Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 32 minutes ago, GG said: You've laid out a timeline of events that's consistently been pushed out. All of the things that you've said are in the works, have remained hidden, and with more passage of time it's becoming less likely to happen. The easiest thing for Trump to do would be to declassify everything that's related to FISA ir Russia, yet he's dragging Don't mistake my position, I said this a few weeks ago but it bears repeating: if the Declass doesn't happen it's a HUGE failure/betrayal and Trump will never recover from it. It'll gut his base and lose any hope of carrying independents in 2020 - he'll be cooked. My interest in this whole matter isn't attached to Trump, but to the notion of disclosure and justice. If he can't deliver that - despite this operation which, if more people understood what's happening they'd agree, is breathtaking in scope and skill - then he's part of the problem, not the solution. I will be upset if the evidence gathered (and there's gobs of it now in open source, probably more we don't have access too) is used as a bartering chip rather than a hammer. I'm not ready to jump on that train yet though. There is a lot of evidence lurking under the surface of major activity. There's even more circumstantial evidence, based on the reactions in the most guilty quarters of the media and DC, that they know what's coming and are desperately trying to get in front of it. That aside, I completely agree with your sentiment that it's taking a long time to come to light. That's why it's important to remember that this tiny, insignificant corner of the internet has been ahead of this story by almost a full year, so the feeling of inertia is even greater here and in the minds of people who have been paying attention. What I know for sure, and can/have proven with drop after drop after drop, is that there is an intelligence operation in motion that's been ongoing since mid 2016. It's been well planned and well executed - but all plans, no matter how good, have to change when first contact with the enemy is made. This operation has not been immune to that (see: hurricanes, Kavanaugh). For that reason (and others) I never like to count on a deadline or specific date when things will "happen". Normally, the moment someone throws out a date, it means that it won't happen on that date. With that in mind, I'd point your attention to mid-December. Note these events which are scheduled: * December 5th: Huber will make his first public appearance on the Hill to discuss his work into Hillary's emails (not Russia - supposedly) * December 16th: People forget that in May of 2017 Trump signed an EO about election fraud. That report from DHS is due on this date. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity/ * December 18th: General Flynn's long postponed sentencing is scheduled to (possibly) happen here. I'd say you're looking at likely window of major action in that time period. Especially if the DHS Election Fraud report has any teeth (note the arrests in SoCal this week, and the on camera evidence collected of fraud in Florida). You get one chance to bring this to light. Just one. If you were running the operation would you want to hit them one at a time and give them a chance to deflect and spin? Or would you, if possible, hit them with: Clinton emails, Election fraud (possibly costing some new House members their seats), and the Declass/Flynn dismissal all at once? There'd be no way for the media to spin all three lines of attack at once. ... Oh, and December 5th is Flynn's 60th birthday. Not saying I know something's coming in December, but it sure does line up nicely for the declass storm to hit right in the middle of that lineup. 37 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: This is nothing more than one's opinion but I think Trump plans to use the IC abuse of 2016, the real meat of it, as a bargaining chip with the Dems to stave off the flood of investigations they want to start on him. I doubt the Dems will go for it so I expect political mudslinging and legal action like never seen before to happen after Mueller wraps up. Full on into 2020. This is the fear. And though I don't think it will happen, it's possible. And it would (likely) speed up our slide towards the complete unraveling of the Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 This guy is a real POS Woody’s case highlights one of the most controversial if little-known aspects of Whitaker’s career: his efforts to obtain unusually stiff sentences for people accused of drug crimes. Whitaker spent nearly five years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. His office was more likely than all but one other district in the United States to use its authority to impose the harshest sentences on drug offenders, according to a finding by a different Iowa federal judge, Mark W. Bennett, who it called a “deeply troubling disparity.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-us-attorney-whitaker-imposed-longer-than-usual-drug-sentences/2018/11/21/a66dfaf2-e9de-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.6b1822305c23 He had no idea what problem at all crushing people who were defenseless. What garbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: This guy is a real POS Woody’s case highlights one of the most controversial if little-known aspects of Whitaker’s career: his efforts to obtain unusually stiff sentences for people accused of drug crimes. Whitaker spent nearly five years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. His office was more likely than all but one other district in the United States to use its authority to impose the harshest sentences on drug offenders, according to a finding by a different Iowa federal judge, Mark W. Bennett, who it called a “deeply troubling disparity.