|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,484 Year: 3,741/9,624 Month: 612/974 Week: 225/276 Day: 1/64 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK prerogative. But only in the situations where he has the complete choice on his own, not where any other person or body is required to approve or disapprove. There are plenty of appointments he can make without any other input. Can hire them, can fire them as they suit him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We are essentially bankrupt now, we just keep pretending we aren't.
A
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The general manager of the store I work at tells me what a great staff she has (and I agree). I remind her that "somebody" must be making good hiring decisions. Yes he trusts people he should not have trusted. So?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is really about the extent to which Trump's staff share his point of view and support him in it, not about what kind of job they do or don't do. While you might think one could tell right away if someone agrees with you or not, Trump's Presidency has been plagued by people in his inner circle who are traitors to him personally. If they don't reveal their views completely transparently how is he to know if there are areas of disagreement that would show up later? Maybe there isn't even an intentional withholding, it just turns out they disagree but didn't know it at first. So he's within his prerogative to fire them. Maybe he should have known, but what's the point of saying that? When he finds out, he's allowed to get rid of them.
When Obama took office he threw out everybody in the White House from the previous administration, Trump didn't do that. Maybe he's too trusting? I don't know, but it was a big mistake. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Maybe he should have known not to invade Russia in winter, but what's the point of saying that? The point is that it's big decisions can have big consequences and it's better to have a big leader making them, not a child.
Maybe he should have known, but what's the point of saying that? Faith writes:
Nobody's suggesting that he isn't "allowed" - but it reflects on his competence. With an election coming up, the Peter Principle rears its head: "people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence": an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." Wikipedia When he finds out, he's allowed to get rid of them."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
When Obama took office he threw out everybody in the White House from the previous administration, Trump didn't do that. Who were all these people that Trump kept on? Because I'm bored I just went through the entire White House Executive Office under Obama, couldn't find a soul who was still there on January 21st 2017.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know, I keep hearing about one person or another who was "an Obama appointee" still working in the White House and that sort of thing. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If it were Obama we'd never ever have heard of hirings or firings the way we do with Trump. It's all part of the witch hunt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You keep saying that but you can never back it up.
If it were Obama we'd never ever have heard of hirings or firings the way we do with Trump. Faith writes:
The term "witch hunt" implies looking for something that isn't real. In this case, the witch is real, so ironically, it isn't a witch hunt. It's all part of the witch hunt."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Yes but not because of any social programs, rather because we have chosen to spend the money on really stupid stuff like the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, a border wall, tax cuts for businesses and corporations ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Two can play that silly game. No, there was no witch, it's been nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh another silly little game we can play. Let's just exchange our political platforms now until we run out of breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Then why have there been so many indictments? The so-called "witch hunt" found a lot of wrong-doing by people Trump hired. If he isn't bright enough to hire decent people, at least the so-called "witch hunt" was useful enough to root them out. No, there was no witch, it's been nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: Some of the emails were not lost. Or they are available from her correspondents. Which would prove she'd had them on her computer. We're talking about lost emails, not deleted emails that were recovered from other computers and backups.
I trust the sources, I just don't collect information very well, and it's been some time since I heard that. Who are these "sources," and why would you trust them when they're saying something nonsensical? It's not possible to know the nature of emails no one can read. You're blathering interminably about baloney.
Mueller raised serious objections to Barr's memo about the report, the memo isn't consistent with the redacted report, Oh yes it was consistent. Barr even asked Mueller if he'd misrepresented it and Mueller said HE HAD NOT, that Mueller was just concerned about the media coverage. This attempt to discredit Barr is just another of the Left's ongoing efforts to bring down anyone at all who doesn't accept their party line. Barr released his memo a few weeks before releasing the redacted report, and even in redacted form it was clearly obvious to all that Barr had misrepresented the report. Mueller himself in a private letter to Barr said as much (READ: Robert Mueller's Letter To William Barr On Special Counsel's Report : NPR):
quote: What you're describing is not anything Barr or Mueller wrote or said but what a Barr Department of Justice spokeswoman said about a phone conversation between Barr and Mueller (Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe):
quote: This characterization is likely as misleading as Barr's memo, which we already know was misleading after comparing it to the redacted report, and because of Mueller's letter of complaint. We have no indication from Mueller that he agrees with the Barr spokeswoman's characterization, including in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee where he wasn't asked about it. No, Barr did not dismiss that position. He said that the DoJ policy should not have prevented Mueller from stating which criminal acts deserved indictments.
Because that was a big fat red herring. Except that's all you can do is cast disparaging remarks. You can't come up with any actual information or reasoning. You can read the Mueller report and the Barr memo and see the discrepancies for yourself.
If that were the reason not to indict Trump THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATION AT ALL. As Mueller stated during his congressional testimony, the obstructions of justice described in the report remain indictable after Trump leaves office and is no longer president.
The whole point of such an investigation is to find something criminal that could be charged against him. The Mueller investigation was not an investigation of Trump personally but of the Trump campaign. Mueller indicted plenty of people, just not Trump who while president is not indictable.
The fact is they FOUND NOTHING. Since they found nothing then I guess nobody's in jail. Oh, wait, people are in jail at this very moment based on what was found.
They didn't even say they found something but couldn't indict him as a sitting President which they could have done. I mentioned above that this was a point on which Barr and Mueller disagreed. Mueller stated in the report that they could not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice, only present what was done:
quote: Barr disagreed, feeling that Mueller could have concluded whether the evidence warranted indictment.
They found nothing and then tried to make that rule out to be the reason they didn't report any criminal charges. Volume II of the report describes the obstructions of justice: The Mueller Report Good grief the whole thing was just a corrupt partisan witch hunt I don't know how you keep believing any of it. You're making no sense. People are in jail due to information in the report.
So now they are trying to find something wrong with Barr. Barr has raised more than mere suspicion that he is a Trump partisan, behaving more like the president's attorney and defender than an objective administer of justice. The Barr handling of the Mueller report is just one instance. I've read both the Barr memo and the Mueller report and would be happy to discuss their content with you if you would like.
Well, of course, that's what they do. Things aren't as they like so they smear somebody who sees the reality for what it is. If you think there are smears in the Mueller report then read it and tell us about them.
These facts raised eyebrows at the time, and eyebrows are still raised. That episode seemed to reveal Barr as a Trump partisan You're bought the whole miserable corrupt nasty mess. I've brought facts and reasoning to the table, you've only brought an ugly cesspool of nastiness.
Barr is fair and objective and in being fair and objective found that Trump was not guilty so of course since the Left says he's guilty even though there is no evidence for it and even though the Mueller report exonerated him they must smear anyone who says he is not guilty as a mere Trump partisan rather than the honest man he is. While I do think Barr's honesty, especially with himself about what he is doing, should also be questioned I feel this is less an issue of honesty than of integrity. The evidence that you're turning a blind eye toward strongly suggests that Barr, like his employer, is not a man of integrity. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: Yes he trusts people he should not have trusted. So? Trump trusts his appointees up until the point where he feels they're exhibiting too much integrity and backbone for his taste. Commentators are tracing the Mulvaney firing back to his assertion last year of a Trump quid pro quo with the Ukraine, but they forget that just a few weeks ago in Ireland he declared that the United States needed more immigration. My guess is that this was the final straw. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024