Reports that Rod Rosenstein Has Verbally Resigned To John Kelly

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

When you say prove someone is not corrupt, me pointing out how absurd that is isnt a strawman.

When you say I could handle this argument by proving your statement is in error, you are once again asking me to prove a negative, which is ridiculous.

Yes, you are entitled to be irrational and suggest people are guilty of things unless someone can prove their innocence.

And I am entitled to point out how absurd that is.

a reply to: Grambler

I believe most of the folks you are talking about are political appointees? I have had to work with a few, and they generally are there for a few years, punching a ticket, trying to influence acquisitions for their friends, and they are off to the next level.

Most civil servants never, ever get anywhere near politics. First, it is against the law (Hatch act), and second, if you do want to mess around in some high-level political game, unless you are in the Senior Executive Service, it would be pretty pointless. Who cares what a GS-12 thinks? Go back to doing your job, which is running the day to day operations of the government.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Im calm. Calmer than you are (big lebowski)

Thanks for your suggestions on what I should move on to, but I will decide for myself.

So you arent even suggesting trump committed a crime, and yet still believe the fact his cabinet havent called for him to be removed from office shows their corruption?

Hahahahaha!!

originally posted by: UKTruth
The issue is not the 25th Amendment - it is the means in which it is invoked. If you think the idea was that people could spy on the President to try and create some evidence via a recording and then lobby the cabinet based on that recording, then you are sorely mistaken.

I suggest if you have something other than your opinion you should post it.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Grambler

I believe most of the folks you are talking about are political appointees? I have had to work with a few, and they generally are there for a few years, punching a ticket, trying to influence acquisitions for their friends, and they are off to the next level.

Most civil servants never, ever get anywhere near politics. First, it is against the law (Hatch act), and second, if you do want to mess around in some high-level political game, unless you are in the Senior Executive Service, it would be pretty pointless. Who cares what a GS-12 thinks? Go back to doing your job, which is running the day to day operations of the government.

I agree 100%.

I bet 95% or more of civil servants could care less professionally who wins elections.

They are just good people doing the job they were hired for.

however, when some of those with power do abuse their positions for political reasons, its very dangerous and should be exposed.

That is why when Schumer says things like trump shouldnt criticize the intel agencies, or they will come after him, it is very disturbing, because its true as we are seeing.

We shouldnt have to have our president be afraid to criticize unelected bureaucrats because they will try to take him down.

a reply to: Grambler

Your taking exception with my statement of opinion was fallacious, and in your exuberance, you've dropped strawman arguments all over the place. You seem to want to bicker with me over utter nonsense.

Yes, my request that you "prove a negative" was ridiculous ... thus the "LOL." Yet, even though you missed that, you launch into the feculence above.

Overwrought and still obsessed with my slightest postings after all this time.

Sad.

a reply to: Grambler

What kind of President would be "afraid" of civil servants?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.

Hey, the elected officials make the laws. Civil service follows them, under the direction of the Executive policy and guidance. That is how it works. Political appointees are a left over from early in our nation, when offices were handed out to supporters during elections. They are still a problem. Remember "Brownie" during hurricane Katrina? Was he qualified to run FEMA, when all he had done in the past was as a commissioner of the obscure and apparently elitist International Arabian House Association?

originally posted by: Grambler
Exactly.

And yet the dems constantly call for investigations into obstruction.

And not just ATS dems, but congress members with actual power.

Further proving that they feel that they will just make up anything to try and remove him from office.

Both parties have a stranglehold on dishonesty.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Your taking exception with my statement of opinion was fallacious, and in your exuberance, you've dropped strawman arguments all over the place. You seem to want to bicker with me over utter nonsense.

Yes, my request that you "prove a negative" was ridiculous ... thus the "LOL." Yet, even though you missed that, you launch into the feculence above.

Overwrought and still obsessed with my slightest postings after all this time.

Sad.

Hahahaha!

Ok you were joking and now I guess admitting you have given no proof trumps cabinet is corrupt.

So you have admitted trump did nothing illegal by firing comey, and admitted that you are giving proof that trumps cabainet is corrupt.

Ok sweet, I guess we agree.

