[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 11:45, said:

Describing belief in "a much "simpler answer" is actually pretty funny when you break down what that means:

A) "Official version": Two old friends met on a runway and visited for 30 minutes about family and old times.

B) "Coonspiracy version": Two old friends, one beholding to the other, planned a clandestine meeting by arranging to land two large aircraft at the same airport in order to hide from view, when any number of truly secret methods of communicating were available, and in 30 minutes concocted a plan to protect Hillary from prosecution regardless of what the FBI investigation found, knowing that the head of the FBI was rigorously straightforward and unafraid to back down powerful people who tried power plays, and these two people who were so smart to be able to compromise the FBI and Justice Department were too stupid to keep their meeting a secret, knowing that if came to light that it would probably cost Hillary dearly.

Yet B is the simple answer? Also, the use of the typical conspiracy website close: how can we trust the government? doesn't help the argument

Now, with that said, I agree that the was a monumentally stupid thing to do - and it looks quite suspicious on its face. And it was the one act that probably did cost Clinton the election. None of that rises to the level of conspiracy.

If you have listened to John Dean, you would know that he time and again talks about Watergate being a series of blunders by the White House - not the well-orchestrated cover-up it is sometimes presented as. Smart people do stupid things all the time - there is no reason to believe that Clinton/Lynch were any less susceptible to random stupid acts than anyone else.

I think the operative word that describes why all these "smart" people do stupid things is "hubris". To some extent, it applies to President Trump. It certainly applied to the Nixon White House, and definitely to the "entitled" Clintons.

I would ask you to compare the approach of the Lynch DOJ to the Sessions DOJ in these investigations. And in doing so, I think you have to consider that the DOJ under Jeff Holder, and, subsequently, under Loretta Lynch had clearly become politicized.

When Jeff Sessions was linked with some meetings with Russians, he promptly recused himself from the Russian investigation. Subsequently, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who has a pretty squeaky clean reputation of being apolitical, took over the oversight of the investigation. After only 2 weeks in his job as Deputy Attorney General (due to the Dems slow walking all Trump appointments), Rosenstein decided a Special Counsel was appropriate to remove all doubts as to the integrity of the investigation and whatever resulted from it. His choice was former FBI Director Mueller who also has a strong reputation of being apolitical. Whatever transpires going forward, it will be hard to attach any political motive/influence to what happens.

When her dubious meeting with Bill Clinton became public, Loretta Lynch did not officially recuse herself from the Clinton investigation. Instead, she said she would leave the decision on what to do with any findings to the DOJ's "career prosecutors". That might be OK, but with no way to make it apparent that whatever followed was without any political influence, it made whatever followed very problematic.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 11:45, said:

Describing belief in "a much "simpler answer" is actually pretty funny when you break down what that means:

A) "Official version": Two old friends met on a runway and visited for 30 minutes about family and old times.

B) "Coonspiracy version": Two old friends, one beholding to the other, planned a clandestine meeting by arranging to land two large aircraft at the same airport in order to hide from view, when any number of truly secret methods of communicating were available, and in 30 minutes concocted a plan to protect Hillary from prosecution regardless of what the FBI investigation found, knowing that the head of the FBI was rigorously straightforward and unafraid to back down powerful people who tried power plays, and these two people who were so smart to be able to compromise the FBI and Justice Department were too stupid to keep their meeting a secret, knowing that if came to light that it would probably cost Hillary dearly.

Yet B is the simple answer? Also, the use of the typical conspiracy website close: how can we trust the government? doesn't help the argument

Now, with that said, I agree that the was a monumentally stupid thing to do - and it looks quite suspicious on its face. And it was the one act that probably did cost Clinton the election. None of that rises to the level of conspiracy.

I want you to look at what we discussed from my original e-mail about almost everyone surrounding Clinton being mired in controversy:

1) Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chairwoman, fell from grace by claiming objectivity on national TV but clearly showing favoritism towards the Clinton campaign in her e-mails.
a) she had to recuse herself from the DNC convention as she had become a distraction.
b) she had to eventually resign from the DNC because her leadership and fundraising efforts became bad for political business.

2) Debbie Wasserman Schultz' staff sent brainstorming emails on how to sabotage Bernie by religious affiliation
http://www.nytimes.c...inton.html?_r=0

3) Donna Brazile, DNC Vice Chairwoman, presided over the DNC convention since Schultz had to recuse herself. see 1)a)
a) Donna Brazile had funneled debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of the CNN debates with Bernie Sanders.
b) Donna Brazile had to resign as Commentator from CNN because she had violated her employer/client relationship in her zeal to assist the Clinton campaign.

4) AG Loretta Lynch's unscheduled meeting with Bill Clinton compromised her integrity and independence in the investigation of the Clinton e-mail server scandal.
a) AG Lynch had to recuse herself from the investigation.
b) She went on a public apology tour on the news networks trying to explain it as an innocent rendezvous between old work buddies.
c) She agreed to accept whatever recommendations the FBI would make.

I have to ask this question, because it gets to the heart of "conspiracy theories":

HOW MANY ISOLATED COINCIDENCES CONSTITUTE REALITY OR (EQUAL A PATTERN)?

Granted A+B+C≠D. True enough, correlation doesn't equal causality.

Am I to believe instead that each and every one of these events are isolated coincidences that warrant no further consideration? Why does Hillary Clinton seem to have the worst of luck with her associates?

The government is known to release propaganda. See link https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Propaganda

Quote

Propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns."

What the government calls propaganda I call programming. Why? When any series of "isolated incidences" conflict with the government's programming efforts (or narrative), the government can use its reputation, 241 year history, and information obtained from its intelligence gathering services as a shield against dissenters.

The government has the upper hand because the burden of proof is always on the dissenter. The government doesn't have to release evidence that could implicate itself; it could classify that information, deny its existence, destroy evidence, fabricate evidence to smear the reputation of the dissenters, or delay addressing the concern to "stall" the momentum. The dissenters revealing the glaring inconsistencies are ostracized and relegated to "nut job" realm because the programming is THAT good and THAT repetitive and THAT continuous. A conspiracy has little downside risk for governments because as long as the government provides physical security and ample public goods to its citizens, the public will almost always grant the government official the benefit of a doubt even when there is growing evidence showing something amiss.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 15:40, said:

Now find a reason for Jared Kushner to clandestinely meet with the Russian Ambassador, have a second clandestine meeting with a representative from a Russian bank that is sanctioned in the U.S., and then for Kuchner to suggest to the Russian Ambassador that they allow Kushner a clandestine back channel contact with the Kremlin using Russia's communication systems.

Processing. . . .Processing. . . .Processing. . .LOL.

[cherdano]

rmnka447, on 2017-May-30, 15:47, said:

Subsequently, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who has a pretty squeaky clean reputation of being apolitical, took over the oversight of the investigation. After only 2 weeks in his job as Deputy Attorney General (due to the Dems slow walking all Trump appointments),

rmnka447, meet reality.

Quote

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said last month he would hold up the vote on Rosenstein until FBI Director James B. Comey briefed his panel about probes into alleged ties between the Trump administration and Russian officials — a matter that was then out of Rosenstein’s control.

https://www.washingt...m=.b34c6763ed2b

You should really reconsider the sources you are relying on...

[Winstonm]

Some it seems are waking up to the importance of fact-checking sources: (emphasis added)

Quote

Here’s neoconservative writer Max Boot tracing the arc of his attitudes toward Fox News:

Although Ailes had been pushed out of Fox News by the time of his death due to a raft of sexual harassment scandals and had no hand in the latest Seth Rich hoax, this is nevertheless the unfortunate culmination of his efforts to create an alternative news source. It was an ambition that I and many other conservatives sympathized with when Fox News went on the air in 1996. We had long chafed under what we viewed as the stifling liberal orthodoxy propagated by the major broadcast and print outlets. While not exactly “fair and balanced” — Ailes always meant the channel’s slogan to be taken with a wink and a nod — Fox was supposed to provide some ideological balance within the larger media universe. That was a laudable ambition, but what Fox has become is far from laudable.

