179 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

Wow... funny how things happen. When I finished that last post, up comes this breaking news. The biggest mistake Trump made was not firing all these people the day he was sworn into office. Never were the letters POS more relevant.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas-fbi-brass-hollowed-out-after-latest-resignation-of-key-official

[onbekende]

 

Perhaps nothing earth shattering will ever be found, but your ENTIRE political body is playing with its own moral code you'd start to wonder who even still considers them to be "working for the best interests of the nation"...

The entire Obama Administration believed it was "working for the best interests of the nation", and it was their responsibility to ensure Hillary Clinton became the next President and not that evil Capitalist, Donald Trump. There is a mountain of evidence, and a graveyard of destroyed careers that already prove this to be true. Anyone that does not know this yet, continues to merely lie to themselves.

 

 

I could rebrand that entire alinea into Republican terms and it would be just as juicy if not basic political shenanigans (aka business as usual).

 

 

Wow... funny how things happen. When I finished that last post, up comes this breaking news. The biggest mistake Trump made was not firing all these people the day he was sworn into office. Never were the letters POS more relevant.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamas-fbi-brass-hollowed-out-after-latest-resignation-of-key-official

 

So a retirement after over 20y of service is now something you cling to?

 

And any country that does an entire beaurocracy change each time a new leader is elected, is a corrupt one. Heared you guys are already dabbling in such things in severals states...

[Lysistrata]

So a retirement after over 20y of service is now something you cling to?

He retired as soon as he could to avoid losing his pension due to his high probability of being fired. Andrew McCabe was fired for lying and leaking just days before he was eligible for his pension. Lois Lerner took early retirement to avoid losing her pension during the IRS scandal. It's not anything I cling to... it's criminals locking down the money before they lose it.

[Lysistrata]

Comey's big day. His lawyer has informed Congress that he will not be answering certain questions, and cannot remember much. Most of what Congress wants to know... was "below his pay grade". The man who was the head of the FBI, wrote a book about it, and takes copious notes... has a faulty memory. Oh yeah, this is gonna work out real well.

[onbekende]

And?

[Lysistrata]

And?

Transcript should be released soon, and they're bringing Comey back in two weeks... probably to give more non-answers. William Barr has been nominated for Attorney General, and I suspect the only course of action will be a second Special Council to begin a train of indictments against the conspiracy to frame Trump. As soon as these scumbags face some hard time, they'll start throwing each other under the bus. It will be a contest... who can flip the hardest in an attempt to earn a Presidential pardon? I don't believe Donald will save any of them, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few commit suicide.

[onbekende]

All sounds lovely when you put it like that, but I heared Barr might not be such a helpfull hand as thought off (he did get the nomination by speaking  some pro-Trump words, where have we seen that before? ).

 

Meanwhile Indivudual-1 is getting so (in)famous, they might need to retire that name like they do with hurricane's...

[Rand0m her0]

Comey's big day. His lawyer has informed Congress that he will not be answering certain questions, and cannot remember much. Most of what Congress wants to know... was "below his pay grade". The man who was the head of the FBI, wrote a book about it, and takes copious notes... has a faulty memory. Oh yeah, this is gonna work out real well.

 

And this is why you don't take trump tweets as news. 

 

have an example of what comey doens't know

 

Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall who drafted the FBI's initiation
document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you know who approved that draft of an
initial plan for the Russia investigation in late July 2016?
Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Mr. Comey. That Peter Strzok approved? I don't know one
way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Drafted and approved it.
Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Have you read that initiation document?
Mr. Comey. I don't think so. I don't remember ever seeing
it.
Mr. Comey. Do you recall seeing the phrase "Trump
campaign" in that initiation document?
Mr. Comey. Well, I don't remember seeing it, ever seeing
it, so certainly don't remember any portion of it, because I don't
remember ever seeing it.
Mr. Gowdy. If it said Trump campaign, do you still have
the same answer you had when I asked you whether or not it involved

the Trump campaign?
Mr. Comey. That's a question, Mr. Gowdy, I can't answer
without having seen the document. So I'd be speculating about
a document I don't think I've ever seen.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I want to be fair to you and make sure
I understand your testimony. You have not, did not read the FBI
initiation document that launched the Russia investigation, or
you read it and do not recall what it said?
Mr. Comey. I don't remember ever seeing it.

 

Opening an investigation such as that is not something that FBI requires the director to sign off on. Infact it should be trivially obvious why that's the case; counterintelligence investigations are routine for the FBI and requiring the director to sign off on everyone would be an enormous waste of time and allow a single individual to quash an investigation. Jame Comey having read that document is no more likely than Sundar Pichai to have  read the initiation document for a study of new blades for one of google's data centers. 

