Another question......How is it that Trump can spew endless Tweets about the partisanship and bias of others, yet remain clueless about his own?

Jun 2013
18,332
16,110
Here
#1
Why was PETER STRZOK brought before Congress to answer for his "partisan and biased thoughts about Trump and the POTUS, someone with FAR MORE influential power behind the political office he holds and his statements and comments, has NOT been called before Congress to talk about his own very publicly stated partisanship and bias, from a position of much more power and influence than Strzok?

How is it that ANYONE thinks Trump, who is in a much more influential position regarding his comments about others that include partisanship and bias, is NOT being far more biased and politically partisan than the sum total of any of STRZOK's comments?

How much influence did STRZOK and the woman he was having an affair with (when one supports Trump, how do they talk about someone else's marital infidelity?) to influence any investigation they were working on, especially relative to the POTUS who fired not only Comey for politically partisan reasons (Comey was involved in the "Russia thing" and was fired for that involvement, is that NOT a conflict of interest and possibly an obstruction of justice?), but because he didn't like Comey's findings about Clinton.

On top of that, for as horrible as any Democrats thought Jeff Sessions might have been, he recused himself from the Mueller investigation as he rightfully should have, to avoid the very sort of conflict of interest and potential for charges of obstruction of justice because of his connection to Trump and the Trump campaign. As a result, he was pushed out of his position, so Trump could insert someone more "loyal" to him in a position to do what he (Trump) claimed Comey did with Clinton and what he claims others do, with their expressions of political bias and partisanship, all the while, thinking no one notices, can see or takes note of his own severe and blatant partisanship and very public political bias.

How is it Trump is not called to the mat for NOT being attentive to his oath of office which does NOT include frequent and continuous expressions fo the same sort of political partisanship and bias, Trump spends his "valuable" "Presidential" time Tweeting about, when anyone, but he and his cronies, engage in it? Trump says this should happen to no other President, but conveniently seems to leave out mention of one or the other Clinton and how members of the party that support him, spent 4 years and how many millions of dollars to investigate and impeach Bill Clinton with no convictions as a result of that trial, being the result. In addition, the Mueller investigation was NOT a complete nothing burger, unless someone wants to ignore or conveniently forget the indictments and convictions of those related to the Trump campaign and Russian interference in U.S. elections, something Trump publicly doubted this nation's security and intelligence agencies about, while publicly stating he believed Putin's denial about involvement.

Since when were Presidents elected to constantly express politically biased rhetoric, not only about their political opposition, but bashing them, in the process? Everyone expects any POTUS to enact policies that align with that they campaigned on and even occasionally talk about their opposition, but NOT act as a subliminal message machine to drive wedges, if not literally harmful and violent acts against a portion of the population of their nation, that do not pledge blind loyalty.

Here is Trump's Twitter archive. Trump Twitter Archive If Trump were a Democrat, saying the same thing about republicans and others, those who support him now, would have already impeached him and therein, lies the rub and what is obvious about both Trump and his supporters, Trump Trolls or those too ignorant to see Trump the billionaire has NO interest in caring for them, and only cares about his "ratings".

Mueller likely has left the door open for Congress to determine if Trump's blatant and VERY public political partisanship and bias and his firing or pushing out those who would not be blindly "loyal" to his whims and actions, might mount to the level of not only abuse of power (his position as President), but obstruction of justice (firing or ousting people that were in positions to either investigate him, prosecute him or use the power of their office to unduly "protect" him from prosecution for anything and potentially end an investigation that didn't yield nothing, but yielded the indictment of 34 people and a number of people associated with the Trump campaign.

And what were they indicted and at least some of them, convicted of, but lying?

