Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talking about their "worst instincts," have you noticed how similar Harvey Swinestein and Bill Clinton are?

Yes ... and Trump too. But not Obama.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes ... and Trump too. But not Obama.

Are you serious?

[ZNPaaneah]

Here is what Popovich told Zirin in their ensuing conversation:

“I’ve been amazed and disappointed by so much of what this President had said, and his approach to running this country, which seems to be one of just a never-ending divisiveness. But his comments today about those who have lost loved ones in times of war and his lies that previous presidents Obama and Bush never contacted their families, is so beyond the pale, I almost don’t have the words.” “This man in the Oval Office is a soulless coward who thinks that he can only become large by belittling others. This has of course been a common practice of his, but to do it in this manner – and to lie about how previous presidents responded to the deaths of soldiers – is as low as it gets. We have a pathological liar in the White House: unfit intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically to hold this office and the whole world knows it, especially those around him every day. The people who work with this President should be ashamed because they know it better than anyone just how unfit he is, and yet they choose to do nothing about it. This is their shame most of all.”

I was struck by the last two sentences. They know how unfit he is and yet they choose to do nothing about it. This is their shame.

I know this is a political thread, but I often wonder what is the right thing to do about it? Recently with the Harvey Weinstein revelation one thing that really offended me was that so many people appeared to know about this for many, many years and yet chose to do nothing about it. Even Trump admitted as much when he said publicly that he knows Harvey and is "not surprised". That is their shame. I was listening to an army veteran talking about Bergdahl who claimed he deserted to complain about his superior officer's behavior. His point was that there are channels to go through but desertion was not right.

I appreciate that Popovich has chosen to go on record as forcefully as this. I think it is the right thing to do to put your name to a direct stand rejecting blatant lies. I personally cannot testify as to who Bush or Obama called, but I do know that the only president I have ever seen to publicly belittle a war hero and the parents of a war hero is Trump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I appreciate that Popovich has chosen to go on record as forcefully as this. I think it is the right thing to do to put your name to a direct stand rejecting blatant lies.

I used to love to watch the San Antonio Spurs under coach Popovich, but his anti-Trump rants are over the top. He goes off on everything the MSM feeds him. It's endless. I am thru with pro sports.

Under Obama, Christians have been dying and tortured in record numbers. He gives $150B with $2B of that in cash to Iran, the biggest funder of global terrorism. Yet these goons like Popovich said nothing, and now focus on non- scripted words (often fake news) rather than actions.

Is Trump rude? Yes. Does he make great decisions? Double yes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I used to love to watch the San Antonio Spurs under coach Popovich, but his anti-Trump rants are over the top. He goes off on everything the MSM feeds him. It's endless. I am thru with pro sports.

Under Obama, Christians have been dying and tortured in record numbers. He gives $150B with $2B of that in cash to Iran, the biggest funder of global terrorism. Yet these goons like Popovich said nothing, and now focus on non- scripted words (often fake news) rather than actions.

Is Trump rude? Yes. Does he make great decisions? Double yes.

It's called sexual assault, not rude.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's called sexual assault, not rude.

Aussie get some fake news?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only if we are married.

Real funny. So, you think being married gives you license to grab your wife's genitals without permission like Trump said he does? "I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only if we are married.

Only if you want to get a knee in your groin. I've been married 3 times, and the last 2 were horndogs, but if I grabbed them unwelcomed they'd clobber me.

Now maybe in the cave man days, when you could club 'em and drag 'em by the hair into your cave. Maybe then. Trump must be cave man in nature.

[Ohio]

The Clinton cover-up, brought to you by the same guys who are investigating Trump, by Gregg Jarrett:

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.

But there’s more. It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”

The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter). Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

The corrupt scheme is said to have been financed by the Russians through bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.

Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years. Until now.

The FBI evidence, if true, would seem to show that one or more of these illegal “pay-to-play” laws were broken. The government would have to prove that Hillary and Bill got paid, while the Russians got to play. And prosecutors are required to show a “quid pro quo” or “nexus” between the payments and the benefit provided. But it appears that the FBI already possesses all the evidence it needs to make a compelling case.

If Hillary leveraged her public office as Secretary of State for personal enrichment, but also used her charity as a receptacle or conduit for money obtained illegally, that would also constitute racketeering, as I first argued in a column almost a year ago.

Racketeering is the use of a business for a corrupt and illegal enterprise. The “Mafia” and other organized crime syndicates are often prosecuted under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” or “RICO” (18 USC 1961-1968). Frequently, they devise a dual purpose company –one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the back door.

There is little doubt the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity. But if the FBI documents demonstrate that there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, then prosecution could be pursued against Clinton for racketeering.

According to the Associated Press, more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state donated money to her foundation. If Clinton was peddling access, was she also peddling influence? Again, the reported FBI documents seem to answer that question.

But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton? Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret? Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency? Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact. Who are they?

Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein

Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009. Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010. Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

It gets worse. Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case. Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case. There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton. The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

If this is true, Mueller and Rosenstein should immediately recuse themselves from the case. How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of the lead investigators has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?

And, if the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.

After accusing Trump for close to a year, we still have no evidence. Now we know why. The evidence here is what I have talked about for months.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is where you drug me into this filth.

You support and defend the POTUS who brought us this filth. I didn't put you there. I'm just not letting you forget it. I didn't ask you to bring your wife into it. That was your own choosing. You say Trump's just rude. No big deal. You're rude. I'm rude. So what? That's the way you like it. You hate political correctness. So this is where we are. Get used to it. Trump may be top dog for awhile. He might get a second term. Viciously going after people is his forte. You are a disciple of a master abuser. Now you're going to blame it on me. That's funny.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Grabbing...... is just being Christian for Ohio.

Hey mister moderator!? I'll be deleting this one shortly, and will thank you to warn all the regulars on Alt Views
that it will only take me a few seconds to make this place password protected again,
or maybe just remove the link altogether from the forum Home Page.