 

Also, lol, that is such a transparent attempt at the most pathetic perjury trap. If the committee gave a shit, they'd ask the FBI to cough up a copy of the document out of the archive, or even just confirm that author. There's zero reason to even ask such a question other than hoping he answers incorrectly and then go ZOMG COMEY LIED TO CONGRESS!

 

There is of course things like

 

Mr. Gowdy. Some of our friends in the media use the word
"collusion" from time to time. What is the crime of collusion?

 

Mr. Comey. What is the crime of collusion? I do not know.
I've never heard the term "collusion" used in the way it's been
used in our world over the last couple years before that. I don't
know of a crime that involves collusion. I think in terms of
conspiracy or aiding and abetting.

 

 

Which is an entirely reasonable answer since the question is about a investigation into illegal activities and "collusion" has no legal definition, something which Trey Gowdy agrees with like 5 lines later.  

 

 

Lots of other things that Committee expects him to know includes details of conversation between people who are not him that happened while he was not present. Also random highly specific facts about investigations that he had minimal role in, interviews he was not present at, or just basic information that the committee could trivally obtain from congressional records. 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ratcliffe.
Do you have -- as you review that, do you independently have
a recollection about Hillary Clinton's July 2nd interview where
agents asked her questions about those classification markings,
whether it appeared on one document or multiple documents?
Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Ratcliffe. You don't have any recollection?
Mr. Comey. No, I don't have an independent recollection,
sitting here, of what they asked her about that. I have some
recollection that the topic came up, but I don't remember what
was asked or said about that.

 

Not to metion: "do you know if other people knew things". 

 

Ms. Jackson Lee. When you met with the President at the
White House on January 27th, 2017, the meeting during which he
asked you to let Flynn go, did the President know at the time
that the FBI was investigating Russia's interference in the 2016
elections?
Mr. Comey. The meeting you're referring to was Valentine's
Day, February 14th of 2017, not the 27th. And I don't know --

 

And of course other things include entirely subjective statements

 

 

Mr. Comey. I don't know whether Peter Strzok was
considered the top. He was very highly regarded as a
counterintelligence professional, and I saw that borne out in
the nature and quality of his work with me. But whether he's
the top or not, I don't know, but certainly among the best.

 

Because obviously Comey isn't going to "Yes I know for a fact this person was literally the best person at the job in the whole world". 

 

 

I stand by my statement re: political grandstanding. This was such a transparent fishing expedition. 

[Lysistrata]

And this is why you don't take trump tweets as news.

I don't... I was taking the news as news.

I stand by my statement re: political grandstanding.

Grandstanding happens in a public hearing, and this was not a public hearing. If the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to effect the outcome of the 2016 election, I believe we need to know the truth. If the Obama Administration created an insurance policy to make trouble for Trump in the event he was elected, I believe we need to know the truth. At this point, I think the next course of action will be a second Special Council appointed to comb through the Hillary email case, and the Trump counter-intelligence investigation... and start handing out indictments like Christmas presents all around. That's why Democrats are so damn afraid of a new Attorney General.

[onbekende]

That insurance policy is over 2 years late, and counting. Perhaps bark up another tree? I heared Barr wouldn't mind looking into Uranium 1 >_>

[Lysistrata]

That insurance policy is over 2 years late, and counting. Perhaps bark up another tree? I heared Barr wouldn't mind looking into Uranium 1 >_>

Like I said... that's why Democrats are so damn afraid of a new Attorney General. Trump picks a guy that was the AG under G.H.W. Bush and he was nowhere near the Trump campaign, the FBI investigations, or the Clintons. The very first thing they demand is for him to recuse himself.... on what grounds? I'll tell you... because he's a Republican. Last time I checked, the President chooses the AG, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. This is laughable at best.

[onbekende]

Apart from Barr being previously fished for by Trump for his personal legal team with the (private) Russia investigation defence, Barr being publicly vocal against Mueller and team cause of political orientated donations (but lets ignore him and his wife donating 750k, dwarfing the entire Mueller team's donations), Barr supported known conspiracy theories and desire to litigate against political opponents by mere being opposite parties, ...

 

Well, lets ignore all that and just go with "cause he got nominated for the specific reasoning of shutting the special council down".

 

But perhaps best of all, this so called "call for recusal" has been timid or downright not present. I sense shenanigans.

[Lysistrata]

Apart from Barr being previously fished for by Trump for his personal legal team with the (private) Russia investigation defence, Barr being publicly vocal against Mueller and team cause of political orientated donations (but lets ignore him and his wife donating 750k, dwarfing the entire Mueller team's donations), Barr supported known conspiracy theories and desire to litigate against political opponents by mere being opposite parties, ...

