CSNbbs

(05-20-2020 02:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]perpetual impeachment

"House Democrats told the Supreme Court Monday that they are again in the midst of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” as part of their “weighty constitutional responsibility,” and argued that redacted grand-jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe must be turned over for their review."

\You guys wonder why conservatives see nearly everything as an attack on Trump? It is because nearly everything is.

I used to think the Mueller report would quiet the rumblings about Russia and impeachment. No, the conspiracy theorists will not stop until, IMO, at least half a decade after he leaves office - 2030.

I think it is time you guys tried your second line of attack - winning an election.

The witch hunt has its own momentum.

To be fair, the POTUS hasn't exactly run a tight, squeaky clean ship. He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified. He's arguably been running afoul of the emoluments clause since he was elected. He has fired multiple IGs during his tenure, most recently, one who was in the middle of investigating the SoS. He's been credibly accused of campaign finance violations. He's been credibly accused of obstruction of justice.

(05-20-2020 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't see the compelling argument as to why Flynn's actions with regards to Russia and the sanctions wouldn't be of interest to the outgoing admin; unless you're trying to argue that the outgoing admin should have not cared about anything.

I don't see it to be the job of the outgoing administration to decide how often the incoming administration should have discussions with whom. The new administration was obviously going to take a very different track regarding all sorts of activities... and there was no indication that classified information was being discussed, or even at this point that there was any concern about 'sanctions'.

Be of interest to? Of course they would be interested and even concerned that their policies towards almost anything would be changing... but 'elections have consequences'. It seems clear that our actions towards Russia, China, N. Korea, The EU, NATO, Brexit, Climate Change, the ACA, border enforcement and all sorts of other things would be very different. As the events (sanctions) had just taken place and there weren't any prior public discussions about it (like the debates or election ads) where Trump could have made his intentions clear (as he did with all of the other items) it makes sense that the Russians would be asking about them... and that it probably wasn't a simple 'we're going to reverse them and all is good, Vlad'. There was probably at least a little... hey, if you did this, that's not cool... and Russia saying, then you stop doing the same in our elections... even if it was just posturing.

It's not 'they shouldn't care', but that they shouldn't be making a literal Federal case out of something any of us would do.

Let me put it in a different perspective...
Your boss, John is retiring. He has endorsed openly Mike as his replacement and actually argued against Mary... but the board selects Mary... John (and especially Mike) thinks that you had something to do with the selection of Mary... and before he leaves, he cuts your hours and does all sorts of other things that make your life difficult... Are you going to be reaching out to John to discuss those decisions with him? Or are you going to be discussing those things with Mary? OF COURSE you're going to be talking to Mary.... and you might be talking to her a WHOLE LOT... because you want to make sure that things go back to normal.

That would be very normal in any other circumstance, and would even be normal in this event, were it not for this rarely used and antiquated 'act'... which it seems clear... the administration wasn't concerned at all about a 'private citizen' talking to Russia, but only about accidental release of classified information.

If you're saying you can't include Obama in the complaint... well, okay... I didn't say that but maybe others did... BUT...
Doesn't the buck stop at the top, just like COVID? It DOES seem that the 'distrust' of the incoming administration went all the way to the top.... because they accepted the idea that they were having frequent discussions as 'unusual', when they make perfect sense to me. You just hammered them, and they want to know how long the hammer is going to last... and it seems clear that you have no interest in lifting it, nor would you likely be in a position to do so even if you wanted to.

(05-20-2020 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]As I noted in another post, the progressives have gone 180 degrees in what they stand for.

Quote:Interesting point --- how is that the Flynn case has shown erstwhile liberals – people who a little more than a decade ago were marching en masse in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – have morphed into defenders of the spy state.

Here they are not just defenders of a spy state in their frenzied issues of 'Get Trump', but the defenders of using a "moribund, unconstitutional 18th-century prohibition against unauthorized diplomacy that has *never* been used in a successful prosecution, has not been invoked since prior to the Civil War, and has never been the subject of an indictment in the 150-year history of the Justice Department" and defend it as being “by the book”.

Ah, I see you read Matt Taibi too - I read his post this morning and found it interesting. The mirror in language really stood out in this phrase:

Quote:have turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – into defenders of the spy state

https://taibbi.substack.com/

Regardless of the massive bent Taibbi has against the left and mainstream media right now, I thought Taibbi made some very good points about the about face of progressives with respect to civil liberties and the dubious decisions many journalists made in how they reported on the Russia investigation.

