(02-21-2019, 01:46 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Why?
American military personnel dead because they were given inadequate protection and readiness in a country teeming with terrorists. Risks were vastly underestimated. What is the significant difference?
Thirty five years of hindsight, experience and a changing political climate perhaps?
Was anyone held accountable for Beirut the way they tried to hold Hillary accountable for BenGhazi? Should anyone have been subjected to endless partisan investigations over Beirut?
(02-21-2019, 02:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 01:46 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Thirty five years of hindsight, experience and a changing political climate perhaps?
Was anyone held accountable for Beirut the way they tried to hold Hillary accountable for BenGhazi? Should anyone have been subjected to endless partisan investigations over Beirut?
Refer back to my previous post and let me add 9/11.
(02-21-2019, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 09:46 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]What? Did you just try...Oh, what the [BLEEP]!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
If you were able to pull that nonsense out of thin air, there is no explanation of historical fact I can give you. How about you humor us and explain how you came to the conclusion they are remotely the same.
I just can't shake the memory of how no one was brought in to end the Starr investigation before it had been finished. If Mueller's actually done, he's actually done. If he says on the record anywhere, anytime, that he was not finished with his investigation but was directed to close up shop anyway, then there's a case for obstruction against Barr (and another against Trump, if he told Barr that he expected the investigation ended) and a need to rehire Mueller and let him finish.
If the Republicans are allowed to waste millions and millions over several years on a real estate investigation that hinged on a blue dress, I don't see why an investigation into actual crimes would be shut down prematurely unless someone doesn't want to see the end result.
(02-21-2019, 03:08 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Tell me why I'm wrong.
If you were able to pull that nonsense out of thin air, there is no explanation of historical fact I can give you. How about you humor us and explain how you came to the conclusion they are remotely the same.
lots of examples in Google for "Beirut versus Benghazi".
Here is one from a source that often leans right.
I find it hard to believe that this is the first time you've heard somebody make the comparison.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2...of-history
(02-21-2019, 03:44 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't shake the memory of how no one was brought in to end the Starr investigation before it had been finished. If Mueller's actually done, he's actually done. If he says on the record anywhere, anytime, that he was not finished with his investigation but was directed to close up shop anyway, then there's a case for obstruction against Barr (and another against Trump, if he told Barr that he expected the investigation ended) and a need to rehire Mueller and let him finish.
If the Republicans are allowed to waste millions and millions over several years on a real estate investigation that hinged on a blue dress, I don't see why an investigation into actual crimes would be shut down prematurely unless someone doesn't want to see the end result.
Everyone on the left says Trump is stupid.
No evidence of collusion whatsoever involving Donald Trump.
So either he is the smartest man alive or he's innocent.
Which is it?
(02-21-2019, 04:47 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 03:44 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't shake the memory of how no one was brought in to end the Starr investigation before it had been finished. If Mueller's actually done, he's actually done. If he says on the record anywhere, anytime, that he was not finished with his investigation but was directed to close up shop anyway, then there's a case for obstruction against Barr (and another against Trump, if he told Barr that he expected the investigation ended) and a need to rehire Mueller and let him finish.
If the Republicans are allowed to waste millions and millions over several years on a real estate investigation that hinged on a blue dress, I don't see why an investigation into actual crimes would be shut down prematurely unless someone doesn't want to see the end result.
Everyone on the left says Trump is stupid.
No evidence of collusion whatsoever involving Donald Trump.
So either he is the smartest man alive or he's innocent.
Which is it?
What does this have to do with letting a special counsel finish his investigation?
You've heard of the Saturday Night Massacre, right? If Trump's expectation was that Barr would end the investigation, Barr tells Mueller to close up shop and Mueller says that he was instructed to report whatever he has and drop it, that's a Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon turned the heat way up on himself by doing more or less that exact same thing.
And just throwing this out there: I don't remember any blue dresses being mentioned in the original instructions given to Ken Starr.
(02-21-2019, 03:44 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't shake the memory of how no one was brought in to end the Starr investigation before it had been finished. If Mueller's actually done, he's actually done. If he says on the record anywhere, anytime, that he was not finished with his investigation but was directed to close up shop anyway, then there's a case for obstruction against Barr (and another against Trump, if he told Barr that he expected the investigation ended) and a need to rehire Mueller and let him finish.
If the Republicans are allowed to waste millions and millions over several years on a real estate investigation that hinged on a blue dress, I don't see why an investigation into actual crimes would be shut down prematurely unless someone doesn't want to see the end result.
The Mueller investigation was never predicated on an underlying crime. That makes it in direct violation of the special counsel regulations.
Also, the appointing officer has a conflict of interest as a signatory on a visa warrant that is currently under investigation and a potential material witness to the alleged inciting incident, the firing of Comey
Moeover, Barr has the power to shut down any investigation as AG and the president has the constitutional authority to order him to do so. The only conceivable way a principal officer can obstruct justice in managing a subordinate would be to direct misstatements or destroy evidence.
(02-21-2019, 07:41 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 03:44 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't shake the memory of how no one was brought in to end the Starr investigation before it had been finished. If Mueller's actually done, he's actually done. If he says on the record anywhere, anytime, that he was not finished with his investigation but was directed to close up shop anyway, then there's a case for obstruction against Barr (and another against Trump, if he told Barr that he expected the investigation ended) and a need to rehire Mueller and let him finish.
If the Republicans are allowed to waste millions and millions over several years on a real estate investigation that hinged on a blue dress, I don't see why an investigation into actual crimes would be shut down prematurely unless someone doesn't want to see the end result.
The Mueller investigation was never predicated on an underlying crime. That makes it in direct violation of the special counsel regulations.
Also, the appointing officer has a conflict of interest as a signatory on a visa warrant that is currently under investigation and a potential material witness to the alleged inciting incident, the firing of Comey
Moeover, Barr has the power to shut down any investigation as AG and the president has the constitutional authority to order him to do so. The only conceivable way a principal officer can obstruct justice in managing a subordinate would be to direct misstatements or destroy evidence.
I'm sorry, last time I checked cooperating with a foreign power to influence the outcome of an American election could create crimes ranging from tax evasion to treason.
If the Senate had wanted to fire Mueller over the visa warrant, they could have done so (or passed a resolution saying they would not interfere with Trump's doing so) at any time. By the way, the Senate is Republican controlled.
If the investigation is shut down to keep information from being unearthed, yes, it's obstruction of justice. I mean, that's exactly what the Saturday Night Massacre was. Nixon saw that Cox was getting too close for comfort and fired AGs until he found one who would fire Cox for him.
It's a bogus investigation, as Strzok and Page knew from the start. The feds already had every phone call, email, text and most likely had recordings of all "private" meetings conducted by the Trump campaign, since every Apple or Android phone can have its microphone activated remotely. If there was any collusion there would be overwhelming proof of it exposed 2 years ago.
The entire basis of the Mueller case is in badgering Trump associates with days of questioning until they give an answer inconsistent with the illegally obtained surveillance. Then they threaten 5 years in prison for lying to Feds unless the associate turns on Trump.
I believe most of these associates were planted by the Deep State in the first place. They admitted as much just yesterday, though they tried to couch it as "protecting America" rather than outright spying on a rival campaign, which is exactly what ended Nixon. Funny that Bender mentioned Nixon, since the 2016 Dems and Deep State were doing Nixonian spy ops against their political rival just like Nixon in 1972.
If Bender's situation with AG Barr above happens, that just means that Barr was a Deep State plant from the start (check his history). You think Trump's expectation that Barr would end the investigation is enough to impeach? Perhaps Trump would believe it because Mueller's buddies at the NY Times published giant headlines saying MUELLER PROBE TO END IN A WEEK!!!!
A-HA! We tricked the President into thinking the probe was going to end! Now we finally have destroyed him!! He believed us- IMPEACH!!!!!
This probe needed to end a long time ago. You would have think Trump would have learned from what happened with Bush. These things never find anything to do with what they were originally set up for. Shut it down, let the media whine for a couple weeks and soon it goes away to only resurface intermittently every now and then.
(02-21-2019, 02:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 01:46 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Thirty five years of hindsight, experience and a changing political climate perhaps?