 

Well, lets ignore all that and just go with "cause he got nominated for the specific reasoning of shutting the special council down".

 

But perhaps best of all, this so called "call for recusal" has been timid or downright not present. I sense shenanigans.

Breaking News: Trump is entitled to legal defense. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has been asked. Everyone that can afford to donate to preferred political candidates, donates to preferred political candidates. I believe you are supporting conspiracy theories and you have the desire to litigate against your opponents... like anyone who doesn't think climate change is a big deal.

 

Let's ignore all that, and meaningless opinions from Europe. You are trolling me again... am I right?

[onbekende]

Actually, all the points I made are usual right-wing talking points, just used back at you. And "litegation for all" is an american past-time, you folks are the origin of frivolous.

 

I personally wouldn't really care about Barr's personal connection to Trump or POTUS in general, as long as offcourse impartiality can be maintained.

 

Rather just waiting how Trump would react when, and this is an "if-scenario", Barr gets approved and he lets Mueller continue. Trump had half a meltdown when Sessions went hands-off and we clearly see him not taking kindly to Whitaker going likewise after a head-to-head with Mueller.

 

Thusfar alot of his appointees stroked his ego to get in but then seemed to just be stroking it, not following it. I sense Barr would be likewise and as such another meltdown could happen.

[Lysistrata]

And "litegation for all" is an american past-time, you folks are the origin of frivolous.

We agree on something.

I personally wouldn't really care about Barr's personal connection to Trump or POTUS in general, as long as offcourse impartiality can be maintained.

It doesn't matter if Barr has a personal connection to Trump or not, and partiality is absolutely expected from a U.S. Attorney General. It is not an elected position, they can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason, and they are expected to enforce the law in line with the policies of the President. Eric Holder famously declared he was "Obama's Wingman", and are you even going to begin to lie to us about how Robert Kennedy was "impartial" with Johnny?

Rather just waiting how Trump would react when, and this is an "if-scenario", Barr gets approved and he lets Mueller continue. Trump had half a meltdown when Sessions went hands-off and we clearly see him not taking kindly to Whitaker going likewise after a head-to-head with Mueller.

Barr will get approved, and I expect he will allow Mueller to close things up. Trump didn't have "half a meltdown"... he had a complete meltdown. If the first thing my new Attorney General did was recuse himself from anything, I would have fired him immediately.

Thusfar alot of his appointees stroked his ego to get in but then seemed to just be stroking it, not following it. I sense Barr would be likewise and as such another meltdown could happen.

I think your wrong here. I find his way of running things quite refreshing, and I believe he holds back too much because of the 92% of the media that would report how many doctors lost their jobs, instead of reporting that he found the cure for cancer. He's the hardest working President I have ever seen, and he gets no credit for it.

[Lysistrata]

I knew this would be coming.

 

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been ruled unconstitutional by a Texas Federal judge. When Justice Roberts allowed the ACA to continue back in 2012, he did so only on the grounds that Congress has the power to tax, and he determined that there was no difference between a "penalty" and a "tax". So the individual mandate was ruled constitutional as long as Congress continues to pay for it, as a tax.

 

In 2017, Congress repealed the tax against individuals that refuse to purchase health insurance, therefore, the ACA can no longer support itself. States that are firmly against socialized medicine... Red States to be precise... sued on the grounds that after the repeal of the individual mandate tax, the law can no longer be constitutional... and they are right.

 

It will be appealed... it will end up back in front of the Supremes... and I believe this time it will fall. Goodbye to the last of Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

[DarkFox]

As someone who has to deal with the ACA for work it is a nightmare. Most my work hours are dealing with the ACA. I like the idea of something like medicare for all, but the ACA was badly designed and rushed out

[Lysistrata]

I like the idea of something like medicare for all

Individual states can pass, tax, and enforce all the socialist programs they want. They can destroy their own economies without taking down the entire nation with them, and can then fix the problems they cause on themselves when they discover how stupidly insane it was to entertain... but forcing all states to participate in a Federal program that cannot ever be paid for, will never happen again.

 

Every time we allow the government to take responsibility for another piece of our lives, we lose another piece of our freedom.

[onbekende]

 

I personally wouldn't really care about Barr's personal connection to Trump or POTUS in general, as long as offcourse impartiality can be maintained.

It doesn't matter if Barr has a personal connection to Trump or not, and partiality is absolutely expected from a U.S. Attorney General. It is not an elected position, they can be fired by the President at any time, for any reason, and they are expected to enforce the law in line with the policies of the President. Eric Holder famously declared he was "Obama's Wingman", and are you even going to begin to lie to us about how Robert Kennedy was "impartial" with Johnny?

