Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"This is a Coup"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    your argument fails on fast and furious since it the govt who decides who it going to prosecute
    Selective prosecution doesn't change that multiple felonies were involved. It simply means the government gives itself a pass on what anyone else would go to prison for. As another clear, but unrelated, example, look at the Gold King mine in Colorado. The EPA caused one of the biggest environmental disasters inside the continental US in decades there and they simply walked away from it. They refused to indemnify those harmed and didn't even bother to clean up the mess they caused. Any private corporation would have been fined billions. People would have gone to jail.
    It is your argument that fails here. You essentially side with the government and let them off the hook for being the cause of a officer's death after committing what are felonies for anyone else.

    So it was a strategic policy descison by the guys who you say have the ability to make the choice to prosecute or not. In this case they thought not prosecuting and encouraging would be a better enforcement option.
    No, the ATF and "government" didn't want to take responsibility for their actions. They didn't want to be opened up to having to fire or criminally charge upper management with crimes connected to their bad decisions. They didn't want to take financial responsibility as that could run to hundreds of millions.
    It's no different than if say Exxon had caused a huge oil spill that killed several people and messed up a huge area after the company made felonious wrong decisions. In that case the management of Exxon would be held responsible and the company fined hundreds of millions.
    The same scenario can be applied to Chernobyl. The government can act in a rogue and illegal manner and when caught wash their hands of responsibility. It doesn't change that they were responsible.


    who the say the cop would of not been shot anyways.
    This is a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to consequences and confirmation of a negative. Whether the cop would still be shot isn't the issue. It's he was shot using an illegally acquired weapon that the government put in criminal's hands.
    A better question is, how many other crimes were committed with these illegally gotten weapons? Sure, maybe the cartel would still commit them with other weapons, but at least in that scenario the US government couldn't be held responsible for giving the cartel the weapons to commit them.
    Think of it this way... If you or I knowingly sold a firearm to a criminal and that criminal then committed a murder of a police officer, and the gun was traced back to you or me, what would the government do...?

    and yes it was comey job to make the call on the emails No one else could of done so and not been accussed of bias and the AG said she would take the advice of Comey so it was his call. I am amazed at how many people said the AG office couldn't make the call so when someone unbias make the call they say oh he shouldn't of done it.
    No, it's Comey's job to collect evidence of a crime and present it to the prosecutor for a decision on prosecution. This is what grand juries are for. This is why we have prosecutors. The law enforcement branch doesn't bring charges in court, the judicial branch does.
    I'm amazed at the dissembling of people trying to protect the Hildabeast when it is blatantly clear that she committed multiple crimes in relationship to her e-mails that any person of lessor political status would have gone to prison for.

    and really about white water lets see how much did we pay to find out Bill got a little and where was the potential national harm issue on white water to even get a special prosecutor.
    Cost of prosecution is a non sequitur. If that were the case, then probably 75% of all cases would be tossed out. The national harm in Whitewater was it was part of a much larger schema of savings and loans that were running scams nationwide at the time. Madison S&L was only one of dozens that were charged and convicted of fraudulent schemes involving land deals. All the principals in Whitewater, except the Clintons were tried and convicted. The Clintons slid on prosecution while their business partners in Whitewater went to prison. Explain that.

    btw after Iran contra and white water I was really hoping to never ever have a special prosecutor but Trump dumb enough to make us appoint one again.
    I was surprised that Obama didn't get hit with several for his actions, but the rules are apparently different for the Left versus the Right...

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Actually, the President can fire the Attorney General or head of the FBI at will. They are appointed by the administration and report to the President as part of that administration. As such they are subject to termination by the President.
    Now, that said, it's normal for the President to have a good reason to fire someone that high up, but it's perfectly legal for him to do it.




    It wasn't up to Comey to decide whether to prosecute Clinton or not. If he had evidence of wrong doing, and there's piles of that, he should have presented it to the Attorney General and US federal prosecutors who would decide on prosecution. That's the normal routine.
    But, there's sufficient evidence in the public realm to indicate that the Hildabeast was guilty of several felonies with regard to handling official government e-mails and classified materials. Anyone who's ever had a government security clearance (that includes me) would know that doing a fraction of what she did would land them in prison for years if caught.



