Where all my dumb rednecks, racist goons, and frat boys at?

[Sir Galahad]

Goddamn, I love this thread.

Well that was meant directly for you because I know there is no way you could be a leader in any such way. By pure definition a liberal can't be a good leader because a leader must have responsibility. Now notice i did not say democrat, I know many good democrats that are good leaders but they are not liberal by definition.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The US Attorney's office and the DOJ did investigate the IRS for this practice, but keep in mind Yates was confirmed in 2015 as this investigation was wrapping up - and she was initially appointed by Bush. They didn't find enough evidence to charge anyone with any crimes though. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/


Fast and Furious? Uh, yes, they did. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/
Yes, Holder was guilty as hell for lying about his knowledge of the operation, but in the end, nobody is brought up on charges. What's odd about this is how after three years of DOJ stalling on turning over documents to Congress, nothing has ever come of turning those documents over, and it's been 3 years. And again, Yates had nothing to do with that either - she was confirmed as Deputy AG in 2015 after being US Attorney in GA since 2010.

WOW!

They did investigate! And conveniently found no reason to convict ANYONE in either case! And no one was fired!

YAY!

 

[Sir Galahad]

If there's nothing to hide why are some of them lying about meetings/dealings with Russian officials?

That is fresh coming from a liberal who supported the IRS director using the fifth, everyone involved with the clinton server using the fifth and Hillary herself stating "I don't recall" 40 times during her FBI interview. As to the Russia thing, if you were to ask me how many times I have met with foreign officials on any project I have done I could not answer that. Sometimes if you don't have anything to hide, you don't try to cover your ass.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Gotta agree that this was the highlight of the thread. If only I had a middle management position I could be as cool as sir g. What a ****ing joke.

Keep working hard and maybe you will get there.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Please explain how the POTUS being a pathological liar does not matter.

I expect I'll have an answer from you around the same time that you answer my question from the last time I called you out on BS. (Still waiting for you to explain your position on how a free market does not lead to wide scale pollution).

Did it bother you that Obama was?

 

[Sir Galahad]

Why would she as the nations attorney general play a role in implementing something she felt was unlawful? Something she promised she wouldn't do previously.

Did she speak out when Obama did the exact same thing?

 

[MACHater02]

If there's nothing to hide why are some of them lying about meetings/dealings with Russian officials?

That is fresh coming from a liberal who supported the IRS director using the fifth, everyone involved with the clinton server using the fifth and Hillary herself stating "I don't recall" 40 times during her FBI interview. As to the Russia thing, if you were to ask me how many times I have met with foreign officials on any project I have done I could not answer that. Sometimes if you don't have anything to hide, you don't try to cover your ass.

By your own analogy the Clintons were hiding something, so Trump's crew must be also.

 

[MACHater02]

Why would she as the nations attorney general play a role in implementing something she felt was unlawful? Something she promised she wouldn't do previously.

Did she speak out when Obama did the exact same thing?

Which piece of legislation are you referring to?

 

[Sir Galahad]

The US Attorney's office and the DOJ did investigate the IRS for this practice, but keep in mind Yates was confirmed in 2015 as this investigation was wrapping up - and she was initially appointed by Bush. They didn't find enough evidence to charge anyone with any crimes though. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/


Fast and Furious? Uh, yes, they did. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/
Yes, Holder was guilty as hell for lying about his knowledge of the operation, but in the end, nobody is brought up on charges. What's odd about this is how after three years of DOJ stalling on turning over documents to Congress, nothing has ever come of turning those documents over, and it's been 3 years. And again, Yates had nothing to do with that either - she was confirmed as Deputy AG in 2015 after being US Attorney in GA since 2010.

Ahh Bob, maybe the was because the Democrats used their same old playbook and "lost" all those emails from Lois Lerner. How about 24,000 of them.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/lois-lerner-irs-missing-emails-watchdog/

 

[chemmie]

Well that was meant directly for you because I know there is no way you could be a leader in any such way. By pure definition a liberal can't be a good leader because a leader must have responsibility. Now notice i did not say democrat, I know many good democrats that are good leaders but they are not liberal by definition.

You're an idiot, and you have a small penis.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Which piece of legislation are you referring to?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...mmigrants-many-muslim-6-times/article/2594016

 

[Sir Galahad]

You're an idiot, and you have a small penis.

Another easy debate win against chemmie. You're just not good at this.

 

[CommuterBob]

WOW!

They did investigate! And conveniently found no reason to convict ANYONE in either case! And no one was fired!

YAY!

Several people "resigned" though. And Lois Lerner was fired, and several people at the ATF were fired over F&F..

 

[CommuterBob]

Ahh Bob, maybe the was because the Democrats used their same old playbook and "lost" all those emails from Lois Lerner. How about 24,000 of them.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/lois-lerner-irs-missing-emails-watchdog/

Which they later found and recovered.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Several people "resigned" though.

Well woopie.

We have absolute evidence of Obama's IRS targeting his political opponents, a vast abuse of Federal power and the law, and the Justice Department and FBI run a sham investigation and ultimately decide, of course, that they won't charge a single person.

And yet, the people who found nothing wrong with the Obama Admin using the IRS as a political weapon, are now going into hysterics over a firing.

 

[MACHater02]

Which piece of legislation are you referring to?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...mmigrants-many-muslim-6-times/article/2594016

Of the previous presidents listed which stated they wanted to ban an entire religion?

 

[CommuterBob]

WSJ source says it has everything to do with Comey not tamping down Trump/Russia:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...t-words/ar-BBAXyyk?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

A person with knowledge of conversations about Comey’s dismissal told The Wall Street Journal that there was growing frustration among President Donald Trump’s associates that the former FBI director would not tamp down questions about the president’s alleged connection to Russia.

He refused to “say those three little words: ‘There’s no ties,'” the source told WSJ about Trump’s decision to fire Comey without any forewarning.

 

[NinjaKnight]

WSJ source says it has everything to do with Comey not tamping down Trump/Russia:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-trump-was-mad-comey-wouldn’t-utter-three-important-words/ar-BBAXyyk?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

FAKE NEWS!!! Unless it came from the lips of Steve Bannon himself, it is absolutely false.

Goddamnit you people are butthole stupid.

 

[Poolside Knight]

They didn't have their marching orders on how to feel yet

 

[Sir Galahad]

Which they later found and recovered.

Not all of them and why did they have to find them in the first place?

 

[NinjaKnight]

Did she speak out when Obama did the exact same thing?

Yes it did.

Middle management idiots with small penis' like yourself think this is a goddamn sports game with two sides and one side has to win.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yes it did.

Middle management idiots with small penis' like yourself think this is a goddamn sports game with two sides and one side has to win.

What kind of car do you have again, small penis...

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Of the previous presidents listed which stated they wanted to ban an entire religion?

Where in the EO did it say Trump was banning all Muslims? The six countries listed add up to just 10% of the world's Muslim population.

 

[CommuterBob]

FAKE NEWS!!! Unless it came from the lips of Steve Bannon himself, it is absolutely false.

Goddamnit you people are butthole stupid.

NY Times saying Comey asked Rosenstein for more resources to fund Russia probe


Or at least, that's what he told 3 Congressmen, but the FBI denies he requested it. Rosenstein wrote the DOJ memo requesting Comey's firing.

ABC confirming report of Comey asking Rosenstein for more funding

 

[NinjaKnight]

Where in the EO did it say Trump was banning all Muslims? The six countries listed add up to just 10% of the world's Muslim population.

Bob, I really honestly cannot tell if you are actually this stupid, or just pretending to be. But it really is getting to a point where this is no reason to even attempt to reason with you, since you can't follow along.

 

[Sir Galahad]

NY Times saying Comey asked Rosenstein for more resources to fund Russia probe

View embedded media

Or at least, that's what he told 3 Congressmen, but the FBI denies he requested it. Rosenstein wrote the DOJ memo requesting Comey's firing.

ABC confirming report of Comey asking Rosenstein for more funding

View embedded media

Please, since when is the NYTimes considered legit?

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Why would she as the nations attorney general play a role in implementing something she felt was unlawful? Something she promised she wouldn't do previously.

But an EO has the full force of law, so it is law until overturned by the Supreme Court or invalidated by Congress. Her choosing not to implement is injecting her own personal view which is not a role delegated to her.

The line of questioning at the hearing is all political posturing. The R's want to know that Obama's power would be limited, even though Congress has the power to do it themselves. Neither side really wants to restrict the president because when their side is president, it's the easiest way to get things done. So the line of questioning is all garbage and used as a sound bite to calm their base.

 

[CommuterBob]

Please, since when is the NYTimes considered legit?

Most of the time.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Bob, I really honestly cannot tell if you are actually this stupid, or just pretending to be. But it really is getting to a point where this is no reason to even attempt to reason with you, since you can't follow along.

Are you going to answer the question? How was the EO a ban on all Muslims when only six countries and 10% of Muslims were banned?

 

[sk8knight]

Where in the EO did it say Trump was banning all Muslims? The six countries listed add up to just 10% of the world's Muslim population.

