Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

Democrats launch probe of Trump's firing of State Department watchdog

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Don't be obtuse. It is not about specifically excluding, it is about specifically INCLUDING. These organizations were not includedi in prior PPP bailouts. Nor were 501c3's (legitimate not for profit organizations). 501c4's and 501 c6's got snuck in with the legitimate (mostly charities) organizations. Don't be a political hack. Don't let me lose respect for you. Bad is bad, wherever it comes from.

The text of the bill is 1815 pages. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/854707010/read-the-house-bill-calling-for-3-trillion-in-coronavirus-relief  It is clearly a result of the sausage factory that creates legislation.  It's bound to have some feces blended in with the meat. 

 

Without knowing who slipped in the objectionable parts and why I can't comment further.  However I'm not willing to sit on the sidelines during the upcoming election because neither party and no candidate is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The text of the bill is 1815 pages. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/854707010/read-the-house-bill-calling-for-3-trillion-in-coronavirus-relief  It is clearly a result of the sausage factory that creates legislation.  It's bound to have some feces blended in with the meat. 

 

Without knowing who slipped in the objectionable parts and why I can't comment further.  However I'm not willing to sit on the sidelines during the upcoming election because neither party and no candidate is perfect.

 

It's not about the sausage factory it is about appeasing donors. Almost every aspect of every Bill so far is about appeasing donors. First their corporations then their tax dodge charities, then their campaign contribution dark money corps, then their lobbyists. It's all different parts of the same group. It's all corporate bailouts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

This seems to be Pelosi's new claim, which I think any rational person can probably assume isnt true. 

"....probably assume..."

 

Interesting to see you're hedging your bets so thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What I find "interesting" in the current situation is the level of hatred coming from the Dems towards Trump, and even from within the GOP. Seems to me it's more because he's an outsider ( not a member of the "club" ) and has threatened to drain the "swamp" with reference to the established political order which is, IMO, two sides of the same coin, than because of any particular policy he has attempted to impose. In addition there is an overt bias from the media, which in my experience openly campaigns against him instead of being neutral, as they should be.

Seems to me that the Dems are so set on their campaign of hatred they just can't see that his policies resonate with middle America, which has had enough of business as usual from the Washington bubble.

The election will be one of the big events of my lifetime, given the importance of America and the battle for it's soul taking place now.

So you quoted my post which referred to the number of convictions of the investigations into the Obama versus Trump administrations and out of that you took the word "interesting" and then went off into a completely different direction that had no reference to what was quoted. Have to say that's a pretty lame attempt at trolling. 

So would you care to comment on the original post that you quoted? Why is it that the investigations into the 8 years of Obama including 6 years when the Republicans held control of one of the branches of congress produced so few convictions/resignations due to illegal or unethical conduct whereas there are dozens already from the 3 years of Trump? How is that draining the swamp?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, heybruce said:

One can be in favor of the popular vote and rank choice. 

We have a minority government by popular vote.

I'd like first past the post, 2 years terms and a 6 year time limit on all politicians. We might have to put up with them, but no longer than necessary, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JCauto said:

So would you care to comment on the original post that you quoted? Why is it that the investigations into the 8 years of Obama including 6 years when the Republicans held control of one of the branches of congress produced so few convictions/resignations due to illegal or unethical conduct whereas there are dozens already from the 3 years of Trump? How is that draining the swamp?

I have no idea. The US political system is obviously broken and they are all as bad as each other IMO. If the US wasn't so globally important and our only bastion against China I wouldn't care one way or another. I'll support the candidate that wants a big strong military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, heybruce said:

If Trump fired the IG for incompetence, then all Trump has to do is explain how he was incompetent.  I don't expect that to happen.

 

However there is no point in reasoning with a deep state conspiracy theory believer who is so out of touch with reality he doesn't realize that Trump is the pathological liar.

Didn't know a POTUS needs a reason to fire non-elected staff, but if YOU need one, but if it makes you feel better then just read the termination letter, explained there for you to hopefully understand.

 

And, tse tse tse, Yovanovitch was lying to Congress while under oath. FYI, (please research this for your understanding) that is felonious under American law. Don't believe 45 has lied under oath. So there, hope you feel better now that I help you get smarter. Anything else you need me to assist with your rudimentary understanding, say so or forever stay silent.

 

Have a nice day, (the 1288th nice/angry day for you)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, i84teen said:

Didn't know a POTUS needs a reason to fire non-elected staff, but if YOU need one, but if it makes you feel better then just read the termination letter, explained there for you to hopefully understand.

