^^ to be fair, I don't know that he can technically pardon someone who has yet to be charged, much less convicted.

2/12/2017 12:52:58 AM

Holy crap dude....NIXON

2/12/2017 6:55:00 AM

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

+all of the points

3/2/2017 1:52:33 AM

And... "President" Trump has officially requested the house Intelligence Committee to investigate Obama and 2016 and will not comment until this is complete.

This is fucking nuts. Fucking nuts. Anyone who voted for this fool should be ashamed.

(And the GOP needs to step up and stop this. Pence can sign your bullshit too.)

[Edited on March 5, 2017 at 9:01 AM. Reason : Also a way to basically pass the buck when it's obvious trump has nothing]

3/5/2017 8:53:47 AM

What if he does have something, and Obama was able to get a warrant to tap his phones? Then the president would have initiated an investigation into his own conspiracy.

Even I don't think that he is that dumb. There is nothing here and he is gonna blame it on the "fake news" and dems in the Senate.



[Edited on March 5, 2017 at 12:36 PM. Reason : a]

3/5/2017 12:36:17 PM

Trump always goes on Twitter benders before a news break

3/5/2017 12:49:17 PM

Didn't Snowden expose that we did this shit to EVERYONE under FISA warrants, and the IRS was directed to target conservative groups under Obama, but now it's preposterous to think Obama may have ordered investigations including wiretaps into Trump?

3/5/2017 12:49:37 PM

No, he did not show that Obama directed for a warrants on everyone

[Edited on March 5, 2017 at 12:51 PM. Reason : For a = fisa]

3/5/2017 12:51:30 PM

This is ludicrous. Literally insane. It doesn't even make sense at base level. So Obama ordered wiretaps, collected evidence and sat on it while watching the FBI leak nonsense after nonsense about what was on Weiner's laptop and then Trump closing gap and ultimately winning?

So he's doing all this illegal work and then doesn't even use it? It makes no fucking sense. But Breitbart...

And of course lapdog Nunes is on the case just like I'm sure Burr will be shortly on the Senate side. I can't wait until Obama finally loses it and unleashes on this sideshow circus freak in the White House.

3/5/2017 1:13:26 PM

ordered wiretaps, found nothing regarding Russia, tried to collect Trump campaign strategy information to help Hillary with a counter-offensive, but found nothing resembling a campaign strategy either because there wasn't one.

3/5/2017 1:27:03 PM

Absolute madness. People have lost their mind.

(and the issue is not whether or not a FISA warrant was issued but rather if Obama did it outside of the law)

[Edited on March 5, 2017 at 1:36 PM. Reason : X]

3/5/2017 1:30:28 PM

Quote :

" I can't wait until Obama finally loses it and unleashes on this sideshow circus freak in the White House."

I don't understand how the Bush family hasn't had Trump killed yet.

3/5/2017 2:24:26 PM

really excited for people to attempt to excuse this behavior

3/5/2017 2:48:02 PM

I mean the GOP already said they'll investigate it as part of the Russia look.

That's fine but when/if the dems get power back they should go scorched earth times ten. It obviously works. Fuck discourse at this point.

3/5/2017 3:42:37 PM

eleusis is a cuckold also when it comes to politics

3/5/2017 3:59:08 PM

Here's a gem from the National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump

Quote :

"Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power."

The presidential administration seeking to conduct national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party might be unprecedented, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as any more of a scandal than the presidential candidate of the opposition party potentially requiring national-security surveillance in and of itself.

However, I also wouldn't necessarily characterize it as any more unprecedented than the presidential candidate of the opposition party potentially requiring national-security surveillance.

What is the presidential administration expected to do in that situation?

[Edited on March 5, 2017 at 11:41 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2017 11:34:18 PM

The NSA doesn't spy on Trump, just every single other American

3/6/2017 2:02:28 AM

Maybe after all of the Russia #FakeNews Trump figured he could just make up his own conspiracy theory to trigger the leftists. Either way it is entertaining.

3/6/2017 12:17:19 PM

<insert the ol' "two wrongs" adage here>

3/6/2017 2:19:14 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand how the Bush family hasn't had Trump killed yet. "

Trump is single-handedly saving Bush's legacy.

3/6/2017 5:41:25 PM

Nothing but silence ITT after the latest WikiLeaks eh? I guess nobody has the heart to do it to their Nobel-prize winning God-King.

Fine, I'll do it.

-10000000000000 credibility

3/7/2017 10:56:51 PM

Fake news!

3/7/2017 11:23:42 PM

Hmmm

3/8/2017 5:18:27 PM

-400k points for taking $400k cash from wall street

5/1/2017 6:26:46 AM

Why? Are you worried he's going to sign an executive order that helps the banks now?