Not only is it a toxic workplace where the harassment of women is rampant; it is also a no-fact zone. The Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact found that nearly 60 percent of the statements it checked on Fox News were either mostly or entirely false. Another 19 percent were only half true. Only Fox News viewers are likely to believe that climate change is a hoax, that there is a “war on Christmas,” that Obamacare would create “death panels,” that there is an epidemic of crime committed by immigrants (they actually have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans), that President Barack Obama forged his birth certificate and wiretapped Trump with the aid of Britain’s signals intelligence agency, and that the accusations bedeviling Trump are a product of “Russophobia.” FNC might as well stand for Fake News Channel, and its myths have had a pernicious, indeed debilitating, effect on U.S. politics.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 15:40, said:

Now find a reason for Jared Kushner to clandestinely meet with the Russian Ambassador, have a second clandestine meeting with a representative from a Russian bank that is sanctioned in the U.S., and then for Kuchner to suggest to the Russian Ambassador that they allow Kushner a clandestine back channel contact with the Kremlin using Russia's communication systems.

Before we get to the Kushner/Russian angle, I think you should know that Donald Trump is in violation of 5 U.S.C. §3110. He can't hire his daughter and son-in-law into executive branch positions.

https://www.gpo.gov/...apI-sec3110.pdf

Quote

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) “agency” means—
(A) an Executive agency;
(B) an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;
( C ) an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and
(D) the government of the District of Columbia;
(2) “public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress), a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency; and
(3) “relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.
(b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.
( c ) An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.
(d) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment, in the event of emergencies resulting from natural disasters or similar unforeseen events or circumstances, of individuals whose employment would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(e) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the appointment of an individual who is a preference eligible in any case in which the passing over of that individual on a certificate of eligibles furnished under section 3317(a) of this title will result in the selection for appointment of an individual who is not a preference eligible.

Two questions:

• Where the hell is Trump's White House legal counsel because they are asleep at the wheel? I am NOT on the federal payroll and found this in short order. Trump can NOT hire his son-in-law into a federal government position as Senior White House Advisor.
  
• How did the Office of Personnel Management not catch this violation of federal law? Did they miss Ivanka Trump's last name before they added her to the payroll register as Assistant to Trump. Just messy!

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 12:53, said:

You are still missing my point, Ken. Does (A) being impossible automatically mean (B), a conspiracy, occurred? That is my point.

Agreed. A+B+C does not equal D. We just have more questions than our government is able or willing to answer on the matter even when the fact pattern indicates that several things are askew. That is so frustrating!

We also have a government mired in $20 TRILLION in debt who has intelligence services from the rooter to the tooter and yet we can't get straightforward convincing answers on this matter. It's only natural to wonder is this political stonewalling or another poor example of our tax dollars at work?

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 11:45, said:

A) "Official version": Two old friends met on a runway and visited for 30 minutes about family and old times.

B) "Coonspiracy version": Two old friends, one beholding to the other, planned a clandestine meeting by arranging to land two large aircraft at the same airport in order to hide from view, when any number of truly secret methods of communicating were available, and in 30 minutes concocted a plan to protect Hillary from prosecution regardless of what the FBI investigation found, knowing that the head of the FBI was rigorously straightforward and unafraid to back down powerful people who tried power plays, and these two people who were so smart to be able to compromise the FBI and Justice Department were too stupid to keep their meeting a secret, knowing that if came to light that it would probably cost Hillary dearly.

There are a few middle options here too. One obvious possibility is that the meeting was not planned but that BC, after finding out that LL would be at the same airport, thought he could pull in a favour and make some problems go away without the backlash being too damaging. That is, no full conspiracy but a simple miscalculation from BC. I think the campaign season showed that his political instincts are not as sharp as they were back when he was in office, so such a scenario seems eminently plausible to me.

