Nothing to see here.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


jlf1961 -> Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 9:15:15 AM)

quote:

Trump's friend Christopher Ruddy says President considering firing Mueller

Washington (CNN)One of President Donald Trump's friends said he believes the President is considering dismissing special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed to lead the FBI investigation into Russia's potential ties to the 2016 election.
"I think it is a consideration the President has had because Mueller is illegitimate as special counsel," Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax Media, told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day" Tuesday. "Chris, remember there is no evidence of wrongdoing, there's no evidence of collusion, there's no evidence of obstruction."
He added that he believes it would be a mistake to fire Mueller, but said the "the basis of his investigation is flim-flam."
source


The basis of the investigation is flim flam, even though Trump aids were talking to Russian government officials about lifting sanctions (sanctions both senate dems and republicans have agreed to make tougher with a clause to automatically begin investigating the white house if the president tries to soften them)

A flim flam even though an official of the Abu Dhabi government admitted to setting up secret meetings between Russian government officials and Trump aids prior to the inauguration?

A flim flam even though it is now confirmed that Russian hackers got into voter databases (as well as other voting databases in 39 states)

A flim flam even though the investigation actually did not start as an investigation into Trump but his secretary of defense who quit?

Of course, what I find really funny is that Donald Trump is calling Comey a liar.

Why is this funny you ask?

Because no less than four FOX News anchors have (after his testimony) referred to Comey as honest, would not lie either to congress or reporters, as well as other glowing character traits.

One even went so far as to say this does not look good for the white house (not mentioning the president, just the white house.)

Now, the Speaker of the house had something to say in the president's defense, concerning Comey's testimony "President Trump is new to working in the government so he does not know how to get things done in the proper way."

You can see it all here




WickedsDesire -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 9:51:04 AM)

nothing to see here




Hillwilliam -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 9:53:48 AM)

Wouldn't firing him be obstruction of justice?




tweakabelle -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 9:56:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Wouldn't firing him be obstruction of justice?

Not certain of that. But sacking Mueller would be a re-run of this: the Saturday Night Massacre

The Saturday Night Massacre was one of the final nails in Nixon's coffin.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 10:12:48 AM)

I think there are a few threads running along this line the last 1-2 days and I started one myself.

Nixon was be fore my time tweak Did he actually fire Cox?

Hillwilliam in my simple mind yes it would be

I thought Comey testimony was excellent jeff

Just waiting on jeff sessions this eve :) I can be a bit daft from time to time, no secret, but part of me thinks he will fuk it up

what should be important to everyone is why the cascade has begun regarding Mueller being not suitable




vincentML -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 1:54:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Wouldn't firing him be obstruction of justice?

As I understand from some TV dudes the Prez cannot directly fire Mueller (by DOJ rules) but he can direct the Asst AG to fire him. That's what Nixon had to do. But the AG and asst AG resigned rather than obey the order, and a new Prosecutor was hired somehow. The new Prosecutor went to Court and made Nixon give up the secret tapes, which lead to impeachment.




jlf1961 -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 2:01:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I think there are a few threads running along this line the last 1-2 days and I started one myself.

Nixon was be fore my time tweak Did he actually fire Cox?

Short answer, yes.

Hillwilliam in my simple mind yes it would be

Actually there are two schools of thought, but, it would be a blow to Trump's credibility, because even if he has done nothing wrong, it would appear (due to historic incident) that he had, which would basically kill him politically.

I thought Comey testimony was excellent jeff

I thought it was great, he not only blasted the Obama DoJ for their telling him to back off the Hilary email server thing, as well as plastered the Trump administration. He didnt care who he threw under the bus, which is exactly what a good FBI director should do, if they screwed up, they get the ax.

Just waiting on jeff sessions this eve :) I can be a bit daft from time to time, no secret, but part of me thinks he will fuk it up

what should be important to everyone is why the cascade has begun regarding Mueller being not suitable



Here is the big thing, FOX news anchors and reporters commented on Comey's credibility, honesty and integrity in positive terms, and stated that Comey "has hurt the President's credibility."