But outside of hand-waving about how old and unused a statute is, I still don't see the compelling argument as to why Flynn's actions with regards to Russia and the sanctions wouldn't be of interest to the outgoing admin; unless you're trying to argue that the outgoing admin should have not cared about anything.

Plus, I still haven't seen compelling arguments for how unmasking was used to target specific individuals, which seems to be the current rallying cry.

Points made about FISA abuses previously, and perhaps about the overall frequency of unmasking, ring true (the former especially so given the IG's findings).

I guess in your mind the use of a statute that is irrelevant, archaic, never used, and probably unconstitutional is good enough.

I *am* saying the St Obama administration left no fing rocks unturned to assuage that giant stick it had up its ass to do anything and everything they could to nail Flynn.

And it goes to the point --- at one point the liberal wing would question why a completely unused statute would be used to revive an investigation, not just revive it but to give it new fodder to gin up a perjury trap.

If that outer level of conduct is copacetic with you, then so be it. Kind of makes the case that liberals are nothing more than tinpot fascists when it comes to the over extension of law enforcement to gain a political end, since you all seem horribly blind (perhaps intentionally) the massive and unprecedented lengths hat that the St Obama and his minions traveled to stick it to Michael Flynn.

I guess in your mind no statute is small enough to think about using in this case. Good for you in that regard ---- I guess....

And the progressives here think that is just fine and dandy. Most traditional liberals who arent quite as smitten with the overlying TDS would see the grotesque ends and massive efforts, and would have actually stated --- wow, resurrecting a Frankenstein never used statute to architect an ambush perjury trap, but only after a previous investigation ahd ntoed that there was no reason to continue *just* might be a little much.

Apparently not for you.

And no, the hand waving (as you so fondly speak of) is really just showing you what an absolute hard on St Obama and Four elves had to nail Flynn. You think it fine -- I think it pretty much evidence of serious executive overreach with an absolutely clear political motive.

Life must be fine with such blinders on. Can you smell apples when they are placed on the other side of those blinders?

(05-20-2020 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 02:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]perpetual impeachment

"House Democrats told the Supreme Court Monday that they are again in the midst of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” as part of their “weighty constitutional responsibility,” and argued that redacted grand-jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe must be turned over for their review."

\You guys wonder why conservatives see nearly everything as an attack on Trump? It is because nearly everything is.

I used to think the Mueller report would quiet the rumblings about Russia and impeachment. No, the conspiracy theorists will not stop until, IMO, at least half a decade after he leaves office - 2030.

I think it is time you guys tried your second line of attack - winning an election.

The witch hunt has its own momentum.

To be fair, the POTUS hasn't exactly run a tight, squeaky clean ship. He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified. He's arguably been running afoul of the emoluments clause since he was elected. He has fired multiple IGs during his tenure, most recently, one who was in the middle of investigating the SoS. He's been credibly accused of campaign finance violations. He's been credibly accused of obstruction of justice.

Nice 'what about' deflection there lad. World fing class I might say.

I do love the Constitutional Scholar LAD LLM opining about the emoluments clause...... lolz....

By the way, many presidents have fired 'multiple' IGs.

Nice little laundry list of unsubstantiated whiny **** you put together there lad. Bravo.

(05-20-2020 03:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 02:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]perpetual impeachment

"House Democrats told the Supreme Court Monday that they are again in the midst of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” as part of their “weighty constitutional responsibility,” and argued that redacted grand-jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe must be turned over for their review."

\You guys wonder why conservatives see nearly everything as an attack on Trump? It is because nearly everything is.

I used to think the Mueller report would quiet the rumblings about Russia and impeachment. No, the conspiracy theorists will not stop until, IMO, at least half a decade after he leaves office - 2030.

I think it is time you guys tried your second line of attack - winning an election.

The witch hunt has its own momentum.

To be fair, the POTUS hasn't exactly run a tight, squeaky clean ship. He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified. He's arguably been running afoul of the emoluments clause since he was elected. He has fired multiple IGs during his tenure, most recently, one who was in the middle of investigating the SoS. He's been credibly accused of campaign finance violations. He's been credibly accused of obstruction of justice.

Nice 'what about' deflection there lad. World fing class I might say.

I do love the Constitutional Scholar LAD LLM opining about the emoluments clause...... lolz....

