Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[BobTheCoward]

Dumb.

For the 20th time (of what I'm assuming will be 6,000, minimum), there is nothing inconsistent about:

1) Believing that Comey acted inappropriately with regard to the Clinton emails, and

2) That Trump's firing of Comey is deeply troubling.

No one believes that Trump fired Comey because he was pissed that Comey helped Trump win the election.

Trump does lie about everything, so I would bet that he fired Comey for different reasons. But it does make me wonder if he actually supported Comey back in November or if that was a lie too.

 

[TraneWreck]

From the same cite



Saying that checks and balances are what the rules are, and that their intent with them doesn't matter is extremely consistent with that.

1) Only for doofy originalists who exists in a vacuum separate from other doofy originialists. Again, there is no legal theorist who would agree with your process.

2) I did not cite the "intent" behind Checks and Balances for legal purposes. If the Supreme Court were to decide whether or not Congress could act to support Trump's firing, the obvious answer is yes, but that isn't remotely the point I made.

It is possible for it to be legal and also highly destructive to our system, as well as an unanticipated violation of the very principle our system is based on. This is true as a matter of history. Congress voluntarily abandoning its powers was not something the Federalists considered a reasonable possibility. The elevation of Party over Country would be very troubling to a group of people who spent volumes railing about the danger of factions.

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

3) You are completely incorrect about originialism, the constitution, legal scholarship...It's honestly astonishing.

 

[TraneWreck]

Trump does lie about everything, so I would bet that he fired Comey for different reasons. But it does make me wonder if he actually supported Comey back in November or if that was a lie too.

He uses people. Comey was useful then. Whether that's "support," I don't know.

The reporting indicates that Trump turned on Comey when Comey refused to support the stupid wire tap tweets.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Those are 16 groups that may be making claims, but they have presented zero evidence. Claims without evidence belong over there.

I seem to recall various testimonies being taken and evidence presented iin committee hearings. So much for "zero evidence".

And again I point out the circularity of your argument, to wit: There is no need to investigate and gather evidence because there is no evidence to warrant an investigation.

We will never get ANYwhere with the traitor McConnell with his clear involvement covering up the early reports before Nov 6. The US Federal government no longer has any claim at all on legitimacy.

 

[logger]

The problem with finding out who ordered the stand down is that no stand down was ordered. Even the House GOPers had to admit that in their reports...

So the calls for help were just ignored?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, that is why we have Trump as president, in large part because of Hillary's epic lies about the scandal.

Yes, I agree. It's people who seem convinced by that vapid line of reason that elevated an ignorant, pissy, orange boy-king to the highest office in the land.

So brilliant is he that after a 10min conversation with Xi, he happily repeats Chinese propaganda.

Wanna try that again?

No, the meaning is clear. I'll try to chew it up into little bits so you don't choke on the ideas:

People=people on this thread trying to explain a basic concept to you.
Public=American public.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

As skeptics we don't accept claims where the evidence is presented in secret. We require evidence in the open to base conclusions.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

 

[BobTheCoward]

1) Only for doofy originalists who exists in a vacuum separate from other doofy originialists. Again, there is no legal theorist who would agree with your process.

2) I did not cite the "intent" behind Checks and Balances for legal purposes. If the Supreme Court were to decide whether or not Congress could act to support Trump's firing, the obvious answer is yes, but that isn't remotely the point I made.

It is possible for it to be legal and also highly destructive to our system, as well as an unanticipated violation of the very principle our system is based on. This is true as a matter of history. Congress voluntarily abandoning its powers was not something the Federalists considered a reasonable possibility. The elevation of Party over Country would be very troubling to a group of people who spent volumes railing about the danger of factions.

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

3) You are completely incorrect about originialism, the constitution, legal scholarship...It's honestly astonishing.

Yes, I have read the federalist papers. They are excellent pieces of propaganda.

I also think you are wrong about everything in number three. I am positively dumbfounded by everything you are wrong about.

As to point 2, you are the one who invoked originalism in post 343 and brought in a legal theory. I was perfectly happy to stick with the philosophical argument if a system can have principles intended by the creator. We can gladly go back to that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I seem to recall various testimonies being taken and evidence presented iin committee hearings. So much for "zero evidence".

And again I point out the circularity of your argument, to wit: There is no need to investigate and gather evidence because there is no evidence to warrant an investigation.

We will never get ANYwhere with the traitor McConnell with his clear involvement covering up the early reports before Nov 6. The US Federal government no longer has any claim at all on legitimacy.

I said the FBI can do as they wish. I am not saying they shouldn't investigate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Until they expose that information, I will remain unconvinced of any claim based on that. Obviously, that isn't worth them exposing it. Those are very reasonable terms.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Good morning. This morning Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, dismissed a question by a reporter with a sarcastic remark about the firing of Comey. I wonder if this firing, at this time, was done for "Entertainment" purposes like the most polite missile strike was on Syria was for the Chinese President was? Will they be having a big beautiful piece of chocolate cake when Trump meets with Sergey Lavrov?

If you're looking for cover-up motives, how about the fact they'd just announced that we'll be arming the Syrian Kurds. Donnie's BFF Erdogan probably isn't going to appreciate that. I'd imagine the EU news cycles were going to be all over it, but it's getting minimal coverage.