It didn't and apparently it doesn't matter. As long as some judge can somehow deduce the motivations of the author of the order, rather than the language of the order or the manner in which it is actually carried out, that random judge is going to issue a ruling blocking it. This is not how it is supposed to work in this country.

 

[CommuterBob]

But an EO has the full force of law, so it is law until overturned by the Supreme Court or invalidated by Congress. Her choosing not to implement is injecting her own personal view which is not a role delegated to her.

The line of questioning at the hearing is all political posturing. The R's want to know that Obama's power would be limited, even though Congress has the power to do it themselves. Neither side really wants to restrict the president because when their side is president, it's the easiest way to get things done. So the line of questioning is all garbage and used as a sound bite to calm their base.

But as an AG, she should know which EO's would lead to policies that get overturned. If such a policy would lead to a court challenge that could successfully overturn the EO because it violates some other outstanding law, then THAT IS HER JOB to object. And guess what? Her objection on Trump's EO was valid because it did get held up in court.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

But as an AG, she should know which EO's would lead to policies that get overturned. If such a policy would lead to a court challenge that could successfully overturn the EO because it violates some other outstanding law, then THAT IS HER JOB to object. And guess what? Her objection on Trump's EO was valid because it did get held up in court.

That is not the AG's job. Their job is to defend the policies and decisions of the President. That is why the President has control over who the AG is. The AG is the legal puppet of the President. They are a political appointee for a reason.

 

[Ace of Knights]

It didn't and apparently it doesn't matter. As long as some judge can somehow deduce the motivations of the author of the order, rather than the language of the order or the manner in which it is actually carried out, that random judge is going to issue a ruling blocking it. This is not how it is supposed to work in this country.

Even if it doesn't say Muslim within it, it can still be argued the ban blocks people on base of nationality. Also illegal. Furthermore, should we not take Trump at face value from the things he said in his campaign? If we can't trust the things he says, what good is he?

We'll know soon enough as 13 judges on an appellate court in Virginia are figuring this out now.

 

[sk8knight]

But as an AG, she should know which EO's would lead to policies that get overturned. If such a policy would lead to a court challenge that could successfully overturn the EO because it violates some other outstanding law, then THAT IS HER JOB to object. And guess what? Her objection on Trump's EO was valid because it did get held up in court.

It is her job to advise, not to reject. In the end, her job is to do what she is told, quit, or get fired.

 

[MACHater02]

Why would she as the nations attorney general play a role in implementing something she felt was unlawful? Something she promised she wouldn't do previously.

But an EO has the full force of law, so it is law until overturned by the Supreme Court or invalidated by Congress. Her choosing not to implement is injecting her own personal view which is not a role delegated to her.

The line of questioning at the hearing is all political posturing. The R's want to know that Obama's power would be limited, even though Congress has the power to do it themselves. Neither side really wants to restrict the president because when their side is president, it's the easiest way to get things done. So the line of questioning is all garbage and used as a sound bite to calm their base.

So what's the purpose of having an AG?

 

[MACHater02]

But as an AG, she should know which EO's would lead to policies that get overturned. If such a policy would lead to a court challenge that could successfully overturn the EO because it violates some other outstanding law, then THAT IS HER JOB to object. And guess what? Her objection on Trump's EO was valid because it did get held up in court.

It is her job to advise, not to reject. In the end, her job is to do what she is told, quit, or get fired.

Wouldn't advising be left to the office of legal counsel?

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

But as an AG, she should know which EO's would lead to policies that get overturned. If such a policy would lead to a court challenge that could successfully overturn the EO because it violates some other outstanding law, then THAT IS HER JOB to object. And guess what? Her objection on Trump's EO was valid because it did get held up in court.

She is charged with Law Enforcement. So what you're saying is that the AG has the discretion not to enforce the law based on whether THEY feel it is constitutional. Again, what's the point of the judiciary if the AG has this ability?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

So what's the purpose of having an AG?

The enforce (or not enforce in Obama's case) the laws.

 

[MACHater02]

So what's the purpose of having an AG?

The enforce (or not enforce in Obama's case) the laws.

So the AG is essentially a rubber stamp.

 

[CommuterBob]

She is charged with Law Enforcement. So what you're saying is that the AG has the discretion not to enforce the law based on whether THEY feel it is constitutional. Again, what's the point of the judiciary if the AG has this ability?

Don't oversimplify it. You know there are varying degrees of what's legal. The AG works with the legal counsel to make those judgements. In the end, yes, it is her job to follow the instructions of the President. That doesn't mean she can't push back if she feels what she is asked to do would violate the law.