It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reports that Rod Rosenstein Has Verbally Resigned To John Kelly

page: 18
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CriticalStinker

For some, it seems, following the US Constitution is "seditious" when it doesn't suit their political ends.

Sad.


And for others, their feelings that trump is bad justifies claiming he should be removed from office with theb25th amendment, and cabinet members that dont vote for that illustrates corruption.



Which is far more palatable when Trump can legally fire his subordinates, which I think he can do.

But charging people with sedition is far different, and carries strong ramifications.

I believe there have only been a handful of cases it was used, all of which people were trying to overthrow the government by force.


Agreed, i dont think what roesnstein did was sedition.

Nor do I think trump firing comey or rosenstein is obstruction.

In both of these cases, both are legally within their rights to do these things.


Comey especially. He wanted to use his position to get attention, something someone in that capacity had no business doing.

People are making a hero out of someone who is making a killing off of book deals when he abused his office, and I'd be willing to bet is setting up a run for some type of elected office.

He sure can fire Rosenstein, but I'd bet that will be met with more criticism. That's it though, just criticism.


Yes thats just it. Criticism can be offered for anything; it is subjective and not the law.

But clearly trump did not break the law.

And neither did rosenstein in my opinion.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Mr. Trump admitted in public that he fired Comey over "the Russia thing."

Not for incompetence, malfeasance, etc.

My opinion or your opinion of the situation ... is merely that.

Don't pretend, however, that there isn't ample evidence for Trump acting against the Special Counsel's investigation: that's merey specious.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: seeker1963




Maybe you're comforable with civil servants "running" the country, but I prefer those who we elect and can be fired when we vote to run our country comrade!


So the 2 million plus civil service employees who run the daily operations of the government should all be elected? How often?

You do know that it takes several years to become even a journeyman level employee in the federal government, right?

How long does it take to train a tax reviewer at the IRS? An inspector of a nuclear power plant? A NASA engineer?

You want all these folks to be elected?

Far out man. That sounds like a really common-sense approach to running our country.A popularity contest for who can decide what is a safe drug to take. Would big money be involved in these elections? Naaah. Not a bit.

Do yourself a favor, take some time before posting one-dimensional proclamations and think through the realities of what you are suggesting.



They should be able to be fired just like anyone else who works. Which they can't be. Why do federal imployees need a Union? Bad enough we have too many of em living off the tax payer teat, but they can't be fired because the tax payers also pay into their union dues?



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JasonBillung

How about civil servants do the job they were hired for, and dont seek to undermine elected officials agendas because they disagree with them like there are claims if them doing to trump?

Or how about they dont act as hatchet men of the elected president to go after his opponents like Obamas doj and irs?

I have no problem with them working on roads, or the tax code, or nuclear plants.

I have a problem with them using their jobs to affect their own political ideals, which they were not hired to do.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Why has this thread been moved to the pure fiction" section?



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, I did say that ... the fact that no one in Congress or the Cabinet has acted to remove Mr. Trump under the 25th is proof of their corruption.

Nothing that you've said counters that ... can you prove that the Cabinet/Congress/politicians aren't corrupt?

LOL. Be my guest, G.



Hahahaha!

Yes we know the new democratic standard, no presumption of innocence, prove you are not guilty!




... and you wander off into partisan rhetoric.

No thanks.


Yes, you have the high ground here, demanding people prove they are not guillty as opposed to innocent until prven guilty.

Hahahaha!



Dude. You illogically addressed me over something I said. If you didn't think it through, /shrug.

My statement stands ... the lack of action on the part of the "responsible parties" in our government in the face of Trump's obvious incompetence does demonstrate that they are corrupt.

If you can prove that they're not corrupt, you have a reason to bring it up. You don't, as usual, you're picking at nits.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Mr. Trump admitted in public that he fired Comey over "the Russia thing."

Not for incompetence, malfeasance, etc.

My opinion or your opinion of the situation ... is merely that.

Don't pretend, however, that there isn't ample evidence for Trump acting against the Special Counsel's investigation: that's merey specious.


I could repeat my answer to you that trump was well within his legal rights to fire comey.

But instead I will use your standard

Prove mueller and comey arent corrupt and shouldnt be fought against by trump.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

LOL ... have I said Trump wasn't within his "legal rights" to fire Comey?

Quote it.

If not, please move on and quibble over semantics and fallacies with someone else.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, I did say that ... the fact that no one in Congress or the Cabinet has acted to remove Mr. Trump under the 25th is proof of their corruption.

Nothing that you've said counters that ... can you prove that the Cabinet/Congress/politicians aren't corrupt?

LOL. Be my guest, G.



Hahahaha!

Yes we know the new democratic standard, no presumption of innocence, prove you are not guilty!




... and you wander off into partisan rhetoric.

No thanks.


Yes, you have the high ground here, demanding people prove they are not guillty as opposed to innocent until prven guilty.

