|
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. |
that looks to be a well written article that covers the situation passably. a good read.
|
On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Show nested quote +Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/
This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee.
I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position.
|
On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position.
First, read the rest of that article.
Second, that's not what it's about. Trump wasn't violating the law that was passed. What is being done, or not done, is provided for by that law.
|
On January 31 2018 02:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 02:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2018 00:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2018 23:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just want this investigation to be over so I can know if we're turning into Russia, or Trump is being removed. Hopefully both. On January 30 2018 20:59 mustaju wrote:I recently came across this in an Estonian culture publication. It seems to provide a quite thorough counter-argument to the claim that the protests at the US universities regarding controversial speakers is a major issue. It seems rather well-sourced as well. It did not address the violence accompanying some events however, but since this seems to come up so often, maybe it is interesting to other people too. I did not see it posted, so apologies if it's spam. Source The thesis of this piece seems to be that it’s not really just universities, it’s a more general trend towards silencing undesirable speech that you could find among the larger population. That’s a reasonable assertion, especially since it’s well-sourced. And it’s also a good observation that not all students are created equal, and that many of them are perfectly reasonable individuals. The place where this fails is in the institutional support for that “snowflake mentality” that our conservative fanbase talks about. In my personal experience, while student bases can be diverse enough by virtue of the fact that people aren’t all the same, the administration of universities are strongly pressured to cater towards the lowest common denominator, i.e. to go out of the way to try to please the most easily offended people in the student population. I suppose it’s something of a liability issue, and also something of a PR issue, but the aggregate results are really stupid. Anecdotally, I’ve been part of a university faculty in the past, for a university not particularly known for its ideological bent or for having a particularly skewed student base. I still had to learn about and humor all the stuff that seems like it would come out of a conservative circlejerk about culture war: rape culture, safe spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions, basically everything you do is sexual harassment, so on and so forth. To me at least, that gives credence to the conservative narrative because I’ve seen institutional support for that brand of stupidity. Let's pause for a moment to remember that conservatives have absolutely no right to cry about "Snowflake" mentalities. There are numerous topics where conservatives absolutely lose their fucking minds and go full-blown snowflake. The hypocrisy is palpable. I’m not necessarily going to disagree (and I will note that it’s slightly beside the point), but I’d like to hear more specifics about what these “conservative snowflake” topics are. I’m curious what you’re referring to.
I'm not Stratos_Spear, but the war on Christmas comes to mind: "oh please don't hurt my little snowflake feelings by referring to it as 'holidays', that triggers me and now its war!". Plenty of more where that came from, I think, although I can't be arsed to keep a list for myself because its all such stupid shit.
I certainly agree that the whole college safe space thing is ridiculous (especially when taken to the level of forbidding people to speak at colleges based on nothing beyond "I don't like your perspective"). I think we've seen some successes in fighting back against that lately, though.
On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position.
Well, they are running circles around you in terms of election influence if your media is to be believed. Better bow down before your new overlords?
|
On January 31 2018 04:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position. First, read the rest of that article. Second, that's not what it's about. Trump wasn't violating the law that was passed. What is being done, or not done, is provided for by that law.
I think the main part that's been omitted is the sanctions on companies doing business with the Russian defense and intelligence agencies, and I can't help but see that doesn't come up in your article.
I'm also kind of confused because the literal text of the bill doesn't actually mention this 120 day grace period (120 appears 3 times in the entire bill referring to visas twice and sea vessels once) and I can't see anything in the bill that lets them say "well people already stopped dealing with the agencies soooo we don't need to sanction anyone still dealing with them." Maybe there's some legalese I'm missing or it changed when State got a homework extension.