 

.
Meant impartial to law(-enforcement), the fellows can be married for all I care.
.
 

 

Rather just waiting how Trump would react when, and this is an "if-scenario", Barr gets approved and he lets Mueller continue. Trump had half a meltdown when Sessions went hands-off and we clearly see him not taking kindly to Whitaker going likewise after a head-to-head with Mueller.

Barr will get approved, and I expect he will allow Mueller to close things up. Trump didn't have "half a meltdown"... he had a complete meltdown. If the first thing my new Attorney General did was recuse himself from anything, I would have fired him immediately.

 

.
The reclusal was lawfull, or rather law mandated. I'd thought you understood that. Don't think Barr has such "mandate" going for him, offcourse I neither know the extent of the law and of his connection to the investigations topic.
.

 

Thusfar alot of his appointees stroked his ego to get in but then seemed to just be stroking it, not following it. I sense Barr would be likewise and as such another meltdown could happen.

I think your wrong here. I find his way of running things quite refreshing, and I believe he holds back too much because of the 92% of the media that would report how many doctors lost their jobs, instead of reporting that he found the cure for cancer. He's the hardest working President I have ever seen, and he gets no credit for it.

 

 .
I could follow if you said that Congress was working overtime (doing next to nothing with a trifecta, but hey...), but Trump? It isn't cause you don't see him in public that he is actually doing something. Heck in 1 year Trump already outpaced Obama in just golfing trips, which he previously said he would be to busy to do.

 

Most if not all of legislation is Republican in nature with next to no Trump specific laws. Not forgetting alot of those 'I can fix/change this easily' or 'I can do this in 30/60/90 days' or other such replies to various of his scheme's come back blowing right up in his face. He is good in signing stuff, included executive orders (which is rather strange need during a trifecta, but hey...) which he is also outpacing Obama on.

 

Talking about credit, he occasionally gets it when he stays calm for a day, kinda like how you compliment a toddler for not wrecking the family outing.
. 

I knew this would be coming.
 
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been ruled unconstitutional by a Texas Federal judge. When Justice Roberts allowed the ACA to continue back in 2012, he did so only on the grounds that Congress has the power to tax, and he determined that there was no difference between a "penalty" and a "tax". So the individual mandate was ruled constitutional as long as Congress continues to pay for it, as a tax.
 
In 2017, Congress repealed the tax against individuals that refuse to purchase health insurance, therefore, the ACA can no longer support itself. States that are firmly against socialized medicine... Red States to be precise... sued on the grounds that after the repeal of the individual mandate tax, the law can no longer be constitutional... and they are right.
 
It will be appealed... it will end up back in front of the Supremes... and I believe this time it will fall. Goodbye to the last of Obama.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

 .
Atleast you are on point on knowing why it is now deemed unconstitutional (awating SCOTUS offcourse). Thou partially a dick move and something you could easily replicate to other laws to make them moot.

 

Funnily also that not only lots of red states are fuming over it but likewise using lots of it to tend to their internal sub-par health system. Guess they aren't to shy in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah to take federal money with the expanded acception of Medicaid.
.

As someone who has to deal with the ACA for work it is a nightmare. Most my work hours are dealing with the ACA. I like the idea of something like medicare for all, but the ACA was badly designed and rushed out

.

So fix it? Think I heared a party making that line a campaign point of their election(s)...

[Lysistrata]

The reclusal was lawfull, or rather law mandated. I'd thought you understood that. Don't think Barr has such "mandate" going for him, offcourse I neither know the extent of the law and of his connection to the investigations topic.

No such thing. Justice Elena Kagan has never, not once, recused herself from ruling on the ACA, even after very loud calls for her to do so, because she was instrumental in the creation of the ACA as Solicitor General for Barack Obama. Recusal is a conscience call when an official understands their own bias concerning a case, and know within themselves they cannot possibly render a fair ruling. I do not believe there is such a thing as an impartial judge any longer... but there is no law or mandate that requires this action.

 

Atleast you are on point on knowing why it is now deemed unconstitutional (awating SCOTUS offcourse). Thou partially a dick move and something you could easily replicate to other laws to make them moot. Funnily also that not only lots of red states are fuming over it but likewise using lots of it to tend to their internal sub-par health system. Guess they aren't to shy in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah to take federal money with the expanded acception of Medicaid.

There is nothing easy about the ACA... it's a massive trunk load of confusing gibberish that seizes total control of one sixth of the US economy, strangles the entire business world, and makes health insurance unaffordable for more people than it helps. The expansion of Medicaid was the smart way to deal with the uninsured, and is still the better way to go even though I despise all government intervention.