If Trump can bash Mueller and characterize the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt" it would seem perfectly acceptable for anyone to bash or characterize Robert Barr as someone will give Trump a free pass, being no less politically partisan in the protection of Trump, as he calls others out for being politically partisan, against him. I'm not sure why anyone thinks political partisanship is only a one way street and something only Democrats are capable of or why anyone thinks Robert Barr could NOT be as or more partisan and corrupt as anyone Trump accuses of the same. Mueller could in fact, be more honest, less partisan (since he is a Republican) and less corrupt than Robert Barr when it comes to comparing a "witch hunt" to undue and unmerited cover/protection, for Trump by a partisan AG of the type Donald Trump demands, when it comes to "loyalty".

Somewhere in all of this, is the revelation of why Mueller made a point of saying that while he had difficulty in finding a crime in the actions of the Trump campaign or Trump (when it comes to obstruction of justice) he also said his investigation did not say Trump's campaign or Trump was exonerated of any charge of obstruction of justice. To me, that sends a message he would like the question to be resolved by further investigation and by Congress as it likely involves Trump's VERY vocal, constant and public partisanship, especially considering his position and influence and what he pledged an oath of office to and what he did NOT pledge an oath of office to, regarding political partisanship and using the power of his office in ways that may have prevented or obstructed justice that involved his own actions.

How many people can simply fire those investigating them or drive out those who have recused themselves from a conflict of interest involving a justice investigation, from office, because once they recuse themselves, they cannot use their position to protect Trump from prosecution and there is evidence that Trump has a propensity toward "loyalty" that goes beyond support for him, but indicates something closer to a blind sort of loyalty of the sort that Michael Cohen was entrusted to exercise with his role as Trump's "fixer" involving the covering up of any actions of Trump that would reflect badly on him, if not unethical or even illegal acts.

One minute Trump is defending Cohen and condemning the raid on Cohen's office, in the next, Trump is bashing Cohen and calling him a liar, because Cohen called Trump a liar (not an uncommon accusation about Trump). Trump's people flipping on him in minor or major ways is nothing new, either and neither is Trump's bashing of the people he claimed were great.fabulous people, when they were flattering him.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2011
35,417
3,064
Tennessee
#3
Why was PETER STRZOK brought before Congress to answer for his "partisan and biased thoughts about Trump and the POTUS, someone with FAR MORE influential power behind the political office he holds and his statements and comments, has NOT been called before Congress to talk about his own very publicly stated partisanship and bias, from a position of much more power and influence than Strzok?

How is it that ANYONE thinks Trump, who is in a much more influential position regarding his comments about others that include partisanship and bias, is NOT being far more biased and politically partisan than the sum total of any of STRZOK's comments?

How much influence did STRZOK and the woman he was having an affair with (when one supports Trump, how do they talk about someone else's marital infidelity?) to influence any investigation they were working on, especially relative to the POTUS who fired not only Comey for politically partisan reasons (Comey was involved in the "Russia thing" and was fired for that involvement, is that NOT a conflict of interest and possibly an obstruction of justice?), but because he didn't like Comey's findings about Clinton.

On top of that, for as horrible as any Democrats thought Jeff Sessions might have been, he recused himself from the Mueller investigation as he rightfully should have, to avoid the very sort of conflict of interest and potential for charges of obstruction of justice because of his connection to Trump and the Trump campaign. As a result, he was pushed out of his position, so Trump could insert someone more "loyal" to him in a position to do what he (Trump) claimed Comey did with Clinton and what he claims others do, with their expressions of political bias and partisanship, all the while, thinking no one notices, can see or takes note of his own severe and blatant partisanship and very public political bias.

How is it Trump is not called to the mat for NOT being attentive to his oath of office which does NOT include frequent and continuous expressions fo the same sort of political partisanship and bias, Trump spends his "valuable" "Presidential" time Tweeting about, when anyone, but he and his cronies, engage in it? Trump says this should happen to no other President, but conveniently seems to leave out mention of one or the other Clinton and how members of the party that support him, spent 4 years and how many millions of dollars to investigate and impeach Bill Clinton with no convictions as a result of that trial, being the result. In addition, the Mueller investigation was NOT a complete nothing burger, unless someone wants to ignore or conveniently forget the indictments and convictions of those related to the Trump campaign and Russian interference in U.S. elections, something Trump publicly doubted this nation's security and intelligence agencies about, while publicly stating he believed Putin's denial about involvement.