    And, in Whitewater, most of the other principals involved went to prison. The Clintons slid without even being charged or really investigated. Same goes for the Hildabeast's commodities trading. The US prosecutors let her slide because the amounts involved were below the threshold they usually used to take a case against somebody who was connected politically.



    There were plenty of crimes there, all serious felonies. The government used straw buyers (felony). The straw buyers lied on government forms to purchase the weapons (felony). The government knew the purpose of these buys was to smuggle the guns out of the US to Mexico (felony). There were no controls on the guns to ensure they could be adequately tracked (failure to follow regulations and procedures within the DOJ). That's just for starters.
    Then you can add that a federal officer was killed with one (felony murder, and anyone connected to the purchase of that weapon who knowingly put it in the hands of the cartel is libel as an accessory to that murder), that there was initially an attempt to cover the whole thing up (felony), etc.
    your argument fails on fast and furious since it the govt who decides who it going to prosecute So it was a strategic policy descison by the guys who you say have the ability to make the choice to prosecute or not. In this case they thought not prosecuting and encouraging would be a better enforcement option. who the say the cop would of not been shot anyways. Just because it was with one of the guns from the program does not mean it wouldn't of occurred anyways. Not saying it was a smart thing to do but again it policy type stuff

    and yes it was comey job to make the call on the emails No one else could of done so and not been accussed of bias and the AG said she would take the advice of Comey so it was his call. I am amazed at how many people said the AG office couldn't make the call so when someone unbias make the call they say oh he shouldn't of done it.

    and really about white water lets see how much did we pay to find out Bill got a little and where was the potential national harm issue on white water to even get a special prosecutor.

    btw after Iran contra and white water I was really hoping to never ever have a special prosecutor but Trump dumb enough to make us appoint one again.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    yep and those all are covered by my previous statement. All strategic policy choices

    But the president cant fire the AG or the head of the FBI to protect people or are you ok with that.
    Actually, the President can fire the Attorney General or head of the FBI at will. They are appointed by the administration and report to the President as part of that administration. As such they are subject to termination by the President.
    Now, that said, it's normal for the President to have a good reason to fire someone that high up, but it's perfectly legal for him to do it.


    and I think the Clinton investigation was fine. Could of been handled better sure but Nothing really to see there as decided by Comey
    It wasn't up to Comey to decide whether to prosecute Clinton or not. If he had evidence of wrong doing, and there's piles of that, he should have presented it to the Attorney General and US federal prosecutors who would decide on prosecution. That's the normal routine.
    But, there's sufficient evidence in the public realm to indicate that the Hildabeast was guilty of several felonies with regard to handling official government e-mails and classified materials. Anyone who's ever had a government security clearance (that includes me) would know that doing a fraction of what she did would land them in prison for years if caught.

    Hell White water was smaller issue compare to what Trump is up to or not up to depending on what you think but it is a important issue and your fine with him firing people.
    And, in Whitewater, most of the other principals involved went to prison. The Clintons slid without even being charged or really investigated. Same goes for the Hildabeast's commodities trading. The US prosecutors let her slide because the amounts involved were below the threshold they usually used to take a case against somebody who was connected politically.

    Fast and Furious I am fine with no crime there bad choices sure.
    There were plenty of crimes there, all serious felonies. The government used straw buyers (felony). The straw buyers lied on government forms to purchase the weapons (felony). The government knew the purpose of these buys was to smuggle the guns out of the US to Mexico (felony). There were no controls on the guns to ensure they could be adequately tracked (failure to follow regulations and procedures within the DOJ). That's just for starters.
    Then you can add that a federal officer was killed with one (felony murder, and anyone connected to the purchase of that weapon who knowingly put it in the hands of the cartel is libel as an accessory to that murder), that there was initially an attempt to cover the whole thing up (felony), etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Executive appointed office are "at will" and the POTUS can fire/discharge for any reason. That may not always be wise, but these "jobs" come with no guarantee of "perpetual" employment.

