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.

 

Trump administration tried to hide an ethics waiver which indicates their plans against Mueller

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: BlackJackal




Last night the news broke that the Trump administration had signed an ethics waiver in April of this year but they did not make this information public like they are supposed to

Supposed to according to whom ?
CNN ?
Maxine Waters ?
Oprah Winfrey ?
Michael Avenatti ?
Barry Soetoro ?


According to The Office of Government Ethics.

Link

That is not the Office of Government Ethics
And no where in that "article" does it say "supposed to"
So , a non-governmental "open secrets org" are the folks that make the White House disclose waivers ?
Did you even read with comprehension the very first statement ?
Evidently not .

Barry is no longer President and Hillary lost
Get over it
Life goes on.




After a standoff with the Office of Government Ethics over whether the White House had to disclose ethics waivers given to White House staff members, the Trump administration blinked first. On May 31st, the administration disclosed that it has issued 14 waivers — more than four times the amount Barack Obama granted during his first four months and almost as many as he granted during his entire time in the Oval Office.


Wow. So they’ve almost already waved more ethics requirements for people than Obama did in his entire term. Huh. It’s a good thing you guys don’t care about the ethical behavior of the Obama admin, otherwise you’d have a hard time supporting this without being a blatant hypocrite.

The Trump administration: ethics free since 2016. Maybe they need to make a sticker.

There is no legal requirement to disclose.
And , did I mention Barry ?
HADES no.




posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: caterpillage
The left is collectively loosing their minds.
I've never seen such passionate hate.
Y'all need jesus.


Love it!!! Can’t contribute to the discussion so you make a generic “ Left people dumb” comment.


It’s really the only argument they have. They know this is dirty and indefensible, they just don’t care. Because it’s their guy being dirty.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: BlackJackal




Last night the news broke that the Trump administration had signed an ethics waiver in April of this year but they did not make this information public like they are supposed to

Supposed to according to whom ?
CNN ?
Maxine Waters ?
Oprah Winfrey ?
Michael Avenatti ?
Barry Soetoro ?


According to The Office of Government Ethics.

Link

That is not the Office of Government Ethics
And no where in that "article" does it say "supposed to"
So , a non-governmental "open secrets org" are the folks that make the White House disclose waivers ?
Did you even read with comprehension the very first statement ?
Evidently not .

Barry is no longer President and Hillary lost
Get over it
Life goes on.




After a standoff with the Office of Government Ethics over whether the White House had to disclose ethics waivers given to White House staff members, the Trump administration blinked first. On May 31st, the administration disclosed that it has issued 14 waivers — more than four times the amount Barack Obama granted during his first four months and almost as many as he granted during his entire time in the Oval Office.


Wow. So they’ve almost already waved more ethics requirements for people than Obama did in his entire term. Huh. It’s a good thing you guys don’t care about the ethical behavior of the Obama admin, otherwise you’d have a hard time supporting this without being a blatant hypocrite.

The Trump administration: ethics free since 2016. Maybe they need to make a sticker.

There is no legal requirement to disclose.
And , did I mention Barry ?
HADES no.


What do you think about the ethical implications? Do you now blindly trust the government to be ethical?



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


In the interest of transparency

So , "in the interest of transparency" is a requirement ?
Why did you not bold that part as well ?
Selective bolding ?
Denying Ignorance
A dirty job , yet someone has to do it in the name of ATS
And , I did my part.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I just want to say, this is a weird timeline. I’ve been locked up, arrested, criminalized, ran through the system more times than I can count, and I have a record about as long as my arm.

Yet you guys are so dirty it makes me look like Captain America. I can’t believe I’m here arguing in favor of the law and ethics, while the people who oppose me call themselves patriots.

What a strange time to be alive.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
I have to say, I didn’t think my opinion of Trump followers could go any lower until right now.

Thanks guys. We always knew you were kidding about the whole “ethics” thing. It’s refreshing to see you publicly throw law and order out the window because of your support for a shady real estate developer.

