|
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 June 16 2017 08:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump has now sent out his unhinged Tweets confirming that he was OFFICIALLY under investigation for obstruction of justice 12 hours earlier than I predicted. Can we settle this argument now Danglars et al? Trump is officially under investigation for obstruction of justice.
EDIT: the "but anonymous" defense against terrible Trump stories needs to be put to bed for good. Trump always confirms the "but anonymous" stories in angry tweets within 48 hours or less. Clearly grounds to skip the confirmation part. If you want to speculate, have at it. I'm for letting the investigation continue, probably with a recused Mueller for obstruction investigations too close to Comey. He's fine for possibly compromised Trump campaign workers and other related matters. You've yet to adequately explain why Mueller isn't actually the best person for the job, without providing reasons that apply doubly or triply strong to Trump himself.
I take it you saw my explanation and didn't like it (search if you didn't). I found the evidence sufficient and pertinent. Trump isn't conducting the investigation into his own campaign workers and Russian intelligence efforts, so I'm puzzled at why you closed with that. Not much more to add here if we saw the same material and came to differing conclusions; we probably just won't see eye to eye.
|
Vice President Pence has hired outside legal counsel to help with both congressional committee inquiries and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.
The vice president’s office said Thursday that Pence has retained Richard Cullen, a Richmond-based lawyer and chairman of McGuireWoods who previously served as a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Pence’s decision comes less than a month after Trump hired his own private attorney, Marc E. Kasowitz, to help navigate the investigations related to the Russia probe, and a day after The Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is widening his investigation to examine whether the president attempted to obstruct justice.
“I can confirm that the Vice President has retained Richard Cullen of McGuireWoods to assist him in responding to inquiries by the special counsel,” said Jarrod Agen, a Pence spokesman, in an emailed statement. “The Vice President is focused entirely on his duties and promoting the President’s agenda and looks forward to a swift conclusion of this matter.”
Cullen will not be paid with taxpayer money, an aide said. Cullen referred questions to the vice president’s office.
The process of hiring a lawyer took several weeks and included interviews with several candidates, a Pence aide said. The vice president made his final decision earlier this week.
The vice president’s office said Pence’s decision to retain Cullen underscores his desire to fully cooperate with any inquiries related to the Russia probe and is in line with what Trump has done in hiring Kasowitz.
Kasowitz has told some White House personnel that they do not need to hire their own lawyers, according to one person familiar with some of the legal discussions that have occurred inside the White House. But Pence’s move to hire an outside attorney could set off a scramble among other West Wing aides — many of whom are already bracing for subpoenas — to do the same, even if only as a protective measure.
Cullen, a former Virginia attorney general, served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia under President George H. W. Bush and worked on President George W. Bush’s legal team during the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election.
His other high-profile clients have included Tom DeLay, the former Republican majority leader who was investigated by the Department of Justice for his relationship with Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff; Elin Nordegren, the ex-wife of Tiger Woods, in her divorce from the golf star; and former senator Paul Trible (R-Va.), during the Iran-contra investigation.
Trump and the White House have long maintained there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and more recently denied that the president in any way tried to obstruct justice.
As Trump’s No. 2 and as head of the transition team, Pence has increasingly found himself drawn into the widening Russia investigation. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, misled Pence about his contacts with Russian officials — Pence then repeated the incorrect claims publicly. The vice president was kept in the dark for nearly two weeks about Flynn’s false statements before learning the truth in a Post report.
Trump fired Flynn for misleading the vice president.
There were also news reports that Flynn’s lawyers had alerted Trump’s transition team that Flynn was under federal investigation for his secret ties to the Turkish government as a paid lobbyist — a claim the White House disputes. And aides to Pence, who was running the transition team, said the vice president was not informed of Flynn’s overseas work with Turkey, either.
The president has come under further scrutiny for his decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, a decision Trump later seemed to imply was related, in part, to the Russia probe that Comey was overseeing. At the time, Pence — along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, senior adviser Jared Kushner, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and White House Counsel Donald McGahn — was one of the small group of senior advisers the president consulted as he mulled over his decision.
Cullen has a pair of small-world connections to the Russia case: Comey and Cullen once worked together at McGuireWoods and Cullen is godfather to one of Comey’s daughters.
A sitting vice president choosing to hire an outside lawyer is not without precedent. Spiro T. Agnew, Richard Nixon’s vice president, retained outside counsel when he came under investigation on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He resigned from the vice presidency in 1973, after pleading no contest to tax evasion.
Vice President Al Gore also retained outside counsel in conjunction with an inquiry into his fundraising activities, including several telephone calls he made from his White House office soliciting Democratic campaign contributions. But he did not hire a counsel during the investigation and subsequent impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
Source
|
On June 16 2017 08:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 08:47 NewSunshine wrote:On June 16 2017 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump has now sent out his unhinged Tweets confirming that he was OFFICIALLY under investigation for obstruction of justice 12 hours earlier than I predicted. Can we settle this argument now Danglars et al? Trump is officially under investigation for obstruction of justice.
EDIT: the "but anonymous" defense against terrible Trump stories needs to be put to bed for good. Trump always confirms the "but anonymous" stories in angry tweets within 48 hours or less. Clearly grounds to skip the confirmation part. If you want to speculate, have at it. I'm for letting the investigation continue, probably with a recused Mueller for obstruction investigations too close to Comey. He's fine for possibly compromised Trump campaign workers and other related matters. You've yet to adequately explain why Mueller isn't actually the best person for the job, without providing reasons that apply doubly or triply strong to Trump himself. I take it you saw my explanation and didn't like it (search if you didn't). I found the evidence sufficient and pertinent. Trump isn't conducting the investigation into his own campaign workers and Russian intelligence efforts, so I'm puzzled at why you closed with that. Not much more to add here if we saw the same material and came to differing conclusions; we probably just won't see eye to eye.
Why do you think the justice department disagrees with you? Rosenstein was aware of his relationship to Comey.
|
On June 16 2017 08:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 08:47 NewSunshine wrote:On June 16 2017 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump has now sent out his unhinged Tweets confirming that he was OFFICIALLY under investigation for obstruction of justice 12 hours earlier than I predicted. Can we settle this argument now Danglars et al? Trump is officially under investigation for obstruction of justice.
EDIT: the "but anonymous" defense against terrible Trump stories needs to be put to bed for good. Trump always confirms the "but anonymous" stories in angry tweets within 48 hours or less. Clearly grounds to skip the confirmation part. If you want to speculate, have at it. I'm for letting the investigation continue, probably with a recused Mueller for obstruction investigations too close to Comey. He's fine for possibly compromised Trump campaign workers and other related matters. You've yet to adequately explain why Mueller isn't actually the best person for the job, without providing reasons that apply doubly or triply strong to Trump himself. I take it you saw my explanation and didn't like it (search if you didn't). I found the evidence sufficient and pertinent. Trump isn't conducting the investigation into his own campaign workers and Russian intelligence efforts, so I'm puzzled at why you closed with that. Not much more to add here if we saw the same material and came to differing conclusions; we probably just won't see eye to eye.
So you don't believe, because he has a good relationship with Comey, that Mueller, who has nothing short of a stellar reputation as a civil servant, would be impartial on behalf of his friend, an also well-respected former director of the FBI? Does Mueller saying anything positive about Comey constitute undue collusion between them? What if what he's saying is true, because they're both independent federal agents with a high degree of integrity? In any case it's an order of magnitude less significant than anything I could easily leverage at Trump, the Justice Department seems to think so. And they're the ones that made the decision.
|
Norway28653 Posts
On June 15 2017 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 07:19 Neneu wrote:On June 15 2017 07:06 KwarK wrote:On June 15 2017 07:01 Neneu wrote:On June 15 2017 06:29 Plansix wrote:
My first question would be: What other nations solved this problem and how did they do it? I hear the EU has old people and they don't kill them to make the economy roaring. It is a huge economic problem which aren't solved by most nations. According to the latest report from WEF (World Economic Forum), nations/saving funds will by 2050 be missing 400 000 billion dollars globally, for them to meet their obligations .That is 5 times the current global economy. This is a HUGE problem. If it isn't fixed it will affect most of the people on this forum directly, and that is without taking account for the extreme global financial crash it will trigger. Edit: gramer Your country is currently sitting on $873,000,000,000 in its pension fund with a population of 5,000,000. And unlike the US which invests in low yield treasury bonds, Norway's pension fund is invested in equities. I think you've got it sorted. Yes, but still with today's rate it will be empty by 2043 That doesn't sound possible. Any evidence to support that? English language source would be appreciated but if you find a Norwegian source and tell me it says I'm wrong I'll believe you. But with a 5% yield and 20% of the Norwegian population retired then the fund ought to passively produce $43,650 per retiree without any reduction of the principal. And that's assuming that there are no contributions into the fund at all from any source and that it has to exist purely off of the money already in the fund, forever. We're talking nearly a million dollars of invested money per retiree, that's a lot. I'd find it quite difficult to create a contrived situation in which the fund could run out of money while still receiving revenue from the Norwegian oil fields and retirement contributions from the population. There is just too much money per Norwegian. At this rate in a few more decades Norway will be able to retire and live off of the interest earned by the principal while an underclass of non citizen serfs do all the work.
I've never heard of Norway's sovereign oil fund running out. It keeps growing and every serious politician pledges to uphold the budgetary rule (can only spend 4% of the fund every year, with oil revenues continuing to pour in, the fund continues to increase). Even with a progress party minister of finance (the one party where they have occasionally stated that 'we should spend more oil money', this principle continues to be stable as a rock. So yes, I agree with you. Unless the entire world economy tanks, Norway is gonna continue being wealthy, even if people stop using oil altogether, we've gotten so much money already and invested it so wisely that there's just no way it runs dry. And IF the entire world economy tanks, then we're gonna be better off than anyone else for a long period of time.
The lessons are: nationalize natural resources and plan for the long term. The way Norway has handled its oil riches, with the creation of Statoil, the sovereign wealth fund and the upholding of the budgetary rule, is like, perfect policy making. Like, I have a hard time seeing that any other piece of policy enacted by any country through the history of humanity has impacted its population in an equally beneficial manner.
|
|
|
But the Senate voted 97 out of 100 for the bill?
|
On June 16 2017 08:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 08:52 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 08:47 NewSunshine wrote:On June 16 2017 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump has now sent out his unhinged Tweets confirming that he was OFFICIALLY under investigation for obstruction of justice 12 hours earlier than I predicted. Can we settle this argument now Danglars et al? Trump is officially under investigation for obstruction of justice.
EDIT: the "but anonymous" defense against terrible Trump stories needs to be put to bed for good. Trump always confirms the "but anonymous" stories in angry tweets within 48 hours or less. Clearly grounds to skip the confirmation part. If you want to speculate, have at it. I'm for letting the investigation continue, probably with a recused Mueller for obstruction investigations too close to Comey. He's fine for possibly compromised Trump campaign workers and other related matters. You've yet to adequately explain why Mueller isn't actually the best person for the job, without providing reasons that apply doubly or triply strong to Trump himself. I take it you saw my explanation and didn't like it (search if you didn't). I found the evidence sufficient and pertinent. Trump isn't conducting the investigation into his own campaign workers and Russian intelligence efforts, so I'm puzzled at why you closed with that. Not much more to add here if we saw the same material and came to differing conclusions; we probably just won't see eye to eye. Why do you think the justice department disagrees with you? Rosenstein was aware of his relationship to Comey.
In not going to speculate to the reasons they came to the poor conclusion. It's Washington and friends investigating friends they call "independent" around that town, which makes about as much sense as any other rationalization.
|
On June 16 2017 08:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 01:58 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster? Maybe you missed when I've routinely criticized Trump on issues where we disagree. It still doesn't excuse acting like court jesters inventing laws and peddling conspiracy theories when he can be legitimately criticized on any number of fronts from AHCA to twitter to inappropriate conversation to foreign policy to going overboard on fake news. The search function is open to you want to correct your understanding of my posting history. you know dangles i am kind of surprised you and dauntless are so in the hole on this one. if i may, remember the discussion around the ferguson shooting with michael brown? and how dauntless said things like "maybe cops shouldnt be shooting people in various situations, but michael brown is not the hill you outraged people want to die on?" isn't this an analogous case? maybe theres some argument both ways about foreign policy and leaks and executive privilege and the ability to appoint agency executives. but Trump is still a fucking crook with no integrity who has been stealing and fucking people over his whole life. he's the opposite of all the small town american values you always go on about. when do you just wash your hands and say, "the democrats are acting hysterical but trump is still garbage" i just don't see the point in wasting so much energy to defend him It's a debate thread and Trump's done one or two things I like. He's also exposed a threat to democracy for any future Republican president because I reject the mealy mouthed defenders "but Trump's so bad yada yada it wouldn't happen again with someone else trust us." I see it as a very big-picture threat to citizen democracy. Tyranny of the fourth branch is in vogue because Trump is deservedly low in the polls and people want spectacularly stupid ways out. I'm not going to waste a ton of time on shitposter arguments, but I do see it as stimulating to judge the good and the bad as they come. You'd have to ask xDaunt on his Ferguson perspective.
The fourth branch is keeping the clear and present danger that you put into the White House in check, via White House staffers. Thank god for the fourth branch.
|
On June 16 2017 09:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 08:52 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 08:47 NewSunshine wrote:On June 16 2017 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump has now sent out his unhinged Tweets confirming that he was OFFICIALLY under investigation for obstruction of justice 12 hours earlier than I predicted. Can we settle this argument now Danglars et al? Trump is officially under investigation for obstruction of justice.
EDIT: the "but anonymous" defense against terrible Trump stories needs to be put to bed for good. Trump always confirms the "but anonymous" stories in angry tweets within 48 hours or less. Clearly grounds to skip the confirmation part. If you want to speculate, have at it. I'm for letting the investigation continue, probably with a recused Mueller for obstruction investigations too close to Comey. He's fine for possibly compromised Trump campaign workers and other related matters. You've yet to adequately explain why Mueller isn't actually the best person for the job, without providing reasons that apply doubly or triply strong to Trump himself. I take it you saw my explanation and didn't like it (search if you didn't). I found the evidence sufficient and pertinent. Trump isn't conducting the investigation into his own campaign workers and Russian intelligence efforts, so I'm puzzled at why you closed with that. Not much more to add here if we saw the same material and came to differing conclusions; we probably just won't see eye to eye. So you don't believe, because he has a good relationship with Comey, that Mueller, who has nothing short of a stellar reputation as a civil servant, would be impartial on behalf of his friend, an also well-respected former director of the FBI? Does Mueller saying anything positive about Comey constitute undue collusion between them? What if what he's saying is true, because they're both independent federal agents with a high degree of integrity? In any case it's an order of magnitude less significant than anything I could easily leverage at Trump, the Justice Department seems to think so. And they're the ones that made the decision.
I wrote my reasons and your characterization of them is amiss. Comey's at the center of the obstruction investigation and a close personal friend and mentor is not appropriate to judge witness credibility and his own possible crimes. He should recuse from that aspect of the investigation and invite the AG's office to appoint another. If not, his integrity is marred for the future.
|
United States24673 Posts
I'll sign on to Mueller recusing himself from 'that aspect' of the investigation when Trump fully divests his business ties, releases his tax returns, and eliminates the employment and access of his family members to government business. Until then, I'll join in with the others who are requesting a good alternative to Mueller with equal ability to be accepted by both sides of the aisle.
|
On June 16 2017 08:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 01:58 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster? Maybe you missed when I've routinely criticized Trump on issues where we disagree. It still doesn't excuse acting like court jesters inventing laws and peddling conspiracy theories when he can be legitimately criticized on any number of fronts from AHCA to twitter to inappropriate conversation to foreign policy to going overboard on fake news. The search function is open to you want to correct your understanding of my posting history. you know dangles i am kind of surprised you and dauntless are so in the hole on this one. if i may, remember the discussion around the ferguson shooting with michael brown? and how dauntless said things like "maybe cops shouldnt be shooting people in various situations, but michael brown is not the hill you outraged people want to die on?" isn't this an analogous case? maybe theres some argument both ways about foreign policy and leaks and executive privilege and the ability to appoint agency executives. but Trump is still a fucking crook with no integrity who has been stealing and fucking people over his whole life. he's the opposite of all the small town american values you always go on about. when do you just wash your hands and say, "the democrats are acting hysterical but trump is still garbage" i just don't see the point in wasting so much energy to defend him What hill am I dying on? I've never argued that Trump is some paragon of virtue, and I've been quite candid about his numerous shortcomings. Of all posters, you are one of the best positioned to understand my overall argument that it's counterproductive to attack Trump over all of the superfluous bullshit (like this Russia crap and obstruction of justice crap) when there's ample, legitimate avenues of attack. This is particularly true when allegations of criminal and impeachable conduct are being so frivolously thrown around.
id have to go back and collect posts to be thorough on this, and i say all this in full understanding that you generally make reasonable points (dangles only sometimes does). it just seems like the general timbre of your posting indicates unseemly support. like why is dangles talking about how mueller is connected to comey as if we didnt know that the former fbi directors might know each other? the problem isn't just the paranoia. its the selectiveness of the paranoia. lets be as reciprocally paranoid and crazy as all these democrats talking about russia. we will be paranoid about everyone except those with an R by their name.
whether or not the russia thing goes anywhere i think trump is almost certainly a criminal who might end up getting impeached for money laundering or scandalous self-serving deals in china. if you think its "counterproductive" to attack trump over all the obstruction stuff then maybe rather than defending him and sending people off into the weeds you should say, "yeah but this other thing about him actually matters." at some point delving into statutory interpretations and "i hope" utterances as if this case were a legal algorithm to solve rather than a bueaucratic power struggle can only be said to be even more counterproductive. mueller will find what he will find.
|
The special investigator is to look at Russia specifically. Comey memos are tangentially related. If the comey stuff is supposedly so important than the republicans can tell mueller to look at it or open another investigation into the general conduct of he intelligence community.
|
On June 16 2017 09:50 micronesia wrote:
I'll sign on to Mueller recusing himself from 'that aspect' of the investigation when Trump fully divests his business ties, releases his tax returns, and eliminates the employment and access of his family members to government business. Until then, I'll join in with the others who are requesting a good alternative to Mueller with equal ability to be accepted by both sides of the aisle.
So you're in the equity line of justice. Until Trump stops misbehaving, you'll give others license to compromise investigations. How very realpolitik of you.
|
On June 16 2017 09:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
The special investigator is to look at Russia specifically. Comey memos are tangentially related. If the comey stuff is supposedly so important than the republicans can tell mueller to look at it or open another investigation into the general conduct of he intelligence community.
It shouldn't even be a big deal to do this; it's not the main thrust.
|
United States24673 Posts
On June 16 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 09:50 micronesia wrote:
I'll sign on to Mueller recusing himself from 'that aspect' of the investigation when Trump fully divests his business ties, releases his tax returns, and eliminates the employment and access of his family members to government business. Until then, I'll join in with the others who are requesting a good alternative to Mueller with equal ability to be accepted by both sides of the aisle. So you're in the equity line of justice. Until Trump stops misbehaving, you'll give others license to compromise investigations. How very realpolitik of you.
Actually, that is not my position. I'm not giving others license to do anything. I'm prioritizing getting Trump's conflicts of interest resolved over Mueller's or anyone else's.
Do you think Trump should do the things I laid out, in addition to Mueller recusing himself of that aspect of the investigation?
|
What part of this investigation is compromised by having Mueller apart of it? Is it the Comey memo part? That seems rather insignificant, am I missing something?
|
On June 16 2017 09:57 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 09:50 micronesia wrote:
I'll sign on to Mueller recusing himself from 'that aspect' of the investigation when Trump fully divests his business ties, releases his tax returns, and eliminates the employment and access of his family members to government business. Until then, I'll join in with the others who are requesting a good alternative to Mueller with equal ability to be accepted by both sides of the aisle. So you're in the equity line of justice. Until Trump stops misbehaving, you'll give others license to compromise investigations. How very realpolitik of you. Actually, that is not my position. I'm not giving others license to do anything. I'm prioritizing getting Trump's conflicts of interest resolved over Mueller's or anyone else's. Do you think Trump should do the things I laid out, in addition to Mueller recusing himself of that aspect of the investigation?
"I'll sign on when..." Are we really stretching this phrase that far? Seriously, I thought you were actually interested when you asked me for info on Comey, but if everything falls under the umbrella of waiting for Trump to reform, I won't even bother with you. Way the hell too myopic.
|
United States24673 Posts
On June 16 2017 10:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 09:57 micronesia wrote:On June 16 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2017 09:50 micronesia wrote:
I'll sign on to Mueller recusing himself from 'that aspect' of the investigation when Trump fully divests his business ties, releases his tax returns, and eliminates the employment and access of his family members to government business. Until then, I'll join in with the others who are requesting a good alternative to Mueller with equal ability to be accepted by both sides of the aisle. So you're in the equity line of justice. Until Trump stops misbehaving, you'll give others license to compromise investigations. How very realpolitik of you. Actually, that is not my position. I'm not giving others license to do anything. I'm prioritizing getting Trump's conflicts of interest resolved over Mueller's or anyone else's. Do you think Trump should do the things I laid out, in addition to Mueller recusing himself of that aspect of the investigation? "I'll sign on when..." Are we really stretching this phrase that far? Seriously, I thought you were actually interested when you asked me for info on Comey, but if everything falls under the umbrella of waiting for Trump to reform, I won't even bother with you. Way the hell too myopic.
Once again, you are not characterizing my actual position. I would not say everything falls under the umbrella of waiting for Trump to reform. In general, people should do what's right, even when the leadership does what's wrong.
On the other hand, someone who is currently refusing to answer whether Trump should fully divest his business ties, release his tax returns, and eliminate the employment and access of his family members to government business, is repeatedly arguing that Mueller should recuse himself, despite the (originally) bipartisan support of congress to select him knowing fully well his prior relationship with Comey. If I missed it and you have previously provided the position that Trump should indeed do those three things then I apologize for not catching it.
I wouldn't let someone start a 30 hour argument with me about what to set the thermostat to while the kitchen is on fire; I would insist that we address the fire issue, then address the thermostat issue. We can't change Trump's behavior from here, but we can at least establish that what he is doing is far more wrong than what you are accusing Mueller of, but so far that does not seem to be unilaterally established in the current discussion. The piece of my original post that you can reasonably take issue with is the fact that I said I wouldn't sign on until Trump takes those actions, but what I really mean is we should as a group having a discussion at least all agree that he should take those actions, so hopefully you can agree to that much (do you?)
|
On June 16 2017 09:57 Zambrah wrote:
What part of this investigation is compromised by having Mueller apart of it? Is it the Comey memo part? That seems rather insignificant, am I missing something?
I don't know, Danglars is stretching this really thin. There's really no person who could feasibly be qualified to carry on the special investigation who wouldn't know Comey on some level. All I know is every time I see something against Trump picking up steam, he's there to defend him, usually by deflecting to some non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