Since when were Presidents elected to constantly express politically biased rhetoric, not only about their political opposition, but bashing them, in the process? Everyone expects any POTUS to enact policies that align with that they campaigned on and even occasionally talk about their opposition, but NOT act as a subliminal message machine to drive wedges, if not literally harmful and violent acts against a portion of the population of their nation, that do not pledge blind loyalty.

Here is Trump's Twitter archive. Trump Twitter Archive If Trump were a Democrat, saying the same thing about republicans and others, those who support him now, would have already impeached him and therein, lies the rub and what is obvious about both Trump and his supporters, Trump Trolls or those too ignorant to see Trump the billionaire has NO interest in caring for them, and only cares about his "ratings".

Mueller likely has left the door open for Congress to determine if Trump's blatant and VERY public political partisanship and bias and his firing or pushing out those who would not be blindly "loyal" to his whims and actions, might mount to the level of not only abuse of power (his position as President), but obstruction of justice (firing or ousting people that were in positions to either investigate him, prosecute him or use the power of their office to unduly "protect" him from prosecution for anything and potentially end an investigation that didn't yield nothing, but yielded the indictment of 34 people and a number of people associated with the Trump campaign.

And what were they indicted and at least some of them, convicted of, but lying?

If Trump can bash Mueller and characterize the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt" it would seem perfectly acceptable for anyone to bash or characterize Robert Barr as someone will give Trump a free pass, being no less politically partisan in the protection of Trump, as he calls others out for being politically partisan, against him. I'm not sure why anyone thinks political partisanship is only a one way street and something only Democrats are capable of or why anyone thinks Robert Barr could NOT be as or more partisan and corrupt as anyone Trump accuses of the same. Mueller could in fact, be more honest, less partisan (since he is a Republican) and less corrupt than Robert Barr when it comes to comparing a "witch hunt" to undue and unmerited cover/protection, for Trump by a partisan AG of the type Donald Trump demands, when it comes to "loyalty".

Somewhere in all of this, is the revelation of why Mueller made a point of saying that while he had difficulty in finding a crime in the actions of the Trump campaign or Trump (when it comes to obstruction of justice) he also said his investigation did not say Trump's campaign or Trump was exonerated of any charge of obstruction of justice. To me, that sends a message he would like the question to be resolved by further investigation and by Congress as it likely involves Trump's VERY vocal, constant and public partisanship, especially considering his position and influence and what he pledged an oath of office to and what he did NOT pledge an oath of office to, regarding political partisanship and using the power of his office in ways that may have prevented or obstructed justice that involved his own actions.

How many people can simply fire those investigating them or drive out those who have recused themselves from a conflict of interest involving a justice investigation, from office, because once they recuse themselves, they cannot use their position to protect Trump from prosecution and there is evidence that Trump has a propensity toward "loyalty" that goes beyond support for him, but indicates something closer to a blind sort of loyalty of the sort that Michael Cohen was entrusted to exercise with his role as Trump's "fixer" involving the covering up of any actions of Trump that would reflect badly on him, if not unethical or even illegal acts.

One minute Trump is defending Cohen and condemning the raid on Cohen's office, in the next, Trump is bashing Cohen and calling him a liar, because Cohen called Trump a liar (not an uncommon accusation about Trump). Trump's people flipping on him in minor or major ways is nothing new, either and neither is Trump's bashing of the people he claimed were great.fabulous people, when they were flattering him.
This applies to everyone who is elected. None of them think they are partisan or biased and only see that in others.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,781
6,483
#4
Trump is a politician not a journalist, not a supposedly neutral leader of an investigation or the head of a news service that is supposed to inform the public not use propaganda to influence outcomes.

We expect politicians to lie and they do so endlessly. If you think Obama didn't lie, you are kidding yourself.