Sessions Is Out

[Kirkrapine]

Let me get this straight. A "threat" from Trump to investigate Congress is a THREAT because....well....it came from Trump.

Well, it's certainly unprecedented, isn't it? The DOJ and FBI investigate Congress, remember Abscam, but the WH has never actively directed it before, which would interfere with DOJ's traditional political independence. Congress can investigate the president for obvious reasons, but there is no obvious reason why the reverse should be permitted -- it can easily be likened to Charles I taking action against members of Parliament.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Why is he hiding his tax return? If he didn't cheat on his taxes, he should want us to know that, don't you think?

 

[Kirkrapine]

So, if he is innocent, why is he not welcoming an investigation?

Simple question.

Because he might be innocent of any personal complicity in the Russia collusion, but guilty of so much else that they're bound to find something.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Why is he hiding his tax return? If he didn't cheat on his taxes, he should want us to know that, don't you think?

Because he doesn't want us to know he's not really a billionaire. And yes, in his mind that is a good enough reason.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

He's a gangster

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You didn't answer my question.

Oh, by all means let me do so eagerly. ANY investigation of an innocent person should normally not be viewed as a "threat" in any way whatsoever. As you astutely pointed out, the results of such an investigation could generally be expected to vindicate such an individual and should be welcomed.

Why doesn't Trump see that advantage? Perhaps because he is a fucking idiot.

Now. The question I am waiting for YOU to answer is how is it that you failed to see the same advantage extending to a an innocent member of Congress subjected to a similar investigation but instead characterized it as a THREAT? Could it be that YOU could not see that which you're carping at Trump for not seeing for exactly the same reason that HE couldn't see it? Could it be that you, too, are a fucking idiot?

 

[bellisarius]

That does not in any way address the question I asked you. I want you to address the illogical construct you created by maintaining that in one instance investigation of an innocent person is an opportunity for vindication and should be welcomed, but the same investigation of another person equally innocent is properly perceived by that person as a threat.

You painted yourself into this corner, now extricate yourself from it while keeping the bottom of your shoes dry.

If a member of Congress is innocent, why wouldn't THEY welcome the SAME investigation.

Simple question.

That goes to the heart of it. No individual, innocent or guilty, should "welcome" an investigation and that is particularly true of the innocent. ALL investigations are threats. If not to life and liberty, to the financial well being of the individual and their family.

If Trump is subject to investigation, willingly, then so is any member of congress. To have it otherwise is a complete abrogation of the concept of equality under the law.

Orwell is laughing in his grave.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Oh, by all means let me do so eagerly. ANY investigation of an innocent person should normally not be viewed as a "threat" in any way whatsoever. As you astutely pointed out, the results of such an investigation could generally be expected to vindicate such an individual and should be welcomed.

Why doesn't Trump see that advantage? Perhaps because he is a fucking idiot.

Now. The question I am waiting for YOU to answer is how is it that you failed to see the same advantage extending to a an innocent member of Congress subjected to a similar investigation but instead characterized it as a THREAT? Could it be that YOU could not see that which you're carping at Trump for not seeing for exactly the same reason that HE couldn't see it? Could it be that you, too, are a fucking idiot?

If Trump is subject to investigation, willingly, then so is any member of congress. To have it otherwise is a complete abrogation of the concept of equality under the law.

This is not a constitutionally symmetrical situation. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the congresscritters. See post #52.

 

[bellisarius]

Well, it's certainly unprecedented, isn't it? The DOJ and FBI investigate Congress, remember Abscam, but the WH has never actively directed it before, which would interfere with DOJ's traditional political independence. Congress can investigate the president for obvious reasons, but there is no obvious reason why the reverse should be permitted -- it can easily be likened to Charles I taking action against members of Parliament.

Not unprecedented at all oh ye that be ignorant of history.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The reason I don’t follow you are any other down the rabbit hole is because you always play the same game. The first thing you do is try to get someone to attempt to defend something they never said. You’re are as intellectually dishonest as the rest. As you know, I never said that Trump shouldn't be bothered. If fact, he should be very scared.

What you specifically said in direct response to Rightguide's question about HOW he [Trump] was blocking the investigation was as follows:

Besides firing Comey and Sessions? Did you hear him threaten congress to investigate them if they investigate him.

I always put myself in the position of the other person when trying to understand their motives. If I was him and knew that I was innocent, I'd say go ahead investigate me. When you find no wrongdoing, that can only be good for me.

Now how in the hell is that ME digging a rabbit hole? You dug your own fucking hole and jumped in.

The issue is NOT whether Trump should or should not be "bothered," and I never alleged you said that.

What you did say is that he should "welcome" an investigation by Congress if he is "innocent" but that Congress was "THREATENED" by an investigation from him regardless of whether they are innocent or not.

