching and ask ourselves whether our motive is true Justice, or revenge for what the Left has done to us. If our motives are pure, that will come through and the American people will respect and support it.

Bud, maybe you need to search your soul, but my soul is clean as a whistle on this. I have not advocated for anything other than the Justice Department doing it's job. I have never suggested Jeff Sessions should do anything other than his job.

It's really startling to see you make comments like this. It's just now dawning on you what I've been advocating all along. And it is diametrically opposed to what you stated in post 34. That is why I challenged you.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes my motives are impure. Sometimes I’m just angry and want to see some top Lefties’ heads on pikes. We shouldn’t act like a lynch mob and Trump shouldn’t endorse or lead any kind of lynch mob.

I have to gage my comments by what is reasoned, what is legal, and what is glaringly not happening when it should be. Sure I'm angry. I'm angry because it's clear as day that we need to take action, and this far into the Trump first term, NOTHING is being done. So yes I have gaged my comments as I needed to, and I have advocated for what needs to take place. This is why I said we cannot give the Clintons another pass. We must follow the crimes and take legal action. Why should I have to explain this to you. We are supposed to be on the same team. You should know this without me having to assure you. You assumed the worst evidently, and then had to be led back to reality so you could agree. Why?

I notice whenever the crowds start chanting “lock her up” at rallies, Trump never joins in. He joins in with “build the wall”, “drill baby drill” and “USA “ but never “lock her up” - this is because he realizes it’s the wrong approach to justice. It’s exactly backwards. You investigate a crime and follow the evidence to find a suspect, not the other way around.

He does not want to prejudice a case Hillary might be involved in. That's all. It would be highly improper for him after being elected, to then trash talk Clinton when a case or cases could very likely be filed against her. That's all there is to that.

Anyway, if it’s done with pure motives and impartially, I think it’s a good idea for Trump to pursue justice wherever the evidence leads, and I think he will.

Then we have agreed all along, with the only stipulation being that it must be started soon. This dilly dallying routine is far to mature by this point to be sustained longer.

I think that this won’t be enough for some of the more zealous supporters - they’ll always want more indictments, stiffer punishments and they’ll be looking to “even the score”. I hope Trump continues to ignore this faction.

You know, you really do need to get over what everyone else is thinking, and think more about solid policy from your own perspective. Addressing what you think they are thinking is not serving you well. You spent almost this total thread convinced you knew what I really meant, when I specifically spelled out for you what I meant.