|
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 13 2017 17:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2017 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 12:06 Danglars wrote:On May 13 2017 11:26 Nevuk wrote:
Bland but whatever. That's kinda what Trump supports are doing. We're saddened by Trumo's morning tweets, saddened by DNC afternoon responses, saddened by the media evening tweets. And then lather rinse repeat tomorrow. But not saddened by Trump firing Comey based on his actions related to the Russia investigation. I think you're missing the gravity of the situation - even if it's true that it's overhyped to some extent by the media. If by gravity you mean how stupid it was to have such a system in the first place, when there was nothing but perception stopping anyone from doing this. Or that dumping an unfriendly FBI head isn't that unusual, just being such a lazy, petulant, dick about it is. The Trump/Russia connection probably has significant financial ties, personally compromising Trump to some degree, but it's obviously not the big story the non-stop coverage from Maddow would suggest. The big sign that's it's probably much to do about very little, is how the focus and accusations have shifted over time. It went from "Russia Hacked the Election to make Trump win" to "Members of the Trump team may have said improper things to Russians, and he's done business with Russians for years, so they probably wanted him to win sorta" I think I like the idea of changing the system for FBI directors though, maybe they could only be impeached by Congress or something. nah that's dumb. they serve at the pleasure of the president
Great argument
|
More than three months after the Senate Intelligence Committee launched its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election — including allegations of collusion by associates of President Trump — the panel has made little progress and is increasingly stymied by partisan divisions that are jeopardizing the future of the inquiry, according to multiple sources involved in the probe.
The committee has yet to issue a single subpoena for documents or interview any key witnesses who are central to the probe, the sources said. It also hasn’t requested potentially crucial evidence — such as the emails, memos and phone records of the Trump campaign — in part because the panel’s chairman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has so far failed to respond to requests from the panel’s Democrats to sign letters doing so, the sources said.
“The wheels seem to be turning more slowly than the importance of the inquiry would indicate,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 commission and former Watergate prosecutor, one of a number of veteran Washington investigators who have begun to question the lack of movement in the probe.
www.yahoo.com
|
Congress being the only one able to fire the FBI director would make it a highly political hire/fire game. The problem is less with the rules and more with the president.
|
On May 14 2017 00:47 Nevuk wrote:
My phone refused to play this. What are the important quotes/takeaways?
|
On May 14 2017 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
Congress being the only one able to fire the FBI director would make it a highly political hire/fire game. The problem is less with the rules and more with the president.
What makes that any different than the president being able to?
|
On May 14 2017 01:27 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2017 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
Congress being the only one able to fire the FBI director would make it a highly political hire/fire game. The problem is less with the rules and more with the president. What makes that any different than the president being able to?
More people in the decision chain, more possibilities for influence, and so on. The usual game.
|
On May 14 2017 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 17:46 IgnE wrote:On May 13 2017 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2017 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 12:06 Danglars wrote:Bland but whatever. That's kinda what Trump supports are doing. We're saddened by Trumo's morning tweets, saddened by DNC afternoon responses, saddened by the media evening tweets. And then lather rinse repeat tomorrow. But not saddened by Trump firing Comey based on his actions related to the Russia investigation. I think you're missing the gravity of the situation - even if it's true that it's overhyped to some extent by the media. If by gravity you mean how stupid it was to have such a system in the first place, when there was nothing but perception stopping anyone from doing this. Or that dumping an unfriendly FBI head isn't that unusual, just being such a lazy, petulant, dick about it is. The Trump/Russia connection probably has significant financial ties, personally compromising Trump to some degree, but it's obviously not the big story the non-stop coverage from Maddow would suggest. The big sign that's it's probably much to do about very little, is how the focus and accusations have shifted over time. It went from "Russia Hacked the Election to make Trump win" to "Members of the Trump team may have said improper things to Russians, and he's done business with Russians for years, so they probably wanted him to win sorta" I think I like the idea of changing the system for FBI directors though, maybe they could only be impeached by Congress or something. nah that's dumb. they serve at the pleasure of the president Great argument
you first, by all means. tell us why the the elected head of the executive branch should have no power to fire a chief executive official appointed up to 8 or 9 years before he or dhe got elected into office
|
On May 14 2017 01:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2017 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 17:46 IgnE wrote:On May 13 2017 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2017 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 12:06 Danglars wrote:Bland but whatever. That's kinda what Trump supports are doing. We're saddened by Trumo's morning tweets, saddened by DNC afternoon responses, saddened by the media evening tweets. And then lather rinse repeat tomorrow. But not saddened by Trump firing Comey based on his actions related to the Russia investigation. I think you're missing the gravity of the situation - even if it's true that it's overhyped to some extent by the media. If by gravity you mean how stupid it was to have such a system in the first place, when there was nothing but perception stopping anyone from doing this. Or that dumping an unfriendly FBI head isn't that unusual, just being such a lazy, petulant, dick about it is. The Trump/Russia connection probably has significant financial ties, personally compromising Trump to some degree, but it's obviously not the big story the non-stop coverage from Maddow would suggest. The big sign that's it's probably much to do about very little, is how the focus and accusations have shifted over time. It went from "Russia Hacked the Election to make Trump win" to "Members of the Trump team may have said improper things to Russians, and he's done business with Russians for years, so they probably wanted him to win sorta" I think I like the idea of changing the system for FBI directors though, maybe they could only be impeached by Congress or something. nah that's dumb. they serve at the pleasure of the president Great argument you first, by all means. tell us why the the elected head of the executive branch should have no power to fire a chief executive official appointed up to 8 or 9 years before he or dhe got elected into office
Well the example is right infront of you no?
Because the FBI would be one of the chief organisations leading an investigation if there was suspicion about the 'head of the executive branch'.
The advantage of giving the power to fire the head of the FBI to the house would be that if 1 person is being investigated he would need to convince another 200+ people to disrupt that investigation. Unlike the 0 people that the President has to convince.
|
On May 14 2017 01:23 Howie_Dewitt wrote:My phone refused to play this. What are the important quotes/takeaways?
“When he came out with the scathing set of circumstances––the server, the illegal server, the e-mails, 33,000 e-mails that you get subpoenaed and then you don’t show and you erase those, you delete them, you get rid of them, you acid wash them. When he did all of that stuff, it was disgraceful when he’s covering everything point after point. I was with lawyers watching that… I happen to have lawyers, unrelated lawyers and they would say wow, she’s guilty here, guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Then he gets to the end and he says she’s free as a bird.”
Comey had “a lot of pressure put on and exonerated her. He should have never exonerated her.”
|
https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-north-korea-open-us-talks-under-conditions-104026771.html
Everything gonna be ok
That rusian thing,i guess that will be in the news for the next 4 years or till trump leaves office. There is nothing,if there was something there it would have been found by now. So many people are so desperate to find something dirty on trump and nothing has come out yet. The rusia thing is getting old,people are loosing interest in it,they have to come up with something new to haunt trump with.
|
On May 14 2017 01:23 Howie_Dewitt wrote:My phone refused to play this. What are the important quotes/takeaways?
I think the biggest takeaway is at the end. Talking about Comey explaining how Hillary was "extremely careless" and then recommended not to charge her: "I think [Comey] had a lot of pressure put on, and he exonerated her, and he never should have exonerated her."
Edit: ninja'd.
|
On May 14 2017 02:19 pmh wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-north-korea-open-us-talks-under-conditions-104026771.htmlEverything gonna be ok That rusian thing,i guess that will be in the news for the next 4 years or till trump leaves office. There is nothing,if there was something there it would have been found by now. So many people are so desperate to find something dirty on trump and nothing has come out yet. The rusia thing is getting old,people are loosing interest in it,they have to come up with something new to haunt trump with.
This is probably why the President needed to make a fool out of himself by firing Comey. Because there is nothing to it...
If he was squeaky clean he would have let the investigation run its course right?
|
I'm having a hard time understanding when people think the FBI stopped being a political organization and became something less than despicable?
|
On May 14 2017 01:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2017 01:31 IgnE wrote:On May 14 2017 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 17:46 IgnE wrote:On May 13 2017 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2017 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:On May 13 2017 12:06 Danglars wrote:Bland but whatever. That's kinda what Trump supports are doing. We're saddened by Trumo's morning tweets, saddened by DNC afternoon responses, saddened by the media evening tweets. And then lather rinse repeat tomorrow. But not saddened by Trump firing Comey based on his actions related to the Russia investigation. I think you're missing the gravity of the situation - even if it's true that it's overhyped to some extent by the media. If by gravity you mean how stupid it was to have such a system in the first place, when there was nothing but perception stopping anyone from doing this. Or that dumping an unfriendly FBI head isn't that unusual, just being such a lazy, petulant, dick about it is. The Trump/Russia connection probably has significant financial ties, personally compromising Trump to some degree, but it's obviously not the big story the non-stop coverage from Maddow would suggest. The big sign that's it's probably much to do about very little, is how the focus and accusations have shifted over time. It went from "Russia Hacked the Election to make Trump win" to "Members of the Trump team may have said improper things to Russians, and he's done business with Russians for years, so they probably wanted him to win sorta" I think I like the idea of changing the system for FBI directors though, maybe they could only be impeached by Congress or something. nah that's dumb. they serve at the pleasure of the president Great argument you first, by all means. tell us why the the elected head of the executive branch should have no power to fire a chief executive official appointed up to 8 or 9 years before he or dhe got elected into office Well the example is right infront of you no? Because the FBI would be one of the chief organisations leading an investigation if there was suspicion about the 'head of the executive branch'. The advantage of giving the power to fire the head of the FBI to the house would be that if 1 person is being investigated he would need to convince another 200+ people to disrupt that investigation. Unlike the 0 people that the President has to convince.
Yes, like reactionary voles, let's base the structure of our government on the most recent thing we dislike. Bombs go off in Boston? Put the whole city on lockdown.
I'd rather Comey get fired than have another Hoover. I shouldn't even have to make this case.
On May 14 2017 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding when people think the FBI stopped being a political organization and became something less than despicable?
Exactly.
|
|
|
On May 14 2017 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding when people think the FBI stopped being a political organization and became something less than despicable?
Because the deep state is preferable to a comical despot. I'd rather have an administration filled with people who can breath with their mouths closed than having everything staffed with a descendant of the Trump family.
|
On May 14 2017 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2017 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding when people think the FBI stopped being a political organization and became something less than despicable? Because the deep state is preferable to a comical despot. I'd rather have an administration filled with people who can breath with their mouths closed than having everything staffed with a descendant of the Trump family.
but don't forget, a big point of why people voted Trump was that they wanted to make sure that a single, important family such as the Bush's or Clintons can't stack so much power in the government!
|
On May 14 2017 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2017 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding when people think the FBI stopped being a political organization and became something less than despicable? Because the deep state is preferable to a comical despot. I'd rather have an administration filled with people who can breath with their mouths closed than having everything staffed with a descendant of the Trump family.
Just to be clear you're saying they are a despicable political organization, but better than Trump, so preferred?
|
Dunno how the office of head of FBI should be for firing. It's a difficult question what would be optimal (and what would be constitutional I'm not sure on).
I dislike letting president's unilaterally fire them;
there has to be some way to fire other than impeachment imho, or else it's too hard.
a fixed non-renewable term to prevent someone from camping there forever like hoover, but with a hard to fire system may be best.
not sure how you'd set it up though, and who would be involved.
how does it work for the federal reserve? I vaguely recall some major agencies not being so directly undre the president/not subject to firing by him, only appointed by him.
|
On May 14 2017 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2017 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2017 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding when people think the FBI stopped being a political organization and became something less than despicable? Because the deep state is preferable to a comical despot. I'd rather have an administration filled with people who can breath with their mouths closed than having everything staffed with a descendant of the Trump family. Just to be clear you're saying they are a despicable political organization, but better than Trump, so preferred?
I don't think they are despicable, no. I definitely think that having political power dispersed within a large bureaucracy is preferable to having your country run by a one-man executive who might possibly have lost his mind. It actually seems to be a vital feature of the US that legal institutions like the courts or several agencies can stop elected officials from doing very stupid things
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
