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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Shamrock6

You're not reaching anybody. You're not converting anybody.

Do you say all this same stuff in the pro-Trump, liberal Democrat bashing threads?

I have no problem questioning things Trump has done that I disagree with, and I have no problem saying much the same thing to our resident right-wing daily thread mouthpieces. Just because you've missed it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. As I explained in the other thread when you tried to dismiss my comments because you decided I'm a pro-Trump person, I'm not and have never hidden it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm sorry that you feel questioning the motivation of a thread is so personally offensive. You're welcome to flag my comments.

You'll get a cookie.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

that may allow a chief individual from Trump's campaign's lawfirm to oversee the "Russian Investigation"

That's probably the only way the truth of Democratic collusion with the Russians will ever be revealed. The Democrats surly are not going to incriminate themselves, are they?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Gothmog

Ethics Pledges and Waivers

The Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel lays out tough rules on how executive branch appointees are to conduct themselves and requires every appointee in every executive agency to sign an ethics pledge. The Executive Order allows for a waiver when the literal application of the Pledge does not make sense or is not in the public interest. In the interest of transparency, granted waivers are posted online.

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...

Did Trump sign an executive order to the contrary?

Did you read the EO? Can you point us to the line that says it's required to be published online?

Granted, I didn't read the entire thing, but a word search for "publish," "online," "transparency," and "post" didn't return any relevant results. The only one that returned any results was "post" and that was two references to post-employment and two references to the Post Office.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't have access to the actual EO. Isn't this a policy statement?

Ethics Pledges and Waivers

The Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel lays out tough rules on how executive branch appointees are to conduct themselves and requires every appointee in every executive agency to sign an ethics pledge. The Executive Order allows for a waiver when the literal application of the Pledge does not make sense or is not in the public interest. In the interest of transparency, granted waivers are posted online.

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...

a reply to: Shamrock6


I find it suppressive, and hostile. If you're not interested in a topic move along. No need to insult those who are interested in discussion.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: BlackJackal
So...Orange man bad?

Orange man fights fire with fire.

Orange man is indeed powerful, as the forefathers have foreseen.

a reply to: CharlesT


Robert Muller isn't a Democrat. Neither is Session or Rosenstien. And, no they're not investigating Democrats, they're investigating the Trump Campaign. DUH!

a reply to: BlackJackal

Dang you should get a new hobby,with all the criminal; activity by the FBI,I'm trying to see what was hidden,everything has been very transparent as the Libtards tell their tall storys,sounds like repeat and rinse

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don’t have to read my comments if you’re so horrified and scared of them. Simply flag, get your cookie, and move on.

This will be the last comment I make regarding what seems to be a growing infatuation on your part.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It’s not that hard to google the name of the EO and read it. They are, after all, posted online.

That’s the height of hilarity, I have to say. “All the waivers are online! But I can’t check the language of the EO because i don’t have access to it, even though I’m linking to EO pages.”

So again, if you find somewhere in the EO that waivers are required to be online, let us know.

a reply to: Shamrock6


I don't have the name of the EO, and it isn't posted on the web site, although the waivers are. I notice you didn't post a link to the EO, or it's name.

I appreciate your withdrawal from answering my posts, I hope you also refrain from insulting the motive behind any thread I may author. There is no doubt you do it to intimidate OPs and anyone who may posts in agreement with their posts. Long live the echo chamber!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I didn’t post a link because the link you keep posting has the exact title of the EO in question in it. It’s literally the first line. I didn’t post a link to the text of the EO because your own link provides the information and ability to find it. Don’t try and flip this into a “ooo shamrock isn’t posting the EO therefore we can dismiss his statement.” YOU made the statement that waivers are supposed to be posted unless Trump signed an EO to the contrary. YOU posted a link with the exact name of the EO in it. YOU posted the site that the EOs can be found on. If YOU can’t be bothered to research your own claim, that’s on you, but don’t put the onus on anybody else to do it for you.

Seems like you’re just trying to argue about something without making even the most minimum effort to learn anything you’re arguing about.

ETA - apparently you’re still crushing. That’s cute and all, and I’m sure it makes it easier for you to just keep trying to put me on the right so you can dismiss my comments. If you say it often enough then maybe one day it’ll be true, right? It’s funny, I notice you fail to appear in the right wing thread that I challenged the entire premise of the OP. Gotta keep those bias blinders on, right? Being a partisan hack is easier that way.

a reply to: Shamrock6


I did a Bing search on "The Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch", and get several hits, but none of them are the EO that I'm looking for. Again, you could just link it, since you challenged me to show you "where" in the EO it says anything about publishing.


A poster asked early in the thread, why the OP thought it was policy to post ethic waivers online. I posted the page that says that waivers are posted online. I say. the page presents the policy, and asked if Trump overrode Obama's EO and policy. An honest question.

You're the one arguing about how the EO doesn't say anything about a publishing requirement, when the more important issue is that, due to this waivor, IF Trump fires Sessions and Rosenstien, his campaign's lawyer will be in charge of an investigation into Trump's Campaign.

Right now we're worrying about something that might not even happen. So boring. Why not insult posters istead! That's always fun!

ETA:

ETA - apparently you’re still crushing. That’s cute and all, and I’m sure it makes it easier for you to just keep trying to put me on the right so you can dismiss my comments.

Don't flatter yourself. I don't need an excuse to dismiss your original comment.

a reply to: BlackJackal

No we have a big problem with doj and fbi ' lack of ethics and the news media too. They all have been is a state of interfering with the office of potus since he decided to run for office.