|
Post by palealeman on Dec 2, 2017 19:08:08 GMT -5
We're going to continue to disagree on this, RJ, so there's no need to discuss any longer. We'll see what happens. I can see a worst case scenario of Paul Ryan as President this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 19:08:26 GMT -5
It is a truism that we have only one president at a time, however we also have a transition from one administration to the next in order to make that change as smoothly as possible.
In a case such as this, where the two administrations have very different goals and viewpoints, there are bound to be disagreements. In such cases, the administration in charge on January 19 should give a great deal of deference to the one in charge on January 21. While it isn't good for the incoming administration to actively undermine the outgoing administration's policies, the reverse is FAR worse.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the Mueller investigation is simply trying to undo Trump. Not because of criminality, but because of the poisonous level of brute politicking going on in the Democrat Party. Whether it is reality or not, the Democratic Party is acting as though it is in its death throes.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 2, 2017 19:09:43 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, talking is one thing. Talking about sanctions and what will happen to them after Trump assumes office is a little far from talking about things. And, since Flynn worked for Trump and Trump was not President in December, both were private citizens at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 19:27:29 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, talking is one thing. Talking about sanctions and what will happen to them after Trump assumes office is a little far from talking about things. And, since Flynn worked for Trump and Trump was not President in December, both were private citizens at the time. It is clear to me that this is only about politics to you, and not the law. You're just fine with the Obama Administration trying to force the Trump Administration to continue Obama's policies on January 21, but it is beyond the pale for the Trump Administration to undermine Obama's policies on January 19. The reasonable position is, in fact, the reverse. The Administration in place on the 19th will be civilians on the 21st. The new administration will have to deal with the world for at least the next 4 years. Under your reasoning, it would be ok for Obama to order a military attack on Russia out of sheer spite on January 19, and leave the Trump administration to clean up the mess. After all Obama was still President on January 19! I get it. You hate Trump with the white hot passion of a billion suns, but your positions are ENTIRELY emotional. There is no thought at all being put into them.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 19:28:44 GMT -5
We're going to continue to disagree on this, RJ, so there's no need to discuss any longer. We'll see what happens. I can see a worst case scenario of Paul Ryan as President this time next year. Unless something changes significantly, there's a better chance of Mueller sharing a jail cell with Hillary Clinton this time next year. After all, Hillary Clinton and the DNC, acting through Fusion GPS contracted with Christopher Steel to obtain information from the Russians in an attempt to influence the most recent election.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 2, 2017 20:41:10 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, talking is one thing. Talking about sanctions and what will happen to them after Trump assumes office is a little far from talking about things. And, since Flynn worked for Trump and Trump was not President in December, both were private citizens at the time. And how do you know he was "talking about what would happen after Trump assumes office"? Even if he was, he wasn't "making policy". He didn't have the authority, so anything he told the official was irrelevant. He can't "make policy", only Trump, and his appointed officers can do that, and then only after inauguration.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 3, 2017 20:02:13 GMT -5
