kevon67 2,368 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Oh son, I could impeach you quicker than the blink of an eye. You could also plead insanity with Homer as a client.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Just now, kevon67 said: You could also plead insanity with Homer as a client.? Easily!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Good read here. It's an opinion piece from Eugene Robinson, not straight news, but does a good job of explaining the issues with Trump's attempt to order an investigation. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here/ar-AAxBHHM?ocid=spartandhp Stop waiting for the constitutional crisis that President Trump is sure to provoke. It’s here. On Sunday, via Twitter, Trump demanded that the Justice Department concoct a transparently political investigation, with the aim of smearing veteran professionals at Justice and the FBI and also throwing mud at the previous administration. Trump’s only rational goal is casting doubt on the probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which appears to be closing in. Trump’s power play is a gross misuse of his presidential authority and a dangerous departure from long-standing norms. Strongmen such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin use their justice systems to punish enemies and deflect attention from their own crimes. Presidents of the United States do not — or did not, until Sunday’s tweet: “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Rather than push back and defend the rule of law, Justice tried to mollify the president by at least appearing to give him what he wants. The Republican leadership in Congress has been silent as a mouse. This is how uncrossable lines are crossed. The pretext Trump seized on is the revelation that a longtime FBI and CIA informant, described as a retired college professor , made contact with three Trump campaign associates before the election as part of the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling. With the full-throated backing of right-wing media, Trump has described this person as a “spy” who was “implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president.” This claim is completely unsupported by the facts as we know them. Trump wants you to believe a lie. The informant was not embedded or implanted or otherwise inserted into the campaign. He was asked to contact several campaign figures whose names had already surfaced in the FBI’s counterintelligence probe. It would have been an appalling dereliction of duty not to take a look at Trump advisers with Russia ties, such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, when the outlines of a Russian campaign to influence the election were emerging. Trump claims this is the nation’s “all time biggest political scandal” because, he alleges, Justice Department officials and the FBI used a “spy” to try to “frame” him and his campaign, in an effort to boost his opponent Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning the election. This conspiracy theory has so many holes in it that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the glaringly obvious: If the aim was to make Trump lose, why wasn’t all the known information about the Trump campaign’s Russia connections leaked before the election, when it might have had some impact? The truth appears to be precisely the opposite of what Trump says, which is not uncommon. The record suggests that Justice and the FBI were so uncomfortable investigating a presidential campaign in the weeks and months before an election that they tiptoed around promising lines of inquiry rather than appear to be taking a side. The FBI director at the time was James B. Comey, and while we heard plenty about Clinton’s emails before the vote, we had no idea that such a mature investigation of the Trump campaign was underway. Now that the Mueller probe has bored into Trump’s inner circle — and federal authorities have raided the homes and office of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen — the president appears to be in a panic. The question is whether he sees this “spy” nonsense as a way to discredit Mueller’s eventual findings, or as a pretext for trying to end the investigation with a bloody purge akin to Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.” The Justice Department answered Trump’s tweeted demand by announcing that an existing investigation by its inspector general will now “include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation” by the FBI. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein may hope that is enough to avoid a showdown. I fear he is wrong. None of this is normal or acceptable. One of the bedrock principles of our system of government is that no one is above the law, not even the president. But a gutless Congress has refused, so far, to protect this sacred inheritance. Trump is determined to use the Justice Department and the FBI to punish those he sees as political enemies. This is a crisis, and it will get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,623 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 7 hours ago, kevon67 said: You could also plead insanity with Homer as a client.? You've lost track of the narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,623 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Oh son, I could impeach you quicker than the blink of an eye. "Impeach" me? Do you understand the premise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 44 minutes ago, homersapien said: "Impeach" me? Do you understand the premise? Yes - In furtherance of your impartial judge comment. I’m sorry you don’t understand what I mean by “impeachment.” Google it, counselor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,623 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said: Yes - In furtherance of your impartial judge comment. I’m sorry you don’t understand what I mean by “impeachment.” Google it, counselor. "Google it" my ass. The premise is: you and I are having an argument. The only way I could win such an argument is with an impartial judge. (I say this after becoming familiar with your style.) Bottom line, you are a (young) weasel. This above response only supports it. Weaseling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, homersapien said: "Google it" my ass. The premise is: you and I are having an argument. The only way I could win such an argument is with an impartial judge. (I say this after becoming familiar with your style.) Bottom line, you are a (young) weasel. This response only supports it. If there’s an impartial judge, doesn’t that imply (in context of your usual “legal” jabs at me) we are in court in this imaginary situation? You wouldn’t be able to win becuase I would impeach you and your testimony, easily. I’ll play along for now on :), counselor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,623 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: If there’s an impartial judge, doesn’t that imply (in context of your usual “legal” jabs at me) we are in court in this imaginary situation? You wouldn’t be able to win becuase I would impeach you and your testimony, easily. I’ll play along for now on :), counselor. No. It doesn't imply a court. Every argument you make is based on some legal theory which in this case - as in most cases - is irrelevent. Two parties arguing a dispute in front of a judge (typical the chief) is a cultural reference. In this case, a rhetorical, literary reference. Your constant dependence on arcane legal arguments against common sense principles is very tiresome. Don't be such a nerdy jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, homersapien said: No. It doesn't imply a court. Every argument you make is based on some legal theory which in this case - as in most cases - is irrelevent. Two parties arguing a dispute in front of a judge (typical the chief) is a cultural reference. In this case, a rhetorical, literary reference. Your constant dependence on arcane legal arguments against common sense principles is very