EPTWhen such a conflict of interests happens, it is so hard to trust anything he says about the investigation.
The fox should not be the one hiring guards for the hen house.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1246
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
dae
Canada1600 Posts
When such a conflict of interests happens, it is so hard to trust anything he says about the investigation. The fox should not be the one hiring guards for the hen house. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 25 2019 23:25 xDaunt wrote: The problem with this line of thought is that it a belies a lack of understanding regarding what was actually admitted, both factually and legally. Again, the proof is in the pudding: there were no charges for those admissions. That fact demonstrably proves the errors underpinning your presumptions. A lack of charges against Hillary didn't keep you or Republicans from the exact same thing. It blows my mind how much cognitive dissonance you and other conservatives live with. Do you really believe that there aren't parallels between what conservatives are criticizing progressives for now and how they acted when Hillary wasn't charged and the God-only-knows how many Benghazi investigations came up with nothing? Or do you just willfully choose to ignore it because your team is on the other side now? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:27 dae wrote: The issue is that Barr was appointed to his position by Trump. When such a conflict of interests happens, it is so hard to trust anything he says about the investigation. The fox should not be the one hiring guards for the hen house. By this note, we can never trust the Justice Department for any administration, which isn't ideal. But Barr was previously an AG in the 1990s and has nothing to prove. I don't agree with him on a lot, but he isn't eating out of Trump's hand. But I would still prefer more people than just the Justice Department see the report. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:30 Plansix wrote: The problem with Barr is that he was hired because of his position that the President cannot be indicted.By this note, we can never trust the Justice Department for any administration, which isn't ideal. But Barr was previously an AG in the 1990s and has nothing to prove. I don't agree with him on a lot, but he isn't eating out of Trump's hand. But I would still prefer more people than just the Justice Department see the report. Hence why I want to see what Mueller said, rather then what Barr says. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:30 Plansix wrote: By this note, we can never trust the Justice Department for any administration, which isn't ideal. But Barr was previously an AG in the 1990s and has nothing to prove. I don't agree with him on a lot, but he isn't eating out of Trump's hand. But I would still prefer more people than just the Justice Department see the report. Sure, but it isnt a stretch to say that Barr got this job in large part because because he is on the record both bashing the investigation as a whole and saying the president can't obstruct justice. He isnt a completely neutral arbiter here. Apparently Trump is saying to release the whole report. Get it done yo. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 26 2019 00:31 Logo wrote: Kimberly Strassel is hardly a neutral voice of reason on these matters. I think this take is pretty normal for those who think it’s reasonable to dismiss arguments based on the identity of the person making them. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
On March 26 2019 00:29 JimmiC wrote: This isn't the most scientific thing, but I think it is kind of a fun look at the candidates. Yahoo finance ranked all 15 on how Socialist or Capitalist they were. They looked at the categories of Health care, the environment, taxes and trade. And scored each category up to 3. Not surprisingly Sanders was the most Socialist and Inslee, Hickenlooper and Delany tied for most Capitalist. Edit: I forgot the think lol https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/here-are-the-most-socialisticand-most-capitalistic-democrats-running-for-president-190000240.html That was a pretty simplistic way of looking at it but I guess it works! I just read in a non English news site that only Biden and Sanders have realistic chances, and that Biden should be the logical choice as he currently has a clear head-to-head advantage over Trump. It interresting that the 2 of them are from the opposite sides of the spectrum within the party! | ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:38 On_Slaught wrote: Sure, but it isnt a stretch to say that Barr got this job in large part because because he is on the record both bashing the investigation as a whole and saying the president can't obstruct justice. He isnt a completely neutral arbiter here. and has a history of covering up things like Iran-Contra. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:50 Danglars wrote: I think this take is pretty normal for those who think it’s reasonable to dismiss arguments based on the identity of the person making them. I know this is supposed to be some sort of take down of Logo's skepticism of Kimberley Strassel, but it just comes off as solid life advice for weeding out arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about. Ignore serious medical advice from people who are not medical professionals. In this case, as member of a center right newspaper's editorial board with no law enforcement or goverment experience calling for the FBI to justify that which they have already justified through the existence of Carter "The idiot" Page. I know we collectively have become a country with the memory of a goldfish, but Carter Page's statements on TV alone made most Republicans go "Yeah, the FBI should look into that kid." | ||
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
Several people got plea deals in relation to the Meuller investigation no? Now I assume that to get a plea deal you have to actually provide incrimination information about someone else. How does that mesh with 'there was no crime, nothing happened'? If nothing happened there would be no plea deals because no one would have incrimination information. You can't get a plea deal for a crime that never happened. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
Of course, that leads to the question, why did so many people lie to investigators if there’s nothing to hide? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: We also shouldn't trust Barr apparently, who in his memo said that the investigation was not conducted improperly. The issue is that the conclusions are known but not the evidence they used to make such conclusions. It's very much left to,"dude, trust me"; trust it at an all time low in the US. So hardly surprising people are asking for proof not just your word. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On March 26 2019 02:20 Gorsameth wrote: Here is a thing I would love legal experts on the right to explain to me. Several people got plea deals in relation to the Meuller investigation no? Now I assume that to get a plea deal you have to actually provide incrimination information about someone else. How does that mesh with 'there was no crime, nothing happened'? If nothing happened there would be no plea deals because no one would have incrimination information. You can't get a plea deal for a crime that never happened. The specific crimes the grand jury was tasked to look into did not meet muster, atleast my understand of Barr's letter. It said nothing about anything else found. So that allows for plenty of sketchy, skeevy and illegal things to have been found just not the specific defined point of trump campaign collusion. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I have also stated earlier, and perhaps you read, that Trump does not hire the best people. | ||
| ||
