RedskinsFan44 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, visionary said: Is it normal to call them General, instead of Attorney General? I don't think so, but it was the weird way Whitaker referred to Sessions. Plural is Attorneys General, so there's that too. Add: "General" is an adjective, not a rank. But the Trump administration is staffed by idiots, so... I'm sure Whitaker liked to think of himself as a general."The term was originally used to refer to any person who holds a general power of attorney to represent a principal in all matters."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_general Edited March 5, 2019 by RedskinsFan44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 40 minutes ago, Burgold said: There's a shocker. If he had any chance of recusal or an ethical bone in his body he would not have been nominated (or confirmed by Mitch) Well, when he's not an attorney general, but a stooge under marching orders private second class would have made more sense, but that would be rude. Seaman Recruit. Walking in, without his recruiter telling him he needed to study BMRs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 47 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: Seaman Recruit. Walking in, without his recruiter telling him he needed to study BMRs. Aye. Aye. Ma'am. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 This is a witch hunt only to the people who have voluntarily microwaved their brains with a daily dose of conservative news media. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 I'd be pretty terrified if I was a part of the conspiracy against the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 I'm hearing the spin by some on MSNBC that Democrats need to be careful that their investigations are political. Also heard on Rachel last night I think that the Mueller investigation is limited and that Congress is now performing checks and balances that haven't been done since the inauguration. Congress has a broader duty to investigate that which Mueller can't. These naysayers also try to compare what's in the Mueller report to what the House committees are doing. We must remember that what Barr releases will not be the full Mueller report as he writes it but what Trump wants released, especially now since Barr won't recuse himself. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 28 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: I'm hearing the spin by some on MSNBC that Democrats need to be careful that their investigations are political. As opposed to the non-political investigations that Republicans have been conducting since Bill Clinton got a BJ from an intern. Anyone making that stupid point should be tarred and feathered but it sounds typical of cable news wankers. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, No Excuses said: As opposed to the non-political investigations that Republicans have been conducting since Bill Clinton got a BJ from an intern. 4 hours ago, skinsmarydu said: Seaman Recruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 These complaints about the Judiciary Committee's "wide net" kinda makes me laugh. The reason for the wide net is that there is substantial evidence of wrongdoing on multiple fronts. You don't try a bank robber for robbery and ignore the fact that he shot someone in the commission of the crime. You don't pick one crime. You investigate, and pursue every act of wrongdoing. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said: I'm hearing the spin by some on MSNBC that Democrats need to be careful that their investigations are political. Also heard on Rachel last night I think that the Mueller investigation is limited and that Congress is now performing checks and balances that haven't been done since the inauguration. Congress has a broader duty to investigate that which Mueller can't. These naysayers also try to compare what's in the Mueller report to what the House committees are doing. We must remember that what Barr releases will not be the full Mueller report as he writes it but what Trump wants released, especially now since Barr won't recuse himself. I have been keeping fresh in mind that ultimately, Mueller is only writing a report or summary. SDNY and now Congress are investigating crimes. There is a big difference. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 Right, not to mention when it comes to the crimes of collusion and obstruction of justice it's pretty understandable to assume that when investigating those things there is going to be a lot of HOW & WHY involved too, which means investigating Trump's finances seems very much related to him acting favorable to certain people against the wishes of almost everyone advising him. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 6 hours ago, Burgold said: These complaints about the Judiciary Committee's "wide net" kinda makes me laugh. The reason for the wide net is that there is substantial evidence of wrongdoing on multiple fronts. You don't try a bank robber for robbery and ignore the fact that he shot someone in the commission of the crime. You don't pick one crime. You investigate, and pursue every act of wrongdoing. The flipside is that despite 81 entities being served notice I can think of quite a few others who should have been/ probably will be in the near future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie_K._Liu Quote Liu was born in Kingsville, Texas.[4] She received her Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from Harvard University in 1995, with a major in literature, and completed her J.D. degree at Yale Law School in 1998.[4] She clerked for Carolyn Dineen King of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1998–99.[3] Liu worked as an associate at Jenner & Block in 1999–2002, as a partner at the same firm in 2009–2016, and as a partner at Morrison & Foerster in 2016–17.