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: 20
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The intel community can really bugger you, if the high level folks want to. Not by going after you, but by not telling you everything they know.

Think about it. By with holding information, the executive or congress do not have a full picture to make decisions.

That is really what they do, not some spy-vs-spy stuff.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

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.


www.washingtonexaminer.com...

He is saying trump shouldnt challenge the intel community, because they have ways at getting back at you.

In other words, all elected officials best be careful about taking on the intel community, lest they get attacked by that community.

And given that community's powers, yes, I feel presidents should fear what they could do to them



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The ironic part of their argument is that they are acting like the Deputy Attorney General doesn't have a firm grasp on the law.

As I said earlier, this isn't some White House aide that slipped up, it was someone with a vast knowledge of the law. Even if he did knowingly did something against the law, my money would be he did so in such a way that he was buffered.

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.


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]


Wiki



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Doesn't the intel community comprise a good portion of that alleged "deep state" so many are talking about?

/shrug

Schumer stated an obvious fact ... he didn't threaten the President with something.

So, again, I would ask, what kind of President would be afraid of civil servants that he picks a trivial fight with?

Isn't Trump allegedly the Savior of the Republic, God's Warrior against the Deep State?

Seems to me, Trump is a piss-poor savior if he's scared of bureaucrats, but, that is my opinion, not a statement of fact. Perhaps that will save you multiple posts ... maybe not.

LOL.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well maybe I should start by critiocizing your lol like you did me typing "hahahaha"

But no, no need for that.

Look you can call him a Gods warrior and all of that, thats your words not mine.

Sounds like you have an unhealthy attraction to the man.

I am saying that any system where it is public knowledge that you shouldnt criticize certain unlelected bureaucrats or they will come after you needs to change.

You can mock people for being afraid of that oif you want; I chose to not want unelected officials that are above criticism attempting to run the country.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   

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.


I don't think I ever mentioned RR in the posts on sedition. I posted the actual law, and then the layman version of the law.

I don't think I ever brought up Trump in my posts about sedition.

Folks here seem to like to use terms like "sedition" and "treason" in a very loose sense, but then call for a legal punishment.

Be consistent. If you are calling for a punishment under the law, then make sure you have the right law, and use the correct legal terms. Constitutional law is a vocabulary and a process.

If you want so say "such and such" behavior is treason, and are merely being hyperbolic, ok. But when you then follow up with something like "the penalty for treason is death," well you have gone all legal.

I am sure you can see the inconsistency.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

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.


And people argue that the world is flat.

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.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

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...



edit on 24-9-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

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.



I agree 100%

This is going to sound very insensitive, but its like perjorative terms that get thrown around in day tyo day life.

"He is retarded" (a phrase I avoid as I work with disabled people)

Now wait, did you think what that term means? Are you aware what the technical definition is, and claiming that, or are you just using it as an insult because its so commonly thrown around.

I think we see a similar situation with terms like treaonsous or obstructing, etc. It gets thrown around so often that the technicality of the term has lost meaning.

And both sides do it.

If I had a dime for everytime I heard obama or trump committed treason, I would have many dimes.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

ding ding ding
I was wondering the same thing . Would he be considered a Whitehouse insider ?



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

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?


Did I say 'anything'? But I haven't seen anything at this point that warrants invoking the 25th. I find him personally distasteful but all that means is I got to suck it up for X amount of years like I did with the last moron.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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...




OK, but I posted "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."

Not really a response on your part. At least not an on-topic response.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

That's what I would do ,get that pension first . Look for the media or book deals later .



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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.


Oh, no, you're wrong! The forum experts have spoken and their vastly superior knowledge on Constitutional law clearly shows that this is seditious behavior. You know nothing Jon Snowjob.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

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



So if trump was a string man he would relish a corrupt intel community trying to bring him down for criticizing them?

That doesnt make any sense.

I guess eisenhower was also a wussy warning about the military industrial complex.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fair enough. I see multiple points of evidence that he is non compos mentis. Everything from his speech patterns to his emotional tirades to his using the power of his Office for personal means.

We differ on this point, Augustus. Fair enough.





top topics



 
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join