In fact, in section 231 it says there's only two ways to stop these particular sanctions: it's in the vital national security interest of the U.S. not to implement them or the Russian government has made significant efforts to reduce cyber intrusions.
|
The inability of the political establishment and the press to moderate or reform Trump’s egregious behavior is rooted in their loss of credibility. The press, along with political and intellectual elites, spent decades championing economic and political policies that solidified corporate power and betrayed and impoverished American workers. The hypocrisy and mendacity of the elites left them despised and distrusted by the victims of deindustrialization and austerity programs. The attempt to restore civility to public discourse and competency to political office is, therefore, fruitless. Liberal and establishment institutions, including the leadership of the two main political parties, academia and the press, squandered their moral authority. And the dogged refusal by the elites to address the engine of discontent—social inequality—ensures that they will remain ineffectual. They lay down the asphalt for the buffoonery of Trump and the coming tyranny.
I don't think people really appreciated how obvious this is to people not wrapped up in the daily minutia of the investigation.
On January 31 2018 03:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 03:19 m4ini wrote:I still haven't really seen any of the usual suspects like Danglars etc explain the non-sanctions away so far. Still thinking of a way to come up with a reason, or does that one look so bad that you simply prefer to not argue for it? Constitution, wasn't that a thing held in high regards, or is that only if it suits your argument? it's getting to the point where ever reporter is going to have to record every meeting so they can show tapes on what was said
Actually, that's what they do anyways. You can't write the article while interviewing. The question simply is, does the journalist still have them. I’m not paid to answer to ... suspicions and whispers directed at nobody and lacking concrete framing. Much like all the usual suspects that want our health insurance system to resemble enlightened Europe say little when our abortion regulations are brought closer to Europe’s. I wasn’t really expecting any, nor is it necessary to give your two cents on every subject.
Doesn't your fellow conservative xDaunt support socialized medicine and calls you/other conservatives out for not having a realistic approach to the situation?
|
You should know better than to quote Russian agents, GreenHorizon. You have no credibility.
|
On January 31 2018 04:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 02:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 31 2018 02:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2018 00:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2018 23:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just want this investigation to be over so I can know if we're turning into Russia, or Trump is being removed. Hopefully both. On January 30 2018 20:59 mustaju wrote:I recently came across this in an Estonian culture publication. It seems to provide a quite thorough counter-argument to the claim that the protests at the US universities regarding controversial speakers is a major issue. It seems rather well-sourced as well. It did not address the violence accompanying some events however, but since this seems to come up so often, maybe it is interesting to other people too. I did not see it posted, so apologies if it's spam. Source The thesis of this piece seems to be that it’s not really just universities, it’s a more general trend towards silencing undesirable speech that you could find among the larger population. That’s a reasonable assertion, especially since it’s well-sourced. And it’s also a good observation that not all students are created equal, and that many of them are perfectly reasonable individuals. The place where this fails is in the institutional support for that “snowflake mentality” that our conservative fanbase talks about. In my personal experience, while student bases can be diverse enough by virtue of the fact that people aren’t all the same, the administration of universities are strongly pressured to cater towards the lowest common denominator, i.e. to go out of the way to try to please the most easily offended people in the student population. I suppose it’s something of a liability issue, and also something of a PR issue, but the aggregate results are really stupid. Anecdotally, I’ve been part of a university faculty in the past, for a university not particularly known for its ideological bent or for having a particularly skewed student base. I still had to learn about and humor all the stuff that seems like it would come out of a conservative circlejerk about culture war: rape culture, safe spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions, basically everything you do is sexual harassment, so on and so forth. To me at least, that gives credence to the conservative narrative because I’ve seen institutional support for that brand of stupidity. Let's pause for a moment to remember that conservatives have absolutely no right to cry about "Snowflake" mentalities. There are numerous topics where conservatives absolutely lose their fucking minds and go full-blown snowflake. The hypocrisy is palpable. I’m not necessarily going to disagree (and I will note that it’s slightly beside the point), but I’d like to hear more specifics about what these “conservative snowflake” topics are. I’m curious what you’re referring to. I'm not Stratos_Spear, but the war on Christmas comes to mind: "oh please don't hurt my little snowflake feelings by referring to it as 'holidays', that triggers me and now its war!". Plenty of more where that came from, I think, although I can't be arsed to keep a list for myself because its all such stupid shit. I certainly agree that the whole college safe space thing is ridiculous (especially when taken to the level of forbidding people to speak at colleges based on nothing beyond "I don't like your perspective"). I think we've seen some successes in fighting back against that lately, though.
