Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Chizzang wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Lol, what a shitshow

FBI Is Investigating Florida Company Where Whitaker Was Advisory-Board Member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-is-inv ... s48CvqaiXb

This must be why Trump is now saying he has no idea who Whitaker is... Whitaker who..?
I don't even know who you're talking about



Jeezus this administration is a clown show

Another day, another unqualified rube.

kalm wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
No it's not....it's a political statement.

I dislike Pelosi for a couple of reasons.

1) She along with Hillary, Schumer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Barbara Boxer, Tom Perez etc. have done very little for the party in the last decade other than constantly lose elections....the Whitehouse, congress, governorships, state houses. And this while authoritarians and corporatists run roughshod over the 4th amendment and net neutrality, and continue to apply interventionist foreign policy. She's a

2) She preachy and unlikeable. Similar to a Ted Boobs or a Jeff Sessions.

Sexist...

I honestly don't enough about this topic to have an opinion, but based on the headlines from certain papers I want to think it is a good thing.

WASHINGTON — Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has drastically limited the ability of federal law enforcement officials to use court-enforced agreements to overhaul local police departments accused of abuses and civil rights violations, the Justice Department announced on Thursday.
....
Mr. Sessions imposed three stringent requirements for the agreements. Top political appointees must sign off on the deals, rather than the career lawyers who have done so in the past; department lawyers must lay out evidence of additional violations beyond unconstitutional behavior; and the deals must have a sunset date, rather than being in place until police or other law enforcement agencies have shown improvement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/p ... crees.html

department lawyers must lay out evidence of additional violations beyond unconstitutional behavior

This is straight shitty.

I'd love to hear someone make a case for it.

GannonFan wrote:Now, if Trump's doing this to cover-up something, well, for one, it's one of the worst ways to do that and two, it won't work. But that's more conspiracy theory right now.

As I said.... Pretty obvious it was about the Mueller investigation.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Now, if Trump's doing this to cover-up something, well, for one, it's one of the worst ways to do that and two, it won't work. But that's more conspiracy theory right now.

As I said.... Pretty obvious it was about the Mueller investigation.

Did anyone really doubt it had something to do with that? That's reason #1 why Trump didn't like Sessions anymore. He's only tweeted about that a couple thousand times. But we've known that for more than 2 years now. Whether he intends to impede or stop the Mueller investigation (i.e. the cover-up) is the question of the moment. Until he does something tangible to interfere with it or stop it outright then this is just talk.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
As I said.... Pretty obvious it was about the Mueller investigation.

Did anyone really doubt it had something to do with that? That's reason #1 why Trump didn't like Sessions anymore. He's only tweeted about that a couple thousand times. But we've known that for more than 2 years now. Whether he intends to impede or stop the Mueller investigation (i.e. the cover-up) is the question of the moment. Until he does something tangible to interfere with it or stop it outright then this is just talk.

analjelly just woke up.

GannonFan wrote:Did anyone really doubt it had something to do with that? That's reason #1 why Trump didn't like Sessions anymore. He's only tweeted about that a couple thousand times. But we've known that for more than 2 years now. Whether he intends to impede or stop the Mueller investigation (i.e. the cover-up) is the question of the moment. Until he does something tangible to interfere with it or stop it outright then this is just talk.

Don't think it's relevant except whether or not Whitaker wants to toe the line of obstruction as well.

Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was determined to be illegal. Doesn't matter that it failed or blew up in his face. Doesnt matter that Bork didn't shut down the investigation. It was done with corrupt intent. Trump firing Comey and Sessions is even more obviously so, imo.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Did anyone really doubt it had something to do with that? That's reason #1 why Trump didn't like Sessions anymore. He's only tweeted about that a couple thousand times. But we've known that for more than 2 years now. Whether he intends to impede or stop the Mueller investigation (i.e. the cover-up) is the question of the moment. Until he does something tangible to interfere with it or stop it outright then this is just talk.

Don't think it's relevant except whether or not Whitaker wants to toe the line of obstruction as well.

Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was determined to be illegal. Doesn't matter that it failed or blew up in his face. Doesnt matter that Bork didn't shut down the investigation. It was done with corrupt intent. Trump firing Comey and Sessions is even more obviously so, imo.

You're overreaching on corrupt intent. Comey was fired what, more than a year ago (and Democrats wanted his head as much as Trump did)? Sessions has been on his way out for months now, and like most of us admit, he was a pretty crappy AG anyway. If Trump fired these guys (who again, work for him at his pleasure) with the intent to inhibit or stop the Mueller investigation then he's doing a really crappy job of it because the Mueller investigation is still going on, is still fully funded, and doesn't seem to be in danger of being stopped by Trump any time soon. I'm sure Trump, in his mind, wants to cut off the Mueller probe today. That would be corrupt intent, no? But you don't prosecute what he's thinking (assuming that what he does qualifies as thinking) unless he truly translates that thinking into real, tangible actions. Firing Comey and Sessions, if they were done to inhibit or stop the Mueller probe, have done nothing to the Mueller probe as of yet. This isn't "Minority Report" and there are no pre-cogs.

Again, it doesn't matter at all if it was successful or not.

Nixon didn't successfully shut down the Watergate investigation. But, he did obstruct justice.

"endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice"

Skjellyfetti wrote:Again, it doesn't matter at all if it was successful or not.

Nixon didn't successfully shut down the Watergate investigation. But, he did obstruct justice.

"endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice"

Come on, you're skipping over history here. The obstruction of justice that was the basis of the pending impeachment against Nixon had everything to do with his admission on the tapes that they were paying money directly from the White House, at Nixon's full knowledge, to keep the folks directly involved in the Watergate break-in from talking and implicating the President. That was the obstruction of justice - the bribing of people in the midst of legal proceedings against them to stay quiet. If there's proof that Trump is doing that with Cohen or Mannafort or anyone else then that would be a valid obstruction of justice basis.

You're trying to spin the yarn that Trump firing Comey and then asking Sessions to resign is the same as the Saturday Night Massacre and that's just a misunderstanding of the history on your part (or the purposeful retelling of the story without important details just to support your view - I'm going to just assume your good intentions and that you're not remembering it correctly). Nixon was demanding the immediate firing of the special prosecutor, and when the AG and then his deputy in turn both refused to do so he fired them until he got to a replacement who would, and this is key, then actually DID fire the special prosecutor. There's no indication that Trump pointedly ordered Comey or Sessions to fire Mueller and then, when they refused, he fired them because of it. And further differentiating this from the Nixon comparison, Trump has still not put a person in the role of the AG who has fired Mueller. Mueller is still there, he's still working, and apparently Trump is even responding to questions in the investigation. All odd behavior for someone who is, if your comparison to the Saturday Night Massacre is true, trying to fire Mueller immediately. Mueller hasn't given any indication that he's been hampered or unable to do his job. So where's the obstruction?

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Again, it doesn't matter at all if it was successful or not.

Nixon didn't successfully shut down the Watergate investigation. But, he did obstruct justice.

"endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice"

Come on, you're skipping over history here. The obstruction of justice that was the basis of the pending impeachment against Nixon had everything to do with his admission on the tapes that they were paying money directly from the White House, at Nixon's full knowledge, to keep the folks directly involved in the Watergate break-in from talking and implicating the President. That was the obstruction of justice - the bribing of people in the midst of legal proceedings against them to stay quiet. If there's proof that Trump is doing that with Cohen or Mannafort or anyone else then that would be a valid obstruction of justice basis.

You're trying to spin the yarn that Trump firing Comey and then asking Sessions to resign is the same as the Saturday Night Massacre and that's just a misunderstanding of the history on your part (or the purposeful retelling of the story without important details just to support your view - I'm going to just assume your good intentions and that you're not remembering it correctly). Nixon was demanding the immediate firing of the special prosecutor, and when the AG and then his deputy in turn both refused to do so he fired them until he got to a replacement who would, and this is key, then actually DID fire the special prosecutor. There's no indication that Trump pointedly ordered Comey or Sessions to fire Mueller and then, when they refused, he fired them because of it. And further differentiating this from the Nixon comparison, Trump has still not put a person in the role of the AG who has fired Mueller. Mueller is still there, he's still working, and apparently Trump is even responding to questions in the investigation. All odd behavior for someone who is, if your comparison to the Saturday Night Massacre is true, trying to fire Mueller immediately. Mueller hasn't given any indication that he's been hampered or unable to do his job. So where's the obstruction?

Where's the underlying Russi... er I mean crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You also don't have to prove the underlying crime.

You have to show there was a legit investigation and the person knew about it.

I guess in this case, you think there's nothing to obstruct because you think it's not a legit investigation.

Skjellyfetti wrote:You also don't have to prove the underlying crime.

You have to show there was a legit investigation and the person knew about it.

I guess in this case, you think there's nothing to obstruct because you think it's not a legit investigation.

The lack of an underlying crime ultimately moots obstruction.

You sure do guess an awful lot

I don't think "moot" as a verb means what you think it means.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think "moot" as a verb means what you think it means.

I know precisely what it means and used it exactly the way I meant it.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Don't think it's relevant except whether or not Whitaker wants to toe the line of obstruction as well.

Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre was determined to be illegal. Doesn't matter that it failed or blew up in his face. Doesnt matter that Bork didn't shut down the investigation. It was done with corrupt intent. Trump firing Comey and Sessions is even more obviously so, imo.

You're overreaching on corrupt intent. Comey was fired what, more than a year ago (and Democrats wanted his head as much as Trump did)? Sessions has been on his way out for months now, and like most of us admit, he was a pretty crappy AG anyway. If Trump fired these guys (who again, work for him at his pleasure) with the intent to inhibit or stop the Mueller investigation then he's doing a really crappy job of it because the Mueller investigation is still going on, is still fully funded, and doesn't seem to be in danger of being stopped by Trump any time soon. I'm sure Trump, in his mind, wants to cut off the Mueller probe today. That would be corrupt intent, no? But you don't prosecute what he's thinking (assuming that what he does qualifies as thinking) unless he truly translates that thinking into real, tangible actions. Firing Comey and Sessions, if they were done to inhibit or stop the Mueller probe, have done nothing to the Mueller probe as of yet. This isn't "Minority Report" and there are no pre-cogs.

He does a really crappy job of looking like somebody with nothing to hide.