Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:54 am No. It's precisely the point.

Well, then we just disagree on either or both of the following: (1) whether what is happening at the top levels of DOJ is wrong, and (2) whether (and to what extent) what happens now matters in the mid- and long-term.

1 - yes, it is.

2 - yes, it does, potentially quite a lot.

not sure whether this is yet another example of corruption within this administration, with potentially yuge consequences; or yet another example of Trump going up against the deep state, just like he's been fomenting all along.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:07 am not sure whether this is yet another example of corruption within this administration, with potentially yuge consequences; or yet another example of Trump going up against the deep state, just like he's been fomenting all along.

is there a precedent for this? for thousands of career officials signing a call to resign? and/or for a potus undercutting sentencing guidelines for a pal who could otherwise turn face?

I can only imagine there is.

Then again, if there was, you'd think we woulda got the whataboutism by now.

so barr and drumpf are “fixing” things?

Remove the blindfold from justice, it's just political.
Trumpaholic logic.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:07 am not sure whether this is yet another example of corruption within this administration, with potentially yuge consequences; or yet another example of Trump going up against the deep state, just like he's been fomenting all along.

This, in and of itself, is proof of nothing. And while George Conway may not be a smart enough lawyer to know that, I presume you are.

We do not have all of the information we would need to make this determination. Personally, I'm in favor of making ALL of the information public and letting the chips fall where they may. And if takes more House investigation to make that happen -- i.e. if the administration is the resistant party -- I'm all for that. But as it stands, we have only the presumption of guilt by proximity.

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:04 am Remove the blindfold from justice, it's just political.
Trumpaholic logic.

You know that there's a third branch, right?

I like when DC and JFish have discussions. Always educational and informative.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:45 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:07 am not sure whether this is yet another example of corruption within this administration, with potentially yuge consequences; or yet another example of Trump going up against the deep state, just like he's been fomenting all along.

This, in and of itself, is proof of nothing. And while George Conway may not be a smart enough lawyer to know that, I presume you are.

We do not have all of the information we would need to make this determination. Personally, I'm in favor of making ALL of the information public and letting the chips fall where they may. And if takes more House investigation to make that happen -- i.e. if the administration is the resistant party -- I'm all for that. But as it stands, we have only the presumption of guilt by proximity.

You mean, another one of them House investigations in which the Executive branch (1) preemptively says it's just not going to cooperate, and then (2) says not enough evidence was generated to justify any consequences?

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:56 am I like when DC and JFish have discussions. Always educational and informative.

Just wait until the big reveal: we're really just doing this so that each of stays employable after all this passes.

Oh wait, that's the Conways.

how many other political careers have gone done in flames over much less than "proof of nothing?" (Howard Dean says hi. Or whatever it is he was saying with that primordial scream.)

and how many other political careers have gone through such great lengths to avoid making ALL of the information public? It appears no one wants to let the chips fall where they may less than Trump? Well, him and his gop supporters?

after all, the gop are the ones crying "only the presumption of guilt by proximity" while in the same breath refusing to seek more information, and also labeling any and every allegation a hoax, a sham, a witch hunt, another deep state conspiracy to remove a duly elected potus.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:08 pm how many other political careers have gone done in flames over much less than "proof of nothing?" (Howard Dean says hi. Or whatever it is he was saying with that primordial scream.)

and how many other political careers have gone through such great lengths to avoid making ALL of the information public? It appears no one wants to let the chips fall where they may less than Trump? Well, him and his gop supporters?

after all, the gop are the ones crying "only the presumption of guilt by proximity" while in the same breath refusing to seek more information, and also labeling any and every allegation a hoax, a sham, a witch hunt, another deep state conspiracy to remove a duly elected potus.

Right - it's neat to get to hide everything that would eliminate the "only the presumption of" and the "by proximity" parts.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:08 pm how many other political careers have gone done in flames over much less than "proof of nothing?" (Howard Dean says hi. Or whatever it is he was saying with that primordial scream.)

Wut?

Dean was rejected by voters. Voters have the opportunity to do that with Trump too.

Not to mention that this has nothing to do with anything.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:46 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:04 am Remove the blindfold from justice, it's just political.
Trumpaholic logic.

You know that there's a third branch, right?

That assumes that the Judicial Branch isnt just now rolled up under the Executive Branch, doesnt it?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:46 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:04 am Remove the blindfold from justice, it's just political.
Trumpaholic logic.

You know that there's a third branch, right?

You mean the one where half of one of two bodies’ have their head so far up Trump’s behind that they taste his meal before he does? Surely you jest!

Or to quote one erudite poster here “lulz”!

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:23 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:46 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:04 am Remove the blindfold from justice, it's just political.
Trumpaholic logic.

You know that there's a third branch, right?

That assumes that the Judicial Branch isnt just now rolled up under the Executive Branch, doesnt it?

Ah. so you're against presidential appointments.

Or something.

cuZ tRumP!

You people are as fucking weird as you are transparent.

A reasonable person can't keep up:

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:26 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:23 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:46 am

You know that there's a third branch, right?

That assumes that the Judicial Branch isnt just now rolled up under the Executive Branch, doesnt it?

Ah. so you're against presidential appointments.

Or something.

cuZ tRumP!

You people are as fucking weird as you are transparent.

So Barr's behavior has been purely "what is standard of a Presidential appointment"?

Noted.