    BTW, may want to consdier the prior POTUS "influence" on immigration policies, investigation(s) into Hillary Clinton, or brush off regards "Fast and Furious" which did cost lives.
    yep and those all are covered by my previous statement. All strategic policy choices

    But the president cant fire the AG or the head of the FBI to protect people or are you ok with that.

    and I think the Clinton investigation was fine. Could of been handled better sure but Nothing really to see there as decided by Comey

    Hell White water was smaller issue compare to what Trump is up to or not up to depending on what you think but it is a important issue and your fine with him firing people.

    Fast and Furious I am fine with no crime there bad choices sure.

    btw my thoughts on this have been consistent for years. Certain positions need to be treated as semi Judicial appointments. Did not like it when Obama fired AGs Bush either.

    Oh the one who did not follow the direction about the muslim ban was one of the ones who as I said could of been fired since she failed to follow strategic direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    POTUS to any of his "appointees" deamed not wothty ... "Good Bye" ... !!!

    Picking a workable and usable Staff can be a bit dicey, .. may employ some "try and see" elements not always cleart to outsiders ...

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Bold for emphasis...

    Wrong!

    If an FBI director (or any other investigator) is fired to impede an investigation, the president can be impeached for obstruction of justice.
    Not wrong : Potus can fire at will .

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Executive appointed office are "at will" and the POTUS can fire/discharge for any reason. That may not always be wise, but these "jobs" come with no guarantee of "perpetual" employment.

    BTW, may want to consdier the prior POTUS "influence" on immigration policies, investigation(s) into Hillary Clinton, or brush off regards "Fast and Furious" which did cost lives.
    Bold for emphasis...

    Wrong!

    If an FBI director (or any other investigator) is fired to impede an investigation, the president can be impeached for obstruction of justice.
    Last edited by pamak; 10 Aug 17, 16:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Exactly how I feel sometimes dealing with the Loonie-Left, TDS posters here.
    Perhaps that 's how people feel who have to deal with nothing but admiration for a greatly flawed president who can do no wrong in their eyes, despite his horrendous record.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    wrong wrong wrong

    In the US there a couple of roles that the FBI and AG are not to follow the direction of the president.

    ie when it comes to enforcing the law or conducting investigations.

    The president gets to set overall policy at a strategic level but the AG and FBI director main duty is to the law. The president does not get to micromanage things especially things which may be of a political nature.

    Now if the AG is not following the strategic direction then the AG can be fired but not over a specific investigation. Unless they screwed up the investigation ie got people killed.
    Executive appointed office are "at will" and the POTUS can fire/discharge for any reason. That may not always be wise, but these "jobs" come with no guarantee of "perpetual" employment.

    BTW, may want to consdier the prior POTUS "influence" on immigration policies, investigation(s) into Hillary Clinton, or brush off regards "Fast and Furious" which did cost lives.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    ... snippet ... But if someone just keeps repeating the same party line, it's useless to even interact with them.
    Exactly how I feel sometimes dealing with the Loonie-Left, TDS posters here.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    If the AG disagrees with the president, he has only one option : to resign .

    The same for the director of the FBI .

    If the president is not satisfied with the AG, the AG will be fired .

    The same for the chief of the FBI .
    wrong wrong wrong

    In the US there a couple of roles that the FBI and AG are not to follow the direction of the president.

    ie when it comes to enforcing the law or conducting investigations.

    The president gets to set overall policy at a strategic level but the AG and FBI director main duty is to the law. The president does not get to micromanage things especially things which may be of a political nature.

    Now if the AG is not following the strategic direction then the AG can be fired but not over a specific investigation. Unless they screwed up the investigation ie got people killed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/30/donald...e-him-5470817/

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparlingo
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Put him on ignore. There are many people here who I sometimes disagree with, but we can occasionally come to a consensus, which keeps it interesting. But if someone just keeps repeating the same party line, it's useless to even interact with them.
    Hear, hear.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Put him on ignore. There are many people here who I sometimes disagree with, but we can occasionally come to a consensus, which keeps it interesting. But if someone just keeps repeating the same party line, it's useless to even interact with them.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X