For everyone else, wake up. Look at their responses here and in other threads. They don’t care if Trump has committed crimes, they don’t care if the concept of ethics is thrown away. All they care about is having something to make the other side angry with. That’s it. That’s the whole of their platform.

Remember that when you vote. I for one won’t forget it. We’re at a crossroads right now, and we either give in to the lawlessness and division they so gleefully sow, or we put a check on it.

It’s up to you.
Yawn, cool story bro, but everytime you post, we can't help but laugh to ourselves, before we read your garbage.

You people and your ilk know nothing about law and order, this has been established. Literally, everything ya'll post have no resounding effect on anything and constantly proven wrong, probably why many leftist are suddenly "central", "liberterian" or some other random affiliation to distance themselves from all the hyper partisan crap Dems pull.

You won't enjoy next election either.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Precisely, law and order mean nothing, considering you've been "ran through the system more times than you can count", just can't learn, huh?

Smh, rules aren't hard to follow, probably why you folks advocate breaking laws for personal gain 😐



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: underwerks
I have to say, I didn’t think my opinion of Trump followers could go any lower until right now.

Thanks guys. We always knew you were kidding about the whole “ethics” thing. It’s refreshing to see you publicly throw law and order out the window because of your support for a shady real estate developer.

For everyone else, wake up. Look at their responses here and in other threads. They don’t care if Trump has committed crimes, they don’t care if the concept of ethics is thrown away. All they care about is having something to make the other side angry with. That’s it. That’s the whole of their platform.

Remember that when you vote. I for one won’t forget it. We’re at a crossroads right now, and we either give in to the lawlessness and division they so gleefully sow, or we put a check on it.

It’s up to you.
Yawn, cool story bro, but everytime you post, we can't help but laugh to ourselves, before we read your garbage.

You people and your ilk know nothing about law and order, this has been established. Literally, everything ya'll post have no resounding effect on anything and constantly proven wrong, probably why many leftist are suddenly "central", "liberterian" or some other random affiliation to distance themselves from all the hyper partisan crap Dems pull.

You won't enjoy next election either.


Cool gaslighting bro, is that it?



I think I’d die from shock if you guys ever had a pro-Trump argument instead of an anti everyone else one.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

originally posted by: BlackJackal
As you can see here all ethics waivers are published online.


What exactly leads you to believe that all ethics waivers are published online?


It is required by the office of Government Ethics.


You didn't answer my question.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: underwerks
I have to say, I didn’t think my opinion of Trump followers could go any lower until right now.

Thanks guys. We always knew you were kidding about the whole “ethics” thing. It’s refreshing to see you publicly throw law and order out the window because of your support for a shady real estate developer.

For everyone else, wake up. Look at their responses here and in other threads. They don’t care if Trump has committed crimes, they don’t care if the concept of ethics is thrown away. All they care about is having something to make the other side angry with. That’s it. That’s the whole of their platform.

Remember that when you vote. I for one won’t forget it. We’re at a crossroads right now, and we either give in to the lawlessness and division they so gleefully sow, or we put a check on it.

It’s up to you.
Yawn, cool story bro, but everytime you post, we can't help but laugh to ourselves, before we read your garbage.

You people and your ilk know nothing about law and order, this has been established. Literally, everything ya'll post have no resounding effect on anything and constantly proven wrong, probably why many leftist are suddenly "central", "liberterian" or some other random affiliation to distance themselves from all the hyper partisan crap Dems pull.

You won't enjoy next election either.


Cool gaslighting bro, is that it?



I think I’d die from shock if you guys ever had a pro-Trump argument instead of an anti everyone else one.
Just stating facts 😌 but, don't wait on us 😏



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123


Precisely, law and order mean nothing,


Really, I’m just happy you guys are finally being honest about what you believe.





posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Arnie123


Precisely, law and order mean nothing,


Really, I’m just happy you guys are finally being honest about what you believe.


