|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 10 2017 07:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:03 Plansix wrote:
Let the impeachment begin. Time to grow a spine Congress. You are not getting healthcare, not getting a tax cut. Give it up GOP, you now have to police the dumpster fire in the White House. No chance. They're cowards.
The thing is it would be reasonably easy to get Trump to say something incriminating in public, get him under oath, and get him to lie under oath.
While I full y agree they are cowards and makes it unlikely, it wouldn't actually be that hard, particularly when you remember Pence has long relationships around DC and with Republican leaders from across the country.
They just have to find the thing (or long list of things) that does it. This won't be it though, because basically between November and yesterday ~99% of the "fire Comey" tweets/talk were coming from liberals.
|
On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:04 Introvert wrote:
The flip flopping we are doing on Comey is hilarious.
This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton.
Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing.
|
Half the FBI is going to revolt. It is going to be leaks for days for everyone. The one thing Trump lacks is people that are loyal to him.
On May 10 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton. Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing.
It also isn't a Muslim ban and everyone gets to keep their healthcare.
|
On May 10 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton. Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing.
Like that means something...
On May 10 2017 07:12 Plansix wrote:Half the FBI is going to revolt. It is going to be leaks for days for everyone. The one thing Trump lacks is people that are loyal to him. Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton. Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing. It also isn't a Muslim ban and everyone gets to keep their healthcare.
At this point I will not be surprised if the entire investigation dossier ends up in the hands of CNN or something.
Only way to be sure this does not get buried.
|
On May 10 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton. Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing.
In the words of Dick Cheney/Democratic party "So?"
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton. Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing. In the words of Dick Cheney/Democratic party "So?"
At least the 20t deficit will be paid off in full, right?
|
On May 10 2017 07:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:05 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:03 Plansix wrote:
Let the impeachment begin. Time to grow a spine Congress. You are not getting healthcare, not getting a tax cut. Give it up GOP, you now have to police the dumpster fire in the White House. No chance. They're cowards. Of course. They are going to try an act like everything is normal while the rails come off things.
I'm not even sure if that response from Kwark was supposed to be about the Republicans or the Dems over there... I don't even see Dems being serious about it aside from a lot of barking without anything to back it up in the end. So no way in hell are Republicans going to do anything about it. The more moderate ones are maybe going to feign some concern but that's about it.
Kinda scary that he's getting away with it (assumption on my part). He really can do whatever at this point and not be touched if he just fills up every position with people who are doing as he says no matter what
|
On May 10 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:08 Plansix wrote:This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton. Which the Trump Administration said they had no intention on doing.
What you have to understand about the Trump Administration, is that it's a different entity from the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration has always believed Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted, but the Trump Administration, on the other hand, believes that Hillary Clinton is a traitor who should be forced to fight a starved bear for the amusement of the Citizens in a specially erected battle arena (if victorious, she can fight a different bear). The Trump Administration, being more merciful than the Trump Administration, is content to merely have her drawn and quartered to bloodthirsty cheers (it would get great ratings, the best since 9/11).
|
Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected.
|
On May 10 2017 07:14 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:09 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 07:05 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:03 Plansix wrote:
Let the impeachment begin. Time to grow a spine Congress. You are not getting healthcare, not getting a tax cut. Give it up GOP, you now have to police the dumpster fire in the White House. No chance. They're cowards. Of course. They are going to try an act like everything is normal while the rails come off things. I'm not even sure if that response from Kwark was supposed to be about the Republicans or the Dems over there... I don't even see Dems being serious about it aside from a lot of barking without anything to back it up in the end. So no way in hell are Republicans going to do anything about it. The more moderate ones are maybe going to feign some concern but that's about it. Kinda scary that he's getting away with it (assumption on my part). He really can do whatever at this point and not be touched if he just fills up every position with people who are doing as he says no matter what
From Session's letter, they are going to appoint a new director and bring charges against Clinton. That is how they get the attention away from Russia.
|
This Deputy AG report is so damning. Justice department and FBI war in two and a half pages.
|
On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected.
Its almost like the world is a complicated place and Comey can be both those things. Is this you saying Comey being fired isn't a bad thing?
|
Which is a catch 22 as it will cost a lot of political points never mind the fact that several politicians on both sides of the aisle have done the same thing including the current POTUS. Along with three updated leak news fromedia today.
|
On May 10 2017 07:18 Danglars wrote:
This Deputy AG report is so damning. Justice department and FBI war in two and a half pages.
Both put into roles they never should have had. Congress should have appointed an independent investigator, rather than using those offices as political tools to attack Clinton.
|
On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected.
I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained.
But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this.
|
On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this.
The timing is crucial. Their reason is complete BS. I hope Trump's approval rating goes to 20%, or the republicans grow a spine.
|
Well, at least their distraction of choice was firing Comey instead of shooting a missile at North Korea.
I do enjoy this Snowden tweet:
|
On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this.
There never was going to be a good time for Comey to go. It was always going to look bad. Regardless of the timing, the need for getting rid of him is pretty obvious, which the Deputy AG laid out well.
|
After his October statements, Hillary would have removed him too. He was always on borrowed time, although for a while it seemed like he'd defy the odds and stick around.
|
On May 10 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:16 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. I was being reasonable and pointing to well grounded principles of law and ethics. you are not, and are naysaying without an actual sound argument. you are trolling. please don't troll. I'll try to put it into your terms. I didn't see an actual sound argument in the first place from you. This is presidential campaigning and I'm sad to say campaign promises don't always come true and Trump contradicts himself on a regular basis if you don't cherry pick your quotes.
If you ask me this boils down to the exteriorization of Law (ie the EO) in order to institute a hierarchal sacred order. we cannot tell what Trump means whenhe speaks, only when he writes laws. law becomes sacred writing imbued with the parousia that makes possible plain meaning. isn't that what we mean by "rule of law?"
the conflict of interpretation takes place in the arena of execution. what is the meaning of the law and to whom? don't you find it discomforting, for example, to be forced to make choices about which judge has the right interpretation? doesn't the idea of "judge" itself already undermine the idea of "plain meaning" from the beginning? perhaps the most discomforting part is the centrality of a certain person's statement that the "same" EO might be (un)constitutional depending on who wrote it? who executed it?
what is the place of the Law as sacred instituting order and what is the place of politics in the act of judging? maybe we should be thinking about Trump as crisis; that which destabilizes and delegitimates the sacral hierarchy.
practically speaking if the executive branch and the judicial branch are at war (in the scenario where the EO1/2 is struck down) might that not mean that the Constitutional order itself is threatened? and if it is, how can we say that it is the "fault" of one or the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
