United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:23 am

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 7770
HokieFanDC wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
They withheld evidence in a previous case.


Who, and what cases?


Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.


I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.
Not sure how that is meaningful.


That is the whole point of the special prosecutor, Comey in open testimony said he nor the FBI was affected by anything Trump did or said, the other officials that Trump supposedly per the Wa Po pressured into making waves on the Flynn investigation have also testified that they were never pressured at all by anyone. Comey and ALL AGREE that Trump could fire Comey for any reason at any time, the dems wanted him fired months and months ago!!!

So what is the special prosecutor for? The collusion that has already been debunked and Sessions destroyed during his testimony. Do you dems think that all these people are suddenly going to do a 180 and throw Trump under the bus? Nobody is that dumb


That's not the whole point of the special prosecutor. He wasnt brought in to investigate Trump's firing Comey at all.


correct it is a fishing expedition as now they have leaked they are looking into Jared Kushner's business dealings... again a dead end, whats next?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 7770
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
They withheld evidence in a previous case.


Who, and what cases?


Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.


I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.
Not sure how that is meaningful.


Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.


Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.


BREAK WHAT LAW???? he can fire him cuz he did not like his tie. This is soooooo stupid

never mind if Hillary won she would have fired him in 3 seconds and Lynch actually did obstruct justice for Hillary, but who gives a crap, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 8963
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
They withheld evidence in a previous case.


Who, and what cases?


Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.


I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.
Not sure how that is meaningful.


Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.


Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.



LOL

Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.

Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.

2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.

Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!

Seriously. Put the bong down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5175
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:

Mueller has been around long enough, and has been reputable, respected, and distinguished for a long time, that it should take more than Newt bitching, to get rid of him.


That's a lazy, sophist argument. Let me translate: "Ignore all the evidence presented in this thread that he's disreputable...because he's reputable." Also, I don't even need to point out the strawman you threw in there. Good job.

This is usually the part of the thread where you say the words instead of framing a legitimate argument.


The evidence is weak. There are now 6 people known to be on the team. 2 have donated solely to Dems. 1 has donated to both parties. 3 have not made donations to any party. All are respected attorneys. Mueller's staff is not a reason for him to go.

You can argue that his relationship with Comey is reason to take him off the case, but that's opinion, not fact. I lean toward it being enough that he should recuse himself, but it's not black and white.

Given Comey discussed his senate testimony with Mueller in advance of giving it then, yes, he should recuse himself. He's close friends with, a mentor to, and advised the man that Trump fired to initiate the whole "investigation" mess. Ya think!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 7861
RiverguyVT wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.


I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.
Not sure how that is meaningful.


Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.


Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.



LOL

Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.

Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.

2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.

Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!

Seriously. Put the bong down.



That's not a valid comparison.
Think of the relationship between a manager and an employee. Now, say the manager had asked the employee out on a date, and the employee says no. A week later, the manager fires the employee. Under normal circumstances, the manager can fire that employee. But, in this case, if the manager fired that employee for saying no, it's illegal. I don't understand how you guys can't understand that.

As for 2 sets of rules, Hillary is guilty of lots of things...so take that argument up with someone who thinks she isn't a criminal.

But, I get your point, it all hinges on intent, and I think it is going to be hard to tie intent to Trump's firing of Comey.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 4751
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/muellers-disturbing-staffing-decisions.php

Quote:
MUELLER’S DISTURBING STAFFING DECISIONS

When people in Washington talk on the record about Robert Mueller, they gush. Terms like “straight shooter” and “unquestioned integrity” flow freely.

Of course, the same was once true of Mueller’s friend, James Comey.

When I talk off the record to people I trust who know Mueller, there’s less gushing, but no expression of alarm. One former prosecutor who knew him at the Justice Department says: “My sense is that he’s independent, but doesn’t make a fetish of it, as I’m afraid Comey does.”

Yet, there may be cause for concern. In my view, Mueller’s friendship with Comey is one. Some of Mueller’s key staffing decisions are another.

Mueller has selected Deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben as one of his advisers. Dreeben is a premier criminal law expert. However, he’s considered a left-winger by people whose judgment I trust. And Preet Bharara — former US attorney of the Southern District of New York and current Trump adversary — says he’s over-the-moon about Dreeban’s selection.

Dreeben does not owe his selection to investigative prowess. He’s on the team to evaluate whether the fruits of the investigation give rise to a crime.

That’s fine if Dreeben has no agenda. But if he’s anti-Trump, there’s reason to fear he will bend over backwards to spin out a theory through which Trump can be prosecuted.

Mueller has also tapped Jeannie Rhee, formerly a federal prosecutor and high-level Justice Department official. Rhee provided legal services for the Clinton Foundation, a fact the Washington Post omits from its account. In addition, she donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign PAC “Hillary for America.”

