Will you be so bold when Trump incites a nuclear war with North Korea?
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
Will you be so bold when Trump incites a nuclear war with North Korea?
DanEFC92
Player Valuation: £90m
Trump lies all the time FFS
Me posting two National Review articles in a week, really is a weird world we currently live in
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454413/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-justice-department
’m taking a “wait and see” attitude on FBI agent Peter Strzok, who is now enmeshed in a political storm involving both the Clinton and the Trump investigations. You know why? Well . . . it’s because I can’t stand the Clintons. What difference does that make? Well, because I didn’t like them any better in 2001.
That was when I used to run the satellite U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York — the office based in White Plains that oversees federal law enforcement in six counties north of the Bronx. This venue gave me supervision for a time over a piece of the Clinton pardons investigation, the probe that arose out of clemency grants Bill Clinton issued in the last hours of his presidency. One involved four defendants convicted of a massive financial fraud in New Square (which is in Rockland County). They were members of a Hasidic upstate community that tended to vote as a bloc, and so the theory was that Clinton had commuted their prison sentences in exchange for the community’s electoral support for his wife, Hillary Clinton, who then was running for the Senate.
As readers of these columns may recall, I believe the Clinton pardons were deeply corrupt, and that the officials involved in them should never again have been permitted to hold positions of public trust. But whether people are fit for political office is a very different question from whether they should be subjected to a federal criminal prosecution. On that question, I was a strong “no.”
It didn’t matter how I felt about Bill and Hillary personally or politically — which was no secret to my law-enforcement friends and colleagues. This was a strict legal matter, and my sworn duty, like that of every other Justice Department prosecutor, was to enforce the law without fear or favor. President Clinton had the unreviewable authority to grant clemency. While the unsavory rationale for the commutations was obvious, it was far from clear that a politically motivated pardon was actionable, even if we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been a corrupt quid pro quo arrangement — which we couldn’t. End of story.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Also:Me posting two National Review articles in a week, really is a weird world we currently live in
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454413/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-justice-department
’m taking a “wait and see” attitude on FBI agent Peter Strzok, who is now enmeshed in a political storm involving both the Clinton and the Trump investigations. You know why? Well . . . it’s because I can’t stand the Clintons. What difference does that make? Well, because I didn’t like them any better in 2001.
That was when I used to run the satellite U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York — the office based in White Plains that oversees federal law enforcement in six counties north of the Bronx. This venue gave me supervision for a time over a piece of the Clinton pardons investigation, the probe that arose out of clemency grants Bill Clinton issued in the last hours of his presidency. One involved four defendants convicted of a massive financial fraud in New Square (which is in Rockland County). They were members of a Hasidic upstate community that tended to vote as a bloc, and so the theory was that Clinton had commuted their prison sentences in exchange for the community’s electoral support for his wife, Hillary Clinton, who then was running for the Senate.
As readers of these columns may recall, I believe the Clinton pardons were deeply corrupt, and that the officials involved in them should never again have been permitted to hold positions of public trust. But whether people are fit for political office is a very different question from whether they should be subjected to a federal criminal prosecution. On that question, I was a strong “no.”
It didn’t matter how I felt about Bill and Hillary personally or politically — which was no secret to my law-enforcement friends and colleagues. This was a strict legal matter, and my sworn duty, like that of every other Justice Department prosecutor, was to enforce the law without fear or favor. President Clinton had the unreviewable authority to grant clemency. While the unsavory rationale for the commutations was obvious, it was far from clear that a politically motivated pardon was actionable, even if we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been a corrupt quid pro quo arrangement — which we couldn’t. End of story.
"By and large, even if a suspect is a Marxist, the politics of the people investigating him shouldn’t matter any more than the politics of the surgeon who operates on his aching back. I don’t know Agent Strzok, but people who do tell me he is an exceptional intelligence agent. They say his transfer — effectively, his demotion — to the FBI’s human-resources division is exactly the sort of thing that should be celebrated . . . in Moscow. You want to tell me he was a Hillary supporter who couldn’t abide Trump? Those attributes would have disqualified half the country from working on the Clinton emails caper, never mind half the FBI. We have not yet seen the text messages between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who are said to have had an affair while working together on both the Clinton emails investigation and, for a brief time, Robert Mueller’s special-counsel investigation. But let’s assume he and Ms. Page are liberal Democrats and ardent anti-Trumpers, and that this is reflected in their exchanges, as it has been reported. Are we now saying that whether a prosecutor or agent is qualified to work on a political-corruption case depends on his or her party affiliation or political convictions? That would be a terrible mistake. It would do more to intrude politics into law enforcement than remove it.
