-
@canefan said in US Politics:
Interesting that Rosenstein was only confirmed for the AAG position 14 days before Comey got his marching orders. That seems like a hell of a short time to be in the position before he performed his investigation and made the recommendation to fire Comey
You're not suggesting they sounded him out on it beforehand?
-
Apparently sources inside the White House say that Rosenstein was asked by the Prez to provide a memo outlining Comey's performance over the Clinton email scandal on Monday. Rosenstein obliged but did not recommend Comey be fired, but the memo apparently formed the basis of Trump's decision to fire Comey a few days later. Sean White intimated that Rosenstein was central to the decision to fire but apparently Rosenstein threatened to resign after being cast in that light. It's all over the web but surely it must be false news
-
@NTA don't worry, he'll be around for another 7 years and will have time to pass tax reform, improve health care, drain much more of the swamp, clean out the FBI, indict Clinton, get the wall built, and get all his nominees appointed. And much more. And we can watch you guys moaning about it for the next 7 years
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Senate committee subpoenas Michael Flynn in Trump-Russia investigation
is it Trump-Russia Investigation? or is that an inaccurate statement? (edited before your latest post)
Added later: watch this, Feinstein admits there is no evidence of collusion between Trump 2016 campaign associates and Russia.
2011 SoS Clinton pressured the PM of Bangladesh to help a donor of the Clinton Foundation:
-
@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.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
@NTA don't worry, he'll be around for another 7 years and will have time to pass tax reform, improve health care, drain much more of the swamp, clean out the FBI, indict Clinton, get the wall built, and get all his nominees appointed. And much more. And we can watch you guys moaning about it for the next 7 years
Does he go down his own swamp drain as well?
You do realise how much bigger the swamp is now? The most expensive President in history. Hope that tax reform will bring in enough $ to pay his security and travel bills.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
Apparently sources inside the White House say that Rosenstein was asked by the Prez to provide a memo outlining Comey's performance over the Clinton email scandal on Monday. Rosenstein obliged but did not recommend Comey be fired, but the memo apparently formed the basis of Trump's decision to fire Comey a few days later. Sean White intimated that Rosenstein was central to the decision to fire but apparently Rosenstein threatened to resign after being cast in that light. It's all over the web but surely it must be false news
Well that must be fake news as I have it on very good authority, right here on this forum, that Rosenstein actually said he should be fired.
-
"He's a showboat. He's a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil," Trump told NBC News in his first interview since firing Comey. "I was going to fire Comey. My decision. I was going to fire regardless of recommendation"
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Added later: watch this, Feinstein admits there is no evidence of collusion between Trump 2016 campaign associates and Russia.
That's not really what she said, is it? As the tweet itself says, Feinstein said the CIA has no evidence. And that might just be because it has no jurisdiction to investigate the campaign associates. That's the job of the FBI.
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
"He's a showboat. He's a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil," Trump told NBC News in his first interview since firing Comey. "I was going to fire Comey. My decision. I was going to fire regardless of recommendation"
Yeah the acting FBI Director has a problem with conflict of interest. His wife ran for US Senate as a democrat and got a donation of half a million from..... the Clintons.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
"He's a showboat. He's a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil," Trump told NBC News in his first interview since firing Comey. "I was going to fire Comey. My decision. I was going to fire regardless of recommendation"
Yeah the acting FBI Director has a problem with conflict of interest. His wife ran for US Senate as a democrat and got a donation of half a million from..... the Clintons.
magic. you mean as opposed to the don's conflict of interest? sessions' conflict of interest?
edit: and what on earth do the clintons have to do with this anyway? i hardly think hillary views comey as an ally. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
The firing of Comey comes down to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and what you think of him.. and basically nothing else once you wipe away the partisan, beltway and media bullshit.
Rosenstein is a political appointee made by Trump, he passed his confirmation by 96-4 with widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans, many democrats were fullsome in the praise of him.Fact 1 - Rosenstein was Comeys direct boss.
Fact 2 - Rosenstein did an investigation into Comeys behavior and recommended to the president (via his boss Jeff Sessions) that Comey be fired.
Fact 3 - Trump followed that advice.
Fact 4 - There is an ongoing FBI investigation into Trumps team links to RussiaThose facts only leave a few options if you want to actually be rational.
Option 1 - Rosenstein is corrupt or acted in a partisan way. I don't think anyone has said that yet.
Option 2 - Trump told Rosentein what to 'find' in his investigation.. therefore making Rosenstein corrupt or weak which goes against all the statements about his character during the confirmation process.
Option 3 - Rosentein isn't corrupt or weak, and actually did an investigation and made a genuine recommendation.I support option 3, which means Trump had a choice, ignore the advice.. or not. If he ignored it ... he would be castigated roundly and very loudly. It would be argued that he ignored to avoid political backlash (like which has happened), not for the good of the FBI and the country. Can you imagine what would have been said if it had been reported that Trump was told to fire the person leading the investigation and he refused?
I find the whole furore quite interesting.how are these facts and options looking now that trump has come out and said he was going to fire him anyway?
it seems highly likely that someone has tried to throw together a justification for trump's decision after the fact. couple of interesting reads here:
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
"He's a showboat. He's a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil," Trump told NBC News in his first interview since firing Comey. "I was going to fire Comey. My decision. I was going to fire regardless of recommendation"
Yeah the acting FBI Director has a problem with conflict of interest. His wife ran for US Senate as a democrat and got a donation of half a million from..... the Clintons.
magic. you mean as opposed to the don's conflict of interest? sessions' conflict of interest?
So what? How does that make any difference to the McCabes conflict of interest?
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
The firing of Comey comes down to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and what you think of him.. and basically nothing else once you wipe away the partisan, beltway and media bullshit.
Rosenstein is a political appointee made by Trump, he passed his confirmation by 96-4 with widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans, many democrats were fullsome in the praise of him.Fact 1 - Rosenstein was Comeys direct boss.
Fact 2 - Rosenstein did an investigation into Comeys behavior and recommended to the president (via his boss Jeff Sessions) that Comey be fired.
Fact 3 - Trump followed that advice.
Fact 4 - There is an ongoing FBI investigation into Trumps team links to RussiaThose facts only leave a few options if you want to actually be rational.
Option 1 - Rosenstein is corrupt or acted in a partisan way. I don't think anyone has said that yet.
Option 2 - Trump told Rosentein what to 'find' in his investigation.. therefore making Rosenstein corrupt or weak which goes against all the statements about his character during the confirmation process.
Option 3 - Rosentein isn't corrupt or weak, and actually did an investigation and made a genuine recommendation.I support option 3, which means Trump had a choice, ignore the advice.. or not. If he ignored it ... he would be castigated roundly and very loudly. It would be argued that he ignored to avoid political backlash (like which has happened), not for the good of the FBI and the country. Can you imagine what would have been said if it had been reported that Trump was told to fire the person leading the investigation and he refused?
I find the whole furore quite interesting.how are these facts and options looking now that trump has come out and said he was going to fire him anyway?
it seems highly likely that someone has tried to throw together a justification for trump's decision after the fact. couple of interesting reads here:
Still looking great thanks.
You think Rosentein threw together some justification after the decision? You think Rosentein did that? Seriously? -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@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.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?And lets not forget that the EO passed vetting at the DOJ before Yates jumped in.... she overruled her own people.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@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:
Yes it can be done with 50, just like they did with Gorsuch nomination. That will become the new norm with the way the Democrats are resisting everything regardless of merit
US Politics