-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit). -
@Crucial exactly. Trump hasn't woken up to the fact that he's not the CEO, Managing Director and Board all rolled into one on this.
The office of the AG and the DoJ in general is not there to be the President's tool - it is there to uphold the legal standing of the US from its Constitution down. If it coincides with the President's opinion or desires, it tends to be due to the President taking good legal advice from the DoJ.
Funny how that works, eh? Its only the DoJ's mission after all:
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
The FBI (which is part of the DoJ, remember) is there to conduct investigations and surveillance on threats to the United States, domestic or foreign. If that happens to BE the President or the links and partnerships they maintain, then their mandate remains unchanged. If it is the AG or another part of the DoJ, then they also have the responsibility to investigate.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
I believe Comey thought the Russia issue was his job security.
He was wrong.I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, Frank - we saw what happened with Yates when she stood up against the travel ban.
Comey could expect nothing less than hostility if he was pursuing the Russia links. EDIT: therefore a risk to his career.
-
A further point I'd make on that: we have Republicans in majority basically everywhere and I see some Trump supporters (not necessarily on this thread, but in the media) are still playing the victim* card, like nobody is letting him have his own way.
Well, he's got the majorities he needs to get through legislation - maybe the things he's asking for are just shit, and not the golden era he promised his followers?
EDIT: * I just remembered the second fallback position from Outright Victim - "Establishment Republicans hate him!" which dovetails nicely into the swamp he's not draining.
He's had a few wins like the TPP, Gorusch, a few plaudits for his cruise missile thing and the relationship with China - which everyone was unsure of.
But draining the swamp? Repealing "Obamacare"? Appointment of a stable Administration? Nope, nope and nope.
I think the last one is actually the most important because it helps get the cogs moving in a big government and would probably help get his more adversarial policies into action.
Has anyone had an update on how his VA increases are going? I read that in the policy manifesto somewhere.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
After months of the intelligence agencies and the compliant media trying to dig up dirt on Trump colluding with Russia, what do they have? Nothing.
You know this how?
Do you think they will release everything as they find it? I don't think that's quite how you run an investigation.
They may well have nothing, but that's a silly assumption to make when an investigation is ongoing.Even if Trump is cleared it is his actions in dismissing the lead of the investigation that is the issue. Just as with Nixon.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
A further point I'd make on that: we have Republicans in majority basically everywhere and I see some Trump supporters (not necessarily on this thread, but in the media) are still playing the victim* card, like nobody is letting him have his own way.
Well, he's got the majorities he needs to get through legislation - maybe the things he's asking for are just shit, and not the golden era he promised his followers?
EDIT: * I just remembered the second fallback position from Outright Victim - "Establishment Republicans hate him!" which dovetails nicely into the swamp he's not draining.
He's had a few wins like the TPP, Gorusch, a few plaudits for his cruise missile thing and the relationship with China - which everyone was unsure of.
But draining the swamp? Repealing "Obamacare"? Appointment of a stable Administration? Nope, nope and nope.
I think the last one is actually the most important because it helps get the cogs moving in a big government and would probably help get his more adversarial policies into action.
Has anyone had an update on how his VA increases are going? I read that in the policy manifesto somewhere.
Errrrr you seem to be a bit behind the times, Trump had a huge win with Obamacare when he got a replacement bill though congress last week, you should have heard about it.. the Democrats threw a massive fit and journalists on MSNBC hoped that children of Republican congressmen were tortured and died.(not kidding).
His administration appointments have also gone pretty well, Flynn aside he has mostly everyone he wanted and has some good people. He was delayed by the Democrats being piston wristed gibbons, they even held up Rosentein despite him being supported by 2 democratic senators from his home state and passing 94-6... but the democrats delayed confirming until 25/4.. for no other reason than to be obstructive...and 'resist'
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback has "Obamacare" been repealed?
Simple question.
-
@NTA Pretty much, needs to get through the Senate (and that might take some tweeks and horse trading) but the hardest part is completed. That is why the democrats and liberal press had a tantrum.
-
So, no.
Trump's original bill was withdrawn by his own supporters for complete lack of support. This one getting through must be quite the trade already with a bare majority, so the next lot of horses to be traded with the more adversarial parts of the Senate will be interesting.
Is Senate a simple majority for this kind of thing?
Back to Administration - forgetting the top offices, there are reportedly over 500 positions still vacant at the lower levels. These require Senate confirmation after a lengthy screening processes.
Its a bit disconcerting to see pages like this with no data on them.
https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/Pages/officials.aspx
Maybe their web admin is on vacation.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
So, no.
Trump's original bill was withdrawn by his own supporters for complete lack of support. This one getting through must be quite the trade already with a bare majority, so the next lot of horses to be traded with the more adversarial parts of the Senate will be interesting.
Is Senate a simple majority for this kind of thing?
Back to Administration - forgetting the top offices, there are reportedly over 500 positions still vacant at the lower levels. These require Senate confirmation after length screening processes.
Its a bit disconcerting to see pages like this with no data on them.
https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/Pages/officials.aspx
Maybe their web admin is on vacation.
Getting Congress to actually agree and pass a replacement to Obamacare is a big deal. It was a win for Trump. I know many on the left hate the thought of that, but it was. Just as his first attempt failing was a loss. But I guess to some people a major bill though congress failing is a loss.. but a major bill passing is... nothing much?
And yes it is a simple majority.. but they dont have a lot of wriggle room.And if you want to know why so many positions might still be vacant .. look no further than the democrats delaying just for the sake of 'resistance'. Is that a Trump loss? Depends how you look at it.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And if you want to know why so many positions might still be vacant .. look no further than the democrats delaying just for the sake of 'resistance'.
That would depend directly on how many opponents to a given appointment were on the congressional hearing committee at any one time.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And yes it is a simple majority.. but they dont have a lot of wriggle room.
I just read up on the basics of the US Senate - the bill can be debated in perpetuity it seems, UNLESS they get to 60 votes to end debate and therefore accept the bill.
There is a rule under which a simple majority (i.e. the present 52 Republicans out of 100 Senate seats) but I didn't really get into the depth of when that can happen. Something about House rules.
I found this link interesting:
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
Interesting that Rosenstein was only confirmed for the AAG position 14 days before Comey got his marching orders. Two weeks seems like a hell of a short time to be in the position in order that he conducted his investigation and made the recommendation to fire Comey. I can see how some people would be a bit suspicious of the circumstances of his departure.
US Politics