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-30, 18:54, said:

Before we get to the Kushner/Russian angle, I think you should know that Donald Trump is in violation of 5 U.S.C. §3110. He can't hire his daughter and son-in-law into executive branch positions.

There are ways around most regulations. If he were to delegate the choices for those roles to his chief of staff and he were to choose Trump's relatives as "the best person for the job", that would presumably be legal, just about. Nepotism happens - when the Chief of Police in Haven dies and the successor in the role just happens to be his son, well that is just a normal thing out there in the real world. Whether Trump bothered to go through such steps to comply with the letter of the regulations I do not know. But it would be a brave/foolhardy person in the HR department to say "no" to the POTUS on such a technicality. The only reason I could think of for someone taking that action would be because they wanted to hear him say "You're fired!" up close and personal.

[cherdano]

rmnka447, on 2017-May-30, 15:47, said:

I would ask you to compare the approach of the Lynch DOJ to the Sessions DOJ in these investigations. And in doing so, I think you have to consider that the DOJ under Jeff Holder, and, subsequently, under Loretta Lynch had clearly become politicized.

When Jeff Sessions was linked with some meetings with Russians, he promptly recused himself from the Russian investigation. (...)

When her dubious meeting with Bill Clinton became public, Loretta Lynch did not officially recuse herself from the Clinton investigation.

It is also worth pointing out how ridiculous this comparison is on the merits.
Sessions was part of the main organisation under investigation (the Trump campaign), he had contacts with Russia, and he did not disclose them until news media found out about them. He would be potential witness, and even possibly a target of the investigation.
Lynch had an half-hour chat with the husband of the person under investigation.

The thing that gets me about rmnka447 is that he is clearly intelligent and eloquent. Yet he uses his eloquence to reproduce non-sensical spin from right-wing websites. You can win a real-life debate like that. But in a forum like this one, where most (except for the few how are already on your side) are able to check and verify facts, people may just end up pointing at you and laughing - you certainly won't convince anyone.

rmnka447 - how about you try to make one argument here where you try to argue on the merits, rather than reproducing nice-sounding spin with no substance whatsoever? It'd be a much better use of your time.

I am completely aware that I may live my life in a left-wing bubble. It would be good to get some reality checks, and to have someone occasionally burst the bubble by pointing out inconvenient facts that would be more convenient for me to ignore. But reading the kind of non-sense presented by Trump supporters in this thread just reinforces the impression that everybody in my left-wing bubble gets everything about Trump 110% right.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2017-May-31, 06:06, said:

I am completely aware that I may live my life in a left-wing bubble. It would be good to get some reality checks, and to have someone occasionally burst the bubble by pointing out inconvenient facts that would be more convenient for me to ignore. But reading the kind of non-sense presented by Trump supporters in this thread just reinforces the impression that everybody in my left-wing bubble gets everything about Trump 110% right.

It is a strange twist that reading the articles from American right-wing sources always seems to provide much stronger arguments for leaning left than anything produced by European politicians such as Corbyn or Schulz. My natural politics is Tender (politic-speak for non-authoritarian) and very slightly to the right of centre on the radical-conservative axis but American influences makes me feel increasingly social democratic rather than liberal. That said, I would probably vote for the FDP here if I had the option tomorrow, so perhaps it is more a matter of perception than anything of substance.

Hmmmmm, lack of substance? Perhaps this post has more to do with Trump than I thought!

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-30, 18:54, said:

Before we get to the Kushner/Russian angle, I think you should know that Donald Trump is in violation of 5 U.S.C. §3110. He can't hire his daughter and son-in-law into executive branch positions.

I think they're getting around this by not paying them.

It's very convenient that they're all independently wealthy.

[awm]

barmar, on 2017-May-31, 09:08, said:

I think they're getting around this by not paying them.

It's very convenient that they're all independently wealthy.

