dylan winter

Sessions is toast - what next?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, when my wingman lets me know it's worth distracting myself from the conversation I'm having to do so. 

Your fascination with how I go about looking at hot women is getting a little creepy, Dog. Time to move on.

Well whatever works for you. I'm beyond playing the bars scene now but when I did I never needed a friend to help me.

Not that your opinion is relevant (to use you own standard) but do you think when Holder described himself as Obama's wingman he was thinking of picking up girls in a bar or covering his ass politically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well whatever works for you. I'm beyond playing the bars scene now but when I did I never needed a friend to help me.

Not that your opinion is relevant (to use you own standard) but do you think when Holder described himself as Obama's wingman he was thinking of picking up girls in a bar or covering his ass politically?

More importantly, do YOU think Holder meant that he believed the AG's job is to help the President get away with crimes? Because that's exactly what President Trump believes.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Well whatever works for you. I'm beyond playing the bars scene now but when I did I never needed a friend to help me.

No wonder you're an uptight, bitter little man. You don't need to "play the bars" to look at hot women. That you seem to think that a necessary element is just sad. My wife has been acting as my wingman for years. We both know the other doesn't need the help, we're just happy to share the eye candy. 

 

1 minute ago, Dog said:

Not that your opinion is relevant (to use you own standard) but do you think when Holder described himself as Obama's wingman he was thinking of picking up girls in a bar or covering his ass politically?

Apparently relevant enough to ask me about it. I'm guessing because you're a little sore and still hoping for a win. Hint, one won't be forthcoming on this one either.

I don't think Holder was considering either option in the false dichotomy you provide. I reckon, given the context in which that statement was made, that he was expressing loyalty to Obama and wouldn't be running at the first hint of trouble presented by the Republican held House of Congress. I know context is somewhat of an anathema to you and your desire to spin quotes out of context, but you did ask, and it's relevant. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

More importantly, do YOU think Holder meant that he believed the AG's job is to help the President get away with crimes? Because that's exactly what President Trump believes.

-DSK

Yes, I believe Holder saw his job as at least in part covering for Obama. I believe he meant it when he said he was Obama's wing man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

No wonder you're an uptight, bitter little man. You don't need to "play the bars" to look at hot women. That you seem to think that a necessary element is just sad. My wife has been acting as my wingman for years. We both know the other doesn't need the help, we're just happy to share the eye candy. 

 

Apparently relevant enough to ask me about it. I'm guessing because you're a little sore and still hoping for a win. Hint, one won't be forthcoming on this one either.

I don't think Holder was considering either option in the false dichotomy you provide. I reckon, given the context in which that statement was made, that he was expressing loyalty to Obama and wouldn't be running at the first hint of trouble presented by the Republican held House of Congress. I know context is somewhat of an anathema to you and your desire to spin quotes out of context, but you did ask, and it's relevant. ;) 

I agree, he was expressing loyalty to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

More importantly, do YOU think Holder meant that he believed the AG's job is to help the President get away with crimes? Because that's exactly what President Trump believes.

Yes, I believe Holder saw his job as at least in part covering for Obama. I believe he meant it when he said he was Obama's wing man.

So, what crimes did Obama commit that Holder covered up for him?

And, if you believe in a corrupt system of justice, why the fuk did you move to the USA? So you could become a loyal Trumpist Repugnican?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, what crimes did Obama commit that Holder covered up for him?

And, if you believe in a corrupt system of justice, why the fuk did you move to the USA? So you could become a loyal Trumpist Repugnican?

-DSK

I'm not going to accuse Holder of any crime but it's worth noting that he was held to be in contempt of congress for failure to provide documents related to Fast and Furious and as Bent so clearly put it he did express loyalty to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I'm not going to accuse Holder of any crime but it's worth noting that he was held to be in contempt of congress for failure to provide documents related to Fast and Furious and as Bent so clearly put it he did express loyalty to Obama.

Uh huh

A Republican Congress that spent six years and tens of millions investigating Hillary, which they themselves admitted was to drag her in as much mud as possible for the sake of future election(s), demanded documents and Holder said "Sorry, the law says I don't have to."

Trump wants the AG to say "whatever the law says, who gives a damn...... no investigation and for damn sure no prosecutio of anything the President says not to, no matter what crimes are evident."