Was anyone held accountable for Beirut the way they tried to hold Hillary accountable for BenGhazi? Should anyone have been subjected to endless partisan investigations over Beirut?
Did someone in the government leave the victims in Beirut hanging on for nine hours without sending nearby troops to help like was done in the case of Benghazi?
(02-21-2019, 04:47 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 03:44 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't shake the memory of how no one was brought in to end the Starr investigation before it had been finished. If Mueller's actually done, he's actually done. If he says on the record anywhere, anytime, that he was not finished with his investigation but was directed to close up shop anyway, then there's a case for obstruction against Barr (and another against Trump, if he told Barr that he expected the investigation ended) and a need to rehire Mueller and let him finish.
If the Republicans are allowed to waste millions and millions over several years on a real estate investigation that hinged on a blue dress, I don't see why an investigation into actual crimes would be shut down prematurely unless someone doesn't want to see the end result.
Everyone on the left says Trump is stupid.
No evidence of collusion whatsoever involving Donald Trump.
So either he is the smartest man alive or he's innocent.
Which is it?
You don't know that. Nothing has been made public yet. I'm waiting to see what the investigation finds out before I form an opinion on that subject matter.
That's fair. I can understand that position.
As to Benghazi vs. Beirut a.) Is there anyone who seriously thinks at any time in history it would have been politically advantageous for the Dems to try and portray Reagan as soft on Defense? b.) There was this little thing called 9-11 which sharpened our national focus on individual terror attacks instead of more generalized defense postures against nation states. c.) Schultz wasn't a presumptive nominee for president. d.) The Reagan administration didn't bold faced lie to the American people and blame an American citizen and a video no one saw.
As to CRIMES, in order to appoint a special counsel you have to have an underlying CRIME to investigate. In the case of Watergate, someone broke into the Watergate Hotel. There was an investigation into who what when and where but there was evidence to support the idea that a crime occurred. In the case of the current special counsel, no such underlying criminal activity exists. In point and fact, the entire Russia investigation was started as a counter intelligence investigation. That normally would be about a.) defending the potential target (The Trump Campaign) from foreign activity. Diane Feinstein was caught with a Chinese spy in her employ for nearly two decades. She was given a defensive briefing to eliminate the exposure, not entrap her or her staff. b.) Gather intelligence about a breach and mitigate the access of the foreign power. In neither instance do we have anything that actually rises to probable cause under our criminal court system.
Moreover, If it was demonstrated that the Russian Federation hacked into the DNC servers and fished John Podesta's e-mails and handed over or coordinated the release of said Documents that would NOT BE A CRIME. It might be a political sin, it might be untoward, but it would not be criminal. Don't believe me? Find a statute. What would make it criminal? If they paid, or promised something of value in exchange for a foreign individual to assist them in the campaign. Do we know that anyone paid a foreign actor during the Campaign? YES! Was it the Trump Campaign? NO! It was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN! They paid a foreign spy to do opposition research with RUSSIAN STATE ACTORS to compile a dossier on then Candidate Trump. When the FBI was presented with the knowledge that a candidate for president and the DNC paid foreign actors for information/propaganda in a presidential campaign did they pursue action against this CLEARLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY? No! They took the product of an illegal transaction to the FISC court, concealed it origins and lied about its veracity to federal judges. When the Source of the material was fired and discredited for lying to the FBI (no midnight raids of his house.) they concealed this exculpatory evidence from the FISA court.
This entire investigation has been a joke from the start. It was started under the guise of the Comey firing, but the man who appointed Mueller RECOMMENDED the FIRING! Not to mention the fact that the public relations news hook for the appointment was the leaking of the Comey Memos to the press. Congress, and the DOJ have full access to the Memo's. a.) upon reading the full memos they were completely exculpatory to the president, and b.) the leaking of confidential conversations with the president is itself a crime. Andrew McCabe told Flynn he didn't need a lawyer for an interview predicated on a law that has never been used and no one would ever think extends to the NSA designee.
(02-21-2019, 11:58 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2019, 02:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Was anyone held accountable for Beirut the way they tried to hold Hillary accountable for BenGhazi? Should anyone have been subjected to endless partisan investigations over Beirut?
Did someone in the government leave the victims in Beirut hanging on for nine hours without sending nearby troops to help like was done in the case of Benghazi?
