Operation 'Fast and Furious' certainly was not the BATF's first 'gun walking' investigation, which allowed illegally purchased firearms to 'walk' out of gun shops. It was preceded by 'Operation Wide Receiver', which began in 2006. The US and CIA have been selling guns to groups in Central America going back to Reagan. Have you forgotten about the Iran Contra deal? And Benghazi was a real attack. Four Americans died in the 2012 Benghazi attack including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Nobody 'claimed' it was an attack, it WAS an attack. Because of the ACA, 20 million American have health insurance that had none before. The Republicans promised 'repeal and replace', that was one of Trump's campaign promises. Well, where is it, what does it look like, how much is it? Nobody knows because there is none. The only thing Republicans figured out they can do is repeal it and not replace it and if they replace it with something, people with pre-existing conditions will be excluded and yeah -- they'll just have to die. DACA was the right thing to do for 800,000 young adults who work, got to college, serve in our military and have no criminal record. They were brought here -- they didn't come on their own. They work, they pay income tax and social security and they all must either be gainfully employed or in school full time. Yet, they will never collect social security or medicare yet the taxes they pay support it for all others on these programs.
World leaders tell Biden: We need you https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/20/biden-2020-foreign-policy-national-security-1228345
No, it's only one. People that are incapable of being president, shouldn't be president. It's that simple.
As I said, I doubted that you would never view any of those items as being pertinent. I have no doubt you will always find some reason to justify the actions of "your side", even if they were illegal or inappropriate. We are not talking about whether they were "the right thing" or not. We are talking about whether they were done in a method that was legal, not anti-democratic, or harmful.
If it's determined that the investigation was started illegally, can anyone be charged from any information coming from that investigation?
As Mueller said in another sentence, ( I MUST find out how to cp this) "if we had confidence that the President did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state." which pretty clearly seems to state that the President WAS being accused of obstruction of justice and there was a case against him for it.. He is, of course, entitled to a presumption of innocence BUT his actual guilt of anything is for a TRIAL to decide and here we are only trying to establish a prima facie case so such a trial can begin. Ah, here we go: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
It was just announced that Sarah Sanders is leaving the White House. The rats are beginning to run far, far away from the sinking ship.
Hahaha! Lefties are upset over thought crimes again. Either that or Trump has successfully trolled them once again.
Maybe 12 million dollars like the Democrats did, paying for a dossier from a foreign agent with dirt from Russia?
Yep...I quoted the relevant part of that paragraph where he clearly states the report (or results of the criminal investigation) did not conclude the President committed a crime.
Trump said that if someone from another government or country came to him with info on a political competitor, he'd hear them out. And if he thought it merited FBI involvement, he'd bring it to their attention. Seems reasonable to me. How would that be an attempt by a foreigner or Trump to destroy our country? The Clinton campaign did that and more. They didn't wait for a foreigner to come to them. They actually put word out to foreigners, including Russians, looking for and accepting unsubstantiated dirt on Trump. That's my understanding.
If you don't see a difference between a PRIVATE British citizen and the acting government of a hostile foreign power, then your being obtuse
Cool so all Trump has to do is call up a british spy to get Russian dirt. Ok if that's the rules don't cry, heck that's f'ing easy for the President.
When a foreign states person provides information how can verify it without using USA intelligence services.
The question that should be asked, would Trump pay for that foreign help like how Hillary and the DNC paid the Russians for a fake dossier ?
So it's perfectly fine with you if China or Russia has a private meeting with Trump to give him dirt on an opponent? Really, that's okay with you? Basically he has invited them to do exactly that.
If you remember the REPUBLICANS started the opposition research and PAID for it too, then dropped it. That is when Democrats picked up the same oppo research.
I have heard that accusation before. So has a judge. I hope both sides develop a sudden interest in preventing abuse of ones position for profit. I would love a law requiring all meetings with lobbyists be made available for public viewing. Your statement is false as it calls for the operation of the mind. You painted an entire group of people with a broad stroke in the same sentence you inferred they are racist. Isn't that the same thing racists do? Obama may have had good intentions, but the results speak for themselves. I will agree with much of the criticism aimed at the right, but you are not pointing with clean hands.