Archive

Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

  • gut
    sleeper;1852157 wrote: But it's only because he started his job early. Incredible the lengths Republicans will go to defy reality and protect party over country.
    I'm only going off what James Clapper has said multiple times, including under oath to Congress - that he saw no evidence of collusion.

    Yes, "starting the job early" was a violation of the Logan Act, though I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted for it. Also questions of improperly disclosing consulting fees in Russia & Turkey. He's such a sucker for not setting up a charity for that.
  • sleeper
    Potentially the biggest story since 9/11 and everyone is concerned about a random internet user.

    What a time to be alive!
  • sleeper
    gut;1852160 wrote:I'm only going off what James Clapper has said multiple times, including under oath to Congress - that he saw no evidence of collusion.

    Yes, "starting the job early" was a violation of the Logan Act, though I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted for it. Also questions of improperly disclosing consulting fees in Russia & Turkey. He's such a sucker for not setting up a charity for that.
    Keep defending it!
  • like_that
    sleeper;1852158 wrote:Sorry you can't get laid bro. Try earning real money.
    My offer still stands. If you want to get out of that toxic relationship I'm more than happy to introduce you to some ladies in DC.

    That requires you to come to DC though, considering you don't live in DC.
  • fish82
    Sleeper is literally foaming at the kock holster.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Flynn: If he was compromised during the Obama Presidency, why did he still hold his clearance level?

    Comey: Dems hate him because they think he caused Hillary the Presidency. So, that would make it seem (if they are absolutely correct in this) that Comey is Trump's guy. If that is so, why wouldn't Trump keep him in that position?
  • sleeper
    CenterBHSFan;1852170 wrote:Flynn: If he was compromised during the Obama Presidency, why did he still hold his clearance level?

    Comey: Dems hate him because they think he caused Hillary the Presidency. So, that would make it seem (if they are absolutely correct in this) that Comey is Trump's guy. If that is so, why wouldn't Trump keep him in that position?
    It was suspended in February 2016. He wasn't properly vetted by the Trump team. Tell me more about Obama though so called "Non Fox News" viewer.

    Dems don't like Comey but firing the lead investigator that's investigating you by the guy who recused himself from involvement in the investigation is a little fishy at best. But yes, let's continue to focus on Obama.
  • QuakerOats
    fish82;1852124 wrote:Risky move by Trump doing this without first getting permission from a random federal judge in Hawaii.
    LOL
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1852158 wrote:Sorry you can't get laid bro. Try earning real money.

    Sorry you have to pay for sex .............tough one
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1852200 wrote:Sorry you have to pay for sex .............tough one
    I'll wait for o-trap to explain why metaphorically you are wrong and we can waste 30 posts discussing it.
  • O-Trap
    CenterBHSFan;1852170 wrote:Comey: Dems hate him because they think he caused Hillary the Presidency. So, that would make it seem (if they are absolutely correct in this) that Comey is Trump's guy. If that is so, why wouldn't Trump keep him in that position?
    Perhaps he was impartial, and despite the fact that he made Trump's opponent look bad in the general election, he wasn't doing so because he was "Trump's guy," further demonstrated by the fact that he was the lead investigator into Trump's ties to Russia.

    The latter part certainly wouldn't make him "Trump's guy," and it would certainly give a motive for not keeping him in that position.
    sleeper;1852190 wrote:Dems don't like Comey but firing the lead investigator that's investigating you by the guy who recused himself from involvement in the investigation is a little fishy at best. But yes, let's continue to focus on Obama.
    This.

    When Snowden, a person who has no love for Comey, opposes the firing, it sounds like a red flag.
    sleeper;1852204 wrote:I'll wait for o-trap to explain why metaphorically you are wrong and we can waste 30 posts discussing it.
    QO isn't claiming the intellectual higher ground, so his comment isn't really on the same plane as yours was/were.

    Also, that's not what 'metaphorically' means, either. Seriously, if you don't know how to use a word, just don't use it.
  • gut
    I think there definitely is an argument to be made that Comey had damaged the credibility/fairness/objectivity of the FBI. There's that old argument that when both sides hate you, you must be doing something right....but when neither side really trusts you then you're also clearly doing something wrong.

    I think he was put in an impossible situation. Hillary certainly would have replaced him, and Trump probably should have done the same when he took office. I don't agree with the firing, but I also don't know that he could recover the integrity of the office after mismanaging the optics on several issues.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1852220 wrote:....but when neither side really trusts you then you're also clearly doing something wrong.
    This is certainly true when the sides themselves are trustworthy.

    However ...
  • fish82
    gut;1852220 wrote:I think there definitely is an argument to be made that Comey had damaged the credibility/fairness/objectivity of the FBI. There's that old argument that when both sides hate you, you must be doing something right....but when neither side really trusts you then you're also clearly doing something wrong.

    I think he was put in an impossible situation. Hillary certainly would have replaced him, and Trump probably should have done the same when he took office. I don't agree with the firing, but I also don't know that he could recover the integrity of the office after mismanaging the optics on several issues.
    Pretty much this. The only thing really questionable here is the timing.

    Plus, let's not act like the dumbass #ScaryRussians investigation isn't going to go forward either way. The democrat party has their horse firmly hooked to that wagon, cliff be damned.
  • O-Trap
    fish82;1852236 wrote:Pretty much this. The only thing really questionable here is the timing.

    Plus, let's not act like the dumbass #ScaryRussians investigation isn't going to go forward either way. The democrat party has their horse firmly hooked to that wagon, cliff be damned.
    I mean, whether or not it goes somewhere, the person being looked into is the one appointing the replacement. Has to get Senate approval, of course, but what luck that the Senate majority is tied to the same party.

    I hardly think an investigation into the ethics of public servants at the federal level qualifies as heading toward a cliff, either.
  • sleeper
    fish82;1852236 wrote:Pretty much this. The only thing really questionable here is the timing.

    Plus, let's not act like the dumbass #ScaryRussians investigation isn't going to go forward either way. The democrat party has their horse firmly hooked to that wagon, cliff be damned.
    I'm glad at least one party is choosing country over party. It's a shame Republicans are more interested in obfuscation than protecting the office of the President from foreign influence.

    Keep defending it though!
  • gut
    O-Trap;1852239 wrote: I hardly think an investigation into the ethics of public servants at the federal level qualifies as heading toward a cliff, either.
    But, at the same time, Repubs weren't happy with the answers and investigations into the leaks/unmasking. It's illegal, and it's a means of political assassination so you could understand why many in Washington would be extremely concerned (Dems, too, if they weren't chasing their own version of birthergate).

    I also don't think that the two issues are completely separate, either. I don't think you can investigate a potential abuse of power and illegal leaks without digging into every angle of the Russia thing.
  • gut
    sleeper;1852241 wrote:I'm glad at least one party is choosing country over party. It's a shame Republicans are more interested in obfuscation than protecting the office of the President from foreign influence.
    Don't kid yourself. If Hillary had won, we'd be investigating her pay-for-play "charity" and the shoe would be on the other foot.
  • fish82
    O-Trap;1852239 wrote:I mean, whether or not it goes somewhere, the person being looked into is the one appointing the replacement.
    FWIW, the person appointing the replacement isn't under investigation.
    O-Trap;1852239 wrote:Has to get Senate approval, of course, but what luck that the Senate majority is tied to the same party.
    I guess. I haven't seen much of a lovefest between the two bodies so far, but I suppose it's an advantage.
    O-Trap;1852239 wrote:I hardly think an investigation into the ethics of public servants at the federal level qualifies as heading toward a cliff, either.
    From a political standpoint, it certainly does. The Russia meme has been a joke from the beginning...there's simply nothing there. The list of things to dislike Trump over is long, but this isn't one of them.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1852241 wrote:I'm glad at least one party is choosing country over party. It's a shame Republicans are more interested in obfuscation than protecting the office of the President from foreign influence.

    Keep defending it though!
    Keep foaming at the kock holster. :laugh:
  • sleeper
    gut;1852243 wrote:Don't kid yourself. If Hillary had won, we'd be investigating her pay-for-play "charity" and the shoe would be on the other foot.
    Well I for one and FOR accountability and making sure our politicians act ethically.

    I just wish Republicans felt the same way.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1852242 wrote:But, at the same time, Repubs weren't happy with the answers and investigations into the leaks/unmasking. It's illegal, and it's a means of political assassination so you could understand why many in Washington would be extremely concerned (Dems, too, if they weren't chasing their own version of birthergate).
    There's a joke in there about why so many in Washington might be extremely concerned about investigations.

    Whether or not anything serves as an illicit means of political assassination would seem to hinge on whether or not the claims are true, though, would it not? And determining that would be the work of an investigation. Or do I misunderstand your statement?

    Also, the Democratic Party during this is reminding me of the Republicans during the Clinton trial.
    gut;1852242 wrote:I also don't think that the two issues are completely separate, either. I don't think you can investigate a potential abuse of power and illegal leaks without digging into every angle of the Russia thing.
    Right. I'm not suggesting that the circumstances aren't complicated, of course. If you're being investigated by someone, and you have final say on both them keeping their jobs AND their replacement, what happens if you (I'm making an assumption about Trump here, for the sake of a hypothetical) genuinely believe the person to be incompetent or derelict? If you don't fire him, you yourself are being derelict. If you do fire him, it will significantly undercut your credibility, and not without merit.
  • sleeper
    gut;1852242 wrote:But, at the same time, Repubs weren't happy with the answers and investigations into the leaks/unmasking. It's illegal, and it's a means of political assassination so you could understand why many in Washington would be extremely concerned (Dems, too, if they weren't chasing their own version of birthergate).

    I also don't think that the two issues are completely separate, either. I don't think you can investigate a potential abuse of power and illegal leaks without digging into every angle of the Russia thing.
    The unmasking isn't the story. Without the leaks, Flynn would still be the NSA so whoever did the leaks should be given a Presidential medal. The Republicans want to focus on this because it distracts from the REAL issue, one that actually matters to the safety and defense of the Republic.
  • sleeper
    From a political standpoint, it certainly does. The Russia meme has been a joke from the beginning...there's simply nothing there. The list of things to dislike Trump over is long, but this isn't one of them.
    Oh you know nothing is there? Watergate took 2 years; but you know nothing is there. Interesting theory.
  • sleeper
    Comey was fired without a replacement identified for something he did almost 9 months ago. What took Trump so long?