BINGO!
President Eisenhower: “The buck stops here.”
It’s accepted that the IRS harrasment of conservative non profits didn’t come straight from the white house. But it happened under Obama’s watch. Waco happened under Clinton. 9/11 happened under Bush. Those are black marks on their records, not nefarious plots.
If the spooks surveiled Trump illegally it’s a black mark on Obama by association. They worked for and were appointed by him.
Is there a single “shred”? Not likely. Given the democrat penchant for deleting/losing/destroying (Lerner/Clinton) data there likely won’t be.
I just found the choice of the word “shred” ironic.
Remember how I said Democrats are held to a lower standard than Republicans?
Here’s Loretta Lynch calling for violence
And here lies the problem. While Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, sometimes the phrase “anyone but” shouldn’t be taken literally - otherwise you end up with a President who allegedly has access to sensitive information but strangely bases his policies and actions only on information obtained from TV news shows and selected news portals.
.
2 Likes
Anybody want to weigh in on Mark Levin’s rant on Fox and Friends. I would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts on here.
Is this all supposed to somehow be supporting Trump and his accusations?
I have to admit missing where Levin is coming from.
It is pretty much “Public Knowledge” (which Levin seems to say a lot) that investigations were started looking into Russian involvement in our elections. It appears that one would be derelict in not looking at individuals whom not only had a vested interest in the outcome of the election…but also had ready access to high-level Russian officials…and in fact were in contact with them on numerous occasions.
Add to this the “one-sided” nature of the hacks and Wiki-Leaks releases…and again, I am just not sure of the argument that Levin is trying to make.
I am open to someone letting me know what I am missing.
…and sorry…he sounds a little unhinged…
(and I think the same about Pelosi and Warren when they speak…!)
I agree when I heard it he sounded like a nut, so I wanted to get other opinions from here. The hosts seemed to go along with everything he was saying and he sounded like a crazy person to me, while giving no evidence.
Ok. Who disagrees with you in this point?
If there was illegal surveillance, it is, as some have said, bigger than Watergate.
Is there any evidence of illegal surveillance?
I love how the statement basically says that Obama never ordered any wire tapping, and it’s somehow confirmation that wire tapping actually happened.
Anyone prepared to yell “fake news” at her tweet or does that only apply to CNN?
2 Likes
It’s HIS administration, his ship to run. Wire tapping the candidate of the opposing party just before the election. Are you kidding me?
Ann Coulter is smart…very smart…
Whether I agreed or disagreed with her on a point…she often has given a topic careful thought and research.
Not so much with Trump.
I tend to hear more supported argument from her than the “…but what about him-her/what about Obama/anybody BUT…” arguments we are now getting from her.
1 Like
Raj if the AG obtained a legal wiretap that looks bad on Trump or his associates not Obama or the AG.
“It means there were some basis to believe that somebody in Trump Tower may have been acting as an agent of the Russians, for whatever purpose, not necessarily the election, but for some purpose,” Mukasey said.
I think the word you’re looking for is TACTICAL. Smart would imply she uses reason and bases her statements on facts.
I’ll agree Ann Coulter is hella tactical, but “smart” might be overstating things.
How does that look bad upon him if they didn’t find anything? Again there has to be actual evidence for it to be bad.
As in evidence of wire tapping existing?
It apparently looks bad on Trump that they could obtain a wire tap on him legally.
But for it to be bad they have to have found something