They don’t question Mueller’s objectivity at all; they know he’s objective and resent him for it.
Conservatives are not objective people; they’re subjective people. Progressives aren’t the ones using phrases like “alternative facts”
There are questions, and then there are “questions.”
I don’t know if that’s enough.
More like, “legal” “team”.
Because clearly both are done with equal levels of merit. That just shows how fair-minded you are!
There’s no comparison.
The fact that people ask a “question” about Mueller’s objectivity don’t do so in good faith. One can ask legitimate questions and then one can ask “questions” just to create noisy distractions that ultimately poison the well.
I don’t know enough about Horowitz to know what his motives are or if he even has any other than keeping his job. If I recall my facts correctly, I don’t think his reports actually recommended the firing of McCabe. But he authored his report on McCabe knowing full well that the administration wanted him to be fired and punished for his role in the Bureau over the past few years. His bosses are exerting political pressure on institutions that are supposed to be free of political influence. Unlike the “questions” surrounding Mueller, people are rightly going to ask very legitimate question whether the OIG’s office has been pressured into writing a pretext for firing someone who isn’t offering his full loyalty to the president.
So again, there’s a difference between questions and “questions”
I don’t understand why Republicans aren’t scared shitless about what’s going on. The whole “I didn’t say anything when they came for the RINOs…” thing. Some of these folks are being prosecuted for doing things that hurt the Democrats. Do they really think they are safe being collaborators when they could be taken down at any time for any thing if it gets in the way of Trump’s “agenda”?
In any event, it’s clear that this investigation is going to be shut down somehow. The Republicans are going to sow enough confusion in the mind of the public so that when Trump or Congress pulls the plug, any outrage will be perceived as partisan.
In short, it looks like Trump probably has committed numerous crimes, may have stolen an election, and…he got away with it.
Now he can do whatever he wants until the great masses of people turn on him.
each equally valid! :rolleyes:
So which place is more hospitable, earth or a marshmallow?
Independent voter: I dunno, I think they’re all the same. They both suck.
According to this report, Giuliani hopes to get the investigation to a resolution in “a week or two”. Good luck with that.
If Trump hired Giuliani based on that premise, he is going to be very ticked when he finds out that this is not happening. Drama to come.
In other news, Rosenstein has apparently told Trump that he’s not (currently) a target of the Cohen investigation. Though that could change, and it’s also possible that Trump is not a target from Rosenstein’s perspective based on the current DOJ position that a president can’t be indicted.
I don’t think you need to put the quotes around “agenda” or even use the word. If Trump decides they’re against him, or even just annoying, he’ll try to find a way to get rid of them. Look at how many people from his White House and Cabinet are already gone.
No, they absolutely can not. Except for the senior leadership, they all are members of the civil service.
Yes, they absolutely can, and status in the civil service has nothing to do with it. If the president wanted a specific civil servant gone, then that civil servant would be gone. No problem.
You’re basing your assumptions on the president following the rule of law and having someone hold him accountable to it. Those assumptions no longer apply.
They don’t apply the second everyone gives up on the rule of law…and while you may have, a large enough portion of this country hasn’t.
You are full of shit. Stop being full of shit. You clearly have no idea how the executive branch of the federal government functions, nor the protections in place for rank-and-file federal employees. There are probably about two million competitive service employees at this point who Trump would like to fire, but none of them have been.
Trump and his administration may not have any particular respect for the rule of law, but the courts and administrative apparatus of federal institutions still do, as can be easily seen by the repeated difficulties which Trump has faced implementing his extralegal domestic agenda.
Your incessant chicken-little, sky-is-falling bullshit is tiresome, unnecessary and unsupported by any rational analysis of the facts conducted by people with a solid grasp on reality. Knock it off and calm down.
Actual question: suppose this scenario comes true and Trump heavily implies that any Marshal enforcing a particular arrest warrant, sworn out by a federal court (remember the context of this conversation) will be fired. What, exactly, could those in the judicial branch do?
Trump is a big fan of Jackson, so I would assume that he would have about the same level of respect for the court.
Fire the Marshal, then dare the court to do something about it.
Seems to me that if you are protected by civil service rules and a president had you fired, you could take it to court and win quite easily. Civil servants are insulated from politics. They can be fired, but I think it would be easy for a cabinet head to change their job assignment so that they had nothing to do.
:rolleyes:
What an eloquent and persuasive rebuttal.
It would be better if we had the good Rolleyes back: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=853348