(05-21-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Tanq, didn't you just throw a fit about a supposed what-aboutism?

Funny, I am answering the comment about qualifications --- the answer is :checks notes: Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... (with an example to boot). Or did you mean your comment about 'qualifications' and 'nepotism' as merely a rhetorical snort? Perhaps you forgot what your comment on the Presidential choice was, even after less than 3 posts?

I was noting that Hillary's background in obstruction, land development, S&L issues, and prowess in cattle futures trading really did not add to her resume for that position (actually the types of activities really arent germane to a whole host of any other political positions, mind you). I guess you did not note that difference, so I have provided the sentence above to make it crystal clear.

But, one cannot fault Bill for that decision, it was his to make and his to make on the trust that he has in the recipient of that largesse. And I do not fault Bill for that decision.

93, I hear your response. But, for better or for worse, those decisions are the President's to make. Both that of Bill and that of Orange Man. I see that you understood the direction of my comment a tad better than lad did.

By the way, as for the nepotism, there are some interesting Office of Legal Counsel opinions on that, as well as a court case that deals with that at an appellate level (the Clinton scenario above, in fact). The issue isnt as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I agree that the issue of nepotism as it pertains to the POTUS is not clear cut. It is much more clear cut for non-POTUS officials, per my understanding of the laws.

But the issue not being clear is not grounds to grant immunity to the decision to appoint people solely because of their familial connection. And I would definitely put that on the list of "non-squeaky clean things" Trump has done, but it's certainly not a clear cut impeachable offense on its own.

lad, it doesnt even make the junior B-team in terms of 'non-squeaky clean things'. But keep flailing at that air guitar solo.

Well that's a fun takeaway from my initial point that potential ongoing impeachment investigations may be warranted given how swampy the Trump admin has been.