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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?
The new leader of Democrats in the Senate says Donald Trump is being "really dumb" for picking a fight with intelligence officials, suggesting they have ways to strike back, after the president-elect speculated Tuesday that his "so-called" briefing about Russian cyberattacks had been delayed in order to build a case.
"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Tuesday evening on MSNBC after host Rachel Maddow informed him that intelligence sources told NBC news that the briefing had not been delayed.
In 1936, Pedro Albizu Campos, a Puerto Rican Nationalist, and nine others were charged with forcibly attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico and were jailed for 10 years in Atlanta, Georgia.
In 1980, Puerto Rican Nationalist Carmen Valentín Pérez and nine other women and men were charged with seditious conspiracy for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States in Puerto Rico, and were each given sentences of up to 90 years in prison.[6]
'
On 1 October 1995, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a prominent Muslim cleric, and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[7] They had been accused of terrorist plots in New York City.
On 29 March 2010, nine members of Hutaree were charged with seditious conspiracy.[8]
originally posted by: JasonBillung
Hey, the elected official make the laws. Civil service follows them, under the direction of the Executive policy and guidance. That is how it works
originally posted by: Grambler
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.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: JasonBillung
Hey, the elected official make the laws. Civil service follows them, under the direction of the Executive policy and guidance. That is how it works
I think some disagree with you.
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: JasonBillung
I agree with everything you say here, which is why I agree rosenstein didnt committ sedition in what he is clamied to have done.
I also feel the exact same standard should be applied when people are saying trump is breaking the law, such as obstruction.
In fact not a day goes by seemingly on ats when trump isnt accused of treason.
All of these claims are hyperbolic as well.
Thats why I call out both side for it.
originally posted by: JasonBillung
Show me a credible source that contradicts my statement above on the process of law and policy when it comes to the federal civil service. Might be a separete thread, though.
originally posted by: JasonBillung
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: JasonBillung
I agree with everything you say here, which is why I agree rosenstein didnt committ sedition in what he is clamied to have done.
I also feel the exact same standard should be applied when people are saying trump is breaking the law, such as obstruction.
In fact not a day goes by seemingly on ats when trump isnt accused of treason.
All of these claims are hyperbolic as well.
Thats why I call out both side for it.
Concur.
I don't think most folk conflate both the loose understanding of these words and the legal punishments on purpose because they intentionally want to look foolish in public. I think that this type or discourse has become so common that folks do not realize how silly they sound when the use a specific legal term to mean anything they want it to mean, and then argue the issue.
Nice exchange.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... anything Trump chooses to do, no matter how irrational or ridiculous is okay by you then as a reflection the power of the office of President?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: JasonBillung
Show me a credible source that contradicts my statement above on the process of law and policy when it comes to the federal civil service. Might be a separete thread, though.
Lots of undermining of the Trump administration even before his first day in office. Seems everyone expected and wanted Hillary that it has lead to nothing but an up hill struggle for Trump that has been mainly from the bureaucrats. The massive leaks, the FISAs, the collusion investigation that has taken on a totally different roll of going after anyone around Trump as we pass two years of nothing with ALL of the money and power of the FBI and 13 other agencies while kit gloves approach for Hillary ...hard to say it has all been non-partisan...
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
If he did break the law though, it surely wouldn't be sedition, which I've seen those arguing that it was sedition only put a snippet of the article up. The most important part of the article is that it's done by force. I'm sure that they hyperbole bunch would love to frame it up to be that "eschelans in Trumps cabinet are trying to forcibly remove him via coup". Well, let's do the most important thing with a law and see how it has been interpreted by judges in prior cases.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler
Yeah, I love Trump ... That makes sense.
A man who campaigns on taking on the issues in our system should not constantly whine that the outcomes of that challenge are scary.
If Trump were the man you seem to think he'd relish the challenge. However, the extent of his abilities in that regard seem to be limited to Twitter ... And of course, the sycophants that attempt to challenge every perceived slight.
The man is the POTUS for goodness sake