And despite how you might wish to dance around your own logical fallacy, it was a fucking stupid juxtaposition, and you have only yourself to blame for making it.

 

[HAL_9000]

Trump is a debtor.

Even becoming POTUS hasn't helped him financially.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...ion-personal-wealth-running-president-n916221

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Oh, by all means let me do so eagerly. ANY investigation of an innocent person should normally not be viewed as a "threat" in any way whatsoever. As you astutely pointed out, the results of such an investigation could generally be expected to vindicate such an individual and should be welcomed.

Why doesn't Trump see that advantage? Perhaps because he is a fucking idiot.

Now. The question I am waiting for YOU to answer is how is it that you failed to see the same advantage extending to a an innocent member of Congress subjected to a similar investigation but instead characterized it as a THREAT? Could it be that YOU could not see that which you're carping at Trump for not seeing for exactly the same reason that HE couldn't see it? Could it be that you, too, are a fucking idiot?

You must be referring to #33 in which I posted, “Did you hear him threaten congress to investigate them if they investigate him.” In response to rightguide’s question about how I believe that he is blocking an investigation.

Now you seem to be contending that I “failed to see the same advantage extending to an innocent member of Congress subjected to a similar investigation.”

I don’t know how you could have concluded that that is what I think. Dems in congress for reasons of which we are all aware believe that Trump obstructed justice and was added by a foreign power to get elected. If that is what they believe, then they should investigate. Trump, as far as I know didn’t cite any reason for investigating congress. Absent a reason one could only conclude that it is a threat of retaliation.


btw, why do you feel it necessary to act like an asshole? Is that how you win friends and influence degenerates?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This is not a constitutionally symmetrical situation. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the congresscritters. See post #52.

You are correct. It is NOT a constitutionally symmetrical situation, and post #52 makes that point even better.

But that in no way negates Duncan's illogical implication. He remains a few grade levels behind you.

I'm not defending Donald Trump's rants against either the Congress or the press. I'm just attacking Duncan's woefully illogical attack.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Hogan, there was a time when I had a modicum of respect for your opinion. Maybe my judgement was flawed or maybe something has happened to turn you into just another asshole with a thesaurus.

 

[bellisarius]

You are correct. It is NOT a constitutionally symmetrical situation, and post #52 makes that point even better.

But that in no way negates Duncan's illogical implication. He remains a few grade levels behind you.

I'm not defending Donald Trump's rants against either the Congress or the press. I'm just attacking Duncan's woefully illogical attack.

Here's a query Col. What if the White House did direct an investigation into congressional malfeasance? Would that be the end of the Republic as we know it? Or of the non-existent Democracy that some believe that we are?

Dangerous ground to tread but the opening salvo's have been shot.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Here's a query Col. What if the White House did direct an investigation into congressional malfeasance? Would that be the end of the Republic as we know it? Or of the non-existent Democracy that some believe that we are?

No, but it could lead to that. This is constitutional-crisis level stuff.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Trump, as far as I know didn’t cite any reason for investigating congress. Absent a reason one could only conclude that it is a threat of retaliation.

"Absent a reason," might we conclude that the premise for such an investigation is baseless? If so....if a baseless investigation devoid of any incriminating substance is only likely to (as you suggest) "find no wrongdoing" which "can only be good for" the innocent person being investigated (i.e. members of Congress), in what way would that constitute a "threat" of "retaliation." What would they suffer? What "threat" would they have to fear? Why do you keep making this inappropriate analogy that contradicts the very inconsequential nature of the investigation of innocents you allege?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Here's a query Col. What if the White House did direct an investigation into congressional malfeasance? Would that be the end of the Republic as we know it? Or of the non-existent Democracy that some believe that we are?

Dangerous ground to tread but the opening salvo's have been shot.

No, but it could lead to that. This is constitutional-crisis level stuff.

False on both counts. If the White House directed a pointless investigation into Congressional malfeasance that produced absolutely NOTHING, it would be a colossal waste of time and money. Neither the Executive branch nor Congress are strangers to this waste of resources in pursuit of political advantage. But rarely have such investigations alone threatened the republic or presented a Constitutional crisis. There is no reason to believe that the current blather comes close to doing either.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

"Absent a reason," might we conclude that the premise for such an investigation is baseless? If so....if a baseless investigation devoid of any incriminating substance is only likely to (as you suggest) "find no wrongdoing" which "can only be good for" the innocent person being investigated (i.e. members of Congress), in what way would that constitute a "threat" of "retaliation." What would they suffer? What "threat" would they have to fear? Why do you keep making this inappropriate analogy that contradicts the very inconsequential nature of the investigation of innocents you allege?