[5] She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia from 2002 to 2006.[4] Liu worked at the United States Department of Justice during the administration of President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009. Her roles included deputy chief of staff in the National Security Division, counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division.[6] Liu worked for the transition team of President-elect Donald Trump, and in 2017 became deputy general counsel at the United States Department of the Treasury.[6] In June 2017, President Trump nominated Liu to become the next United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, which is the country's largest U.S. Attorney's office, with more than 300 prosecutors.[6] Liu was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in September 2017.[2][7] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 8 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said: The flipside is that despite 81 entities being served notice I can think of quite a few others who should have been/ probably will be in the near future. On that note, I have heard that during the Clinton years, the Republicans in control of the Judiciary served up nearly twelve hundred inquiries. So, while eighty-one may sound like a lot. It isn't, especially as most of the eighty one probably are based in merit whereas history proved that almost known of the 1,200 Republican ones did. Mind you, I'm speculating based on the what I know of Trump and the fact that there have been so many guilty pleas and guilty verdicts already whereas with all the endless (and it was endless) Whitewater fishing that the Republicans went on the only wrongdoing they ever uncovered was that he lied about an affair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 (edited) How is it that anyone buys the idea that there was not collusion at this point? There is already so much out in the open. Edited March 6, 2019 by Hersh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Hersh said: How is it that anyone buys the idea that there was not collusion at this point? There is already so much out in the open. (From the other thread) Trumps campaign definitely colluded, I’m not blind. Did trump himself do something illegal, mueller will tell us. Edited March 6, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Hersh said: How is it that anyone buys the idea that there was not collusion at this point? There is already so much out in the open. The biggest and most recent "cast of doubt" came from (believe it or not) Michael Cohen. We have all been assuming that he would know everything there was to know about everything related to his client. Even though he testified that Stone alerted Trump to the Wikileaks situation, when asked point-blank if he had any knowledge of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, he flatly stated, "No." That was big. It doesn't mean there was no collusion across the board but it definitely strengthened the resolve of Trump supporters to ignore circumstantial evidence and caused those who are convinced of a conspiracy that directly involves Trump to give pause... for now. Obstruction is still pretty apparent, but a conspiracy during the campaign is now less assured to the public. But then it will all come down to the Mueller report as far as Russia is concerned, obviously. Edited March 6, 2019 by Chachie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chachie said: The biggest and most recent "cast of doubt" came from (believe it or not) Michael Cohen. We have all been assuming that he would know everything there was to know about everything related to his client. Even though he testified that Stone alerted Trump to the Wikileaks situation, when asked point-blank if he had any knowledge of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, he flatly stated, "No." That was big. It doesn't mean there was no collusion across the board but it definitely strengthened the resolve of Trump supporters to ignore circumstantial evidence and caused those who are convinced of a conspiracy that directly involves Trump to give pause... for now. Obstruction is still pretty apparent, but a conspiracy during the campaign is now less assured to the public. But then it will all come down to the Mueller report as far as Russia is concerned, obviously. I was not assuming he knew anything about the collusion and conspiracy. He's never been mentioned in being a part of that. People hoping he would know weren't paying attention. He's the guy that would know about Trump org crime and these hush payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Hersh said: I was not assuming he knew anything about the collusion and conspiracy. He's never been mentioned in being a part of that. People hoping he would know weren't paying attention. He's the guy that would know about Trump org crime and these hush payments. I don’t think paying an adult entertainer to keep her mouth shut is a high crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said: I don’t think paying an adult entertainer to keep her mouth shut is a high crime... I don't think you are wrong, but that's not the reason other investigations are taking place. They are taking place because there is a good possibility the Trump org has committed serious crimes and to learn with clarity why Trump is so beholden to Putin. To say nothing of the clear collusion that has taken place. It's important to be thorough for any possible impeachment hears. All of these investigations/oversight should have taken place over the last two years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Trump is nice to all of our enemies, not just Putin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Trump is nice to all of our enemies, not just Putin. Maduro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now