Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Technically and yes I oversimplified because it seems to work best here.
YES the DOJ is an arm for the President -- but the primary goal of the DOJ is to work within the limits of the law.
They just can't serve at the whim of an uninformed President...they have to stay within the law...or they should to maintain the integrity of the office and their position as a lawyer.
See -- I was jumping a few steps.
Of course they work for the President BUT........their work is limited to the rule of law.
And this feeds into my question as to which legally minded person with integrity will choose to work with an administration that seems to struggle with the rule of law
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill
You go ahead and debate left vs. right with someone else.
I don't care to have that debate.
My comment was not about conservatives as a whole.
I mentioned conservative because Trump is in as a Republican President so I am assuming he will hire a conservative, Republican person for the job.
We have seen a history now for two years where Trump is a petulant child and wants folks not to do their job well, but to do his bidding whatever it may be.
There are few people in that field who may be willing to sell their soul to a man who doesn't understand the rule of law, the need for the DOJ to be a separate entity, etc.
I don't care about the past.
I am talking about now.
Who do you think will want the job?
I don't think Trump gives a rat's patootie whether someone's a conservative or not, only that they'll blindly do his bidding and fall on their swords to protect Trump.
That's like accusing Nixon of obstruction for ending the investigation when there was NEVER a Watergate break-in and nobody was arrested or charged for the break-in.
Your analogy isn't proper.
The Mueller report was regarding Russian interference in the election. Which he established. The interference would be the equivalent of the break in and the 12 Russian person's and entities indicted would be the equivalent of the burglars.
You are right that Mueller punted the report...........but he said he punted because he couldn't indict a sitting president.
The Mueller report was regarding Russian interference in the election. Which he established. The interference would be the equivalent of the break in and the 12 Russian person's and entities indicted would be the equivalent of the burglars.
You are right that Mueller punted the report...........but he said he punted because he couldn't indict a sitting president.
This seems fairly straightforward, but no matter how many times it is explained, some just can't comprehend it.
There was indeed a crime. Several crimes.
For example,
DNC servers were hacked right after Trump openly asked the Russians to do this.
WikiLeaks, a Russian operaton, released the emails.
Roger Stone, Trump's long-time associate, announced the release of some specific emails ahead of time.
Republicans and Russian trolls peddled conspiracy tales about Seth Rich, about Clinton ordering his assassination, Satanic rituals, a pedophile pizza parlor, ... None of this was true.
However, Trump carried on like they were the Pentagon Papers. The were not. The emails were the usual staff coordinating emails.
Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into this matter.
Great opinion piece, above, by conservative writer Jennifer Rubin:Rod Rosenstein is Leaving as a Diminished Man and Shamed Lawyer. My take on the man and what has transpired can be summed up by this:
“In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.” ― Charles Dickens, Great Expectations
This seems fairly straightforward, but no matter how many times it is explained, some just can't comprehend it. Well, I'll try to help you!
There was indeed a crime. Several crimes. Yes, Hillary, Obama, and Obama's weaponized intelligence agencies committed those crimes. That's why all the top people have been fired, resigned or demoted. Over twenty at last count.
DNC servers were hacked right after Trump openly asked the Russians to do this. Wait, I thought Trump was Putin's puppet but now you say Putin was Trump's puppet? I'm confused. Let me tell you a little secret. I watched it live and a presstitute afterward said Russia wouldn't be able to get those emails because the FBI already had her hard drive.
NSA experts as well as other IT tech geeks have said the only way the info could have been gotten so fast was from an insider with a thumb drive. Speeds were too fast to do it from overseas.
WikiLeaks, a Russian operaton, released the emails. Nope, it's an independent organization which has released emails damaging to Russia and many other countries and governments. It's never been wrong, all documents are genuine. Why didn't the DNC refute the damaging info in those emails, by the way?
Roger Stone, Trump's long-time associate, announced the release of some specific emails ahead of time. After Julian Assange had openly said months before he had some juicy emails coming out soon, every journalist in the world was desperate for those emails.
Republicans and Russian trolls peddled conspiracy tales about Seth Rich, about Clinton ordering his assassination, Satanic rituals, a pedophile pizza parlor, ... None of this was true. Obama and Hillary paid nearly $2M between them to FusionGPS for the fake Russian dossier. They also gave Demwit mainstream media daily talking points which they follow to this day, if you pay attention.
Trump carried on like they were the Pentagon Papers. The were not. The emails were the usual staff coordinating emails. Let's see who gets criminal referrals in the next few weeks, if these top secret and classified emails weren't important.
Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into this matter. There was nothing to obstruct if there was no crime! He could have legally fired Mueller at any time but didn't. He didn't invoke executive privilege, he gave them over a million documents and 500 people testified. No other president has been so cooperative. Obama wasn't so cooperative and invoked exec privilege and told Eric Holder not to testify about his Fast and Furious debacle.
Why not read a book that was #1 on the beloved NY Times best seller list, The Russia Hoax by Gregg Jarrett? Filled with facts and footnotes and documents.
Your jacked up queen Rachel Madcow has been lying to you to get ratings. Why do you still watch censored news? You've wasted nearly three years of your life on a hoax! Don't you feel like a sucker?
#WalkAway sweetie! You will be so much happier, I promise!
Wonder if Rosenstein leaked Mueller's letter to Barr?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm confused. Let me tell you a little secret. I watched it live and a presstitute afterward said Russia wouldn't be able to get those emails because the FBI already had her hard drive.