Even "independently wealthy" is tricky -- in fact they are simultaneously running businesses which profit from their political roles and connections. So while not being paid for the job they are definitely profiting from it.

[barmar]

awm, on 2017-May-31, 09:52, said:

Even "independently wealthy" is tricky -- in fact they are simultaneously running businesses which profit from their political roles and connections. So while not being paid for the job they are definitely profiting from it.

Wouldn't that be true even if they didn't have official positions? You can hardly expect POTUS to completely disassociate himself from his family. They'll always have his ear.

I think the best you can expect is that they won't make decisions that have clear conflicts of interests between their political ties and business interests.

POTUS is expected to put his own assets into a blind trust. But in the case of Trump, this was not really feasible -- his main "asset" is his name, and the more concrete assets are his own company, not a portfolio of investments that trustees can buy and sell independently of him. But regardless of this, I don't think there's any similar requirement for family members.

If any of them are found providing advice to Trump that's biased based on their specific business interests, they should be subject to ethics charges. But if they advise actions that are good for businesses in general, that's just normal Republican policy-making. You can't prohibit this any more than we could expect a female president to avoid policies that are good for women.

[RedSpawn]

kenberg, on 2017-May-30, 12:32, said:

...

I can only offer one actual experience. At one time I held a position in the math department that gave me considerable influence over what textbooks would be used for which courses. Shortly after assuming this position someone came around from a text book company and offered me a good fee for reviewing a new text. Without thinking, I said sure. Within hours, I came to me senses and called him back. I explained that I would be happy to accept such an offer as soon as my term in this position ended. Of course I could render an impartial decision about texts to be used, . But you might or might not believe this, and that's the point. I did not want anyone wondering how my decisions were made. It took me a few hours to realize this because such an event is rare for me, I rarely have power over anything. It is not at all rare for a person with political power to encounter such a conflict. It is inconceivable to me that such a thing did not occur to someone as experiences as Bill Clinton. I regard this as impossible.

This gets to the heart of what constitutes good business ethics. You avoided a business relationship that would have created the appearance that a bribe/kickback influenced your math textbook selection. You avoided even the slightest appearance of impropriety by declining the fee until you were no longer in a position to determine textbooks for your math department.

Therefore, you avoided a conflict of interest which would have cast a shadow over your motivations for your final textbook selection. It would be difficult to establish that you served the best interests of the math department while receiving compensation from a textbook company participating in your review.

You would have had a professional duty to two organizations with competing interests and could not do justice to one organization without adversely affecting the other.

[awm]

barmar, on 2017-May-31, 16:27, said:

Wouldn't that be true even if they didn't have official positions? You can hardly expect POTUS to completely disassociate himself from his family. They'll always have his ear.

I think the best you can expect is that they won't make decisions that have clear conflicts of interests between their political ties and business interests.

POTUS is expected to put his own assets into a blind trust. But in the case of Trump, this was not really feasible -- his main "asset" is his name, and the more concrete assets are his own company, not a portfolio of investments that trustees can buy and sell independently of him. But regardless of this, I don't think there's any similar requirement for family members.

If any of them are found providing advice to Trump that's biased based on their specific business interests, they should be subject to ethics charges. But if they advise actions that are good for businesses in general, that's just normal Republican policy-making. You can't prohibit this any more than we could expect a female president to avoid policies that are good for women.

It's at least a little different. The expectation (and my impression was, the law) is that government employees are not supposed to be simultaneously working for private businesses which may profit from the information and influence they receive in their government role. It seems like the Trump family is in flagrant violation of this.

While it's true that the president (or any government employee) may have family/friends with such businesses, this is different from the government employee running the business him (or her) self, because the person making the business decisions is not the person privy to classified information, and any attempt to directly collude would require some communication (and thus be subject to transparency laws, subpoena, etc).