Did anyone die waiting in Benghazi? The survivors were relieved by Americans arriving by ground transport from Tripoli. I can only assume you're trying to say that relief should have been brought in by air and that that would have saved someone's life. I'm pretty sure they showed over and over again that are relief would not have gotten their significantly sooner that no one died in the time frame between the two. If a mistake was made, it was made days and weeks before the attack, not having sources of relief close enough. Also it seems the state department and CIA didn't know how many armed hostile people there were in the area. The investigations were not able to show that mistakes were made the night of the attack.
(02-22-2019, 02:15 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]As to Benghazi vs. Beirut a.) Is there anyone who seriously thinks at any time in history it would have been politically advantageous for the Dems to try and portray Reagan as soft on Defense? b.) There was this little thing called 9-11 which sharpened our national focus on individual terror attacks instead of more generalized defense postures against nation states. c.) Schultz wasn't a presumptive nominee for president. d.) The Reagan administration didn't bold faced lie to the American people and blame an American citizen and a video no one saw.
a) listen to yourself. Mistakes happen, and must be learned from, but trying to leverage dead American soldiers for political advantage is disgusting. Democrats in 1983 recognized this. Republicans in 2012 should have done better.
B) I'm not sure I get the relevance. Neither the unofficial consulate nor the CIA annex were well-know, high value targets. Not like an embassy or barracks.
C) again listen to yourself. You're saying the Democrats didn't go after Schultz because Schultz wasn't very valuable to the Republican party plans. And that the Republicans went after Clinton because she was valuable to Democrats. again you're taking it as a given that Congressional investigators would put party first over dead American soldiers, and you don't seem to be conscious of how disgusting it is to the memory of those soldiers and how corrosive it will be for our republic in general. You also don't seem conscious of the fact that this supports my original point, let the investigations into Trump going forward will follow the pattern of the investigations of Benghazi. Trump is also a high-value target like Clinton was. If you're going to justify endless and pointless partisan investigations based on the value of the target, then turnabout is definitely fair play.
D) that's a fair point. we never did get to the bottom of why Susan Rice said the provable falsehoods that she said. of all the things that transpired from the moment after bad guys open fire on us in Benghazi, this is the one undeniable mistake that the administration at the time made. but within 24 hours all of the other Democrats and all of the media were unified and saying that there was no truth to what Susan Rice had said. this is where the Benghazi thing gets really similar to what Trump has done and what his administration is about to experience from the House. Trump and his people go on TV and utter provable falsehoods all the time.
(02-22-2019, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2019, 02:15 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]As to Benghazi vs. Beirut a.) Is there anyone who seriously thinks at any time in history it would have been politically advantageous for the Dems to try and portray Reagan as soft on Defense? b.) There was this little thing called 9-11 which sharpened our national focus on individual terror attacks instead of more generalized defense postures against nation states. c.) Schultz wasn't a presumptive nominee for president. d.) The Reagan administration didn't bold faced lie to the American people and blame an American citizen and a video no one saw.
a) listen to yourself. Mistakes happen, and must be learned from, but trying to leverage dead American soldiers for political advantage is disgusting. Democrats in 1983 recognized this. Republicans in 2012 should have done better.
B) I'm not sure I get the relevance. Neither the unofficial consulate nor the CIA annex were well-know, high value targets. Not like an embassy or barracks.
C) again listen to yourself. You're saying the Democrats didn't go after Schultz because Schultz wasn't very valuable to the Republican party plans. And that the Republicans went after Clinton because she was valuable to Democrats. again you're taking it as a given that Congressional investigators would put party first over dead American soldiers, and you don't seem to be conscious of how disgusting it is to the memory of those soldiers and how corrosive it will be for our republic in general. You also don't seem conscious of the fact that this supports my original point, let the investigations into Trump going forward will follow the pattern of the investigations of Benghazi. Trump is also a high-value target like Clinton was. If you're going to justify endless and pointless partisan investigations based on the value of the target, then turnabout is definitely fair play.