5/1/2017 8:51:30 AM

He can give all the speeches he wants to now. Who cares?

5/1/2017 9:28:25 AM

Do I really need to explain why this is bad?

5/1/2017 11:34:17 AM

I'd love to hear why you believe this is bad.

5/1/2017 11:37:08 AM

Because we have a system where wall street always wins, the little guy gets screwed and has to bail their corrupt asses out. That's not going to change when policy makers are literally getting rich off it too.

5/1/2017 11:45:07 AM

^ more succinctly, knowing the windfall is there for these speeches to be made may make a person in power less likely to do what's in the best interest of the country to protect future self-interest.

I don't know that applies to Obama since Wall Street hated his ass for the regulations but it certainly won't help the Dems from an optics standpoint.

5/1/2017 11:55:29 AM

I don't think, given where we are in 2017, that "optics" is a word that needs to be used in a political context

5/1/2017 11:59:47 AM

Well there has to be a reason why more people think Trump (and by extension GOP) policy is less beholden to Wall Street and more for the little man than Democrats.

That is so silly that facts obviously don't matter (see: healthcare and tax reform) so it must be perception, no?

[Edited on May 1, 2017 at 12:12 PM. Reason : WaPo had an article discussing some interesting polling today]

5/1/2017 12:11:37 PM

I'm not a big fan of Obama giving Wall Street speeches, but it's pretty small potatoes when compared to Trump stocking of the entire treasury department with RECENT Goldman executives.

5/1/2017 12:13:52 PM

he's getting market value for a speech

it's much ado about nothing

5/1/2017 12:21:00 PM

Quote :

"Because we have a system where wall street always wins, the little guy gets screwed and has to bail their corrupt asses out. That's not going to change when policy makers are literally getting rich off it too."

So we can all assume you are not only in support of existing Wall Street regulations, but would like to see more of them and will be really upset with any politicians attempting to roll them back?

5/1/2017 12:37:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm not a big fan of Obama giving Wall Street speeches, but it's pretty small potatoes when compared to Trump stocking of the entire treasury department with RECENT Goldman executives."

Hmm weird that beatsunc isn't complaining about that, but rather this chump change by comparison.

[Edited on May 1, 2017 at 12:59 PM. Reason : i wonder why...]

5/1/2017 12:40:52 PM

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/859088698650001408

He diarrhea's this out and it gives people cover to say "seeeeeeee, man of people" when he doesn't even understand what he said and certainly doesn't mean it.

5/1/2017 1:00:04 PM

Just seems like there is/should be more worry about a sitting President profiting off their position than a past president profiting from the position, especially when that President had an acceptable track record while in office against Wall Street. So the argument that a President wouldn't hold a group accountable so they could make money giving speeches to that group after they are President doesn't seem to hold up in this case. Wealthy group pays celebrity for a speech doesn't seem like a huge deal really. It is just a distraction tactic, continue to blame Hillary and Obama because the base likes that scapegoat and deflect attention from anything going on now.

You are free to feel Obama is hypocritical but the outrage is pretty disproportionate to how big an issue this is, who cares what he does he isn't President anymore he has the right to make money. He'll also get a tax cut on that money he is making and will therefore stimulate the trickle down economy, so this should excite Republicans as it shows their amazing tax policy at work. The Republican economy is so good the worst President ever can make $400k giving a speech to a group that shouldn't like him...I'm surprised we haven't seen that one yet.

5/1/2017 1:31:59 PM

Quote :

"he's getting market value for a speech"

Shit, Hillary got $200k/speech, you think Obama is only 2x the speaker she is? He's getting waaaaay less than market value.

5/1/2017 4:17:53 PM

Quote :

"it's much ado about nothing"

No, actually, it isn't. If a president, who was elected during the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes due to Wall Street malfeasance, fails to prosecute the leading members who KNOWINGLY and FRAUDULENTLY maid MILLIONS off the back of ordinary citizens. If he then fails to make any meaningful reforms to prevent that from happening again while also putting Wall Street members in his cabinet, and then leaving office to COLLECT on his inaction, then that signals that he never intended to reform the very system that helped him get elected.


Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that the usual Democratic cheerleaders on this forum casually dismiss this obvious conflict of interest. And it's pathetic that the only excuse you can muster up is a flimsy neoliberal defence of his "market value."

5/1/2017 5:05:37 PM

I mean, opposing Wall Street is such an easy fucking win, but Democrats won't do it because they're addicted to that flush Wall Street campaign cash.