I agree that since Trump trades primarily on his name, complete disassociation is tricky. But appointing his kids to positions of power (while they are simultaneously running the businesses, rather than having other family members run them) is really a new low.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-30, 15:40, said:

Now find a reason for Jared Kushner to clandestinely meet with the Russian Ambassador, have a second clandestine meeting with a representative from a Russian bank that is sanctioned in the U.S., and then for Kuchner to suggest to the Russian Ambassador that they allow Kushner a clandestine back channel contact with the Kremlin using Russia's communication systems.

First, I am assuming all of the above are true. It is coming from Western intelligence sources, but they can be wrong as was the case with the Iraq War, but let's assume this fact pattern is true.

• Jared Kushner was part of Trump's transition team.

  Quote

  Contacts between a transition team member and foreign diplomats are indeed entirely normal. What is not normal though is asking a hostile government to provide secure communications to avoid FBI/NSA surveillance. --Eliot A Cohen, former Counselor for the State Department
  Therefore, the back-channel request will immediately send red flags to Congress, the Western intelligence community, and the general public. It paints a cloud of suspicion over the White House because the lack of transparency over the President-Elect's communications with a foreign enemy makes one question Trump's motives and loyalties as Commander-in-Chief (military & global) and President-Elect of the United States (diplomatic & domestic). See link for additional information. http://www.foxnews.c...s-it-legal.html
  
  
• The Western Intelligence Community has a motto, "In God We Trust, All Others We Monitor". Don't believe me? Try the following link: http://www.ebay.com/...=p2047675.l2557
  
  Trump's desire to keep the FBI/NSA out of the loop on his diplomatic efforts with Russia is unacceptable to the intelligence community. They are "all-seeing" and "all-monitoring". There is too much US and Russian military intervention occurring at the Syrian border for our armed forces and intelligence gathering services to not know the exact nature of diplomatic deal making occurring between Russia and its own President-Elect! Our military and intelligence services would be at a comparative disadvantage to discover the nature of those discussions after Russia moderated them.
  
  The President is Commander in Chief of the United States military. The military's short-term objective in Syria may not reconcile with Trump's long-term diplomatic objective to broker peace between Russia and the US in the Syrian Civil War. He has a conflict of interest between his military role as Commander in Chief to the Department of Defense and his foreign-policy role under the United States Department of State. The only way to resolve this situation adequately is to remain TRANSPARENT to his own governmental agencies at each step of the process.
  
  
• Kushner's proper response to the Russian diplomat while on the transition team should have been, "I am happy to hear what you have to say to us, but we have one President at a time."--Eliot A Cohen

The problem here is that President Trump is an insular businessman who has mastered brand marketing but has failed miserably at understanding the need for teamwork and networking. He can't be an effective President if he despises the media-industrial-complex, the D.C. establishment, and our intelligence community.

Trump must learn to hold his family and friends close, but his perceived enemies even closer.

Note: Interesting article about Kushner's relationship with Trump. https://www.bloomber...cked-into-probe

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-31, 03:10, said:

...
There are ways around most regulations. If he were to delegate the choices for those roles to his chief of staff and he were to choose Trump's relatives as "the best person for the job", that would presumably be legal, just about. Nepotism happens - when the Chief of Police in Haven dies and the successor in the role just happens to be his son, well that is just a normal thing out there in the real world. Whether Trump bothered to go through such steps to comply with the letter of the regulations I do not know. But it would be a brave/foolhardy person in the HR department to say "no" to the POTUS on such a technicality. The only reason I could think of for someone taking that action would be because they wanted to hear him say "You're fired!" up close and personal.

Fair enough, but. . .

Quote

“A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law. --James Shott, https://patriotpost....ommentary/26902

President Trump may have found a "work around" for this federal law by not compensating his family members, but it does set a new low for the Presidency. Why? Trump is implicitly showing by leadership example that it is okay to follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of the law.

Quote

When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law.-- https://en.wikipedia...irit_of_the_law

It is obvious that 5 U.S. Code § 3110 was constructed to put a halt to nepotism in the federal government. Why not honor the spirit of the law instead of searching for ways to circumvent it through "back door" escape clauses, such as not compensating his hired family members through the Treasury? If we can't get our own President to honor the spirit of the law, then why should we?