tiresome. Don't be such a nerdy jerk. Damn I’m getting to you now. The jokes are fun until I play along huh? Watch your step next time, and your feelings won’t get hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,623 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Damn I’m getting to you now. The jokes are fun until I play along huh? Watch your step next time, and your feelings won’t get hurt. Well at least you are making PT happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDavE 332 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 My fav. so far this week was Clapper on tv stating that spying was not the right word. They were trying to protect the Trump campaign from Russian interference. Why did Hillary need it? It was her emails and Podesta's account that was hacked. How about the poor DNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HVAU 673 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, WDavE said: My fav. so far this week was Clapper on tv stating that spying was not the right word. They were trying to protect the Trump campaign from Russian interference. Why did Hillary need it? It was her emails and Podesta's account that was hacked. How about the poor DNC. In my opinion you, and Trump, missed the point Clapper was making. His point was that information had come to light that Russian infiltration into Trump's campaign had occurred. It was in the best interest of the American electorate for the IC to do its job and investigate. Trump, since he is such a remarkably patriotic guy, should have been happy that the American IC was taking appropriate steps to mitigate Russian interference. It's really not that hard to understand, unless your bias prevents you from doing so. His words: "No, they were not. They were spying on, a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence which is what they do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,408 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 On 5/22/2018 at 1:42 PM, Brad_ATX said: Good read here. It's an opinion piece from Eugene Robinson, not straight news, but does a good job of explaining the issues with Trump's attempt to order an investigation. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here/ar-AAxBHHM?ocid=spartandhp Stop waiting for the constitutional crisis that President Trump is sure to provoke. It’s here. On Sunday, via Twitter, Trump demanded that the Justice Department concoct a transparently political investigation, with the aim of smearing veteran professionals at Justice and the FBI and also throwing mud at the previous administration. Trump’s only rational goal is casting doubt on the probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which appears to be closing in. Trump’s power play is a gross misuse of his presidential authority and a dangerous departure from long-standing norms. Strongmen such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin use their justice systems to punish enemies and deflect attention from their own crimes. Presidents of the United States do not — or did not, until Sunday’s tweet: “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Rather than push back and defend the rule of law, Justice tried to mollify the president by at least appearing to give him what he wants. The Republican leadership in Congress has been silent as a mouse. This is how uncrossable lines are crossed. The pretext Trump seized on is the revelation that a longtime FBI and CIA informant, described as a retired college professor , made contact with three Trump campaign associates before the election as part of the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling. With the full-throated backing of right-wing media, Trump has described this person as a “spy” who was “implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president.” This claim is completely unsupported by the facts as we know them. Trump wants you to believe a lie. The informant was not embedded or implanted or otherwise inserted into the campaign. He was asked to contact several campaign figures whose names had already surfaced in the FBI’s counterintelligence probe. It would have been an appalling dereliction of duty not to take a look at Trump advisers with Russia ties, such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, when the outlines of a Russian campaign to influence the election were emerging. Trump claims this is the nation’s “all time biggest political scandal” because, he alleges, Justice Department officials and the FBI used a “spy” to try to “frame” him and his campaign, in an effort to boost his opponent Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning the election. This conspiracy theory has so many holes in it that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the glaringly obvious: If the aim was to make Trump lose, why wasn’t all the known information about the Trump campaign’s Russia connections leaked before the election, when it might have had some impact? The truth appears to be precisely the opposite of what Trump says, which is not uncommon. The record suggests that Justice and the FBI were so uncomfortable investigating a presidential campaign in the weeks and months before an election that they tiptoed around promising lines of inquiry rather than appear to be taking a side. The FBI director at the time was James B. Comey, and while we heard plenty about Clinton’s emails before the vote, we had no idea that such a mature investigation of the Trump campaign was underway. Now that the Mueller probe has bored into Trump’s inner circle — and federal authorities have raided the homes and office of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen — the president appears to be in a panic. The question is whether he sees this “spy” nonsense as a way to discredit Mueller’s eventual findings, or as a pretext for trying to end the investigation with a bloody purge akin to Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.” The Justice Department answered Trump’s tweeted demand by announcing that an existing investigation by its inspector general will now “include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation” by the FBI. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein may hope that is enough to avoid a showdown. I fear he is wrong. None of this is normal or acceptable. One of the bedrock principles of our system of government is that no one is above the law, not even the president. But a gutless Congress has refused, so far, to protect this sacred inheritance. Trump is determined to use the Justice Department and the FBI to punish those he sees as political enemies. This is a crisis, and it will get worse. So was the IG's investigation and report on Andrew McCabe a 'constitutional crisis'? If it weren't for the IG investigation and report then Andrew McCabe would still be Deputy Director of the FBI. So if the IG were to find wrong doing or misconduct within the FBI over the Russia-Trump campaign investigation, should it not be taken seriously? We can just sweep it under the rug because Trump ordered it? The IG is credible imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,623 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 2 hours ago, WDavE said: My fav. so far this week was Clapper on tv stating that spying was not the right word. They were trying to protect the Trump campaign from Russian interference. Why did Hillary need it? It was her emails and Podesta's account that was hacked. How about the poor DNC. Because, as part of the US counter-intelligence force he was investigating reasonable leads into the possibility the Russians were actively involved in our electoral process. And yes, since Trump was one of the contestants in said campaign, the professional intent was to protect him as well. Duuuuuuh! Why did Hillary need what? What about the "poor DNC"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted May 30, 2018 Author Share Posted May 30, 2018 Looking back at the responses in this thread and LMAO now that the truth is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.