jakee

He should be. From WaPo Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle. Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.... ...I say this. If the department truly acted because of good-faith commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of those commitments in other cases that do not involve friends of the president? Where are the narcotics cases in which the department has filed a sentencing memorandum overruling career prosecutors? Where are the other false-statements cases dismissed after a guilty plea? There are none. Is that because the only cases in the United States that warranted intervention by department leadership happened to involve friends of the president? Of course not. This kind of political interference in the criminal justice system is a full blown constitutional crisis. Once you take that genie out of the bottle and get away with it you can't put it back. The US might need to decide whether it wants to elect a president for 4 years or a king for 4 years, because Trump says it's the latter.

You also refuse to see how your own bias changes your thinking. You claim to recognise that you have bias in general, but whenever you're challenged on the worst examples of how your bias affects the way you judge specific situations you ether refuse to admit it or refuse to reconsider your position. So yay for you saying you're biased in this post - but what's the point? You've even gone from claiming you're trying to work towards judging situations neutrally to telling Bill the other day that you're deliberately posting more right wing stuff to piss off the left.

You're going to need to explain how you managed to reach that conclusion.

Do you think Clinton needed to deny that he was black?

I'm alright Jack. "I've got mine" sounds much more American.

I'm curious, why worry about politics at all if you know that whoever God wants to be elected will be elected?

It's deeply ironic that Ron not only believes in the Deep State but is also their biggest cheerleader.

You're confusing authoritarianism with communism. Evidence from the Soviet Union and Maoist China would suggest that a communist approach would involve coming up with a plan of action based more on political ideals than science, predicting wildly ambitious results, and subsequently failing on all fronts but declaring victory anyway. Turns out that the USA is going for the communist approach already.

Don't be daft. No-one needs a Covid-19 outbreak in their own country to be able to see without doubt how dangerous Covid-19 is, because it would still be happening everywhere else. And while you're using the claim 'it would've went to zero' as an absurdist statement to illustrate how clueless you think the left are - remember that in reality the only person oblivious to claim they could do something that would lead to zero cases in the US is Donald Trump himself.

Right - so because a woman who was not part of the investigation or the administration didn't know anything that affects the credibility of the investigation? Ok cool, let's try this - since my mate Dave doesn't know anything about Benghazi will you finally admit the Clinton investigation was a witchunt?

Thing is, if you know who Trump is you know that he lies far more than any other politician. He's also presiding over a rapid acceleration in gutting the Federal government of senior career non-partisan subject matter experts and putting more decision making in the hands of political appointees instead. If you don't like career politicians because they're out for themselves consider that a vote for Trump is a vote for unprecedented cronyism. In fact, leave aside all the personal stuff, leave aside whether any of his individual policies are good or bad and there is one thing completely unconnected to right or left wing politics that I think everyone should agree should instantly disqualify Trump from being thought of as a remotely suitable candidate for re-election, and that one thing is Jared Kushner. It is horrifying, it is unconscionable that this degree of nepotism inside the government is even legal, let alone actually happening. The idea that it is even appropriate for one political appointee without official office should be in charge of everything from fighting the opioid crisis, to modernising the VA, to creating peace in the ME, to procurement and distribution of all federal medical supplies during the current epidemic is strange. The idea that person should be a troubled real estate developer and trust fund kid whose only qualification for any sort of role in government is being married to the president's daughter is something I still struggle to believe is actually happening. It's not OK on any level. He may lead the country but it doesn't belong to him and it is not something to be divvied up between members of his own family.

Bollocks. You were asked time and time again why you hate Hillary so much and time and time again you refused to answer. It's insulting to accuse the people you disagree with of having 'deaf ears' when you didn't give them anything to listen to.

I'm not sure about this - the quote I saw said "I know who he is, good guy" but he didn't have much close contact. WaPo also has a quote from a staffer "“The president sees it as a sign of weakness to wear masks and so people just haven’t been doing it,” one current employee responded, according to a person familiar with that conversation." Who'da thunk it. The example set by the president matters.

I watched it. He says nothing at all about entrapping Flynn. I really don't think you know what entrapment is.

So pick one. I want to know what part of the documents that you, specifically, think say that Flynn was entrapped.

Source?

No he didn't. Arranging an interview with someone you think is going to lie to you is not entrapment.

He wasn't entrapped.

You already know what's in the documents he's going to release?

Maybe, but then again I've met skydivers (or at least one) who turned out to be actual murderers. Funnily enough, the fact they skydived didn't make the other stuff any less bad.

Hey look, here's a guy stating he's loving the chance to attack people he disagrees with that the Coronavirus situation has provided. What do you have to say to him?

Cool. So they're better than Trump and they're better than McEnany. What, exactly, are you loving?

You are pure evil

That was on the 1st of Feb. Trump was tweeting that Coronavirus was nowhere near as bad as the flu on the 9th of March. Which one do you think displays worse judgement, and which one do you think it is that the White House press secretary should be more concerned with retracting?

But see above. I asked you why you couldn't point to specific instances and you said you don't know them because you don't pay enough attention. I'm not making assumptions, I'm listening to what you tell me. If what you're telling me isn't the case, thats your problem. Irrelevant. You defend him whether he is being called names or not. You see embellishment everywhere, and where there is none you invent it. You claim the media saying Trump instructed people to inject themselves with bleach pushes you further to the right, when in fact it's your own right wing tendencies that push you to create the lie that the media said Trump instructed people to inject themselves with bleach. Until now this thread has not been about name calling or condescension but bout overly focusing on mistakes. Funny how the goalposts feel like they're starting to move...