That's exactly the same thing, isn't it?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not going to accuse Holder of any crime but it's worth noting that he was held to be in contempt of congress for failure to provide documents related to Fast and Furious and as Bent so clearly put it he did express loyalty to Obama.

I've got to give credit to Dog. He's effectively changed the topic from shitstain to President Obama. Maybe his Russian handlers will give him a bonus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

A Republican Congress that spent six years and tens of millions investigating Hillary, which they themselves admitted was to drag her in as much mud as possible for the sake of future election(s), demanded documents and Holder said "Sorry, the law says I don't have to."

Trump wants the AG to say "whatever the law says, who gives a damn...... no investigation and for damn sure no prosecutio of anything the President says not to, no matter what crimes are evident."

That's exactly the same thing, isn't it?

-DSK

See post 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

A Republican Congress that spent six years and tens of millions investigating Hillary, which they themselves admitted was to drag her in as much mud as possible for the sake of future election(s), demanded documents and Holder said "Sorry, the law says I don't have to."

Trump wants the AG to say "whatever the law says, who gives a damn...... no investigation and for damn sure no prosecutio of anything the President says not to, no matter what crimes are evident."

That's exactly the same thing, isn't it?

-DSK

See post 11

 

OK, I will

  •  
On 11/7/2018 at 3:18 PM, SailBlueH2O said:

Trey Gowdy 

Trey.jpg

 Trey Gowdy would be great but I doubt he's what Trump is looking for. Eric Holder famously said that as AG he was "Obama's wing man". Trump is going to look for an AG like that.

 

 

WTF? That's an answer??

FWIW I think Sen. Trey Gowdy would be exactly the kind of choice President Trump wants, full nice-sounding big words about lofty principles, but right down in the mud whenever the cash is on the line. He showed himself to almost as flexible as Sen. Lindsey Graham

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I've got to give credit to Dog. He's effectively changed the topic from shitstain to President Obama. Maybe his Russian handlers will give him a bonus?

that's the goal - disrupt, deflect, destroy. He's effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

OK, I will

  •  

 Trey Gowdy would be great but I doubt he's what Trump is looking for. Eric Holder famously said that as AG he was "Obama's wing man". Trump is going to look for an AG like that.

 

 

WTF? That's an answer??

FWIW I think Sen. Trey Gowdy would be exactly the kind of choice President Trump wants, full nice-sounding big words about lofty principles, but right down in the mud whenever the cash is on the line. He showed himself to almost as flexible as Sen. Lindsey Graham

-DSK

Yes ...My point was that Trump is looking for a Holder like wingman in his AG. That's not the function of an AG IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes ...My point was that Trump is looking for a Holder like wingman in his AG. That's not the function of an AG IMHO.

Wrong. Holder did not cover up any crimes committed by Obama.

President Trump wants an AG who will let him get away with anything, after all, his voters would care if he shot somebody on 5th Ave.

"If the President does it, it's not a crime."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With several decades experience in the courts and hundreds of jury trials, I can tell you the outcome for the senile orangutan is unknown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

With several decades experience in the courts and hundreds of jury trials, I can tell you the outcome for the senile orangutan is unknown. 

Hash man? Where do you run?

On on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

I agree, he was expressing loyalty to Obama.

But not, as you stated, that he considered it his job to cover Obama's political ass. You know, just in case you thought that you could weasel out of your bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm not going to accuse Holder of any crime but it's worth noting that he was held to be in contempt of congress for failure to provide documents related to Fast and Furious and as Bent so clearly put it he did express loyalty to Obama.

Ah, so in your usual gutless fashion, you're going the "I can't own my opinion, I just think it raises interesting questions" routine. And you wonder why no-one has your back when Sol points out your bullshit. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Yes ...My point was that Trump is looking for a Holder like wingman in his AG. That's not the function of an AG IMHO.

There is nothing that says someone cannot be a wingman and perform their duties properly as AG. He didn't say he put Obama above the law or even above the nation. That's all you projecting bullshit onto a quote you're trying to take out of context. Holder was expressing the view he wasn't going to cut & run due to political pressure the Republican House was trying to exert against him & Obama. That's exactly what one wants in a cabinet member, someone that does their job regardless of the political pressure.

But keep spinning Dog, whilst pathetic, it is also a little amusing to watch you desperately trying to reimagine the past. It explains a lot about faux conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

A Republican Congress that spent six years and tens of millions investigating Hillary, which they themselves admitted was to drag her in as much mud as possible for the sake of future election(s), demanded documents and Holder said "Sorry, the law says I don't have to."

Trump wants the AG to say "whatever the law says, who gives a damn...... no investigation and for damn sure no prosecutio of anything the President says not to, no matter what crimes are evident."

That's exactly the same thing, isn't it?

-DSK

So was the Inspector General's report saying that the Justice Dept had misled Congress also a partisan TeamR creation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

There is nothing that says someone cannot be a wingman and perform their duties properly as AG. He didn't say he put Obama above the law or even above the nation. That's all you projecting bullshit onto a quote you're trying to take out of context. Holder was expressing the view he wasn't going to cut & run due to political pressure the Republican House was trying to exert against him & Obama. That's exactly what one wants in a cabinet member, someone that does their job regardless of the political pressure.

But keep spinning Dog, whilst pathetic, it is also a little amusing to watch you desperately trying to reimagine the past. It explains a lot about faux conservatism.

Ha ha....speaking of spinning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

So was the Inspector General's report saying that the Justice Dept had misled Congress also a partisan TeamR creation?

 

Was it the same thing as "Trump wants his AG to say "F&^% the law...... no investigation and for damn sure no prosecution of anything the President says not to, no matter what crimes are evident."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Ha ha....speaking of spinning.

You're projecting again. Holder was asked specifically about whether he'd quit in light of the actions of the Republican House. That was what his answer was to and about.

No amount of you reimagining the press conference, the question he was asked, or the circumstances in which he was asked the question changes the facts, Dog. There is a reason such bullshit is called Doggy styling on this forum. I'll give you three guesses as to why the term stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
6 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

So was the Inspector General's report saying that the Justice Dept had misled Congress also a partisan TeamR creation?

 

Was it the same thing as "Trump wants his AG to say "F&^% the law...... no investigation and for damn sure no prosecution of anything the President says not to, no matter what crimes are evident."

-DSK

No. But was the Inspector General's report saying that the Justice Dept had misled Congress also a partisan TeamR creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

You're projecting again. Holder was asked specifically about whether he'd quit in light of the actions of the Republican House. That was what his answer was to and about.

No amount of you reimagining the press conference, the question he was asked, or the circumstances in which he was asked the question changes the facts, Dog. There is a reason such bullshit is called Doggy styling on this forum. I'll give you three guesses as to why the term stuck.

Oh please.... Are you really going to try to convince us that Holder saying that he is Obama's wing man is something other than a commentary on his relationship with Obama?  Fuck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Oh please.... Are you really going to try to convince us that Holder saying that he is Obama's wing man is something other than a commentary on his relationship with Obama?  Fuck me.

No. I'm always amazed at the twaddle you imagine up when caught in a pit of your own bullshit. Go ahead, point out where I said the comment was "other than a commentary of his relationship with the president". Might be hard to misrepresent my posts given they're so recent compared to Holder's line, but we both know you want to give it a shot.

Holder's commentary about his relationship with Obama was that, being his wingman, he would not be quitting the administration. That was the question he was asked, that was the context of the press meeting in which he was asked it, and that was the query he responded to. He did not say, as you have repeatedly pushed, that he considered it his job to cover Obama's political ass. No matter what weird purpose you task your wingmen with.

Give it up Dog. You hoped no-one would call you on your bullshit (probably because it's the same talking points conservative media has been running about Whittaker for days), but you were. This isn't a pub argument where you can just pile on the faux outrage, raise the volume, and hope to win through sheer belligerence. We can fact-check your claims and I did. You fucked up, time to man up and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"he was expressing loyalty to Obama.'

A bit more interesting is that Obama was viewed as someone who inspired loyalty. Perhaps my memory fails but I don't recall the mass exodus of senior staffers,  excessive leaking by staffers, tell all books describing chaotic working conditions or campaign associates pleading guilty to felonies and cooperating with investigators in the first two years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog:    Whatabout?

Bent:   Whatabout?

Dog:    Whatabout?

Bent:   Whatabout?

Dog:    Whatabout?

Bent:   Whatabout?

Dog:    Whatabout?

Bent:   Whatabout?

Dog:    Whatabout?

Bent:   Whatabout?