 

And, tse tse tse, Yovanovitch was lying to Congress while under oath. FYI, (please research this for your understanding) that is felonious under American law. Don't believe 45 has lied under oath. So there, hope you feel better now that I help you get smarter. Anything else you need me to assist with your rudimentary understanding, say so or forever stay silent.

 

Have a nice day, (the 1288th nice/angry day for you)

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't so.  As has already been discussed, there is a law requiring the President to give reason for firing an Inspector General.

 

Trump and company don't hesitate to press charges; if Yovanovitch had lied under oath she would have been prosecuted.  She wasn't.  However feel free to provide the evidence that this administration clearly is unaware of. 

 

To my knowledge Trump has not lied under oath.  However, when he was testifying under oath he has admitted to lying about many things:

 

"Hammered by White and her deputies, Trump ultimately had to admit 30 times that he had lied over the years about all sorts of stuff: how much of a big Manhattan real estate project he owned; the price of one of his golf club memberships; the size of the Trump Organization; his wealth; his speaking fees; how many condos he had sold; his debts, and whether he borrowed money from his family to avoid going personally bankrupt. He also lied during the deposition about his business dealings with career criminals."   https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-25/i-ve-watched-trump-testify-under-oath-it-isn-t-pretty

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, heybruce said:

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't so.  As has already been discussed, there is a law requiring the President to give reason for firing an Inspector General.

 

Trump and company don't hesitate to press charges; if Yovanovitch had lied under oath she would have been prosecuted.  She wasn't.  However feel free to provide the evidence that this administration clearly is unaware of. 

 

To my knowledge Trump has not lied under oath.  However, when he was testifying under oath he has admitted to lying about many things:

 

"Hammered by White and her deputies, Trump ultimately had to admit 30 times that he had lied over the years about all sorts of stuff: how much of a big Manhattan real estate project he owned; the price of one of his golf club memberships; the size of the Trump Organization; his wealth; his speaking fees; how many condos he had sold; his debts, and whether he borrowed money from his family to avoid going personally bankrupt. He also lied during the deposition about his business dealings with career criminals."   https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-25/i-ve-watched-trump-testify-under-oath-it-isn-t-pretty

 

 

Obama gave his reason "no confidence"  or did you forget that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If in fact the Dems have a surprise candidate waiting in the wings I'd expect they'll try and get him to resign rather than assassinate him at convention. That would just alienate all the voters that chose him.

There won't be a convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't so.  As has already been discussed, there is a law requiring the President to give reason for firing an Inspector General.

 

Trump and company don't hesitate to press charges; if Yovanovitch had lied under oath she would have been prosecuted.  She wasn't.  However feel free to provide the evidence that this administration clearly is unaware of. 

 

To my knowledge Trump has not lied under oath.  However, when he was testifying under oath he has admitted to lying about many things:

 

"Hammered by White and her deputies, Trump ultimately had to admit 30 times that he had lied over the years about all sorts of stuff: how much of a big Manhattan real estate project he owned; the price of one of his golf club memberships; the size of the Trump Organization; his wealth; his speaking fees; how many condos he had sold; his debts, and whether he borrowed money from his family to avoid going personally bankrupt. He also lied during the deposition about his business dealings with career criminals."   https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-25/i-ve-watched-trump-testify-under-oath-it-isn-t-pretty

 

 

Maybe this Linick was leaking to the news media like all the other low lives in the swamp in which case he should be fired.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/05/19/oh-about-that-ig-wrongfully-fired-by-mike-pompeo-turns-out-there-were-valid-reasons/

This is Day 1288.

Edited by i84teen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, smutcakes said:

To be fair DT does not exactly help himself.

I support Trump on many issues, but I'd be hard pressed to argue against what you just posted. He has clearly made himself a target. He would be one regardless, so there is that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, i84teen said:

Maybe this Linick was leaking to the news media like all the other low lives in the swamp in which case he should be fired.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/05/19/oh-about-that-ig-wrongfully-fired-by-mike-pompeo-turns-out-there-were-valid-reasons/

This is Day 1288.

From your source:

 

'According to The Post, Bulatao said that “officials had no evidence Linick was personally responsible for the leaks but that the disclosures had the potential of tainting the outcome of ongoing probes.”'

 

So we can fire a person for leaks that they are not responsible for.  Doesn't that cover the entire Trump administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Obama gave his reason "no confidence"  or did you forget that?

Resurrecting an issue that has been dead for over a decade to justify Trump firing four IG's in six weeks.  A bit desperate, aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...