By the way, many presidents have fired 'multiple' IGs.

Nice little laundry list of unsubstantiated whiny **** you put together there lad. Bravo.

Yes, a complete whataboutism when talking about :checks notes: Dems wanting to impeach Donald Trump.

Funny :checks notes: what did the courts say about the emoulements clause?

Funny :checks notes: guess I caught the different planet where firing IGs is an impeachable offense.

Funny :checks notes: impeachment has exactly *what* to do with daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH?

Funny :checks notes: the impeachment on 'obstruction' has taken place. What was that result again?

Cute little metaphorical tool you employ that, when one actually looks at your whine list in detail, kind of does exactly the what about that it was called out for.

Oh and by the way :checks notes: I guess you might want to render your pithy riposte about all your lil ol whines under the microscope again. Your ':checks notes;' seems stupidly out of place there given the analysis of your squeaky lil ol whines against your retort.

Funny that.

Considering the rush that they already have shown here is another one for your list: He has orange hair. I am sure that is enough to get your good lil ol ants all a tittering about another impeachable offense.....

(05-20-2020 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To be fair, the POTUS hasn't exactly run a tight, squeaky clean ship. He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified. He's arguably been running afoul of the emoluments clause since he was elected. He has fired multiple IGs during his tenure, most recently, one who was in the middle of investigating the SoS. He's been credibly accused of campaign finance violations. He's been credibly accused of obstruction of justice.

What are the qualifications for their positions? Do you need a degree in presidential advising from NYU?


JFK also installed his brother as AG

Reagan fired every IG.

The "credible' accusations come from sourcves like Maxine Water and Adam Schiff. Believe me, if either of those people had the goods, there would be charges made.

(05-20-2020 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To be fair, the POTUS hasn't exactly run a tight, squeaky clean ship. He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified. He's arguably been running afoul of the emoluments clause since he was elected. He has fired multiple IGs during his tenure, most recently, one who was in the middle of investigating the SoS. He's been credibly accused of campaign finance violations. He's been credibly accused of obstruction of justice.

What are the qualifications for their positions? Do you need a degree in presidential advising from NYU?


JFK also installed his brother as AG

Reagan fired every IG.

The "credible' accusations come from sourcves like Maxine Water and Adam Schiff. Believe me, if either of those people had the goods, there would be charges made.

(05-20-2020 04:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny :checks notes: what did the courts say about the emoulements clause?

Funny :checks notes: guess I caught the different planet where firing IGs is an impeachable offense.

Funny :checks notes: impeachment has exactly *what* to do with daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH?

Funny :checks notes: the impeachment on 'obstruction' has taken place. What was that result again?

Cute little metaphorical tool you employ that, when one actually looks at your whine list in detail, kind of does exactly the what about that it was called out for.

Oh and by the way :checks notes: I guess you might want to render your pithy riposte about all your lil ol whines under the microscope again. Your ':checks notes;' seems stupidly out of place there given the analysis of your squeaky lil ol whines against your retort.

Funny that.

Considering the rush that they already have shown here is another one for your list: He has orange hair. I am sure that is enough to get your good lil ol ants all a tittering about another impeachable offense.....

See, it wasn't a what-aboutism. Glad you figured it out.

Maybe by using the term 'by the book' what you really mean is... People will be looking closely at this, so be certain to cover your tracks.

I mean seriously, why else would you feel the need to tell someone 3 times NOT to violate policy if you didn't expect that they were going to? Why would you expect that they wouldn't go by the book?

(05-20-2020 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Comey's "by the book" is not the same as the true "by the book".

Then again, going "by the book" has been openly scorned by at least one current VP hopeful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jSikD9JLus

(05-20-2020 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe by using the term 'by the book' what you really mean is... People will be looking closely at this, so be certain to cover your tracks.

I mean seriously, why else would you feel the need to tell someone 3 times NOT to violate policy if you didn't expect that they were going to? Why would you expect that they wouldn't go by the book?

Perhaps because it is a VERY sensitive subject, so the utmost care needed to be taken? Less, I expect that you won’t do this by the book, and a reminder that there was no room for error.

Or he was communicating that they should cover things up.

(05-20-2020 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe by using the term 'by the book' what you really mean is... People will be looking closely at this, so be certain to cover your tracks.

I mean seriously, why else would you feel the need to tell someone 3 times NOT to violate policy if you didn't expect that they were going to? Why would you expect that they wouldn't go by the book?