As bitter as the Clintonistas are about losing the election (or rather having it “stolen” by the Russians), it seems unconscionable that Rhee would be on a team that will decide whether to prosecute President Trump at the end of a “Russian interference” investigation. (Dreeben donated $1,000 dollars to Hillary Clinton’s Senate political action committee (PAC) back in the day. This doesn’t strike me as problematic because it doesn’t relate to the 2016 election).

James Quarles, who served as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, is also on Mueller’s team. He donated to “Hillary for America” in 2016.

Andrew Weissmann, who serves in a top post within the Justice Department’s fraud practice, is a key member of Mueller’s team. He served as the FBI’s general counsel and the assistant director to Mueller when the special counsel was FBI director, so it’s natural that Mueller turned to him.

Weissmann was a contributor to Obama campaigns, but not, as far as I can tell, to Clinton’s. Again, I see no problem here. I doubt that any prosecutor could assemble a team that included no one who has donated to Democrats.

Jared Kushner’s New York Observer ran a series of scathing stories depicting Weissmann as a strong-arm prosecutor who “ran roughshod” over defendants’ rights during the Enron investigation. Kushner’s conduct will be part of the Mueller investigation, so this might be a matter of concern. Indeed, if Weissmann is the kind of prosecutor Kushner’s newspaper depicted that too would be concerning (I don’t know one way or the other whether the New York Observer’s portrait is accurate.)

To summarize, Mueller’s selection of Rhee is alarming. To put a Clintonista on his team suggests either poor judgment or anti-Trump bias. It also suggests that Mueller sees himself as “bullet proof.”

Mueller’s selection of Dreeben is also alarming, if what I’m hearing about the guy is accurate. Indeed, it may be even more alarming than the selection of Rhee. Dreeben, after all, will likely play the key role at “crunch time” — the time when Mueller must decide whether the evidence supports bringing criminal charges against the President of the United States.

Weissmann’s selection is alarming if the New York Observer’s portrait is accurate. It is concerning for Jared Kushner, in any case. Quarles’ selection seems less than ideal.

Add it all up, and throw in the Mueller’s friendship with Comey, and I think you have a recipe for unfairness and, quite possibly, abuse.

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 8963
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.


I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.
Not sure how that is meaningful.


Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.


Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.



LOL

Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.

Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.

2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.

Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!

Seriously. Put the bong down.



That's not a valid comparison.
Think of the relationship between a manager and an employee. Now, say the manager had asked the employee out on a date, and the employee says no. A week later, the manager fires the employee. Under normal circumstances, the manager can fire that employee. But, in this case, if the manager fired that employee for saying no, it's illegal. I don't understand how you guys can't understand that.

As for 2 sets of rules, Hillary is guilty of lots of things...so take that argument up with someone who thinks she isn't a criminal.

But, I get your point, it all hinges on intent, and I think it is going to be hard to tie intent to Trump's firing of Comey.


No. Just no...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5175
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

Did you or did you not admit in another thread that Trump had the right to fire Comey? If so, the entire premise of this purse fight is moot.


I didn't "admit" that, that's a bizarre way to put it, but Trump certainly has the authority to do so.
Not sure how that is meaningful.


Great. THEN WHY are you arguing that this is anything but a partisan witch hunt? The entire premise for you arguing in this thread is illogical if you agree Trump was within his powers to fire Comey.


Being within his powers doesn't mean that the intent behind the firing doesn't break the law.



LOL

Dude. Please. You're usually rational.
Cmon.

Paraphrasing you:
What he did was legal, and did not break the law. Like me driving 55 on the interstate, not breaking the law. BUT (TDS follows) if his intent was to be illegal in his actions, his mindset nefarious, that is illegal. Just like me driving 55, but wishing I could go 90. I should be ticketed just for wanting to go fast.

2 sets of laws:
Hillary!'s actions don't matter. Only Hillary!'s intent (which was wholly innocent) does. She acted illegally, but didn't intend to, so all is okay (at least, this is Comey's position). She's driving 120 mph on back roads, but didn't intend to go over 35.

Trump. Does nothing illegal. But his intent is nefarious. Hang the bastard!!!

Seriously. Put the bong down.



That's not a valid comparison.
Think of the relationship between a manager and an employee. Now, say the manager had asked the employee out on a date, and the employee says no. A week later, the manager fires the employee. Under normal circumstances, the manager can fire that employee. But, in this case, if the manager fired that employee for saying no, it's illegal. I don't understand how you guys can't understand that.

As for 2 sets of rules, Hillary is guilty of lots of things...so take that argument up with someone who thinks she isn't a criminal.

But, I get your point, it all hinges on intent, and I think it is going to be hard to tie intent to Trump's firing of Comey.

So what did Comey say no to? He already told Trump 3 times he wasn't under investigation? Trump fired him because he was willing to open up to the public about the Hillary investigation but was mum about Trump, leaving the public to think he was under scrutiny when he wasn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!