By the way, RJ, talking is one thing. Talking about sanctions and what will happen to them after Trump assumes office is a little far from talking about things. And, since Flynn worked for Trump and Trump was not President in December, both were private citizens at the time. It is clear to me that this is only about politics to you, and not the law. You're just fine with the Obama Administration trying to force the Trump Administration to continue Obama's policies on January 21, but it is beyond the pale for the Trump Administration to undermine Obama's policies on January 19. The reasonable position is, in fact, the reverse. The Administration in place on the 19th will be civilians on the 21st. The new administration will have to deal with the world for at least the next 4 years. Under your reasoning, it would be ok for Obama to order a military attack on Russia out of sheer spite on January 19, and leave the Trump administration to clean up the mess. After all Obama was still President on January 19! I get it. You hate Trump with the white hot passion of a billion suns, but your positions are ENTIRELY emotional. There is no thought at all being put into them. Totally wrong, RJ. Under your reasoning, the incoming administration could stop a policy of the administration in office because they wanted to do something else on January 20. Totally wrong. No one can force an incoming administration to adhere to its policies. If that could have been done, the Clinton administration would have forced Bush and friends to read and comply with Richard Clark's policy brief regarding al Queda and probably stopped the 9/11 attacks. I don't hate Trump. I hate that an unprepared, ill-equipped, and incompetent person was elected. I hate hat Trump is taking the country backwards. I hate that he continually lies. I hate that he boasts about being the biggest and best, when none of that is even close to true. I hate that a sizeable part of the American population actually thinks he'd doing a good job. You criticize my positions. I think yours don't involve too much thought either -- just back whatever Trump and the conservatives say, whether it's good for the country or not. And usually it's' not.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 3, 2017 20:23:07 GMT -5
It is clear to me that this is only about politics to you, and not the law. You're just fine with the Obama Administration trying to force the Trump Administration to continue Obama's policies on January 21, but it is beyond the pale for the Trump Administration to undermine Obama's policies on January 19. The reasonable position is, in fact, the reverse. The Administration in place on the 19th will be civilians on the 21st. The new administration will have to deal with the world for at least the next 4 years. Under your reasoning, it would be ok for Obama to order a military attack on Russia out of sheer spite on January 19, and leave the Trump administration to clean up the mess. After all Obama was still President on January 19! I get it. You hate Trump with the white hot passion of a billion suns, but your positions are ENTIRELY emotional. There is no thought at all being put into them. Totally wrong, RJ. Under your reasoning, the incoming administration could stop a policy of the administration in office because they wanted to do something else on January 20. Totally wrong. Sorry, but you're the one who has it wrong. In this case, the Trump administration stopped Russian retaliation against Obama administration policy by telling the Russians they intended to change course after the inauguration. That's just the natural result of foreign powers knowing an Administration change is imminent. This is completely legal and normal. Again, this just isn't true. The old administration can throw up all sorts of obstacles and create lots of problems for an incoming administration. Obama tried this by slapping sanctions on Russia as a lame duck. You didn't even bother to mention something that the Trump administration has or hasn't done. Thank you for making my point. It's all about Trump's personality (which is admittedly embarrassing). In the mean time, the stock market is soaring, ISIS is on the run, Betsy DeVos is bringing due process back to our universities, the EPA has been leashed, and it looks like we're about to get a simpler tax code.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 4, 2017 10:05:30 GMT -5
So, RJ, you freely admit that the incoming Trump administration engaged in foreign policy with the Russians to subvert the Obama Administration's foreign policy initiative. That's illegal. I'm sorry and surprised that you don't see it. But you generally agree with anything a conservative proposes and denigrate the left whenever you can. I'm still surprised that you oppose Roy Moore.
I don't see that the Trump has -- or hasn't -- done much of anything. He tried to ban Muslims from the country, but the Courts overturned those bans. He campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA, but when push came to shove learned that most of the country wants to keep it in place and that the Republicans, after 7 years of trying to repeal it, still had no plan to replace it. He's proposed a tax plan that he claimed will not benefit the rich, will put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and will lead to job creation, only to find out that the plan will benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class and will significantly increase the deficit.
Yea, the stock market is soaring. But it was doing pretty well under the prior administration, reaching record highs.
In the meantime, Trump keeps lying and tweeting. He's making America a laughingstock to the rest of the world. Again, sorry you can't see it. Actually, I think you don't want to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 4, 2017 10:44:24 GMT -5
So, RJ, you freely admit that the incoming Trump administration engaged in foreign policy with the Russians to subvert the Obama Administration's foreign policy initiative. Yes. No. It's not. It's a normal part of the transition process. Don't be ridiculous. The entire reason it is called "the transition" is because one administration is assuming power from another. You seem to be just fine with the old administration doing everything it possibly can to obstruct the New administration's policies and plans, but you think the reverse is a crime. This is pure tribalism on your part, and you'd be insisting on the exact opposite if Obama was coming behind Trump. I oppose Jones too, and am grateful I don't live in Alabama. No, he tried to make it more difficult for people to enter the country from certain countries that support terrorism, and failed states. And the courts ultimately supported it. At the rate it is collapsing, I'm surprised the Democrats are trying to keep it. But hey, enjoy your disaster as long as you can. None of this is true. If just the Obamacare mandate is repealed, that will represent a major tax cut for the middle class. I think his Twitter feed is ridiculous too. But then, I think Twitter is ridiculous. Nothing there makes a lick of sense, why should Trump's feed be the only sane one?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 4, 2017 10:56:42 GMT -5
President Obama could indeed have ordered a military strike on some country on January 19, 2017... he was still the President... (Jimmy Carter approved of the release of the hostages in Iran the morning of Reagan's inauguration)... )residents often issue pardons on their last day in office... and a private citizen is not allowed to do business with a foreign government... wasn't it Billy Carter who got in trouble for doing business with Libya during the Carter administration?...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 4, 2017 11:00:46 GMT -5
So, RJ, you freely admit that the incoming Trump administration engaged in foreign policy with the Russians to subvert the Obama Administration's foreign policy initiative. That's illegal. I'm sorry and surprised that you don't see it. But you generally agree with anything a conservative proposes and denigrate the left whenever you can. I'm still surprised that you oppose Roy Moore. I don't see that the Trump has -- or hasn't -- done much of anything. He tried to ban Muslims from the country, but the Courts overturned those bans. He campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA, but when push came to shove learned that most of the country wants to keep it in place and that the Republicans, after 7 years of trying to repeal it, still had no plan to replace it. He's proposed a tax plan that he claimed will not benefit the rich, will put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and will lead to job creation, only to find out that the plan will benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class and will significantly increase the deficit. Yea, the stock market is soaring. But it was doing pretty well under the prior administration, reaching record highs. In the meantime, Trump keeps lying and tweeting. He's making America a laughingstock to the rest of the world. Again, sorry you can't see it. Actually, I think you don't want to see it. Which is exactly what The Puppet did by sending envoys to foreign nations when he was President elect. Of course, since he was undoing Bush's policies, that was fine with you, but Trump, well, he's undoing the damage that The Puppet did, and that can't be allowed. Since you so obviously have no clue what happens in transitions, and back the Communist agenda to the point of hysteria, there is nothing anyone can do to teach you reality. However, since you are so oblivious to what's happening in the real world, here are some clues for you to follow. Trump was "blocked" illegally by activist "judges", based on comments he made, not on the law. The law is chrystal clear, that the President has almost exclusive powers to control immigration. He can do it by religion, country, skin color, or length of nose hair. There are no restrictions on how he decides the issue. The "judge" had no authority to even rule on his "ban", much less stop it. That's why Trump was elected, and why he needs to empty all of the chairs of all the activist "judges" and put real judges, that base their rulings on the law, in place. Puppettax is not "popular with most of the country". It's popular with the serfs, who love getting something that someone else has to pay for, and with the Communists that imposed it on us, and then exempted themselves from it. The rest of us, who have to pay for his corruption, want it gone. The RINOs that were elected to repeal it have been corrupted by the Party of the KKK and the fake news, and now that they can repeal it, don't want to. It's power, after all. His tax plan is not what was passed by the Senate. The Senate passed a tax plan that allowed the Party of the KKK to have input, which resulted in the rich getting a tax cut, but those of us that pay the taxes getting shafted, again. The Party of the KKK sees all money as theirs, and any "cuts" as theft of their funds. Notice that there wasn't a word about cutting spending, because that would cause heart attacks in the Party of the KKK. They never ask any of us if we can afford their tax increases, fees, and "fines" but always ask "how do we pay for tax cuts"? It's not their money. No the market was stalled. It only started reaching records when Trump was shown to be winning. You are confusing Trump with The Puppet, who surrendered every time he met with anyone from a foreign power.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 4, 2017 11:04:28 GMT -5
President Obama could indeed have ordered a military strike on some country on January 19, 2017... he was still the President... (Jimmy Carter approved of the release of the hostages in Iran the morning of Reagan's inauguration)... )residents often issue pardons on their last day in office... and a private citizen is not allowed to do business with a foreign government... wasn't it Billy Carter who got in trouble for doing business with Libya during the Carter administration?... Billy Carter wasn't part of the Administration. Flynn was. In fact, it was his job to start contacting, and speaking with, officials from foreign countries. I notice that you don't bother to bring up The Gigolo, who tried to surrender the US to the NVA in Paris. That WAS a civilian trying to set policy with a foreign government. As for "doing business with a foreign government", The Puppet would be surprised to hear that, since he's 'doing business' with lots of them as a civilian. Every one of his overpaid speeches is "doing business with a foreign government". Same with Waco Billy Boy and The Felon.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 4, 2017 12:40:55 GMT -5
There was no Trump "administration" prior to January 20, Redleg... and I don't know who you mean by the "Gigolo"... but by "doing business," I meant doing business "with" a country's government... and delivering a speak isn't "doing business" with another country's government... even if it's by a private citizen...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 5, 2017 10:02:26 GMT -5
There was no Trump "administration" prior to January 20, Redleg... and I don't know who you mean by the "Gigolo"... but by "doing business," I meant doing business "with" a country's government... and delivering a speak isn't "doing business" with another country's government... even if it's by a private citizen... Of course it is. Just like Waco Billy Boy, that was paid $500,000 by a Russian bank owned and operated by Putin, just to grease the skids for Putin to buy 20% of our uranium. Of course, the $145 million to the "foundation" was the primary bribe, but the speech money was nice of Putin. The Puppet is only giving speeches in Europe, where the government essentially owns all the businesses. That means he's doing business with foreign governments. Nothing illegal about it, but that's what he's doing. The Gigolo was Kerry, who tried to surrender the US to the NVA in 1972 in Paris. I notice that no one from the Party of the KKK wants to bring that up when talking about the Logan Act. No, there is no law against any citizen doing business with foreign governments.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 12:10:24 GMT -5
RJ, check out 18 USC §953. What Flynn did was illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 12:27:30 GMT -5
RJ, check out 18 USC §953. What Flynn did was illegal. 1) That's the Logan Act again. Most legal experts consider this law unconstitutional, no one has ever been prosecuted under it, and the last indictment under it was in the 1850s. 2) Flynn was the national security advisor designee. He had the authority of the US government. What Flynn did was PERFECTLY LEGAL, and indeed his duty under the law.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 12:51:16 GMT -5
(1) May be CONSIDERED unconstitutional, but hasn't been found to be so. It's still the law.
(2) You still can't grasp the concept that a president-elect is still private citizen, and the people working on his transition team are also private citizens. None of them have any authority to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the US unless specifically designated to do so by the President. What he did was patently illegal. I strongly suspect he is not being prosecuted at this time as part of the deal to get his testimony. However, the possibility of prosecution still looms.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 5, 2017 13:27:39 GMT -5
RJ, check out 18 USC §953. What Flynn did was illegal. 1) That's the Logan Act again. Most legal experts consider this law unconstitutional, no one has ever been prosecuted under it, and the last indictment under it was in the 1850s. 2) Flynn was the national security advisor designee. He had the authority of the US government. What Flynn did was PERFECTLY LEGAL, and indeed his duty under the law. A "designee" doesn't have that authority... he had not been "sworn"...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 13:58:02 GMT -5
(1) May be CONSIDERED unconstitutional, but hasn't been found to be so. It's still the law. You need to ask yourself why Flynn wasn't charged under the Logan Act. This simply isn't so. The entire purpose of the transition team is to insure, come January 21, the new administration is ready to conduct the nation's business. This includes working with foreign counterparts. These people fall under the Presidential Transitions Act of 1963. www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initiatives/presidential-transition/legislative-overview/presidential-transition-act-of-1963They get government offices, government phones, government pay, travel expenses, postal privileges, retirement benefits, health insurance benefits, and life insurance benefits. They are government employees in all but name. The reason Flynn wasn't charged under the Logan Act is because Mueller knows it's unconstitutional, and because Flynn, as the National Security Advisor designee has the duty to begin working with his foreign counterparts. Again, every transition team ever has done this sort of thing. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to. Flynn was only charged with lying to the FBI, because Mueller DOESN'T HAVE A CASE FOR ANYTHING ELSE. If he did, Flynn would have been charged precisely because getting him to plead guilty to campaign law violations would establish the case that "collusion" happened. I'm not going to discourage you from relying on the Logan Act any further. Watching you metaphorically jump up and down in excitement about something that just isn't going to happen is hilarious. Merry Fitzmas 2017. Enjoy your nothingburger.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 14:18:47 GMT -5
Keep dreaming and denying, RJ. I think Flynn was not charged, as I said above, because Mueller wants his testimony. There are other charges out there that could have been brought but, at this time, have not been.