Then going back to the whole reason for Comey looking into the Russian connection was not because of the election, but Flynn lying about talking to the Russian ambassador, among others.

We have Flynn's own words that one of the topics was the reduction or elimination of US sanctions against Russia, we have President Trump returning two compounds to Russia that the Russians were using as bases to spy within the US (which is why Obama kicked them out of the compounds in the first place, a move applauded by both house and senate Republicans.)

We have the senate announcing stronger sanctions against Russia today, supported by senate GOP and Dem members, with provisions to start immediate investigations if the President tries to lesson them or eliminate them altogether. (something that makes no sense for the GOP to support unless they have some doubts there not being any connection between Trump and the Russian government.)

quote:


Senate Strikes Deal on Russia Sanctions, Stripping Power From Trump

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate has reached a bipartisan agreement on a new round of sanctions against Russia, a move that will likely force President Donald Trump to either sign or veto a measure that he has not said he supports.

The sanctions are in response to a trio of Russian actions, including their interference in the 2016 election, engagement in Syria and invasion of Crimea.

In a rebuke to the president, negotiators agreed that the additional sanctions on Russia would prohibit the president from being able to lift them without Congressional approval.

In addition, the measure would codify existing sanctions and place new economic restrictions in an effort to economically harm specific individuals and Russia's economy.
Source


Now as for any implication that one might infer about what Comey said about Sessions recusing himself, it must be pointed out that Sessions did so not because he might have been directly involved in any wrong doings, but because of a DoJ regulation that actually makes it mandatory for him to do so because he worked on the Trump campaign.

Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it. That regulation states, in effect, that Department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.

So, all you people that are claiming that Sessions did something wrong and that is why he recused himself need to step back a second.





MrRodgers -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 6:13:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Wouldn't firing him be obstruction of justice?

As I understand from some TV dudes the Prez cannot directly fire Mueller (by DOJ rules) but he can direct the Asst AG to fire him. That's what Nixon had to do. But the AG and asst AG resigned rather than obey the order, and a new Prosecutor was hired somehow. The new Prosecutor went to Court and made Nixon give up the secret tapes, which lead to impeachment.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the tapes were the last nail in the coffin just before what was going to be articles of impeachment out of the house anyway and caused a 'straw' vote that would get Nixon convicted in the senate. So he resigned instead.

Nixon then faced indictment for obstruction among other possible charges and Ford pardoned him, got the repub nomination, then not very surprisingly...lost to Carter.




LTE -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/13/2017 9:48:59 PM)

no.




Musicmystery -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 7:00:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, the Speaker of the house had something to say in the president's defense, concerning Comey's testimony "President Trump is new to working in the government so he does not know how to get things done in the proper way."


Another way to put that is that he's incompetent. People get fired for that, particularly in leadership roles. It's not a training program.




WhoreMods -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 8:37:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, the Speaker of the house had something to say in the president's defense, concerning Comey's testimony "President Trump is new to working in the government so he does not know how to get things done in the proper way."


Another way to put that is that he's incompetent. People get fired for that, particularly in leadership roles. It's not a training program.

You'd almost suspect that el presidente is deliberately surrounding himself with incompetents and idiots to try to make himself look better.




BoscoX -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 8:46:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, the Speaker of the house had something to say in the president's defense, concerning Comey's testimony "President Trump is new to working in the government so he does not know how to get things done in the proper way."


Another way to put that is that he's incompetent. People get fired for that, particularly in leadership roles. It's not a training program.

You'd almost suspect that el presidente is deliberately surrounding himself with incompetents and idiots to try to make himself look better.


Could leftists be any more insanely hateful and enraged

"deliberately surrounding himself with incompetents and idiots to try to make himself look better"

They really believe this stuff





WhoreMods -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 8:55:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, the Speaker of the house had something to say in the president's defense, concerning Comey's testimony "President Trump is new to working in the government so he does not know how to get things done in the proper way."