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-us-attorney-whitaker-imposed-longer-than-usual-drug-sentences/2018/11/21/a66dfaf2-e9de-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.6b1822305c23 He had no idea what problem at all crushing people who were defenseless. What garbage Well what do we have here...a liberal pointing out how much an enormous government can abuse the average citizen but not recognizing the hypocrisy of his own belief system. #Shocking 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 41 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: With that in mind, I'd point your attention to mid-December. Note these events which are scheduled: * December 5th: Huber will make his first public appearance on the Hill to discuss his work into Hillary's emails (not Russia - supposedly) * December 16th: People forget that in May of 2017 Trump signed an EO about election fraud. That report from DHS is due on this date. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity/ * December 18th: General Flynn's long postponed sentencing is scheduled to (possibly) happen here. I'd say you're looking at likely window of major action in that time period. Especially if the DHS Election Fraud report has any teeth (note the arrests in SoCal this week, and the on camera evidence collected of fraud in Florida). You get one chance to bring this to light. Just one. If you were running the operation would you want to hit them one at a time and give them a chance to deflect and spin? Or would you, if possible, hit them with: Clinton emails, Election fraud (possibly costing some new House members their seats), and the Declass/Flynn dismissal all at once? There'd be no way for the media to spin all three lines of attack at once. ... Oh, and December 5th is Flynn's 60th birthday. Not saying I know something's coming in December, but it sure does line up nicely for the declass storm to hit right in the middle of that lineup. Add this to that lineup - Lynch to be deposed Dec 5th, Comey 11/29. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Tiberius said: If this whole thing doesn't stink to high heaven to you then you are obviously just a Trump zombie. And now found out to be a paid right wing hack. Our "acting" Attorney General. This is a sad day for me. I've never placed a poster on ignore, I think it limits the opportunity to consider what others might have to say and how it impacts my own life. Some things I take seriously, some much less so. I don't understand why someone would change the text of what someone else wrote on a message board to score points with...anyone. I'm not talking about "fixed it for you" posts, those are silly and while I don't do that, there is an acknowledgement by all as to what transpired. To me, this is a bit like hanging out with people you don't always agree with, but are in the circle of people you know. You decide to have a party, you invite the person to come, knowing things are what they are. All is going well, everyone having a good time when you go upstairs and find the guy rifling through your cupboards and watch him stuff 3 dollar bills and 78 cents in nickles, dimes and pennies into his pocket. It's not that it's a huge deal, you can absorb the $3.78, in fact you would probably flip the guy a $20 if he needed the money for gas. Still, you are left to wonder what it is embedded in the guy's nature that is twisted enough to do something so petty and irrelevant, to know it is petty and irrelevant, yet chooses to plow ahead anyway. You're the $3.78 guy. Anyway, while I'll solve the problem by placing you on ignore, I'll leave a bag of empty beer cans out front of my house for you. If you're ever interested in salvaging some semblance of integrity, put the effort in, take 'em back and invest the proceeds in the Dale Carnegie course "How to win friends and influence people". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: This is a sad day for me. I've never placed a poster on ignore, I think it limits the opportunity to consider what others might have to say and how it impacts my own life. Some things I take seriously, some much less so. I don't understand why someone would change the text of what someone else wrote on a message board to score points with...anyone. I'm not talking about "fixed it for you" posts, those are silly and while I don't do that, there is an acknowledgement by all as to what transpired. To me, this is a bit like hanging out with people you don't always agree with, but are in the circle of people you know. You decide to have a party, you invite the person to come, knowing things are what they are. All is going well, everyone having a good time when you go upstairs and find the guy rifling through your cupboards and watch him stuff 3 dollar bills and 78 cents in nickles, dimes and pennies into his pocket. It's not that it's a huge deal, you can absorb the $3.78, in fact you would probably flip the guy a $20 if he needed the money for gas. Still, you are left to wonder what it is embedded in the guy's nature that is twisted enough to do something so petty and irrelevant, to know it is petty and irrelevant, yet chooses to plow ahead anyway. You're the $3.78 guy. Anyway, while I'll solve the problem by placing you on ignore, I'll leave a bag of empty beer cans out front of my house for you. If you're ever interested in salvaging some semblance of integrity, put the effort in, take 'em back and invest the proceeds in the Dale Carnegie course "How to win friends and influence people". I think you are making a grave mistake. At least once a day after one of his posts I thank my mom for catching me when I was 3-years old and preventing my head from hitting the floor. It's good to be grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 2 hours ago, keepthefaith said: This is nothing more than one's opinion but I think Trump plans to use the IC abuse of 2016, the real meat of it, as a bargaining chip with the Dems to stave off the flood of investigations they want to start on him. I doubt the Dems will go for it so I expect political mudslinging and legal action like never seen before to happen after Mueller wraps up. Full on into 2020. Oh, I hope not. I really, truly hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 I believe this is just the beginning of a fight between these two men. The Supreme Court will be called upon in the near future to decide some important questions, and John Roberts fires the first shot. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/us/politics/trump-chief-justice-roberts-rebuke.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage Quote WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary on Wednesday, issuing a statement rebuking President Trump’s criticism of a judge who had ruled against the administration’s asylum policy. The chief justice seemed particularly offended by Mr. Trump’s assertion that Judge Jon S. Tigar, of the United States District Court in San Francisco, was “an Obama judge.” Chief Justice Roberts said that was a profound misunderstanding of the judicial role. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” 2 hours ago, Alaska Darin said: Well what do we have here...a liberal pointing out how much an enormous government can abuse the average citizen but not recognizing the hypocrisy of his own belief system. #Shocking There is no hypocrisy on my part at all. Lame attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 (edited) Edited November 21, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's rather delusional for liberals to start screaming that the courts are impartial when they've just spent SO much time screaming that judges are partial to whomever appoints them. They don't even have principles at this point...just a sad mental spasm that causes them to reflexively disagree with whatever Trump says. He should say "Stacey Abrams had the election stolen from her," so the Democrats will admit Kemp won fair and square. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept/status/1065296333815324672 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: This is great! This will get more and Morse harsh! ----- I love how Trump said he is going to put in a major complaint about the judge! Lol, what an idiot. He doesn't understand how any of this works. Unfit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: This is great! This will get more and Morse harsh! ----- I love how Trump said he is going to put in a major complaint about the judge! Lol, what an idiot. He doesn't understand how any of this works. Unfit 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 37 minutes ago, B-Man said: You didn't. Hard to resist isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2018 Share Posted November 22, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: They fall for it...Every. Single. Goddamn. Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 PROF. ROBERT GEORGE responds to Chief Justice Roberts’ absurd defense of the “nonpartisan” judiciary: Quote Robert P. George @McCormickProf FollowFollow @McCormickProf There are many judges--state and federal--who act on ideological motives, not neutral principles impartially applied. (The late Stephen Reinhardt is an egregious example.) There are even prominent theories justifying their doing it. It's no use (or help) pretending otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 Roberts appoints the FISC judges. I suspect he's nervous about what Trump has on him regarding FISA abuse as any of the other people involved in the scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Roberts appoints the FISC judges. I suspect he's nervous about what Trump has on him regarding FISA abuse as any of the other people involved in the scandal. But does he really know the nitty gritty of what goes on? If this goes to the judicial branch and this fairytale wraps up Roberts and Ginsburg as you've hinted... Come on. We are done for as a country and a civil war will be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Boyst62 said: But does he really know the nitty gritty of what goes on? If this goes to the judicial branch and this fairytale wraps up Roberts and Ginsburg as you've hinted... Come on. We are done for as a country and a civil war will be needed. Is it better to live in a pretend democratic republic, or a real one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Is it better to live in a pretend democratic republic, or a real one? obviously the pretend one. when things don't work out it's much more difficult to look at one's own civic actions as part of the problem than to blame #orangemanbad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 we haven't been a Republic for a very long time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 (edited) the head of American Oversight is a former attorney in the Obama administration. Office of Special Counsel Opens Investigation on Acting AG Matt Whitaker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVjCMP7nyBg Edited November 24, 2018 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 48 minutes ago, Foxx said: the head of American Oversight is a former attorney in the Obama administration. Office of Special Counsel Opens Investigation on Acting AG Matt Whitaker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVjCMP7nyBg How many people at this point trust any investigation to not be a political hatchet job? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: How many people at this point trust any investigation to not be a political hatchet job? NLP MSM sheeple? that's a lot btw...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 Unable to Vanquish Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker Via The Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Democrats Try The Hatch Act So threatened are Democrats by Trump ally Matt Whitaker’s new position of power, they’ve been tying themselves into knots trying to oust him from the top job at the DOJ. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s the new normal. Each Trump appointment going forward will receive the Kavanaugh treatment. Democrats will scrutinize every aspect of their lives until they find something – anything – with which to force the nominee to withdraw in disgrace. {snip} Rosenstein acted against DOJ rules and regulations first by opening a special counsel investigation when there was no criminal basis for it. Secondly, DOJ regs require a “scope” of the investigation to be explicitly stated at its inception. Rosenstein failed to assign a scope to Mueller when the probe began. And third, even if there had been a criminal basis, as in Watergate, and a scope had been defined, there remains the requirement that the special counsel be a Washington outsider, which Mueller most definitely was not. So, Rosenstein is 0 for 3. Rosenstein’s replacement by Whitaker is a grave development for the Democrats and that’s what’s driving their desperate measures to discredit him. Whitaker doesn’t need to fire Mueller to influence the investigation. He has many tools available to set limits on Mueller and he will likely hand over the documents that Rosenstein was so reluctant to provide. You can be sure Democrats have devoted many resources to derailing Whitaker and that they are digging deeply into every aspect of his life to nail him. Trump must continue to stand behind him as he did for Kavanaugh. Democrats are right to be afraid. They have much to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurmal34 Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 Hey, if you suck at selling toilets, wHy not become AG of the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/john-roberts-donald-trump.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 2 hours ago, /dev/null said: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/john-roberts-donald-trump.html If this was a TV drama the episode we finished with last week with Roberts leads us in to the next season with high stakes and wondering if Nacho finally gets offed, when Jimmy becomes Jimmy... Etc That Roberts spoke up makes it just incredibly odd. He is not partisan, at least by the optics. That he did not publicly admonish RBG is not a surprise but I also doubt he is able to confront her privately, either. He should have released a statement for that because now he is the one who is obviously making a partisan statement. But, it's also important to note the following: 3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: If you use the search function, you will see this topic has been covered elsewhere. I thought his place was the Wild West. I’ve deleted 7-8 threads, not just those on the topics mentioned in Azalin’s post. I don’t delete to be mean—I just do it when it’s spun way off topic or devolved into just an attack thread (not just on me but others). Which that one did. I’m proud that deleting a thread about building positive online community brought us all together. We can work on the positivity but ... baby steps! With love and kisses to you all and Season’s Greetings to everyone except LSH who doesn’t want to celebrate the earth’s revolution around the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 Quote Experts make a persuasive case President Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general is unconstitutional, as it sidesteps Senate approval; the administration claims otherwise. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-whitaker-20181121-story.html Quote The courts will sort out who's right. Meantime, the Senate must act as though it has real advise-and-consent hearings to conduct, because there are burning questions that demand answers: As a talking head, Whitaker harshly criticized the Mueller investigation, and even floated the idea of strangling it of funds. Is he capable of overseeing it objectively or running interference for the President? (Spoiler: He's not.) How can he not recuse himself given his close relationship with Sam Clovis, a co-chairman of the Trump campaign and key witness? Whitaker was sole employee for an organization called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. A delayed financial disclosure statement (which reportedly was amended five times before being released) shows he was paid some $1.2 million over two years, with FACT's donors concealed from the public. Was it a real non-profit group or a partisan shell with tax-exempt status? Whitaker was on the advisory board of company that paid a $25 million fine to the FTC for scamming thousands of clients. What did he know and when did he know it? In the likely event that Senate Republicans are too shy, incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is champing at the bit. Go go go. GO GO GO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 Re the wish that Whitaker gets forced out: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Re the wish that Whitaker gets forced out: He's totally corrupt, why wouldn't you want him gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: He's totally corrupt, why wouldn't you want him gone? * I have yet to see any evidence, besides hyperbole, that he's corrupt. * The appointment was legal and constitutional, backed by precedent and multiple DOJ opinions on the matter. * The only people who want him gone seem to be those most complicit in the illegal spying on Americans and political opponents - which makes me suspect their motives aren't exactly what you think. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: * I have yet to see any evidence, besides hyperbole, that he's corrupt. * The appointment was legal and constitutional, backed by precedent and multiple DOJ opinions on the matter. * The only people who want him gone seem to be those most complicit in the illegal spying on Americans and political opponents - which makes me suspect their motives aren't exactly what you think. Do you think it was corrupt of him to threaten people that complained about the business he was associated with that was cheating people and ended up paying a huge fine and is still under investigation? That ties him in directly to the corrupt enterprise. You really want him as an Attorney General?? If anyone needs the above explained further, just say the word And the appointment was not legal, it violated at the most basic level our Constitutional principles of checks and balances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 Just now, Tiberius said: Do you think it was corrupt of him to threaten people that complained about the business he was associated with that was cheating people and ended up paying a huge fine and is still under investigation? That ties him in directly to the corrupt enterprise. You really want him as an Attorney General?? I find those charges woefully uninformed. And he's not going to be AG. He's acting AG until a replacement is found and confirmed. He has 200+ days to serve in that role. 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: And the appointment was not legal, it violated at the most basic level our Constitutional principles of checks and balances The constitution, the DOJ, Congress, and the past several presidential administrations disagree with this assessment. The appointment was legal, did not violate the constitution, and will stand. The question you should be asking is why a formerly unknown DOJ attorney is being painted as a monstrous threat to the world at large by the same people who have been clamoring for two years (without evidence) that Russia stole an election by co-opting Trump. The answer to that gives their intent away 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And the appointment was not legal, it violated at the most basic level our Constitutional principles of checks and balances No, it did not. It's a legal appointment. How many times does it have to be explained until you get it? 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I find those charges woefully uninformed. And he's not going to be AG. He's acting AG until a replacement is found and confirmed. He has 200+ days to serve in that role. He literally can't be AG. The Supreme Court decided that someone in an acting position can't be nominated to fill that position full-time, as THAT would be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: No, it did not. It's a legal appointment. How many times does it have to be explained until you get it? No it is not. How many times do you need it explained to you that things done with corrupt intent are not legal. And this is a violation of checks and balances, anyway. 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I find those charges woefully uninformed. And he's not going to be AG. He's acting AG until a replacement is found and confirmed. He has 200+ days to serve in that role. You do? You know the company had many charges against it, was fined $25 million dollars and Whitaker did threaten the people that complained about the corrupt practices? The company was a complete fraudYou have no problem with that just because its Trump's guy?? How is that uninformed? I won't even get into the million dollars he earned for a "Charity." This guy is an empty suit being used by Trump to subvert justice, plain and simple. 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The constitution, the DOJ, Congress, and the past several presidential administrations disagree with this assessment. The appointment was legal, did not violate the constitution, and will stand. The question you should be asking is why a formerly unknown DOJ attorney is being painted as a monstrous threat to the world at large by the same people who have been clamoring for two years (without evidence) that Russia stole an election by co-opting Trump. The answer to that gives their intent away The Constitution says he needs to be appointed with advice and consent of the senate, which he does not have. There is no "Acting" appointment clause of the constitution. \\You saying Congress agrees with this?? Where are you getting that from? There is plenty of evidence Russia interfered with the election. And evidence Trump wanted the help. And evidence they got help. That's why everyone is up in arms about this unconstitutional power grab to install a criminal to oversee our justice department. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: No it is not. How many times do you need it explained to you that things done with corrupt intent are not legal. And this is a violation of checks and balances, anyway. 1) You have to demonstrate "corrupt intent" before you can claim that. 2) No it isn't. Again, it's been explained to you multiple times. 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: No it is not. How many times do you need it explained to you that things done with corrupt intent are not The Constitution says he needs to be appointed with advice and consent of the senate, which he does not have. There is no "Acting" appointment clause of the constitution. \\You saying Congress agrees with this?? Congress passed a law allowing acting appointments that do not have to be approved by the Senate. The law is Constitutional, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, this has already been explained to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: 1) You have to demonstrate "corrupt intent" before you can claim that. 2) No it isn't. Again, it's been explained to you multiple times. 1) Just because you childishly cover your ears and scream "I can't hear anything about corruption here," doesn't mean there is no corrupt intent. You are just playing games with the truth to cover for your corrupt leader. 2) You are arguing an Attorney General doesn't need confirmed by the Senate. Enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts