Don't compare Jon Snow with You just might piss off Arya.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
ProPublica examined receipts and emails regarding government use of Mar-a-Lago.
The headline makes a big deal out of the $1000 bar tab (paid by taxpayers) than Bannon & Company rang up one night. But the more interesting part deals with the contortions the State Department had to make in order to bring spending at MAL in compliance with the law. In particular, how to make sure the State Dept. was following the competitive bidding process when there were nearby hotels charging a much cheaper rate than MAL (MAL apparently charges the maximum allowable rate under the law).
- Top
Comment
-
IMO Mueller had a duty to announce no collusion when he determined there was no collusion, which apparently was Dec 2017. he should have informed Rosenstein and made his way to a microphone and told the American people that their president didn't conspire with the enemy to win an election.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by iam416 View PostTo be clear, according to the leaks and reports, Mueller had no complaints about how Barr characterized the central, giant motherfucking elephant behind the report. NO. COLLUSION. ZERO.
His complaints had to do with how Barr characterized obstruction. I'm told no one cares about Russia. I'm told the Ds need to focus on meat and potato issues. I'm told Russia doesn't move the needle one or the other. So, I can only conclude that the Ds are and D Media -- well, Media -- are still obsessed with this nonsense.
Again. NO. FUCKING. COLLUSION.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...ntent=20190501Last edited by Dr. Strangelove; May 1, 2019, 09:13 AM.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kapture1 View PostIMO Mueller had a duty to announce no collusion when he determined there was no collusion, which apparently was Dec 2017. he should have informed Rosenstein and made his way to a microphone and told the American people that their president didn't conspire with the enemy to win an election.
i guess they needed more evidence of Trump obstructioning a coup attempt to fill the impeachment report for the Democrats
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Believe most of the evidence of obstruction (if not all) occurred before Dec 2017. The firing of Comey and the end of Summer 2017 were the crucial months.
the closest to obstruction was the situation with Lewindowski, but still wasn'tLast edited by Kapture1; May 1, 2019, 09:30 AM.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlabamAlum View PostIt's hard for me to care that much about the purported obstruction of an investigation that came up empty on what they were going after.
I guess I'm saying I do NOT believe in a blanket statement that you can only commit obstruction (or witness tamper -- process crimes) if you're also guilty of an underlying crime.
Trump's case is more a political question than a criminal one, which is what Mueller suggested. Are you fine with ANY President firing an FBI Director, threatening to fire an AG and Special Prosecutor, because he feels an investigation is unfair and unmerited? It's a question of conduct rather than criminality I suppose.
- Top
Comment
-
It's hard for me to care that much about the purported obstruction of an investigation that came up empty on what they were going after.
(1) Not only did the investigation come up empty, but no one actually obstructed the investigation; and
(2) I think it's almost impossible for a person with the requisite authority to ATTEMPT obstruction -- PDJT could have fired Mueller at any time -- the fact that he never did suggest that he wasn't really serious about firing Mueller -- or, at a minimum, he was only serious if someone else delivered the news -- which strikes me as not serious.
So, you have "obstruction" where there was no underlying "crime" AND where there was no actual obstruction! Further, you're saying the President merely attempted -- but didn't execute -- something that was fully within his power to execute.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
Oh, I agree with all you wrote, DSL. When I say that I don't "care that much" it's more that it is a waste of time. I would not be shocked if he did obstruct (idk if he did or not). My thing is, he won't get indicted and he won't be impeached over it. So, the only thing that remains is campaign rhetoric and talk show fodder; moreover, those that didn't like Trump before won't like him now and I doubt it sways many (any?) of his current supporters."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by iam416 View Post
It's even sillier, IMO. The obstruction in this case is ATTEMPTED obstruction. That leads to two points:
(1) Not only did the investigation come up empty, but no one actually obstructed the investigation; and
(2) I think it's almost impossible for a person with the requisite authority to ATTEMPT obstruction -- PDJT could have fired Mueller at any time -- the fact that he never did suggest that he wasn't really serious about firing Mueller -- or, at a minimum, he was only serious if someone else delivered the news -- which strikes me as not serious.
So, you have "obstruction" where there was no underlying "crime" AND where there was no actual obstruction! Further, you're saying the President merely attempted -- but didn't execute -- something that was fully within his power to execute."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
- Top
Comment
-
Trump's case is more a political question than a criminal one, which is what Mueller suggested. Are you fine with ANY President firing an FBI Director, threatening to fire an AG and Special Prosecutor, because he feels an investigation is unfair and unmerited? It's a question of conduct rather than criminality I suppose.
I think firing Comey was not only completely and totally "legal" -- but justified.
It's hard for me to imagine persons with authority properly exercising that authority and still being guilty of obstruction. I think, e.g., the DA in Chicago that gave Smollett a walk is in it up to her eyes politically, but she acted within the scope of her authority to discharge her duties as she saw fit. That's not obstruction. Decisions are made every day by folks in power about what investigations to pursue, how hard to pursue them and what to do with the results. I get that it becomes a bit of sticky wicket when the investigation involves the person with authority, but IMO until that authority is stripped I don't think there's anything to do. I mean, I find it ludicrous that while the Executive Branch ordered the investigation they literally had no power to do anything thereafter lest they be accused of obstruction.
I fundamentally agreed with your initial take -- that the report was a more a revelation of the inner workings of the White House and PDJT's own shortcomings than anything else. It wasn't particularly surprising, but it added to the body of evidence.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
The 10 points (or whatever) of obstruction by Mueller did leave me unimpressed.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by iam416 View Post
It's worth reiterating -- Not only did the investigation come up empty, but no one actually obstructed the investigation. I mean, really think about that. Really think about what folks are chasing right now.
Peach mints NOW!!
- Top
Comment
Comment