I see, it's a hypothetical word game which takes place in an alternate reality where the circumstantial evidence of which the public is aware isn't greater than a mountain range.

Do you really believe this shit? Did I strike a cord? I have a feeling I must have pissed you off at one time. That's entirely possible. But I'm sure that I never through the first punch with anyone around here.

Do you want to talk reality or hypothetical?

 

[Que]

"Absent a reason," might we conclude that the premise for such an investigation is baseless? If so....if a baseless investigation devoid of any incriminating substance is only likely to (as you suggest) "find no wrongdoing" which "can only be good for" the innocent person being investigated (i.e. members of Congress), in what way would that constitute a "threat" of "retaliation." What would they suffer? What "threat" would they have to fear? Why do you keep making this inappropriate analogy that contradicts the very inconsequential nature of the investigation of innocents you allege?

Funny that he doesn't seem to have a problem with an investigation of trump absent an actual reason.

 

[Kirkrapine]

False on both counts. If the White House directed a pointless investigation into Congressional malfeasance that produced absolutely NOTHING, it would be a colossal waste of time and money. Neither the Executive branch nor Congress are strangers to this waste of resources in pursuit of political advantage. But rarely have such investigations alone threatened the republic or presented a Constitutional crisis. There is no reason to believe that the current blather comes close to doing either.

The constitutional crisis would be about whether the president can do that -- in other words, about the relationship between the branches, a core constitutional issue. It would be a constitutional crisis beyond the Watergate level.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why is he hiding his tax return?

Because it's not the public's fuckin' business.

it can easily be likened to Charles I taking action against members of Parliament.

No, investigating isn't taking action against.

It's just investigating.

Because he might be innocent of any personal complicity in the Russia collusion, but guilty of so much else that they're bound to find something.

Possible....but if they get it that way it won't be worth anything in a criminal court.

Now. The question I am waiting for YOU to answer is how is it that you failed to see the same advantage extending to a an innocent member of Congress subjected to a similar investigation but instead characterized it as a THREAT? Could it be that YOU could not see that which you're carping at Trump for not seeing for exactly the same reason that HE couldn't see it? Could it be that you, too, are a fucking idiot?

The good Col. is in kill mode

The constitutional crisis would be about whether the president can do that -- in other words, about the relationship between the branches, a core constitutional issue. It would be a constitutional crisis beyond the Watergate level.

Bullshit.

POTUS is Cheif Executive, he can direct his LEA's to investigate whatever the fuck he tells them to.

They just gotta do it within all the normal investigation rules, and bend that PATRIOT act to the legal limits

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Because it's not the public's fuckin' business.



No, investigating isn't taking action against.

It's just investigating.



Possible....but if they get it that way it won't be worth anything in a criminal court.



The good Col. is in kill mode



Bullshit.

POTUS is Cheif Executive, he can direct his LEA's to investigate whatever the fuck he tells them to.

They just gotta do it within all the normal investigation rules.

of course it is, shit for brains

 

[bellisarius]

False on both counts. If the White House directed a pointless investigation into Congressional malfeasance that produced absolutely NOTHING, it would be a colossal waste of time and money. Neither the Executive branch nor Congress are strangers to this waste of resources in pursuit of political advantage. But rarely have such investigations alone threatened the republic or presented a Constitutional crisis. There is no reason to believe that the current blather comes close to doing either.

I disagree on the fallacy of such a directive. As long as it was generalized and only to be followed up on with reasonable evidence for further inquiry.

I want you to understand I'm being contrarian here for the sake of discussion, not argument.

I think that we can both agree that the root of the issue is the holding the behavior of one above that of yourself. Or conversely, that one is above scrutiny. I also think that we also agree that under the eyes of the law all are equal

It's obvious to me that that principle is straying once again. Are we back to "hang that nigger" days again with a new "nigger" to meet the rope? If that's the case we're going to tear ourselves apart.

I respect your point of law and logic, but what your debate opponents are professing is, as you say, illogical.

What I'm professing is nothing more than holding the accuser to the same standard as the accused.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The constitutional crisis would be about whether the president can do that -- in other words, about the relationship between the branches, a core constitutional issue. It would be a constitutional crisis beyond the Watergate level.

It's ironic you mention Watergate. For all the tawdry aspects of the Nixon enemies list, I never heard anyone suggest that the presence of such a list or even the politically motivated conduct of judicial investigations or IRS audits of those enemies were illegal.

It was only when Nixon's henchmen committed "third rate burglaries" and the President committed the entire resources of the Executive Branch in criminally obstructing justice relative to those burglaries that the law was raped a second time.

I think we are still a long way from that here and it is not at all apparent that we're getting any closer.