 

Whatabout the two of you get a room somewhere? Jeez!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

No. I'm always amazed at the twaddle you imagine up when caught in a pit of your own bullshit. Go ahead, point out where I said the comment was "other than a commentary of his relationship with the president". Might be hard to misrepresent my posts given they're so recent compared to Holder's line, but we both know you want to give it a shot.

Holder's commentary about his relationship with Obama was that, being his wingman, he would not be quitting the administration. That was the question he was asked, that was the context of the press meeting in which he was asked it, and that was the query he responded to. He did not say, as you have repeatedly pushed, that he considered it his job to cover Obama's political ass. No matter what weird purpose you task your wingmen with.

Give it up Dog. You hoped no-one would call you on your bullshit (probably because it's the same talking points conservative media has been running about Whittaker for days), but you were. This isn't a pub argument where you can just pile on the faux outrage, raise the volume, and hope to win through sheer belligerence. We can fact-check your claims and I did. You fucked up, time to man up and move on.

Oh it was clearly more than an acknowledgement that he would not be quitting. It was an expression of his commitment not to the constitution per the oath of office,  you said yourself..." he was expressing loyalty to Obama" BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh it was clearly more than an acknowledgement that he would not be quitting. It was an expression of his commitment not to the constitution per the oath of office,  you said yourself..." he was expressing loyalty to Obama" BS.

What it was not was an expression he considered it his job to cover Obama's political ass. He wasn't asked that question, he didn't say that was his view, and it wouldn't make sense to say that in the context he was being questioned.

As is your wont, you pushed it that step to far and are now stuck pretending you didn't say what you did, that I said something I didn't, and that Holder's words don't mean what they mean. Doggy styling as it's become known around these parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

What it was not was an expression he considered it his job to cover Obama's political ass. He wasn't asked that question, he didn't say that was his view, and it wouldn't make sense to say that in the context he was being questioned.

As is your wont, you pushed it that step to far and are now stuck pretending you didn't say what you did, that I said something I didn't, and that Holder's words don't mean what they mean. Doggy styling as it's become known around these parts.

See Bent spin.....You deemed it to be an expression of loyalty to Obama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

See Bent spin.....You deemed it to be an expression of loyalty to Obama. 

Any day now you're going to realise I've never denied that because being loyal to Obama is not considering it the AG's job to cover the president's political ass.

Keep digging, Dog. Once of these days you'll find a bone rather than all that turd you keep shovelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Any day now you're going to realise I've never denied that because being loyal to Obama is not considering it the AG's job to cover the president's political ass.

Keep digging, Dog. Once of these days you'll find a bone rather than all that turd you keep shovelling.

Suppose a candidate for AG said he was going to be Trump's wingman. Do you think such a candidate should be confirmed by the senate? 

Not that your opinion is relevant by your own standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Suppose a candidate for AG said he was going to be Trump's wingman. Do you think such a candidate should be confirmed by the senate?

I would suppose that it doesn't matter whether the candidate said he was going to be a wingman. The law doesn't care about such declarations. 

 

2 minutes ago, Dog said:

 Not that your opinion is relevant by your own standard.

And yet you are once again asking for it. Explicitly. Have you realised how you fucked yourself on that one yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Suppose a candidate for AG said he was going to be Trump's wingman. Do you think such a candidate should be confirmed by the senate? 

...   ...

So they could cruise the bars together, grabbing women by the pussy?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I would suppose that it doesn't matter whether the candidate said he was going to be a wingman. The law doesn't care about such declarations. 

 

And yet you are once again asking for it. Explicitly. Have you realised how you fucked yourself on that one yet?

You would suppose wrong. The senate is not just concerned with the legalities of a candidate's actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VOA said:

Hash man? Where do you run?

On on

I run among the best and I am one of the least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

You would suppose wrong. The senate is not just concerned with the legalities of a candidate's actions.

But the law does not require the senate to take into account the candidate's "wingman" status, and so (as I said) the law does not care. 

I didn't make the argument you wanted me to make, Dog. You're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

But the law does not require the senate to take into account the candidate's "wingman" status, and so (as I said) the law does not care. 

I didn't make the argument you wanted me to make, Dog. You're wrong.

I'm right....You said Holder's wingman comment indicated his loyalty to Obama. That's all I ever claimed myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm right....You said Holder's wingman comment indicated his loyalty to Obama. That's all I ever claimed myself.

