Discussion in 'Current Events' started by StillBlue, Feb 18, 2020.
Don't bother posting ridiculous conspiracies to me.
Maybe. Though the WH is under no obligation to explain itself or to clarify others' remarks.
Yep, except you for the abdication of Congress to Federal Reserve Board.
What about his campaign remarks at his rallies? Are they "official statements" or just "personal expressions of free speech?"
"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe Trump is the final Prophet of God, and his Tweets are like the Koran]." (Clinton)
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (Obama)
Just replace "Islam" with "Trumpism," or be a Hypocrite. It is your choice.
The DOJ has said they’re official statements. So has POTUS’ press secretary. He’s never said otherwise.
You confuse confirm with confidence. The agencies could not and did not confirm that Russian interference was to help Trump. But they certainly wanted everyone to think that they "confirmed" it and so did a little song and dance and poured seltzer down their pants with words like "confidence."
In late August 2016 Susan Rice told her counter cyber attack analysts to stand down on their efforts to counter Russian hacking because they "were getting ahead of the president." This was confirmed by numerous statements and testimony by the chief of the NSA's counter cyber group and others. Rice did not deny any of it, probably because she thought she had already done her lying duty with Benghazi. IIRC it was early December 2016 when Obama exposed the Russian interference and IIRC booted some Russian embassy officers out. It also kicked off what would become Mueller's investigation into Trump even though Obama's FBI was already doing that.
Are you serious??? Do you actually believe campaign speeches are official executive branch pronouncements????
I can imagine a politician saying stuff about judges and prosecutors, and cases, while in or out of office; it has to be inevitable in some cases. It's how we know to vote for them or not.
If the judge was a racist, and a prosecutor reluctant to try a racist, hence some people getting away with bombing black churches for like ever. Then comes the accusation that justice can't be served if the elected executive weighs in; since we elect our leaders let them speak, if you don't like who they attack and who they defend, don't vote for them. Stone resembles a creep, still, he's not a creepy as JB Stoner dressed like Colonel Sanders decades after the crime.
How about his White House lawn comments, on his way to the helicopter? Official or personal? Golf course?
"Level of confidence" is a quantitative measurement and a statistical term, which of course must ultimately involve subjective evaluations based upon years of experience. Rice's famous weekend of interviews with the MSM was based on talking points cleared by various agencies, including the State Department and the CIA. Because of the rescue attempt ion the Ambassador and other State Department personnel at the diplomatic facility, a covert CIA operation had been exposed, which ultimately led to the deaths of two former special operations personnel contracted to the CIA. Rice, the U.N. Ambassador at the time, "took one for the team" as they wrapped up the CIA operation. IOW, she simply delivered the explanation of the National Security Council, who coordinated her talking points with the other involved agencies. And, the fallout probably cost her a promotion to Secretary of State, when Kerry replaced Clinton.
Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, AFTER Trump fired Comey. That was the reason for the appointment of a Special Counsel. Otherwise, Comey would have simply continued the investigation on his own.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch, which falls under the purview of the president. If you don't get that, you need to educate yourself...
And since Watergate, presidents have recognised the importance of letting the DOJ operate independent of political influence. Looks like Trump and his supporters want to go back to the Nixon days ....
Why would I care about that? Trump is doing nothing the Founders didn't intend...
I’m quite sure the founders would be absolutely horrified at what Trump is doing as president.
Remember - Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms as president and his example lasted - without a formal term limit - for 150 years. Trump would stay in office until he died, if he could.
That's all you ca come up with? A lame right wing talking point? You challenged by mentioning the constitution, so please show me the Article and Section of the constitution that supports your claim that the AG reports to the president as his direct supervisor.
By your posts here, I'm fairly certain that I'm not the one needing to educate myself. Let me help you.
"The Act created the Office of Attorney General, whose primary responsibility was to represent the United States before the Supreme Court."
Yes, a president can request investigations, but if those investigations are without merit or probable cause, the AG is under no obligation to conduct those investigations and instead, traditionally, advises the president on the lack of cause. Trump is openly and publicly calling for investigations into those who he perceives as personal enemies, and directing Billy the Bagman to interfere in the sentencing of his pals. Even Nixon had the grace to do this in private.
This is not what the founders intended when the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act. Such behavior by a president and AG is how things work in autocracies, not Democratic republics.
Are you really okay with what Trump is having Barr do? Because if so, perhaps you're living in the wrong country. If populism and autocracy appeal to you, there are many countries in the world where Trump's and Barr's behaviors are the norm. May you should pick one and go there? Because that is not how things are done in a free country.
Oh please, seeing as how wrong you folks have been since Hillary lost, I know better than to trust what your 'sure' of.
Remember the only loser jackass that didn't follow Washington's lead? A Democrat. See why I'm not about to take your sureties on anything...
Not what I came up with, but the Founders. Read the Constitution, if you don't understand it, you really have no business whining about unrelated nonsense...
Again you fail to produce the Article and Section of the Constitution that supports your claim. No surprise, since I have read it, I have taken classes to study it, and so I know that there is nothing in the constitution about the AG. Not one word. (The Constitution predates the first AG.) But go ahead, prove me wrong. Otherwise, have the honor and the courage to admit you are wrong about it. (I won't hold my breath.)
Incidentally, I can tell that providing you with good information was, as usual with Trumpsters, a complete waste of my time. You didn't open a single link, did you? Very predictable. But what the heck, I'm enjoying this as I sip a cup of hot coffee while admiring the view of snow covered mountains out my front window.
What are you here for?
So what? Getting the FISA warrant gave them access to past communications and was because of that association wig he campaign.
There's no victim.
That look bad is evidence in and of it's self of wrong doing. It creates a conflict of interest
Past foreign communications. With who?
Separate names with a comma.