The optics of this situation aren't appealing, but he may skirt this issue on a technicality.

[rmnka447]

cherdano, on 2017-May-31, 06:06, said:

It is also worth pointing out how ridiculous this comparison is on the merits.
Sessions was part of the main organisation under investigation (the Trump campaign), he had contacts with Russia, and he did not disclose them until news media found out about them. He would be potential witness, and even possibly a target of the investigation.
Lynch had an half-hour chat with the husband of the person under investigation.

The thing that gets me about rmnka447 is that he is clearly intelligent and eloquent. Yet he uses his eloquence to reproduce non-sensical spin from right-wing websites. You can win a real-life debate like that. But in a forum like this one, where most (except for the few how are already on your side) are able to check and verify facts, people may just end up pointing at you and laughing - you certainly won't convince anyone.

rmnka447 - how about you try to make one argument here where you try to argue on the merits, rather than reproducing nice-sounding spin with no substance whatsoever? It'd be a much better use of your time.

I am completely aware that I may live my life in a left-wing bubble. It would be good to get some reality checks, and to have someone occasionally burst the bubble by pointing out inconvenient facts that would be more convenient for me to ignore. But reading the kind of non-sense presented by Trump supporters in this thread just reinforces the impression that everybody in my left-wing bubble gets everything about Trump 110% right.

Cherdano, thanks for the thoughtful critique.

How about this opinion piece from the (ugh?) Washington Post by a fellow non-Trump fan? https://www.washingt...m=.d1d100ef6642

[RedSpawn]

rmnka447, on 2017-June-01, 15:47, said:

Cherdano, thanks for the thoughtful critique.

How about this opinion piece from the (ugh?) Washington Post by a fellow non-Trump fan? https://www.washingt...m=.d1d100ef6642

I agree with the Washington Post that we do not meet the legal threshold for obstruction of justice charges against President Trump since there is no evidence of Trump's intent to threaten Comey.

Advancing the impeachment story line would heighten the political kabuki theater and create enough controversy to hamper Congress' ability to debate bills and conduct the people's business. Don't let the propaganda deceive you. It's the media's job to control what you think; it will support the narrative that best aligns with its corporate agenda.

Media bias is now the rule of law rather than the exception. Too many members of the Corporate Media Complex have transformed news into "entertainment" or "infotainment". That's why our current political dysfunction resembles a horribly written reality TV show with no end in sight. Instead of falling for the carefully placed distractions, we should be asking Congress, "What Have You Done for Me Lately"?

The D.C. establishment and the media have been railing against Trump ever since he announced his candidacy for POTUS. They labeled him a carnival barker who lacks the political pedigree that the Presidency requires. They predicted he would not win. However, the electoral college proved them wrong and declared Trump President despite the popular vote. This happens sometimes, so we should just accept the political process for what it is and move on.

However, the media and political establishment are still in denial about Trump's political victory. He wasn't supposed to win the election when the system had been rigged to favor political insiders. The establishment wants to neutralize the election results by leading a ruthless smear campaign--all because they don't like the impulsive, mysterious bully in the White House. They have been angling for an impeachment ending to this story line so Pence/Ryan can occupy the White House and stick to the script. They want the unpredictable outsider gone--NOW!

Ever wonder why the media sat on this treasure trove of disturbing, yet titillating information about Trump until after Election Day? Hmmmm....just another isolated coincidence, I guess.

[PeterAlan]

barmar, on 2017-May-31, 09:08, said:

I think they're getting around this by not paying them.

I don't see this. (b) says you can't appoint them. (c) says if they are appointed "in violation of" (b) they can't be paid - presumably so that if a contentious case arises that is finally deemed to fall foul of (b) they don't get to keep what they've already been paid. But (b) still prohibits appointment, paid or not. The only wriggle room would appear to be over what posts are covered, ie what is a "civilian position in the agency".