If a Democrat actually stood up against Wall Street, who oversaw the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history, that Democrat would gain support from both sides of the political spectrum. But Nooooope, they can't hurt the ruling class, because that would be bad for their political careers. So, instead they'll just continue speaking out of both sides of their mouths, paying lip service to the dangers of gross economic inequality without ever having the balls to actually do something about it.

5/1/2017 5:14:07 PM

I know nothing about the author, but recently saw a friend share this and agree mostly:

https://forwardprogressives.com/let-address-ridiculous-freak-obamas-paid-wall-street-speech/

I'm absolutely sick of the purity tests

5/1/2017 5:26:25 PM

Why? Because you keep failing them?

Too fucking bad. Stop calling yourself a progressive then if it's so goddamn hard and you keep getting your feelings hurt.

5/1/2017 5:28:18 PM

You overestimate "regulation of Wall Street" as a primary motivator for getting people to the polls and voting Dem, IMO. It's not a no-brainer, because the average voter doesn't seem to give a shit about it as an issue. Maybe they need a politician to paint a picture for them and convince them of its importance, but electoral history, to me, suggests they just don't care.

-Obama, who mostly handled Wall Street with kid gloves, did do a few token things to reign WS in at the height of the recession. This should have been a slam dunk. Conservatives (GOP and dem) attacked his meager efforts as a "shakedown" of private business. Somehow, defying all logic, this was actually an effective attack. (Scary socialism!!!!!! Even after they cratered the economy)

-a vast majority of asshats in congress that ran interference for Wall Street at the height of the recession were re-elected.

-the GOP has mentioned, usually fairly casually, they want to repeal Dodd-frank, CFPB, etc. they just won both houses of congress, the presidency, and a whole bunch of shit at the state level.

-Hillary, a candidate that was constantly tied to WS (for good and obvious reasons), beat Bernie, one of the least WS candidates we've had in a while. You can blame this on DNC cheating, but the reality is 10s of millions of people voted Hillary in the primary while obviously not giving a shit about her WS connections.

-Trump, who used some anti-WS rhetoric during the campaign, flipped once in office and appointed a bunch of Goldman executives to the treasury dept. We literally have Mnuchin on video telling a group of bankers they should be thanking him for their recent run in the stock market. While there was some reporting on it, it barely even registered as scandalous. I certainly thought he should've gotten hammered for those comments.

I'm just not seeing the motivation among voters and I'm guessing federal level Dems, who market test and poll 90% of the shit that comes out of their mouths, aren't seeing the motivation either.


As far as purity test, they're tiring to me too because they often ignore the on-the-ground voting situation. I'll hold my nose and vote for the stinkiest of blue-dogs if it keeps a sharia-law republican out of office in my district. Unfortunately that is often the extent of the choices we get to make in the district I live in.

5/2/2017 12:10:40 PM

There's a pretty huge difference between holding your nose and voting for a blue dog (which I could argue that you shouldn't do, but whatever) and then excusing the behavior of said blue dog after he does something you disagree with.

As to your point about "regulating Wall St" as something to gain democratic voters, well...we'll never know, because Democrats never make this a platform priority even though it was handed to them on a silver platter in 2008. Neither Obama nor Clinton ever cared to try, and that should be plainly obvious from their donor history, lack of prosecution, treatment of the "occupy" movement, and large speaking fees.

I mean, for fucks sake, yesterday was May Day, and marches agitating for better conditions for minorities and the working poor occurred throughout the country.....and the party loyalists in this thread were outchea defending the former president for collecting a half mill for a fucking speech to wall st because of his supposed "market value"

If that juxtaposition doesn't clearly highlight the difference between neoliberal democrats and the progressive left, then nothing will. Seriously, man, fuck their feelings.

[Edited on May 2, 2017 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/2/2017 2:00:07 PM

how would you feel if Obama hit every point you'd ever dream about someone in a position of power hitting while talking to Wall Street?

or even half?

5/2/2017 2:21:22 PM

It wouldn't mean a goddamn thing if he did.


Don't even bother finishing that argument. It's weak as shit and smells even worse. He was the fucking president. He had a chance to do something about it and chose not to.

5/2/2017 2:26:01 PM

Quote :

" lack of prosecution"

Earl talks about this all the time too. Is there anyone, anywhere who has run for office who would have actually done this? I can't imagine a Sanders or Warren would even. Maybe I'm too cynical though.

5/2/2017 2:38:13 PM

Think about what you are suggesting.

That Wall St fraudulent criminality is fine, simply because they are above the law. Is that what you're getting at? That we shouldn't demand our political leaders to prosecute criminal behavior?

5/2/2017 2:52:10 PM

I mean, Jesus...people went to jail during the savings and loans scandal.....but apparently we can't expect that anymore from our oligarchs

5/2/2017 2:58:08 PM