Note: The removal does not mean Strzok took any offensive action; it means his continuing presence, under the circumstances, would have tainted the investigation. If the texts and other evidence indicate he and others have made investigative decisions based on political bias, then there will be a real scandal. For now, this is far from established. What else do we know about Agent Strzok? He is one of the investigators who interviewed then–national security adviser Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017. Flynn has now pled guilty to lying to the FBI, though, at the time, it appears that there was no good reason for the FBI to have interviewed Flynn as if he were a criminal suspect. It was appropriate for a Trump transition official and incoming national-security aide to communicate with the Russian ambassador, and the FBI had recordings of the conversations, so there was no need to ask Flynn what was discussed. Naturally, then, Trump supporters say, “Ah-hah! First Strzok gives Hillary a pass, then he entraps Trump’s guy Flynn into a process crime!” But is that really what happened? I don’t think so...
It is very much worth comparing this kid-gloves treatment of Clinton to the scorched-earth tactics of the Mueller investigation. It is completely appropriate to probe the extent to which law enforcement and intelligence collection were politicized during the Obama presidency, and to ask whether Strzok was driving that train or just along for the ride. But if you’ve made up your mind that Peter Strzok is responsible for tanking the Hillary Clinton case, and that he was putting his thumb on Mueller’s scale against the Trump administration, you are way out ahead of what we actually know — and you’re probably wrong."
* * *
At this point, they should change the name to Even The National Review.
I am absolutely certain that at least 2/3rds of their clicks come from libs who feel obligated, so they can pride themselves on being open-minded.
Last edited by a moderator:
DanEFC92
Player Valuation: £90m
Tbf I can't wait for McCarthy/Frum interpretation of this novel legal strategy
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/donald-trump-privilege-questions-284841
Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday cited attorney-client privilege to avoid telling lawmakers about a conversation he had with his father, President Donald Trump, after news broke this summer that the younger Trump — and top campaign brass — had met with Russia-connected individuals in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.
Though neither Trump Jr. nor the president is an attorney, Trump Jr. told the House Intelligence Committee that there was a lawyer in the room during the discussion, according to the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Schiff said he didn’t think it was a legitimate invocation of attorney-client privilege.
“I don’t believe you can shield communications between individuals merely by having an attorney present,” he said, after the committee’s lengthy interview with Trump Jr. “That’s not the purpose of attorney-client privilege.”
(nods)
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
lol
what a dull boy.
i'll be he's just adamant there's a Law and Order episode from a few years back that will prove him right
I wouldn't bother, he's obviously back to troll with inane garbage as per usual.
* Queue toffy to come call it a dictatorship and accuse us of shouting down people with other points of view haha!!
Not at all. Just think many have such a hard on for Trump to be impeached or whatever it is you hope that it's affecting your ability to be rational, fair and open minded in much of the discussion.
It's basically Trump can do no right, his supporters/followers are all racists, bigots and that Clinton and the Democratic Party would have been a better outcome for America. If those states run by Democrats are anything to go by then that's it.
Since I don't live in America I would like to know is any person that far worse off now under Trump then they were during the previous decade ?
That's rich. Those who don't care for the POTUS are limited in their ability to be rational, fair and open minded in much of the discussion yet you declare, "It's basically Trump can do no right, his followers/supporters are all racists, bigots and that Clinton and the Democratic Party would have been a better outcome for America. If those states run by Democrats are anything to go by then that's it."
Pot, kettle?
I live in the United States. Proud to have been born here. As far as worse or better off, I've never felt like my own personal well-being was a true measure of the success of the POTUS or the nation. That's by and large up to me. As far as what the POTUS controls, without question in my mind the current occupant of the office is an utter embarrassment, a poor representative of the nation to the rest of the world, an inept leader, morally/ethically bankrupt and not someone I would hope to be used as a role model for the children of this (or any other) country. Almost daily the man demeans the office and the role of government while also tarnishing the reputation and standing of our country among the other nations of this world.
So, yes. I think every single one of us in the United States is worse off for that charlatan/narcissistic fool holding office.
longers
Parcheggia l'autobus
This must be awkward for his alt-right base. They are huge on the anti George Soros anti-Semitic vibes and having to watch their orange overlord bend over for the Israeli lobbies must be killing them.
Or they don’t care because they don’t really care about any of the stuff they claim to and are just a bunch of loudmouth gobshit3s.
Or they don’t care because they don’t really care about any of the stuff they claim to and are just a bunch of loudmouth gobshit3s.
Ben Shapiro is like philosophy for 17-somethings who think that economics and the world's problems could be solved if we just listened to Cartman from South Park. Although Cartman can hold down a relationship better than most of them.
dandydan
Player Valuation: £40m
He won't.
- Status