Started By
Message

re: Brett Kavanaugh needs to clarify his opinion on this

Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:59 am to
Posted by AUstar
Member since Dec 2012
17061 posts
Posted on 7/10/18 at 6:59 am to
I don't think they're that inconsistent. I think Kavanaugh was saying we don't need random prosecutors constantly barraging the president with frivolous crap just because of his party affiliation. You take any politician and I guarantee you can find something to "investigate." It would easily get out of hand and the founders themselves recognized it even back then.

I don't think he's saying that if there's evidence of crimes (as president) that the president shouldn't be investigated. I think he is arguing that any investigation should be done by Congress and Congress should do the punishing (i.e. impeachment, not prosecution).

With Trump there is zero evidence of any crimes, so it's not the same as Clinton. With Clinton they were investigating a known scandal that happened before he ever got into the WH. During the course of that investigation, they discovered he was banging his intern in the Oral Office.

Looking back, I am not a fan of the Starr investigation. Clinton, even with his past scandals, won the 1992 election fair and square. The Dems knew he had a sordid past back in Arkansas and apparently didn't care. The people spoke and that should be good enough (unless there are crimes committed AS president).
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42821 posts
Posted on 7/10/18 at 9:36 am to
quote:

Clinton, even with his past scandals, won the 1992 election fair and square.


No - no it was not "fair and square."

Number 1 - the scrawny big-eared creeps from Arkansas ran as a 3rd party and got 20% 0f the vote - the majority of which would have gone to GHWB. Nothing will ever convince me that Clinton was not in cahoots with him. His mission was to protect Clinton's rear. All you have to do is look at his actions and when/why he took those actions in both the GHWB and Bob Dole campaigns.

Number 2 - That campaign was the first "big lie" campaign that I ever witnessed, perhaps the first in history. Clinton droned on about the "worst economy in 50 years" over a minor technical 'recession' that was over before the election.

Number 3 - This was the real beginning of the MSM weighing in on one side of a political campaign. The MSM could - and should - have countered the 'worst economy' narrative with facts and history, but they remained silent on truth and propagated the false narrative.

Number 4 - Again, with media assistance, the DEMOCRATs ganged up to destroy GHWB's popularity. He was soaring in the 80% approval level when the DeMs saw the had to 'do something' right after the success of the Gulf War. They began the 'bad war' narrative where they reversed every position they had taken just 2 years earlier.

Number 5 - is all the GOP's fault, especially GHWB. I truly believe he just lost the stomach for waging a campaign against the DEMOCRAT's gutter tactics.

That campaign was when I decided the GOP must learn to fight the dirty tactics of the DEMOCRATs in a presidential campaign.

Nobody has done that until Trump came along. I loathed Trump during teh primary but recognized that at least he was not 'taking it on the chin' like all prior GOP candidates had done, and I admired that.

I still abhor Trump's persona, but if it takes that kind of brawler to combat the DEMOCRAT smear/filth/lying machine then so be it ==== MAGA!!!

Electing Clinton was a travesty and planted the seeds for widespread 'deep state' corruption that bore fruit with the Obama disasterous administration.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram