--meh, 2 year investigation by the feds --and let's be honest, this wasn't an ordinary investigation-- and they can't charge you with a crime, I'd say you're doing better than just about anyone has ever done.
The reality is they could charge him with a crime. I'm sure of it. That's why you want experts to look at the report. Hell, change the names and let another group of feds look at it!
But they won't, because they are applying the law as it is always presented to us but rarely prosecuted in real life.
I think my barber may have the Shine.
"For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and every blessing which the Gods can confer." --Plato
Yeah, yeah, don't get excited. That asshole would have encouraged you to continue to follow the law regardless of your leaders too...
Sean, until the public has access to the report, the questions will continue. And the guy who gave us the summary was against the investigation. Sounds suss to me...
I couldn't stand up to a 2 year, $35 million Federal investigation. Fuck, I couldn't stand up to a two week investigation by the TeleTubbies. If they had anything he'd already be hanging by his heels from a lamp post.
I mean, apparently they can't even ask if it's reasonable to assume Mueller thought he could prosecute and that he's just going to sit quitely while someone else mischaracterizes his report.
As for questions remaining till the report is realeased, yeah, I'm saying the same thing. I know that. I know that these guys want a shot at finding something to use in the report. Well, maybe that's not a good idea. That's why I said change the names and let another group of feds look at it. Is that how we should do things? Cause someone'll find what you're after, yep.
I think my barber may have the Shine.
"For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and every blessing which the Gods can confer." --Plato
Yeah, yeah, don't get excited. That asshole would have encouraged you to continue to follow the law regardless of your leaders too...
Erm, wasn't the 'illegal Democrat Witch Hunt' commissioned by the Trump administration?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
I think his relationship with Fox needs to be investigated. I'm not joking. We might consider putting together some legislation to prevent this sort of thing going forward.
I think my barber may have the Shine.
"For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and every blessing which the Gods can confer." --Plato
Yeah, yeah, don't get excited. That asshole would have encouraged you to continue to follow the law regardless of your leaders too...
I couldn't stand up to a 2 year, $35 million Federal investigation. Fuck, I couldn't stand up to a two week investigation by the TeleTubbies. If they had anything he'd already be hanging by his heels from a lamp post.
Wimps will never become POTUS. Pictures at seven.
_____________________________________________
I could envisage two likely and one impossible scenarios:
A) Report proves Russian collusion. Republicans cry foul.
B) Report finds no proof of Russian collusion. Democrats cry foul.
C) Report proves/finds no proof of Russian collusion. Republicans/Democrats nod and say: "Well, that's the outcome of the investigation" and get on with their lives.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
I think his relationship with Fox needs to be investigated. I'm not joking. We might consider putting together some legislation to prevent this sort of thing going forward.
Scrap your entire political system, and model yourself on Oz. Prime Minister Sean Hayden has a nice ring to it...
I think his relationship with Fox needs to be investigated. I'm not joking. We might consider putting together some legislation to prevent this sort of thing going forward.
What's to be investigated? Fox News has a constitutional right to spout just about any ridiculous, fawning, deeply dishonest and partisan shit they want. Trump has the right to watch their shit and retweet it, consult with blithering stooges like Pirro and Hannity, and hire Fox News personnel into his administration. Fox News has the right to hire former Trump administration personnel. Any law that attempted to interfere with these rights would be unconstitutional on its face.
The only exception is the hiring. However, I think that an attempt to constrain the otherwise legal choices a president can make regarding officials within his administration based on whether they worked for media outlets or not would be considered unduly restrictive by both Republicans and Democrats. Pretty much the same for a media organization hiring former members of a president's administration.
United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed cutting funding for the Special Olympics before a House subcommittee on Tuesday, according to Todd Spangler of the Detroit Free Press.
"We are not doing our children any favors when we borrow from their future in order to invest in systems and policies that are not yielding better results," she said while presenting the Department of Education's budget proposals.
...
Per Spangler, "In the case of the $17.6 million cut to help fund the Special Olympics, a program designed to help children and adults with disabilities, DeVos suggested it is better supported by philanthropy and added, 'We had to make some difficult decisions with this budget.'"
It's unlikely that many of DeVos' proposed cuts will be approved, with the Democrat-controlled House unlikely to sign off on her budget. As Spangler noted, many of DeVos' more extreme proposals were blocked by the House even when it was controlled by a Republican majority.
After all, you can buy about 20% of a new F-35 with that money.
What kind of 'better results' is she thinking of I wonder?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
I think his relationship with Fox needs to be investigated. I'm not joking. We might consider putting together some legislation to prevent this sort of thing going forward.
What's to be investigated? Fox News has a constitutional right to spout just about any ridiculous, fawning, deeply dishonest and partisan shit they want. Trump has the right to watch their shit and retweet it, consult with blithering stooges like Pirro and Hannity, and hire Fox News personnel into his administration. Fox News has the right to hire former Trump administration personnel. Any law that attempted to interfere with these rights would be unconstitutional on its face.
The only exception is the hiring. However, I think that an attempt to constrain the otherwise legal choices a president can make regarding officials within his administration based on whether they worked for media outlets or not would be considered unduly restrictive by both Republicans and Democrats. Pretty much the same for a media organization hiring former members of a president's administration.
Whether it's a good idea to allow it or not.
I think my barber may have the Shine.
"For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and every blessing which the Gods can confer." --Plato
Yeah, yeah, don't get excited. That asshole would have encouraged you to continue to follow the law regardless of your leaders too...
What kind of 'better results' is she thinking of I wonder?
It’s PR talk. A Finnish newspaper improved service to ther subscribwrs by ”removing the discussion forum.”
http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Inhibition, well, you can fly
Out the window to the clear blue sky
It will mess your suit, it will make you cry
It doesn't matter, give me Mumdane pie
What kind of 'better results' is she thinking of I wonder?
It’s PR talk. A Finnish newspaper improved service to their subscribers by ”removing the discussion forum.”
http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Inhibition, well, you can fly
Out the window to the clear blue sky
It will mess your suit, it will make you cry
It doesn't matter, give me Mumdane pie
