The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
CK86
Awaiting a Promotion
Since the borders are safer, guess we can skip the pointless wall.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think you need to broaden your horizons a tad.
Tapate50
Well-known member
A lot of people have a reason to despise Trump at this point. Hell, who doesn't? I guess my point is with all the enemy making and woe is me bull ****, the list is long. Trying to find someone who doesn't think he's a pretty ****ing dry ass punch line joke at this point is challenging. You and ?
I know I shouldn't but I'd expect people to impartially do their jobs.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My dude, pretty much your entire game is "What about Obama," and even when people indulge you, you don't stop. Obama's not the president any more. Hillary is a private citizen. Donald Trump is the president, so it is kinda reasonable for him to be the topic of discussion.
I'm not criticizing him for signing the bill, just pointing out that he had--politically speaking--no other option, so it meant little to his personal posture towards the Ursine Menace.
sturg33
I
I don't justify Trump's actions with "What about Obama"
I remind people who bitch about everything Trump does that they were silent during the last 8 years
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Holy ****. Lawyers make political donations.
It's kinda bonkers that people are buying into the line*that a guy with well-nigh impeccable bona fides as a neutral public servant is getting smeared as a partisan witch-hunter.
I think there's been the potential for abuse and general ****ery in the various independent counsel statutes over the years. But I defy anyone who's been paying even faint attention to deny that this is a case that requires an independent investigation. Trump is more than willing to casually obstruct justice and take ham-handed yet extraordinary steps to protect himself.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Except, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, they were not.
57Brave
Well-known member
Remember 2012 when Obama's daughters met with a Russian Attorney promising dirt on Mitt Romney
Good Times
or, remember the time Obama threw a racist slur at the judge presiding over his trial for perpetrating fraud in connection to Obama University
Gotta give it to you sturg -- that one blind sided me and yes, I did stay silent
or that time Obama let a bad word slip out while addressing the Boy Scouts -- I regret that one
but, the kicker is
When Biden mocked an afflicted person.
Care for more ?
Good Times
or, remember the time Obama threw a racist slur at the judge presiding over his trial for perpetrating fraud in connection to Obama University
Gotta give it to you sturg -- that one blind sided me and yes, I did stay silent
or that time Obama let a bad word slip out while addressing the Boy Scouts -- I regret that one
but, the kicker is
When Biden mocked an afflicted person.
Care for more ?
The Clintons/Obamas run the democratic party.
The investigation is into the collusion made by the President which aided him getting elected and therefore Clintons loss.
These aides support Clinton and some have worked at the foundation.
How is this even in question that they are not independent?
Tapate50
Well-known member
Do you think they get to present findings without basis? Evidence? Go all rogue and make stuff up?
If that's the logic then why did sessions have to recuse himself?
And I think findings that are no conclusive can be released strategically to negatively impact the administration's policy goals by hurting congressional elections in 2018.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Professional ethics? I imagine that's a thing in your profession, too.
My wife is a lawyer. She doesn't practice anymore, but she still does some court-appointed mediations. In the course of these she often deals with people and entities whose politics or personalities are personally repugnant to her. But her job in this situation, which is bound by a strict code of professional ethics, is to help the parties come to an agreement.
She's cool and all, but she's not unique in this ability. Lawyers and law firms are among the largest political donors, yet they're bound to represent clients regardless of political affiliation, should they choose to do so. Do you think that former Clinton DoJ official Jamie Gorelick was giving client Jared Kushner less than her best, considering she surely voted for, and probably donated to, Hillary Clinton?
Certainly, it doesn't always work out neatly. But you're suggesting that we prejudge the outcome on utterly specious grounds, with absolutely no evidence at all.
How would one gather evidence on that or to counter that point? What we know is that they donated to the Clinton Campaign. We know they worked for the Clinton foundation.
If those things didn't exist there would be no claim of impropriety.
If we are going to use professional ethics then Sessions should never have recused himself since he has to uphold professional standards as well within the law profession.
Further, in my profession, when I worked for PwC I was required to strip my investment portfolio of any company which I worked on. That is truly the only way you could have ensured your appearance of independence.
Easy standard to expect from those that practice their profession.
Easy standard to expect from those that practice their profession.
Why would we do that when we have done such a great job reducing drug flow and illegal immigration. You put walls up in strategic spaces and you are guaranteed a strong layer of protection for this country. Walls have been used since the dawn of civilization. People put walls (fences) around their homes to protect themselves. To construct an argument that a wall would not make us safer spits in the face of everything that we have known for thousands of years.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
But, er, the thing is, these ethical standards already exist. You don't get to decide what they are. The DoJ ethics lawyers said that Sessions's case was a clear-cut one for recusal.