I just offer that up. Personally, I think it's just Trump being thick and thinking (and I use that term in its loosest sense) he can keep firing investigators and that this whole thing will go away.

 

[varwoche]

It's inappropriate to question Trump's actions, according to Kelly Ann Conway.

You want to question the timing of when he fires, when he hires. It's inappropriate. He'll do it when he wants to.

All hail Cheeto Mussolini.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you're looking for cover-up motives, how about the fact they'd just announced that we'll be arming the Syrian Kurds. Donnie's BFF Erdogan probably isn't going to appreciate that. I'd imagine the EU news cycles were going to be all over it, but it's getting minimal coverage.

I just offer that up. Personally, I think it's just Trump being thick and thinking (and I use that term in its loosest sense) he can keep firing investigators and that this whole thing will go away.

It worked for his mate Erdoğan. Needs to step things up with a pretext for state of emergency powers.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You can be a private entity that serves a government interest. That is why people had such a problem with blackwater.

You are allowed to lie to people in this country.

Not when it affects the outcome of an election. Lying to the voters is fraud. The Stines precedent says that when an election is fraudulent, the fraud-committing party loses the seat the the side defrauded.

Which isn't evidence of election wrongdoing.

Hacked voter registration databases, unsecure voting machines, voter suppression laws and tactics ARE election wrongdoing.

WikiLeaks is certainly private.

And those laws shouldn't exist by the way, but that is a different conversation

You just lost what little credibility you had left.

(emphasis added)


The two highlighted phrases are not synonymous.

However, the former is certainly a logical conclusion based on the later. No foreign power has any business doing ANYthing that affects our electoral process, no matter how small, and the bill of particulars against Team Trump and Russia consists of very big things. Criminal things.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, I have read the federalist papers. They are excellent pieces of propaganda.

Oh god...I should know better than to interact with you at this point.

I also think you are wrong about everything in number three. I am positively dumbfounded by everything you are wrong about.

I mean, it's manifest in your writing that you know very little about the theories you advance. You continually make elementary errors.

As to point 2, you are the one who invoked originalism in post 343 and brought in a legal theory. I was perfectly happy to stick with the philosophical argument if a system can have principles intended by the creator. We can gladly go back to that.

This is incorrect. I specifically identified a theory you cited as being too extreme for originalists:

The Constitution has no principles beyond the rules themselves. Any desire of the founders is rendered meaningless at the point of ratification.

You chose to then place your interpretation within the school of Original Meaning, which you were just flatly wrong about.

So, you're wrong on the history of the Constitution, you're wrong on the school of legal interpretation you cited, and now you want to engage in an even more vague philosophical argument.

And, of course, it will take two exchanges for you to paint yourself into some bizarre, incoherent philosophical corner as you have done every time I've interacted with you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

In Opposite World, where Kelly Anne resides, we have confirmation.

She said the firing has nothing to do with the Russia investigations.


Say no more.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You just lost what little credibility you had left.

Why would my opinion on what laws should exist affect my credibility? Isn't my position actually very consistent with all my other positions and evidence of my trustworthiness, dependability, and integrity (all synonyms for credibility)?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I agree. It's people who seem convinced by that vapid line of reason that elevated an ignorant, pissy, orange boy-king to the highest office in the land.

So brilliant is he that after a 10min conversation with Xi, he happily repeats Chinese propaganda.



No, the meaning is clear. I'll try to chew it up into little bits so you don't choke on the ideas:

People=people on this thread trying to explain a basic concept to you.
Public=American public.

Oh "people." you keep using "people" when in fact you mean you and a handful of other people who don't think that Hillary's epic mishandling of the email server fiasco was substantive.

I agree with Hillary, but for that, she might be President.

 

[logger]

The timing was, of course, glorious because the Hillary crowd was bitterly complaining about Comey all yesterday morning based on alleged misstatements about Hillary's cowboy server, and all yesterday afternoon they are praising him as the sole bulwark against Mean old Mister Trump.

At noon they wanted to run him out of town on a rail, by 6:00 they wanted to place his statue on the top of the Capitol.

Limbaugh just reported on the Colbert clown car show yesterday. He reported breaking news that Comey had been fired and the audience cheered, they loved it. Not so for the paid left here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh god...I should know better than to interact with you at this point.



I mean, it's manifest in your writing that you know very little about the theories you advance. You continually make elementary errors.



This is incorrect. I specifically identified a theory you cited as being too extreme for originalists:



You chose to then place your interpretation within the school of Original Meaning, which you were just flatly wrong about.

So, you're wrong on the history of the Constitution, you're wrong on the school of legal interpretation you cited, and now you want to engage in an even more vague philosophical argument.

And, of course, it will take two exchanges for you to paint yourself into some bizarre, incoherent philosophical corner as you have done every time I've interacted with you.

you shouldn't put so many points in one post. I'm just going to winnow it down to one or two.


Why do you object to calling the federalist papers propaganda? They were papers to promote the political cause of ratification.

This is incorrect. I specifically identified a theory you cited as being too extreme for originalists:

You are right that I shouldn't have made an argument about original meaning after you brought up people part of a legal theory (originalists) when I was not discussing a legal theory. I was wrong to make that argument. I am fixing that now.

Your bringing up originalism is a non sequitur. Please stick to the topic.