How do you know what sort of case Mueller has? Are you privy to the FBI investigation? Remember, when you make a deal, it's usually to avoid prosecution on other, potentially/probably more serious charges . . . like having unauthorized contacts with foreign governments to conduct government business you're not allowed to conduct at the time.
You keep saying that all prior administrations have done the same thing. Can you provide an example? I don't think it's ever been done in an attempt to influence foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 14:36:16 GMT -5
Keep dreaming and denying, RJ. I think Flynn was not charged, as I said above, because Mueller wants his testimony. There are other charges out there that could have been brought but, at this time, have not been. How do you know what sort of case Mueller has? Are you privy to the FBI investigation? Remember, when you make a deal, it's usually to avoid prosecution on other, potentially/probably more serious charges . . . like having unauthorized contacts with foreign governments to conduct government business you're not allowed to conduct at the time. I know what Mueller's case against Flynn is, because the information is publicly available. He lied to the FBI about contacts he had with the Russians during the transition. Those conversations he had were about Obama administration sanctions applied against the Russians because of "Russian interference in the election." The FBI likely has recordings of these contacts from the FISA warrant on Ambassador Kislyak. The way cooperating witnesses work, is you charge them with the full crime. Because that establishes that the crime took place. Then you get them to plead guilty to it, and then use the fact that they cooperated to significantly reduce the sentence. What you don't do is charge them with a crime that undermines their credibility as a witness, like "lying to the FBI." Unless of course you're a moron, or that's all you've got. While I'm open to the idea that Mueller is a stupid, stupid man, it's much more likely that he doesn't have anything else. There's no news reports of it that I can find... because it's not news. A transition team transitioning from one administration to the next... that's what they're for: Making sure the new administration is up and running on January 21. This isn't something one can do just during the minute or so the new President is being sworn in. What Flynn was doing is basically the entire point of having a transition team.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 17:25:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 17:49:22 GMT -5
Not quite what it says, RJ. I saw that the State Dept had no problem and even offered to help contact various governments. However, talking with another country as part of an incoming administration to introduce oneself is not quite the same thing as conducting foreign policy, which is against the law without authorization. Did President Obama specifically authorize Flynn to conduct foreign policy? I strongly doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 17:59:38 GMT -5
Not quite what it says, RJ. I saw that the State Dept had no problem and even offered to help contact various governments. However, talking with another country as part of an incoming administration to introduce oneself is not quite the same thing as conducting foreign policy, which is against the law without authorization. Did President Obama specifically authorize Flynn to conduct foreign policy? I strongly doubt it. Again, it doesn’t matter whether Obama or his State Department authorized Flynn to negotiate with the Russians. Though it is apparent that they did. It’s not a crime either way, it is Constititionally protected free speech. Never mind that It was Obama that necessitated this by imposing sanctions on the Russians with 20 days left in his presidency.
|
|