Ok, that's not the worst example, if significantly less relevant than before (seems like people have largely agreed to use "Merry Christmas" with little to no fuss; I haven't heard the phrase "Happy Holidays" in passing in at least three years). Similar would be "reason for the season" if you want to turn it around and offend people on the other end of the aisle.
But what I'm really curious about is if there are good examples that don't have a religious pretext to them. If not, that's a significantly weaker argument.
|
The history of “Happy Holidays” is fascinating. The rise of using that instead of Marry Christmas was pushed by churches that were unable with how commercial Christmas had become. When it started, it had nothing to do with being political correct. Which make the outrage about it twice as comical.
Another example would be discussions of race in general. Not even racism, just cultural differences and experiences. The whole “well you choose to make it an issue about race” when someone is talking about being the only black kid in an all white class has got to be one of the more snowflake statements out there.
|
On January 31 2018 05:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 04:38 a_flayer wrote:On January 31 2018 02:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 31 2018 02:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2018 00:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2018 23:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just want this investigation to be over so I can know if we're turning into Russia, or Trump is being removed. Hopefully both. On January 30 2018 20:59 mustaju wrote:I recently came across this in an Estonian culture publication. It seems to provide a quite thorough counter-argument to the claim that the protests at the US universities regarding controversial speakers is a major issue. It seems rather well-sourced as well. It did not address the violence accompanying some events however, but since this seems to come up so often, maybe it is interesting to other people too. I did not see it posted, so apologies if it's spam. Source The thesis of this piece seems to be that it’s not really just universities, it’s a more general trend towards silencing undesirable speech that you could find among the larger population. That’s a reasonable assertion, especially since it’s well-sourced. And it’s also a good observation that not all students are created equal, and that many of them are perfectly reasonable individuals. The place where this fails is in the institutional support for that “snowflake mentality” that our conservative fanbase talks about. In my personal experience, while student bases can be diverse enough by virtue of the fact that people aren’t all the same, the administration of universities are strongly pressured to cater towards the lowest common denominator, i.e. to go out of the way to try to please the most easily offended people in the student population. I suppose it’s something of a liability issue, and also something of a PR issue, but the aggregate results are really stupid. Anecdotally, I’ve been part of a university faculty in the past, for a university not particularly known for its ideological bent or for having a particularly skewed student base. I still had to learn about and humor all the stuff that seems like it would come out of a conservative circlejerk about culture war: rape culture, safe spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions, basically everything you do is sexual harassment, so on and so forth. To me at least, that gives credence to the conservative narrative because I’ve seen institutional support for that brand of stupidity. Let's pause for a moment to remember that conservatives have absolutely no right to cry about "Snowflake" mentalities. There are numerous topics where conservatives absolutely lose their fucking minds and go full-blown snowflake. The hypocrisy is palpable. I’m not necessarily going to disagree (and I will note that it’s slightly beside the point), but I’d like to hear more specifics about what these “conservative snowflake” topics are. I’m curious what you’re referring to. I'm not Stratos_Spear, but the war on Christmas comes to mind: "oh please don't hurt my little snowflake feelings by referring to it as 'holidays', that triggers me and now its war!". Plenty of more where that came from, I think, although I can't be arsed to keep a list for myself because its all such stupid shit. I certainly agree that the whole college safe space thing is ridiculous (especially when taken to the level of forbidding people to speak at colleges based on nothing beyond "I don't like your perspective"). I think we've seen some successes in fighting back against that lately, though. Ok, that's not the worst example, if significantly less relevant than before (seems like people have largely agreed to use "Merry Christmas" with little to no fuss; I haven't heard the phrase "Happy Holidays" in passing in at least three years). Similar would be "reason for the season" if you want to turn it around and offend people on the other end of the aisle. But what I'm really curious about is if there are good examples that don't have a religious pretext to them. If not, that's a significantly weaker argument.