Next time a simpel "I was joking I clearly I would b=necver seriously ask someone to prove someone wasnt corrupt" will suffice.

And I am not obsessed with you at all.

You must have some sort of narcissistic complex to think anyone responding to things they disagree with you are obsessed over you.

I just disagreed with you, which you have done with me quite often, and never once did I think you were obsessed with me.

Just for S&G, here's the relevant portion of the 25th:

SECTION 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
Exactly.

And yet the dems constantly call for investigations into obstruction.

And not just ATS dems, but congress members with actual power.

Further proving that they feel that they will just make up anything to try and remove him from office.

Both parties have a stranglehold on dishonesty.

True.

I am sure when the republicans call for multi year special counsel investigations into the next democratic president, and trump uses his fbi to spy on his opponents, I will be calling them out more.

a reply to: Grambler

Why on earth do you keep posting "hahahaha"? It's silly.

I stated that the Cabinet and the Congress are corrupt for not invoking the 25th Amendment given Trump's actions in office. That's an opinion, G. Yours is different. Both are opinions.

Now, that's that. Feel better.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

What kind of President would be "afraid" of civil servants?

Well it depends on what civil servants we are talking about.

If we are talking the intel community, schumer says all of them should be afraid.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

What kind of President would be "afraid" of civil servants?

Well it depends on what civil servants we are talking about.

If we are talking the intel community, schumer says all of them should be afraid.

Do you have a quote for your claim?

originally posted by: Grambler

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?

I never said

rosenstien didnt committ sedition

I pretty much quoted the law, and what it means in layman's terms. I pointed out, however, for those that bothered to read, that sedition pretty much involves force, war, violence, etc.

No where in this thread has even the most crazy poster suggested the RR was planning a violent over throw of the government. That is the distinction I was trying to make, along with disputing the notion that speech alone can be in any way considered sedition, unless there is imminent danger of violence.

Please don't shovel words into my mouth, or ascribe a meaning to what I have written beyond what I have written.

I will hopefully show you the same courtesy.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Has he ever been wrong ? I don’t see how a legal opinion could be submitted without all the evidence .

He is a Constitutional scholar who's argued in front of the Supreme Court and now teaches the subject, he has far more insight than people quoting words they don't understand.

You claimed my position on the 25th amendment was wrong. I showed you the exact wording in the constitution

The 'exact wording' describes the mechanism, nothing more.

Then you claimed Rosenstein’s actions didn’t fall under the US code for seditious conspiracy. I showed you it did by definition .

Uh, now, you feel it's your opinion they do even though at this point they aren't even substantiated and if they were there is noting seditious about him discussing the implementation of the Constitution. The a Constitutional Amendment and its process cannot be seditious.

Then you presented a new topic that neither of them could be prosecuted .

You're all over the place man, galloping from sedition, the 25th and whatever else you can think of and trying to blame it on me. Too funny.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
Exactly.

And yet the dems constantly call for investigations into obstruction.

And not just ATS dems, but congress members with actual power.

Further proving that they feel that they will just make up anything to try and remove him from office.

Both parties have a stranglehold on dishonesty.

True.

I am sure when the republicans call for multi year special counsel investigations into the next democratic president, and trump uses his fbi to spy on his opponents, I will be calling them out more.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

I've seen enough talk to at least humor what you're talking about, but it still isn't fact of the matter yet.

That said, both parties were in on trying to derail Trump, just the same as if it was Bernie, or Ron Paul... The tactics were just different.

Both parties want their establishment friendly candidates getting the ticket.

Trump hijacked the Republican ticket, just like Bernie almost did with the Democrat ticket.

Unfortunately I think both of the candidates after Trump will be establishment friendly.

a reply to: JasonBillung

Yes you were saying that he didnt break the law, because he didnt meet the criteria in the law; ie using violence to overthrow.

I was saying Trump didnt break the law, because according to the law he is allowed to fire anyone in his cabainet.

Yet it is ok for you to show rosenstein didnt break the law before (which I agree with you) the IG is released, but I must wait for mueller before I can say trump didnt committ obstruction.

I think we both have the right to say what the law is and give our opinion.

An interesting source for what "obstruction of justice" actually means from a legal viewpoint:

Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law).

Source