Jump to content
NM11046

DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

What branch of government is the AG in? After the Sally Yates garbage thats completely appropriate.

 

Ahh, more CNN garbage. I will have to look at the link. Its probably info from the infamous "anonymous source", that was somehow privy to a private meeting!!

Sure glad they didn't have Anonymous sources during Watergate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

What branch of government is the AG in? After the Sally Yates garbage thats completely appropriate.

 

Ahh, more CNN garbage. I will have to look at the link. Its probably info from the infamous "anonymous source", that was somehow privy to a private meeting!!

 

If this is your standard, I would hope you're very, very suspicious of almost everything Trump says or claims. His own sourcing of his claims is beyond suspect - oftentimes he literally just creates a "source" on the spot by framing a statement with "Lots of people are saying...". A good example would be last night, when he said immigrants can bring "a virtually unlimited number of family members" to the U.S. with them once they've legally immigrated. Of course, that's not true, as family-based migration is fairly restrictive, but Trump doesn't care because it fits his agenda. 

 

FWIW, I disagree about Yates. She didn't comply with an order because she believed it was unconstitutional. She did swear an oath to the Constitution, not Trump, after all. The way conservatives talk about DACA & the ACA I'm surprised so many jumped on her for it.
 

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On thing I want to highlight about this story.

 

The biggest thing is obviously that Trump continues to undermine his own pledge to support law enforcement by attempting to put his thumb on the scale of this investigation. Absolutely destroys the impartiality of the whole thing to have him checking up on things & asking questions so often to so many people. Again, asking the guy who is overseeing the whole thing if he's "on your team" is the type of not-at-all-veiled doublespeak Trump has probably been asking those who have leverage over him his whole career.

 

But I found this excerpt pretty incredible:

 

Quote

Rosenstein's meeting with the President came as Rosenstein prepared to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Trump appeared focused on Rosenstein's testimony, according to a source briefed on the matter, and he brought it up with the deputy attorney general.

As a further sign of the President's focus on Rosenstein's testimony, one of the sources said Trump also had suggested questions to members of Congress that they could ask Rosenstein.

One line of inquiry Trump proposed lawmakers ask about was whether Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election because Mueller was not selected as FBI director. 
CNN has reported that Trump has been venting to his aides about Rosenstein in recent weeks and even raised the possibility of his removal. Sources say Trump believes Rosenstein was upset Mueller wasn't selected as FBI director and responded by making him special counsel. It does not appear those questions were asked of Rosenstein at the hearing.

 

We don't know the sources... but it doesn't really matter, because when we do know the sources, like Dick Durbin with the sh*thole comments, Republicans come running to protect him & Trump attacks them on Twitter.

 

But... gosh. Trump must think everyone is as petty & vindictive as he is.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Preference: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children (capped at 23,400/year)

2nd Preference: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of green card holders (capped at 114,000/year)

3rd Preference: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children (capped at 23,400/year)

4th Preference: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children (capped at (65,000/year)

 

That may not be "unlimited", but it is potentially a pretty big chunk. 

 

I say eliminate it anyway. 

 

Regarding Yates, she was wrong. It is clearly within the Presidents rights to do exactly what she did. She was grandstanding, and illustrating just how corrupt the government under Obama had become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

On thing I want to highlight about this story.

 

The biggest thing is obviously that Trump continues to undermine his own pledge to support law enforcement by attempting to put his thumb on the scale of this investigation. Absolutely destroys the impartiality of the whole thing to have him checking up on things & asking questions so often to so many people. Again, asking the guy who is overseeing the whole thing if he's "on your team" is the type of not-at-all-veiled doublespeak Trump has probably been asking those who have leverage over him his whole career.

 

But I found this excerpt pretty incredible:

 

 

We don't know the sources... but it doesn't really matter, because when we do know the sources, like Dick Durbin with the sh*thole comments, Republicans come running to protect him & Trump attacks them on Twitter.

 

But... gosh. Trump must think everyone is as petty & vindictive as he is.

Dick Durbin? He didn't get a lot of support. And a lot of places are s#!tholes. If you don't think so, you should travel more. Besides, Durbin proved himself to be a grandstanding coward who's only intent was to undermine the Executive Branch, and any progress made towards immigration. Should that ignorant simp have been so "offended", why not express your poutrage at the time, and try to correct the behavior? Personally, I would be shocked if most people haven't used the term. I have, and many of my friends have. I have eaten in s#!tholes, I have slept in s#!tholes, I have lived in s#!tholes etc. Besides, the obvious question is, if these places are so great, why are people trying so hard to flee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I was capable of living in a fantasy world too. Then I wouldn't have to feel angsty about the country becoming less democratic by the minute and the executive branch attacking the intelligence agencies and media, and Trump's campaign buddies writing Super Secret Explosive memos in order to pull the wool over people's eyes.

 

Rainbow%20River%20jigsaw%20puzzle%20MPI3

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing both versions are a pile of horses#!t anyway, but that's pretty funny.

Nunes was a member of Trump's transition team, so the fact this is even a thing is f'ing ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Dick Durbin? He didn't get a lot of support. And a lot of places are s#!tholes. If you don't think so, you should travel more. Besides, Durbin proved himself to be a grandstanding coward who's only intent was to undermine the Executive Branch, and any progress made towards immigration. Should that ignorant simp have been so "offended", why not express your poutrage at the time, and try to correct the behavior? Personally, I would be shocked if most people haven't used the term. I have, and many of my friends have. I have eaten in s#!tholes, I have slept in s#!tholes, I have lived in s#!tholes etc. Besides, the obvious question is, if these places are so great, why are people trying so hard to flee?

 

I have higher standards for elected officials than Joe Schmoe off the street. Personally, I bear you no ill-will if you use that word. For the President of the United States to do is entirely a different matter.

 

It's really no business of mine why people decide to come here. If they choose to leave their homeland to try to come here & live the American dream, more power to them. I certainly hope people don't question my motives if I ever decide to leave the U.S. I don't see why we should do it to others.

 

Durbin is one of two people who headed up an immigration bill that could possibly muster enough votes to become law. That's his intent. Trump torpedoed that bill for one his hard-right flank is pushing on him, even though the former is broadly popular & the latter is extreme & will never get 60 votes.

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Regarding Yates, she was wrong. It is clearly within the Presidents rights to do exactly what she did. She was grandstanding, and illustrating just how corrupt the government under Obama had become.

It obviously was not clear as multiple courts struck down the President's ban. And upholding an oath to the Constitution is the opposite of corruption - often known as integrity.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing lots of rumbles on twitter about what sort of info will get "leaked" if this memo is published.  I wouldn't mess with the Intelligence Community.  I have a feeling if this goes public all bets are off.  Wyden has already thrown off the gloves, I don't think Schiff would go against the rules, but I don't know the others in that group with Nunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

Seeing lots of rumbles on twitter about what sort of info will get "leaked" if this memo is published.  I wouldn't mess with the Intelligence Community.  I have a feeling if this goes public all bets are off.  Wyden has already thrown off the gloves, I don't think Schiff would go against the rules, but I don't know the others in that group with Nunes.

 

I would feel more sure about this if the head of the FBI hadn't just resigned giving Trump the chance to put his stooge in place to squash all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...