|
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 January 27 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. Why does a need need to first be demonstrated? I'm not understanding what you see as the disadvantage. There is a clear pro. What is the con? I didn’t see a pro. You read why.
A pro is a 100% guarantee a bad thing won't happen. You're being really silly and intentionally vague. How about adding some meat to what you're saying.
|
On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller.
If he fires two-three special counsels...
I don't know why I'm responding to this, but your statements regularly shock me.
Like I live in a developing country where regulatory capture and blatant corruption have been barely surviving single news cycles for most of my short life, and I still can't comprehend how totally cavalier US conservatives are about authoritarian nonsense.
Firing the head of a special counsel investigating your administration should already be a hard, final, no more benefit-of-the-doubt line in the sand for the country. It shouldn't be so central to discussion, because being in a position where it is even realistic indicates serious failure. The fact that the president has already ordered it (irrespective of whether that order was stopped) should be terrifying and motivate immediate protection (NY Times article).
|
So Danglars would be fine with Mueller getting fired as long as the Republican house sets up a Republican intelligence committee to "look into russia" despite the fact that the Republicans have been blatantly complicit with trump and Russia and at least some of them seem to also have inappropriate russia ties and backing. Makes sense, at least he's internally consistent in bis party before country partisan hackary.
|
On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further.
Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so.
|
Question:
Should I post the fresh WaPo article about police repeatedly shooting another unarmed civilian? Cus it just happened, but I figure we don't want to get too repetitive here.
|
On January 27 2018 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. Why does a need need to first be demonstrated? I'm not understanding what you see as the disadvantage. There is a clear pro. What is the con? I didn’t see a pro. You read why. A pro is a 100% guarantee a bad thing won't happen. You're being really silly and intentionally vague. How about adding some meat to what you're saying.
You didn’t deal with my meat on why I disagreed with your characterization, so I see no reason to continue to talk to a wall.
|
On January 27 2018 04:09 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Question:
Should I post the fresh WaPo article about police repeatedly shooting another unarmed civilian? Cus it just happened, but I figure we don't want to get too repetitive here.
seems redundant, so I'd say no, unless it's an exceptionally clear cut case. I mean they do so 3 times a day or something (well, fatally, obviously more if you count the non-fatal ones).
|
On January 27 2018 04:04 hunts wrote:
So Danglars would be fine with Mueller getting fired as long as the Republican house sets up a Republican intelligence committee to "look into russia" despite the fact that the Republicans have been blatantly complicit with trump and Russia and at least some of them seem to also have inappropriate russia ties and backing. Makes sense, at least he's internally consistent in bis party before country partisan hackary.
I think it would be a terrible decision for Trump with lasting damage. Did you not see what happened before this? The threat of resignation? He made the special counsel by his own ineptitude on Comey’s firing, and he’d do worse by forcing another special counsel to be appointed ... to continue an investigation that won’t be stopped by him. It’s pretty obvious that the Kabuki theater on a decision he didn’t make half a year ago is just pure political posturing and clutching of pearls. Actually, it’s pretty entertaining to observe.
|
On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so.
Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI.
Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree.
|
On January 27 2018 04:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:09 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Question:
Should I post the fresh WaPo article about police repeatedly shooting another unarmed civilian? Cus it just happened, but I figure we don't want to get too repetitive here. seems redundant, so I'd say no, unless it's an exceptionally clear cut case. I mean they do so 3 times a day or something (well, fatally, obviously more if you count the non-fatal ones).
Yeah, it's not a novel or evolving discussion.
Sad that I feel right now the bar for 'exceptionally clear cut' is something like "police inspect naked comatose man up close, perform full cavity search, and upon finding no weapons or anything suspicious, empty 6 clips into his head".
|
On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree.
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised.
|
On January 27 2018 04:17 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:11 zlefin wrote:On January 27 2018 04:09 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Question:
Should I post the fresh WaPo article about police repeatedly shooting another unarmed civilian? Cus it just happened, but I figure we don't want to get too repetitive here. seems redundant, so I'd say no, unless it's an exceptionally clear cut case. I mean they do so 3 times a day or something (well, fatally, obviously more if you count the non-fatal ones). Yeah, it's not a novel or evolving discussion. Sad that I feel right now the bar for 'exceptionally clear cut' is something like "police inspect naked comatose man up close, perform full cavity search, and upon finding no weapons or anything suspicious, empty 6 clips into his head".
He made a snarling noise which frightened the officer and made the officer fear for his life, thus emptying his clip as is standard procedure. Upon body cam review, it turned out to be snoring, but we can’t hold the officer responsible since it was a split second decision in an intense situation.
Not guilty.
|
On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised.
You took his point way further than did. His premise is that since Mueller is investigating the 2016 election interference and all congressmen were elected in 2016 all of them are technically under investigation even if thats as sinple as confirming Russia didn't help them at all.
Also that hashtag isn't just just an assertion its provable that a large chunk of it was Russian bots. Things like that are super easy to prove.
|
On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took.
|
On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took.
Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation.
I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed?
|
On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed?
Unless the Investigation comes up with a lot of illegal money transfers I don't see how it would cause Trump to be punished financially.
Congress doesn't seem to be in any hurry to curtail it either.
I'd like Congress to go after his direct enrichment tho (Staying on Trump properties so his government entourage has to pay him for staying with him ect), but I don't see it happening so I guess you can fall that the system failing.
I don't expect Trump to see jail. Hard to answer if he should at this point. Depends on how deep the collusion goes.
|
On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed?
We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics.
If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response.
|
On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response.
That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood])
Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome.
Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended?
|
On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended?
But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person.
|
On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed.
[quote]
No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person.
What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever!
I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
