|
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 06:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:54 On_Slaught wrote:
Does the FBI head have to be confirmed or is he just selected and off he goes? The FBI director is confirmed by congress for 10 year terms. They are supposed to survive several administrations. Apparently Trump wants to make sure this Russia investigation stops now. I also like how Sessions and Trump provide zero reasons for this firing.
While it is true that congress confirms them for 10 year terms, the position is not typically served that long. The intention of the law was a term limit since Hoover served for almost 50 years. There are about an even split between (almost) 10 year and not 10 year excluding all of the deputy directors between appointees. Most of them served about 8 years due to replacement from the new incoming president.
|
Which would have been fine, but the letter from Trump specially cites the Russian investigation and Comey telling Trump the truth.
|
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long.
|
Now we just need to see if the Senate rubber stamps the next director, since they only need 50 votes.
|
On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long.
Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to.
|
On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:04 Introvert wrote:
The flip flopping we are doing on Comey is hilarious.
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.
I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI?
How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him.
FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here?
Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively.
|
On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote: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. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively.
Trump said he had full confidence in Comey after the jan 24th.
|
On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long.
On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to.
The president appointing a new FBI director is normal as Obama is the exception. Firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal.
|
United States43607 Posts
Somewhere Jared Kushner is checking his schedule to see if he has time between ending opioid addiction, creating a stable peace in the Middle East, rebuilding the relationship with Mexico, acting as the special ambassador to China, reforming the VA, reforming the criminal justice system as a whole and running the White House Office of Innovation to run the FBI.
|
On May 10 2017 07:34 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote: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. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively. Trump said he had full confidence in Comey after the jan 24th.
That was before everyone found out about Flynn and the endless ties to Russia.
|
United States43607 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote: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. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively.
I'm honestly not convinced that xDaunt can see issues where Trump is involved. I don't think he's pretending to be blind out of party loyalty.
|
On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is very normal. Obama is the exception here. Maybe firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal.
Is is normal to fire them when they are investigating your previous National Security adviser's connections to Russia, which you were previously warned about by your predecessor and the AG you also fired?
I am waiting for Mattis to get canned.
|
On May 10 2017 07:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:34 biology]major wrote:On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote: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. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively. Trump said he had full confidence in Comey after the jan 24th. That was before everyone found out about Flynn and the endless ties to Russia.
Why would he fire someone will all the information into the russia investigation if there was something there? I honestly don't understand this move no matter how you slice it.
|
Woah this is huge. What reason did they give for firing him? He fired Yates when she found out about Flynn so I wonder if Comey found something too.
Also how does Sessions recuse himself from the investigation for lying under oath but then later fire the head of the investigation party 
|
On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me.
You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution.
|
United States43607 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Also how does Sessions recuse himself from the investigation for lying under oath but then later fire the head of the investigation party
Behind every specific rule there is the idiot who forced everyone to write down something so fucking obvious it should never have needed to be written down in the first place. The Trump administration is that idiot. The new rules come later.
|
On May 10 2017 07:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Woah this is huge. What reason did they give for firing him? He fired Yates when she found out about Flynn so I wonder if Comey found something too. Also how does Sessions recuse himself from the investigation for lying under oath but then later fire the head of the investigation party
To be fair he fired Yates when she refused to defend his first immigration stop EO.
|
On May 10 2017 07:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:35 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 07:34 biology]major wrote:On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote: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. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively. Trump said he had full confidence in Comey after the jan 24th. That was before everyone found out about Flynn and the endless ties to Russia. Why would he fire someone will all the information into the russia investigation if there was something there? I honestly don't understand this move no matter how you slice it.
So remember all that time back when I said Trump is a lot like Nixon in a lot of ways, including how vindictive he is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
Man, we suck at naming things now.
|
i agree w danglars that the Alabama white supremacist law is constitutional so long as its not only applied to black people. there are white felons you know.
|
United States43607 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution.
So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