Another way to put that is that he's incompetent. People get fired for that, particularly in leadership roles. It's not a training program.

You'd almost suspect that el presidente is deliberately surrounding himself with incompetents and idiots to try to make himself look better.


Could leftists be any more insanely hateful and enraged

"deliberately surrounding himself with incompetents and idiots to try to make himself look better"

They really believe this stuff



And you believe that Kathy Whatserface was waving a tatty prop about to scare a retarded eleven year old.
What's your point, here?




Hillwilliam -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 8:58:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


And you believe that Kathy Whatserface was waving a tatty prop about to scare a retarded eleven year old.
What's your point, here?

In all seriousness, we need to leave the kids out of our debates.




WhoreMods -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 9:04:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


And you believe that Kathy Whatserface was waving a tatty prop about to scare a retarded eleven year old.
What's your point, here?

In all seriousness, we need to leave the kids out of our debates.

Probably, but I don't find the argument that the ridiculous image in question was unacceptable because el presidente's youngest might see it terribly convincing, and it isn't exactly like the republicans have left themselves any moral high ground to stand on about politicians' children after the way they talked about Clinton's and Obama's daughters, either. If a democrat's children are fair game, then so are a republican's. You can't apply something that's supposed to be a moral objection in a partisan manner, it's either all or nothing, and the republican apologists who are now insisting that it's an "all" have previously spent sixteen years insisting that it's a "nothing", so it's hard to treat them changing their tunes on this as anything other than a particularly mealy mouthed example of hypocrisy and special pleading.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 9:12:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


And you believe that Kathy Whatserface was waving a tatty prop about to scare a retarded eleven year old.
What's your point, here?

In all seriousness, we need to leave the kids out of our debates.

Probably, but I don't find the argument that the ridiculous image in question was unacceptable because el presidente's youngest might see it terribly convincing, and it isn't exactly like the republicans have left themselves any moral high ground to stand on about politicians' children after the way they talked about Clinton's and Obama's daughters, either. If a democrat's children are fair game, then so are a republican's. You can't apply something that's supposed to be a moral objection in a partisan manner, it's either all or nothing, and the republican apologists who are now insisting that it's an "all" have previously spent sixteen years insisting that it's a "nothing", so it's hard to treat them changing their tunes on this as anything other than a particularly mealy mouthed example of hypocrisy and special pleading.

As I have said before. If you wish to hold the moral high ground, it is best not to race the other side to the bottom.
Let them wallow in their cretinous, traitorous, lying slime.




WhoreMods -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 9:17:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


And you believe that Kathy Whatserface was waving a tatty prop about to scare a retarded eleven year old.
What's your point, here?

In all seriousness, we need to leave the kids out of our debates.

Probably, but I don't find the argument that the ridiculous image in question was unacceptable because el presidente's youngest might see it terribly convincing, and it isn't exactly like the republicans have left themselves any moral high ground to stand on about politicians' children after the way they talked about Clinton's and Obama's daughters, either. If a democrat's children are fair game, then so are a republican's. You can't apply something that's supposed to be a moral objection in a partisan manner, it's either all or nothing, and the republican apologists who are now insisting that it's an "all" have previously spent sixteen years insisting that it's a "nothing", so it's hard to treat them changing their tunes on this as anything other than a particularly mealy mouthed example of hypocrisy and special pleading.

As I have said before. If you wish to hold the moral high ground, it is best not to race the other side to the bottom.
Let them wallow in their cretinous, traitorous, lying slime.

No argument, but I still find the fact that so many of them seem convinced that they have regained said moral high ground regardless of what they've said and done previously, and that there's nothing hypocritical in them claiming so hilariously pathetic.




jlf1961 -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 9:43:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX



Could leftists be any more insanely hateful and enraged

"deliberately surrounding himself with incompetents and idiots to try to make himself look better"

They really believe this stuff




The actual situation is that the members of President Trump's staff actually know what they are doing. The problem is when the President, despite their best efforts goes and tweets or says something contradicting what they have been saying.