Hahahaha!



Dude. You illogically addressed me over something I said. If you didn't think it through, /shrug.

My statement stands ... the lack of action on the part of the "responsible parties" in our government in the face of Trump's obvious incompetence does demonstrate that they are corrupt.

If you can prove that they're not corrupt, you have a reason to bring it up. You don't, as usual, you're picking at nits.


You cant even see how your own bias and ideology have warped your mind.

You hate trump and think he is terrible and needs removed from office.

therefore anyone on his team that have not suggested his removal from office are corrupt.

Its now up to everyone else to prove they are not corrupt.

Absolute insanity!



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But clearly trump did not break the law.


I believe we should wait for Mueller's final report before we use words like "clearly."

Many speculate, and that is fun. But we are not at the end of this long dark road yet...



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

More personal commentary from you about me.

I'm ignoring you to prevent thread drift.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Grambler




But clearly trump did not break the law.


I believe we should wait for Mueller's final report before we use words like "clearly."

Many speculate, and that is fun. But we are not at the end of this long dark road yet...


If you've noticed the level of pure rhetoric is elevated in the minds of some to fact.

Apropos of nothing, btw, welcome to ATS.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung


The civil service "runs" all federal, state and local government, per the direction of laws, policy, and elected officials. Did you have civics in high school?


There is a difference between civil service and bureaucrats that feel they run the country and elected officials are just short term hindrance they need to deal with now and then.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

LOL ... have I said Trump wasn't within his "legal rights" to fire Comey?

Quote it.

If not, please move on and quibble over semantics and fallacies with someone else.


Oh so you cant prove mueller and comey arent corrupt!

I thought so!

I asked what you were saying, and you never made it clear.

Ok fine then, you are admitting trump was within his legal rights to fire comey, and thus did not commit obstruction of justice.

Cool.

SO i guess your point is just it was legal, but you didnt like it? Sorry I thought you were implying it was illegal.


I am glad we agree trump committed no crime there!



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: seeker1963




Maybe you're comforable with civil servants "running" the country, but I prefer those who we elect and can be fired when we vote to run our country comrade!


So the 2 million plus civil service employees who run the daily operations of the government should all be elected? How often?

You do know that it takes several years to become even a journeyman level employee in the federal government, right?

How long does it take to train a tax reviewer at the IRS? An inspector of a nuclear power plant? A NASA engineer?

You want all these folks to be elected?

Far out man. That sounds like a really common-sense approach to running our country.A popularity contest for who can decide what is a safe drug to take. Would big money be involved in these elections? Naaah. Not a bit.

Do yourself a favor, take some time before posting one-dimensional proclamations and think through the realities of what you are suggesting.



They should be able to be fired just like anyone else who works. Which they can't be. Why do federal imployees need a Union? Bad enough we have too many of em living off the tax payer teat, but they can't be fired because the tax payers also pay into their union dues?


They can be fired. There is a process that must be followed. I don't know what salt-lick you are visiting, but in my time in the military and Federal employment I have seen many, many people discharged/fired.

ETA - do you still want all civil service employees to be elected? Then we would have to impeach them I suppose. Boy, I imagine that would be much easier then the firing procedures currently in place.
edit on 24-9-2018 by JasonBillung because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Grambler




But clearly trump did not break the law.


I believe we should wait for Mueller's final report before we use words like "clearly."

Many speculate, and that is fun. But we are not at the end of this long dark road yet...


Ok then you should wait for say the IG report before arguing page after page that rosenstien didnt committ sedition.

Or is it somehow ok for you to cite the law and what it means before his report, but not ok for others to do the same on other issues?



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

LOL ... ah, the drama!

I specifically stated that your quibble with my comment could be solved (or at least substantiated) by proving that my statement is in error OR saying that you disagree, as it is quite obviously in the nature of my opinion.

Just as 99% of your statements are.

Your overreaction is ridiculous as are your strawmen.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Just to clarify ... you think James Comey was setting up a book deal and a run for office while Director of the FBI?



No, sorry if I didn't word that correctly.

As a product of his circumstances he decided to do a book circuit. He is obviously profiting off of releasing juicy details of the inner workings of the FBI, and judging how he does these interviews, I think he is setting up to run for elected office.

Just my opinion, and it's not unprecedented that he would run for office, Bush Sr. ran the CIA and went on to do the same.

I just don't admire Comey by any stretch, he did nothing but mishandle situations to piss off both sides of the isle.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't said that Trump did or did not commit a crime.

I have stated that I think he's incompetent, and that the fact that CONGRESS or THE CABINET haven't acted proves their corruption. That's not news.

Now, calm down and move onto something important. You're sputtering.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

I just don't admire Comey by any stretch, he did nothing but mishandle situations to piss off both sides of the isle.


That's for certain.

Thanks for clarifying.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join