Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Trump The Merciful

OldBrownsFan

By OldBrownsFan
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

During the general election campaign, Donald Trump told his supporters time and time again that he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding Emailgate. Chants of “Lock her up! Lock her up!” could be heard a Trump rallies. Trump even told Hillary during a debate, “Because you’d be in jail” to raucous response.

 

The general election is now over and Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in an astonishing victory that the pollsters never saw coming. So, will President-elect Trump make good on his promise to do what he can to lock her up due to the massive corruption that she has evaded consequences for under an Obama regime. According to President-elect Trump’s campaign manager, the answer is a resounding no.

 

Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday morning, Conway revealed that President-elect Trump, in a break from promises by candidate Trump, has no intention to pursue any charges against Hillary Clinton because “she’s been through enough.”

 

http://politistick.com/trump-has-no-plans-to-prosecute-hillary/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

He just wants her to be comfortable so Obama doesn't issue a pardon.

 

Anyway chaffetz and those guys are still on it, plus the FBI is still investigating the Clinton foundation.

I figure by now that s*** has been scoured as cleanly as possible. I mean she's got another couple months of the justice department and the FBI to cover her tracks.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

Bullshit its the right thing to do. He said it was day 1 material. Hopefully ed is right and they're just ploying fr obama to forego the pardon. Its the one thing i wasnhoping he'd keep his word about cause frankly it would be the easiest. I just wonder if the reps in the end prefer to have their liberal boogeyman, the clintons and their foundation, still around so they can use even minor associations against candidates across the country

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I voted for Trump but I did so with my eyes open. Flip flop number 2. Trump changes tune on waterboarding.

 

The president-elect’s turnabout on the need for torture as a tool in the fight against terrorism, which he repeatedly endorsed during the campaign, was remarkable. Mr. Trump suggested he has changed his mind about the usefulness of waterboarding and other forms of torture after talking with James N. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who headed the United States Central Command.

“He said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Mr. Trump said, describing the general’s view of torturing terrorism suspects. He added that Mr. Mattis found more value in building trust and rewarding cooperation with terror suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I’ll do better.’” He added: “I was very impressed by that answer.’’

Torture, Mr. Trump said, is “not going to make the kind of a difference that a lot of people are thinking.”

 

"If you’ll remember, Trump and his surrogates dumped all over those dummies who were such wussies that they wouldn’t use what are considered “torture tactics” to get information out of captured terrorists. Here’s one instance where Trump pummeled Ted Cruz for being wishy-washy and uncertain, according to him, about the controversial tactics.

 

Now it appears that was just a dumb joke and Trump is going to turn on his words and just give each terrorist a couple of beers and a pack of cigarettes.

 

Now this might be a good thing as it means he’ll back off on his threat to force the military to commit other acts considered crimes against humanity but what does it say about Trump? He can change his policies at any moment as long as someone tells him a story he finds satisfying."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cuz saying "I'll torture terrorists" makes his voting base feel good. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

 

He played that base like a violin. Hopefully he backs off most of his promises

 

I don't care about his flip flops so far and I"ll wait to see if he nominates and fights for a Supreme Court justice who is a strong constitutional justice like Scalia or if he caves to Chuck Schumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dste Ace Newbie

Dste Ace

Posted
Posted

He just wants her to be comfortable so Obama doesn't issue a pardon.

 

Anyway chaffetz and those guys are still on it, plus the FBI is still investigating the Clinton foundation.

 

All of his shortcomings aside, I don't think Obama will buy that for a second. I believe that around 11:55 am on Jan. 20,

Obama will issue a full pardon to HRC as a final "Kiss my black ass" to McConnell, Chaffetz, Issa, Gowdy, and the rest

of the Republican faithful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

 

All of his shortcomings aside, I don't think Obama will buy that for a second. I believe that around 11:55 am on Jan. 20,

Obama will issue a full pardon to HRC as a final "Kiss my black ass" to McConnell, Chaffetz, Issa, Gowdy, and the rest

of the Republican faithful.

I don't care if she sees any jail time at all. It will just be nice to know that the Democrats know and admit she's a f****** crook.

 

;)

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dste Ace Newbie

Dste Ace

Posted
Posted

I don't care if she sees any jail time at all. It will just be nice to know that the Democrats know and admit she's a f****** crook.

 

;)

 

WSS

 

 

For better or worse, that's the story of the 2016 election: like Trump, her supporters know exactly what she is---

they simply don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

 

 

For better or worse, that's the story of the 2016 election: like Trump, her supporters know exactly what she is---

they simply don't care.

And if viewed solely through cold logic it probably makes no difference as to whether or not either of them can do the job.

 

(especially since I believe anyone small amount of political knowledge can be president.)

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dste Ace Newbie

Dste Ace

Posted
Posted

And if viewed solely through cold logic it probably makes no difference as to whether or not either of them can do the job.

 

(especially since I believe anyone small amount of political knowledge can be president.)

 

WSS

 

 

I agree. It depends on a large part on who the president-elect chooses to surround themselves with.

I always thought it was unfair to completely lay the Iraq debacle on W's shoulders. Although, in the end

it was W who had to make the final decision.

 

I admit I am concerned by some of the people that Trump is bringing on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't care if she sees any jail time at all. It will just be nice to know that the Democrats know and admit she's a f****** crook.

 

;)

 

WSS

 

I think she should go to jail if she put our national security at risk. That is not small potatoes.

 

Flashback: When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium

 

 

The Democrats’ newfound paranoia about Russian influence on American affairs was certainly nowhere to be found when Hillary Clinton was cheerfully selling them a huge chunk of America’s uranium stockpile, right after a Russian bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

The Uranium One story is among the incidents detailed in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. A quick recap: Uranium One was originally a Canadian company, bought out by Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

 

Uranium One’s big shots were very, very generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, the “charity” through which so much foreign money flowed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported in April 2015 about how those donations spiked as the deal for Rosatom to secure Uranium One and its holdings in the United States was brought to a successful conclusion, along with one of Bill Clinton’s biggest paydays ever:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

[…] Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

The Russian bank in question, Renaissance Capital, was so pleased with Bill Clinton’s performance at that $500k Q&A that Vladimir Putin, who was prime minister at the time, personally called Clinton to thank him.

According to Clinton Cash, the total donations from Uranium One shareholders to the Clinton Foundation exceeded $145 million, in the run-up to Hillary Clinton’s State Department approving the Rosatom deal, which gave Russia control over about 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

 

The Clintons have always insisted that none of these big foreign contributions or six-figure speaking fees ever influenced policy decisions, but now they’ve suddenly become very interested in Russian influence on the DNC Leaks controversy.

 

That’s an impressive double standard, which the media also follows, since the same news organizations currently flooding the zone with Russian hacker stories were completely uninterested in asking Hillary Clinton about the Uranium One deal. Even papers that reported on the story, like the New York Times, made a point of never confronting Clinton about it, during her amusingly rare press availabilities.

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...