And bosco, before you start screaming about how this is bullshit, may I point out the most recent example:

The memo firing Comey clearly stated that it was because of the way he handled the Clinton email investigation, didn't matter that Trump and the GOP praised his releasing the fact he was reopening the investigation in October, which clearly impacted the election results.

However, when President Trump was talking to the the visitors from Russia, he stated he was already thinking of firing him BEFORE the memo because of the Russia investigation.

His staff immediately went into action to make sure that was just part of the issue, and he had not made a decision to fire Comey until AFTER the memo was received.

Then in a televised live interview he stated he had already decided to fire Comey because of the investigation into the Russian election tampering AND due to the investigation of Flynn before he got the memo from the justice department.

In other words, he basically called his staff liars after they had spent four days trying to shut the thing down saying he had not decided to fire Comey until after the memo.

He has done this a few times, and frankly, it makes his staff look incompetent and like idiots, which they are not. In fact many of them have been part of successful campaigns, staffs and are tops in their fields.

The problem is the President. While stating what he thinks and rampant tweets might have been a good thing when he was in business and not in politics, he needs to learn when to shut his mouth and let his staff, people he chose because they know how to work with in the political world, do their jobs.

I have said it before and I will say it again, even if Trump did nothing wrong, and considering he fired Bannon from the national security council, his own actions, misguided as they may be, will get him in more trouble.

Considering what Democrats and former colleagues of Flynn have said about the man.

Dems have repeated talked up his honesty, his integrity, and many have used the term 'stand up guy."
His former military colleagues have said the same thing, and used the term 'upstanding officer,' men who served under his command have said basically the same thing.

All agree on one point, a very important point, Flynn would never knowingly do something unethical, dishonest, and if it was something critical, he would never act without some directives from his superiors, unless the situation was such that he had no time to do so.

Flynn has said on a number of occasions he answered to Bannon during the campaign and transition, and not Trump.

One of the complaints about Bannon, according to anonymous sources within the white house is that Bannon often acted without directive from Trump or without authority, which angered people when he crossed the line into someone else's job.

Now, with all of that known, I have to think that it is entirely possible that Flynn did what he did completely without President Trump's knowledge, but under the directives of someone else.

Now, while everyone is screaming about the integrity of Donald Trump, I must point out that, while in business he made some questionable decisions, including taking a loan from his father who made the loan by purchasing a few million in casino chips he never used (the New Jersey gaming commission nailed Trump on that and he admitted it was wrong after the incident.)

However, when Donald Trump was caught doing something that was technically illegal or against regulations, there is one over whelming fact that speaks to his integrity, he never tried to pass the blame to someone else. He accepted he was ultimately responsible and never threw anyone under the bus to save his own ass.

By the same token, he is loyal to his closest friends, to the point where he will try to protect them any way possible.

If that is the case, President Trump may be shooting himself in the foot out of some misguided attempt to protect someone who, in all honesty, should be thrown under the bus.

In which case, Trump may end up in deep trouble for something he did not actively have any knowledge of.





Real0ne -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 1:56:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Wouldn't firing him be obstruction of justice?

Not certain of that. But sacking Mueller would be a re-run of this: the Saturday Night Massacre

The Saturday Night Massacre was one of the final nails in Nixon's coffin.



thats why trump insisted on knowing if he was under investigation because he planned on firing him all along and wouldnt have if he was under investigation for obvious reasons.......and you dont know comey may have told trump the only way all this could get out in the open is if went down exactly as it did





MercTech -> RE: Nothing to see here.... (6/14/2017 2:12:30 PM)

Addressing an elephant over behind the sofa.....

Russian Hackers and Russian Government are NOT equivalent. There is a criminal industry in Russia that thrives on stealing and selling digital information.

On the other hand, do you really think Russia does not have their own equivalent of the NSA that is looking at every facet of digital information they can get their hands on?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625