was happy holidays ever truly common compared to merry christmas?
there was never any real fuss about people usin gmerry christmas.
|
idk, if we’re passing out anecdotes, when it comes to people i don’t know, i hear Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas to the scale of 20:1.
|
On January 31 2018 04:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 04:35 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position. First, read the rest of that article. Second, that's not what it's about. Trump wasn't violating the law that was passed. What is being done, or not done, is provided for by that law. I think the main part that's been omitted is the sanctions on companies doing business with the Russian defense and intelligence agencies, and I can't help but see that doesn't come up in your article. I'm also kind of confused because the literal text of the bill doesn't actually mention this 120 day grace period (120 appears 3 times in the entire bill referring to visas twice and sea vessels once) and I can't see anything in the bill that lets them say "well people already stopped dealing with the agencies soooo we don't need to sanction anyone still dealing with them." Maybe there's some legalese I'm missing or it changed when State got a homework extension. In fact, in section 231 it says there's only two ways to stop these particular sanctions: it's in the vital national security interest of the U.S. not to implement them or the Russian government has made significant efforts to reduce cyber intrusions.
I'm Not convinced you did due diligence, because it comes up in the second paragraph.
The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
The administration claims that appropriate action has been taken and are acting under the law. A dispute over that is a far cry from a "constitutional crisis."
Also doing a ctrl-f or mobile equivalent isn't going to work
and gives me one reference to something like a grace period but not using that language, and two references to US code.
|
On January 31 2018 05:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 04:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 31 2018 04:35 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position. First, read the rest of that article. Second, that's not what it's about. Trump wasn't violating the law that was passed. What is being done, or not done, is provided for by that law. I think the main part that's been omitted is the sanctions on companies doing business with the Russian defense and intelligence agencies, and I can't help but see that doesn't come up in your article. I'm also kind of confused because the literal text of the bill doesn't actually mention this 120 day grace period (120 appears 3 times in the entire bill referring to visas twice and sea vessels once) and I can't see anything in the bill that lets them say "well people already stopped dealing with the agencies soooo we don't need to sanction anyone still dealing with them." Maybe there's some legalese I'm missing or it changed when State got a homework extension. In fact, in section 231 it says there's only two ways to stop these particular sanctions: it's in the vital national security interest of the U.S. not to implement them or the Russian government has made significant efforts to reduce cyber intrusions. I'm Not convinced you did due diligence, because it comes up in the second paragraph. Show nested quote +The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them. The administration claims that appropriate action has been taken and are acting under the law. A dispute over that is a far cry from a "constitutional crisis." Also doing a ctrl-f or mobile equivalent isn't going to work and gives me one reference to something like a grace period but not using that language, and two references to US code.
The fact that the State Department "left open" the possibility completely ignores whether or not they were required in the original bill and what was necessary to waive them and paints all the sanctions with a broad brush (there are a LOT in there). Note that everywhere else they say "it said they had to, and they did" but here they don't say "they had to say whether they would leave open these prospective sanctions, and they did." Isn't that a bit curious?
Also, the bills always use numerals and it's embedded text, control-F works just fine. The 120 grace period relates to ocean-going vessels and cargo (at first I thought "vessel" was a euphemism for oligarch and it actually was the discussed grace period but in reality from context it's clear you need to give foreign governments time to respond if there's a compromised vessel or something-I don't speak boat).
I don't really see how you can reconcile Section 231 and Section 235 with not imposing at least five of the sanctions on individuals doing business with the individuals in question unless there's a waiver saying Russia ain't gonna do no more hacking, and I don't think that was part of the Monday announcement. Again, maybe there's some subterranean legalese or precedent but it doesn't seem to be in the actual bill.
Edit: I think it's actually section c) of 231 that's allows them to defer sanctions every 180 days in perpetuity, probably, but I find it a little odd that they believe literally everyone involved in the dealings are substantially reducing their business activities so they deferred them all. Basically, they're saying "well the people are making substantially less money so everyone must be dealing with them substantially less" when the actual law seems to read "for each person/agent that is dealing with them you need to show they're dealing with them substantially less."
|
On January 31 2018 05:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 05:16 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 04:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 31 2018 04:35 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position. First, read the rest of that article. Second, that's not what it's about. Trump wasn't violating the law that was passed. What is being done, or not done, is provided for by that law. I think the main part that's been omitted is the sanctions on companies doing business with the Russian defense and intelligence agencies, and I can't help but see that doesn't come up in your article. I'm also kind of confused because the literal text of the bill doesn't actually mention this 120 day grace period (120 appears 3 times in the entire bill referring to visas twice and sea vessels once) and I can't see anything in the bill that lets them say "well people already stopped dealing with the agencies soooo we don't need to sanction anyone still dealing with them." Maybe there's some legalese I'm missing or it changed when State got a homework extension. In fact, in section 231 it says there's only two ways to stop these particular sanctions: it's in the vital national security interest of the U.S. not to implement them or the Russian government has made significant efforts to reduce cyber intrusions. I'm Not convinced you did due diligence, because it comes up in the second paragraph. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them. The administration claims that appropriate action has been taken and are acting under the law. A dispute over that is a far cry from a "constitutional crisis." Also doing a ctrl-f or mobile equivalent isn't going to work and gives me one reference to something like a grace period but not using that language, and two references to US code. The fact that the State Department "left open" the possibility completely ignores whether or not they were required in the original bill and what was necessary to waive them and paints all the sanctions with a broad brush (there are a LOT in there). Note that everywhere else they say "it said they had to, and they did" but here they don't say "they had to say whether they would leave open these prospective sanctions, and they did." Isn't that a bit curious? Also, the bills always use numerals and it's embedded text, control-F works just fine. The 120 grace period relates to ocean-going vessels and cargo (at first I thought "vessel" was a euphemism for oligarch and it actually was the discussed grace period but in reality from context it's clear you need to give foreign governments time to respond if there's a compromised vessel or something-I don't speak boat). I don't really see how you can reconcile Section 231 and Section 235 with not imposing at least five of the sanctions on individuals doing business with the individuals in question unless there's a waiver saying Russia ain't gonna do no more hacking, and I don't think that was part of the Monday announcement. Again, maybe there's some subterranean legalese or precedent but it doesn't seem to be in the actual bill.
I believe there already have been sanctions that were implemented, just none yesterday (and actions made public that we know of).
I'm relying on people who know something about this. If yoy read the article it's clear the author is no Trump fan. So far the administration has been good about following law and ending illegal programs (CSR payments, Daca). Given their other actions on Russia I'm going to guess they are at least arguably right. It's hard to do more research on my phone.
But if 5 sanctions were implemented before then I don't see an issue.
edit: it's not even 5 sanctions, it's 5 actions, of which Trump can choose which 5. That sounds pretty broad.
|
pffft, I lol'd at this administration being good about following the law. that's quite laughworthy indeed. (talking in general, regardless of how this specific incident pans out)
|
Today Putin described the lists published by the Trump administration "an attack on the US's elected president." Interesting thing for him to say, huh?
|
On January 31 2018 05:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 05:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 31 2018 05:16 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 04:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 31 2018 04:35 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2018 04:09 Introvert wrote:1. It is not the job of conservatives here to repsond to everything. 2. Don't be so stupid that you accept the word of rediculous Democrat politicians. Senator Claire McCaskill called it a “constitutional crisis.” Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ted Lieu claimed that the president is bucking the will of Congress expressed in signed legislation. In a statement, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, Eliot Engel, said the Trump administration had the opportunity to “follow the law” but balked. “They chose instead,” he insisted, “to let Russia off the hook again.”
Those are strong words—reckless words if they are misapplied. Democrats deployed them amid reports that the Trump administration would not impose new sanctions on Russian entities in accordance with a bipartisan act of Congress. Donald Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Russia, and the administration’s justification for holding back on sanctions is derisory. The sanctions bill itself, the administration insisted, has already served as a “deterrent” for bad actors. Nevertheless, Moscow continues its destabilizing behavior abroad and anti-democratic agitation at home.
But has the president flagrantly ignored the law and inaugurated a crisis of constitutional legitimacy, and done so to curry favor with a hostile power, as Trump’s Democratic critics have alleged? The answer won’t surprise you.
The Trump administration was required by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to give Congress both a classified and unclassified list of Putin allies and oligarchs that could be targeted for potential sanctions, which they did. The law also required the administration to provide a report detailing the impact of sanctions on Russia’s sovereign debt, which they did. The law provides the administration a 120-day grace period for the imposition of new sanctions on unspecified targets if the president can claim that those targets have already substantially reduced their business activities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors. In a statement, the State Department declared “that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” therefore satisfying that requirement. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them.
Lawmakers who allege that this amounts to a “constitutional crisis” should be ashamed of themselves. Their hyperbole is wildly irresponsible. And yet, given Trump’s bizarre efforts to seek Vladimir Putin’s approval, those who dismiss the State Department’s comments are not entirely unjustified in thinking this is all obfuscation. Trump has, after all, worn his admiration for Russia and its strongman president on his sleeve. The president’s rhetoric aside, however, this administration has also demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable adopting an aggressive posture toward Russia.
The rest talks about Trump and his record on Russia so far. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/hysteria-and-incompetence-russia-sanctions/ This isn't really a good argument. "It already did some stuff" is not the same as doing everything and guaranteeing everything is done. We have no incentive to compromise on the sanctions. The question is why we are hesitating. Why should we not shoot them in the dick the same way the senate voted to? The idea that some of the goals were already appearing to be accomplished isn't equivalent to a guarantee. I am just blown away that we are suddenly at a point where we are trying to be as sympathetic to Russia as possible. Nothing I have seen justifies that position. First, read the rest of that article. Second, that's not what it's about. Trump wasn't violating the law that was passed. What is being done, or not done, is provided for by that law. I think the main part that's been omitted is the sanctions on companies doing business with the Russian defense and intelligence agencies, and I can't help but see that doesn't come up in your article. I'm also kind of confused because the literal text of the bill doesn't actually mention this 120 day grace period (120 appears 3 times in the entire bill referring to visas twice and sea vessels once) and I can't see anything in the bill that lets them say "well people already stopped dealing with the agencies soooo we don't need to sanction anyone still dealing with them." Maybe there's some legalese I'm missing or it changed when State got a homework extension. In fact, in section 231 it says there's only two ways to stop these particular sanctions: it's in the vital national security interest of the U.S. not to implement them or the Russian government has made significant efforts to reduce cyber intrusions. I'm Not convinced you did due diligence, because it comes up in the second paragraph. The statement left open the possibility for more sanctions on Russian and non-Russian entities, but added that the State Department would not “preview” them. The administration claims that appropriate action has been taken and are acting under the law. A dispute over that is a far cry from a "constitutional crisis." Also doing a ctrl-f or mobile equivalent isn't going to work and gives me one reference to something like a grace period but not using that language, and two references to US code. The fact that the State Department "left open" the possibility completely ignores whether or not they were required in the original bill and what was necessary to waive them and paints all the sanctions with a broad brush (there are a LOT in there). Note that everywhere else they say "it said they had to, and they did" but here they don't say "they had to say whether they would leave open these prospective sanctions, and they did." Isn't that a bit curious? Also, the bills always use numerals and it's embedded text, control-F works just fine. The 120 grace period relates to ocean-going vessels and cargo (at first I thought "vessel" was a euphemism for oligarch and it actually was the discussed grace period but in reality from context it's clear you need to give foreign governments time to respond if there's a compromised vessel or something-I don't speak boat). I don't really see how you can reconcile Section 231 and Section 235 with not imposing at least five of the sanctions on individuals doing business with the individuals in question unless there's a waiver saying Russia ain't gonna do no more hacking, and I don't think that was part of the Monday announcement. Again, maybe there's some subterranean legalese or precedent but it doesn't seem to be in the actual bill. I believe there already have been sanctions that were implemented, just none yesterday (and actions made public that we know of). I'm relying on people who know something about this. If yoy read the article it's clear the author is no Trump fan. So far the administration has been good about following law and ending illegal programs (CSR payments, Daca). Given their other actions on Russia I'm going to guess they are at least arguably right. It's hard to do more research on my phone. But if 5 sanctions were implemented before then I don't see an issue. edit: it's not even 5 sanctions, it's 5 actions, of which Trump can choose which 5. That sounds pretty broad.
After reading all of 231 I don't think it's as egregiously gross as before (though it's still a failure imo). I think State is just too staff-gutted to execute the law properly and also don't really want to execute the law, so they're taking shortcuts that likely do technically hold up legally.
It does mean they're going to have this story popping up every 180 days forever, though, so the Trump admin better find a good way to spin that every single person doing business with the relevant entities is doing significantly less business than they were last time.
|
On January 31 2018 03:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 03:19 m4ini wrote:I still haven't really seen any of the usual suspects like Danglars etc explain the non-sanctions away so far. Still thinking of a way to come up with a reason, or does that one look so bad that you simply prefer to not argue for it? Constitution, wasn't that a thing held in high regards, or is that only if it suits your argument? it's getting to the point where ever reporter is going to have to record every meeting so they can show tapes on what was said
Actually, that's what they do anyways. You can't write the article while interviewing. The question simply is, does the journalist still have them. I’m not paid to answer to ... suspicions and whispers directed at nobody and lacking concrete framing. Much like all the usual suspects that want our health insurance system to resemble enlightened Europe say little when our abortion regulations are brought closer to Europe’s. I wasn’t really expecting any, nor is it necessary to give your two cents on every subject.
Jesus christ, my posting is barely three lines long and you're not able to actually argue against what i'm saying but try to make a random point and tell me "gotcha there!".
You could've simply just said that you got fuck all. Btw, on an entirely unrelated and not further discussed note, if your president decides to start aborting kids unconstitutionally, i'll promise you i give you all the mental support you desire. Until then, snowflake, lets stick with the fact that your no-ties-to-russia president argues that voting for sanctions and signing them is deterrent enough(??). Because obviously, russia is very scared for the next time you vote for sanctions and don't implement them.
|
On January 31 2018 05:44 Doodsmack wrote:
Today Putin described the lists published by the Trump administration "an attack on the US's elected president." Interesting thing for him to say, huh?
He's clearly sowing more dissent.
|
Back in October 2017:
http://thehill.com/policy/international/357445-tillerson-eliminates-key-state-department-sanctions-office-report
While true Trump has time to enforce the sanctions, they expressly said that they felt the 2017, sanctions were sufficient and the state department is understaffed. Although I agree that they are not in violation of the law, they don’t show any interest in doing what Congress asked of them. Just because they didn’t outright defy congress doesn’t mean anything.
And with Trump attacking the FBI and the investigation, we very close to the bleeding edge of the crisis that article claims is far off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