Perhaps because it is a VERY sensitive subject, so the utmost care needed to be taken? Less, I expect that you won’t do this by the book, and a reminder that there was no room for error.

Or he was communicating that they should cover things up.

Wasn't this the essential question in "A Few Good Men"?

(05-20-2020 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 04:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny :checks notes: what did the courts say about the emoulements clause?

Funny :checks notes: guess I caught the different planet where firing IGs is an impeachable offense.

Funny :checks notes: impeachment has exactly *what* to do with daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH?

Funny :checks notes: the impeachment on 'obstruction' has taken place. What was that result again?

Cute little metaphorical tool you employ that, when one actually looks at your whine list in detail, kind of does exactly the what about that it was called out for.

Oh and by the way :checks notes: I guess you might want to render your pithy riposte about all your lil ol whines under the microscope again. Your ':checks notes;' seems stupidly out of place there given the analysis of your squeaky lil ol whines against your retort.

Funny that.

Considering the rush that they already have shown here is another one for your list: He has orange hair. I am sure that is enough to get your good lil ol ants all a tittering about another impeachable offense.....

See, it wasn't a what-aboutism. Glad you figured it out.

Funny -- you only yelped about items that *you* tapped your ruby slippers together three times and *hoped* were impeachable items, but dont even come close anywhere but in lad-world. I mean seriously --- Trump has his son and daughter in positions? be serious lad, that is stupid as **** about 'impeachable'..... good fing grief.

Trump son and daughter having WH slots being in a conversation about 'impeachment' is about as ludicrous as a 85 year old obese guy trying to play Guns n Roses air guitar. As do most of the points on your 'whadabout' list..... funny that.

Yep, that is a serious 'what about' ---- Too bad you havent figured that out.

The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

(05-20-2020 07:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

What makes you think they’re “much more capable?”

(05-20-2020 07:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 07:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

What makes you think they’re “much more capable?”

Who cares about capable -- according to our resident expert having them is germane to 'impeachable' (or somefink)....

(05-20-2020 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified.

What are the qualifications for their positions, and which ones are they missing?

Asking nicely, for the third time. I am beginning to think Lad wants to dodge this.

(05-20-2020 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe by using the term 'by the book' what you really mean is... People will be looking closely at this, so be certain to cover your tracks.

I mean seriously, why else would you feel the need to tell someone 3 times NOT to violate policy if you didn't expect that they were going to? Why would you expect that they wouldn't go by the book?

Again, if what followed the conversation is 'by the book', god help anyone whom the state targets. That is something that some of our left-viewing brethren dont seemingly want to look at --- just how god awful out of kilter of *what* they attempt to portray 'by the book' as in this case.

Reigniting an investigation after the first one is slated to be closed because of no proof whatsoever to justify it going forward is bad.

Pulling up a piece of true horseshit to reignite an investigation is bad.

Debating in the process to interview on that utter horseshit charge on whether the goal is to: a) get a statement to hang the horseshit charge; b) set up a 1001 trap; or c) 'get him fired' is bad.

Using a guise of a 'background talk' to do the interview is bad.

Losing the original 302 is bad.

Submitting a second 302 weeks (maybe a month or more afterwards) that alters the original to 'lying' from the original 'not our impression he was was lying' is bad.

Covering up the fact of the original 302 from the court is bad.

Deep sixing the notes on the interview which are exculpatory is bad.

Yet we have people here that seemingly stick their fingers in the ear and chant People's Temple-like and say: Nothing wrong at all with any of these issues in isolation. Nothing wrong at all in the series of issues at all.

I mean, these people, all of whom I assume were *aghast* with the government overreach detailed by Snowden, simply have done a hard 180 and are either oblivious to the government overreach here, or simply justify it in terms of 'get Trump is worth any cost.' When you stop and look at it in that filter, it is rather grotesque.

It is a stunning reversal of viewpoint of the left --- support government overreach when it backs your TDS. Kind of the same tack the left takes on #BelieveAllWomen when you think about it.

(05-20-2020 07:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2020 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He's installed his daughter and son-in-law in positions in the WH, despite them not being qualified.

What are the qualifications for their positions, and which ones are they missing?

Asking nicely, for the third time. I am beginning to think Lad wants to dodge this.

He's racing to deep six that set of talking points I would surmise. But, perhaps got to give it the 'throw it against the wall and see if it sticks' effort.