...and I'm glad you were honest about your complete disregard of law and order, exactly what we expected 😌



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Last night the news broke that the Trump administration had signed an ethics waiver in April of this year but they did not make this information public like they are supposed to. As you can see here all ethics waivers are published online. This waiver is for Soliciter General Noel Francisco and waives him from any ethics rules in relation to who his law firm, Jones Day, is representing.

So, keeping the waiver secret is one story but the bigger story are the implications. Jones Day represents Donald Trump in the Mueller investigation. If Rod Rosenstein is fired the Mueller investigation would fall to the Solicitor General because the third position in the DOJ is currently vacant. However, without this waiver he would not be able to legally take the Mueller investigation due to conflicts of interest.

So it is now obvious what Trumps plans are for after the election. He will either fire Rosenstein or Rosenstein and Sessions and allow the investigation to fall to Noel Francisco a former member of the law firm defending Trump.

Link



Not sure what the big deal would be. Mueller has turned up absolutely zero in regards to anything on Trump....you know....the guy he was hired to destroy....literally nothing.

So why would anyone care if he continued right? I mean keep on blowing tax payer money dems....that's what they are the best at.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Arnie123


Precisely, law and order mean nothing,


Really, I’m just happy you guys are finally being honest about what you believe.


...and I'm glad you were honest about your complete disregard of law and order, exactly what we expected 😌


Oh, everything I do is completely legal now. I was just waxing poetic about the criminality of your beliefs.


Thanks again for leaving no doubt about that.

😎



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Arnie123


Precisely, law and order mean nothing,


Really, I’m just happy you guys are finally being honest about what you believe.


...and I'm glad you were honest about your complete disregard of law and order, exactly what we expected 😌


Oh, everything I do is completely legal now. I was just waxing poetic about the criminality of your beliefs.


Thanks again for leaving no doubt about that.

😎
Lmfao, "Now"

Such a joke 🤣



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Not one right wing poster has addressed what they think about the implications of a presidential administration flouting ethics rules. Just personal attacks, that’s it.

Which of course means you don’t have an argument, but I still want to give them a chance. In the rare case there might be someone out there who can defend this.

So, if you’re out there, do you think it’s a good thing for the government to be less transparent about following ethics guidelines? I’d really love to hear your reasons why you think this is a good thing.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
“Ethics concerns”. Note that any concerns over ethics will disappear as soon as it doesn’t involve members of the Trump administration.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I don't have to. Others here are doing a quite sufficient job of doing that. My problem is that you seem to be doing everything you can to undermine this administration in support of the liberal democratic agenda. You claim to be conservative but I don't buy it.

Truth is I have known of the Clintons from their very start in Arkansas and have recognized their criminality from the start. They have made the mafioso look like saints.

The democratic party in it's whole is so corrupted that it should be investigated in detail for subversion of our democratic constitutional republic and actual treason to subvert the nation I love. But the FBI and DOJ has been so corrupted with henchmen loyal to the actual conspirators that the true perpetrators of this criminal cabal will never be brought to account.

Actually, I resent you for even trying to support their criminality. Buzz off!



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Not one right wing poster has addressed what they think about the implications of a presidential administration flouting ethics rules. Just personal attacks, that’s it.

Which of course means you don’t have an argument, but I still want to give them a chance. In the rare case there might be someone out there who can defend this.

So, if you’re out there, do you think it’s a good thing for the government to be less transparent about following ethics guidelines? I’d really love to hear your reasons why you think this is a good thing.


Nobody can because the OP is based on a guess as to what the "plan" is and I guess continues to assume Muellers investigation is getting somewhere.

Do you want anyone on the right to just guess at this or is there something based in fact you can point to that could actually be argued?



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog


The "published on line" is the requirement. So, was the EO repealed by another one from Trump" If not, his administration is in violation of not publishing the ethics waiver on line.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join