D) that's a fair point. we never did get to the bottom of why Susan Rice said the provable falsehoods that she said. of all the things that transpired from the moment after bad guys open fire on us in Benghazi, this is the one undeniable mistake that the administration at the time made. but within 24 hours all of the other Democrats and all of the media were unified and saying that there was no truth to what Susan Rice had said. this is where the Benghazi thing gets really similar to what Trump has done and what his administration is about to experience from the House. Trump and his people go on TV and utter provable falsehoods all the time.
Next time just lead with the fact I was right, they were different and save yourself the typing.
"The report says none of the relevant military forces met their deployment timelines to respond to the attack and that a "Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times."
The complaint isn't just about basic incompetence on the night (the last Americans died 9 hours after the fighting began.) Its about the fact that the whole incident was because the Obama administration didn't want to admit the Libya strategy was fslling apart during an election year. This transpired on the anniversary of the worst terror attack in history and Stevens was begging for additional security. THEY politicized the deaths of the Americans when Hillary Clinton lied to the faces of the NOK andvreblurbed the Smollett level cover story when she could see in real time that this was a full fledged assault, there was no protest
Moreover, they made it to a CIA annex and the enemy apparently had advanced Intel. Gee, I wonder if there was a cabinet secretary using sn insecure server to discuss our defense posture in the region.
(02-22-2019, 09:26 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2019, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]a) listen to yourself. Mistakes happen, and must be learned from, but trying to leverage dead American soldiers for political advantage is disgusting. Democrats in 1983 recognized this. Republicans in 2012 should have done better.
B) I'm not sure I get the relevance. Neither the unofficial consulate nor the CIA annex were well-know, high value targets. Not like an embassy or barracks.
C) again listen to yourself. You're saying the Democrats didn't go after Schultz because Schultz wasn't very valuable to the Republican party plans. And that the Republicans went after Clinton because she was valuable to Democrats. again you're taking it as a given that Congressional investigators would put party first over dead American soldiers, and you don't seem to be conscious of how disgusting it is to the memory of those soldiers and how corrosive it will be for our republic in general. You also don't seem conscious of the fact that this supports my original point, let the investigations into Trump going forward will follow the pattern of the investigations of Benghazi. Trump is also a high-value target like Clinton was. If you're going to justify endless and pointless partisan investigations based on the value of the target, then turnabout is definitely fair play.
D) that's a fair point. we never did get to the bottom of why Susan Rice said the provable falsehoods that she said. of all the things that transpired from the moment after bad guys open fire on us in Benghazi, this is the one undeniable mistake that the administration at the time made. but within 24 hours all of the other Democrats and all of the media were unified and saying that there was no truth to what Susan Rice had said. this is where the Benghazi thing gets really similar to what Trump has done and what his administration is about to experience from the House. Trump and his people go on TV and utter provable falsehoods all the time.
Next time just lead with the fact I was right, they were different and save yourself the typing.
I've made two basic points:
a) the only significant difference between Beirut and Benghazi is that one party saw an opportunity to smear the other and took it, and this is a disgusting degradation of our national spirit,
b) Democrats in the House will endlessly needle Trump over Russia the same way Republicans in the House needled Clinton over Benghazi, to return the favor.
You're not disputing either point, but you're failing to capture how disgusting I find all of this, and how ashamed I want the proponents to be for their behavior. To the extent you're catching my drift at all, you tried to blame the Democrats for Republicans politicizing Benghazi, predictably, but it came across to me as Bart grabbing Lisa's arms and telling her to stop punching herself.
(02-22-2019, 10:54 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2019, 09:26 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Next time just lead with the fact I was right, they were different and save yourself the typing.
I've made two basic points:
a) the only significant difference between Beirut and Benghazi is that one party saw an opportunity to smear the other and took it, and this is a disgusting degradation of our national spirit,
b) Democrats in the House will endlessly needle Trump over Russia the same way Republicans in the House needled Clinton over Benghazi, to return the favor.
You're not disputing either point, but you're failing to capture how disgusting I find all of this, and how ashamed I want the proponents to be for their behavior. To the extent you're catching my drift at all, you tried to blame the Democrats for Republicans politicizing Benghazi, predictably, but it came across to me as Bart grabbing Lisa's arms and telling her to stop punching herself.
Read your own post!!!!!!! My gosh!