No, it isn't.

On 11/13/2018 at 1:50 AM, Dog said:

Yes, I believe Holder saw his job as at least in part covering for Obama. I believe he meant it when he said he was Obama's wing man.

8 hours ago, Dog said:

Oh it was clearly more than an acknowledgement that he would not be quitting. It was an expression of his commitment not to the constitution per the oath of office

You said more. You were wrong. Which was what I was pointing out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

No, it isn't.

You said more. You were wrong. Which was what I was pointing out. 

Yep...loyalty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Yep...loyalty

And if that were all you said, you'd be right. You didn't, so you're not. You went that step past insinuation and fucked yourself. Man up and move on, Dog, pounding on the table won't unring that bell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And if that were all you said, you'd be right. You didn't, so you're not. You went that step past insinuation and fucked yourself. Man up and move on, Dog, pounding on the table won't unring that bell.

I am right, Holder expressed his loyalty to Obama with his wingman comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I am right, Holder expressed his loyalty to Obama with his wingman comment.

Did Holder express the desire to prevent any investigation of possible misdeeds by Obama, or to help cover up any crimes?

That is what Trump specifically wants, an AG that will place him above the law.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I am right, Holder expressed his loyalty to Obama with his wingman comment.

On that part, yes. On the other things you've stated, no. Being right about one thing doesn't make you right about all of them. You're wrong about Holder's commitment to his oath of office and expression regarding what he saw his job as being. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 5:22 AM, hermetic said:

no, that would have been you in post 171

all I've done is debunk your conspiracy that classification will kill the report

I didn't say it would, I said it could, and that it would not be illegal if he did. Since that is how our system is structured to function I'm at a f a loss as to ow you can label that a "conspiracy".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did Holder express the desire to prevent any investigation of possible misdeeds by Obama, or to help cover up any crimes?

That is what Trump specifically wants, an AG that will place him above the law.

-DSK

He was held in contempt of congress for failing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into Fast and Furious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
On 11/13/2018 at 4:01 AM, dogballs Tom said:

No. But was the Inspector General's report saying that the Justice Dept had misled Congress also a partisan TeamR creation?

Thank you for answering the question

-DSK

You're welcome. And thanks for demonstrating that you won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

You're welcome. And thanks for demonstrating that you won't.

Says the guy whose has not checked ONE SINGLE REFERENCE  I have given in years.

Why bother?

OTOH if you look, you'll see that there are people whose questions I answer, give cites & references etc etc. That's kind of the way it's supposed to work. Not dogballs.

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:
On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:22 AM, hermetic said:

no, that would have been you in post 171

all I've done is debunk your conspiracy that classification will kill the report

I didn't say it would, I said it could, and that it would not be illegal if he did. Since that is how our system is structured to function I'm at a f a loss as to ow you can label that a "conspiracy".  

because based on the fact that the doj gave up fisa applications, the concept that this report could be hidden is not a serious consideration.  would folly be more acceptable than consipacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

You're welcome. And thanks for demonstrating that you won't.

Says the guy whose has not checked ONE SINGLE REFERENCE  I have given in years.

Actually, I check yours and others, even from random and jocal.

You were the one who admitted not checking the source I offered. Now you're acting like I engage in your behavior and it's bad. WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Actually, I check yours and others, even from random and jocal.

You were the one who admitted not checking the source I offered. Now you're acting like I engage in your behavior and it's bad. WTF?

 

Yep.

After years of your going on and on and on and on in obvious ignorance of what the Fed even does, much less why it's a pretty good thing (not perfect but far better than most other countries central banking), I gave up trying to give you sources where you could learn a little about it.

Now I don't give a fuck what sources you post. You're welcome to not give a fuck what I post.

It's a shame, you talk sense about boats. But clearly that doesn't translate into the rest of the world, unless some blogger in pajamas tells you to think so.

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

...

It's a shame, you talk sense about boats. But clearly that doesn't translate into the rest of the world, unless some blogger in pajamas tells you to think so.

Good call. He's a true believer. In himself. We've several real attention whores in PA. None are harmless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 6:18 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The good news is, the thread title is not quite accurate. Sessions ARE toast.


As for what's next, blessed relief on the constipation issue and as for the AG, Trump is very creative sometimes and can probably find someone who sucks in more than eight ways.

A younger version of Sessions, it turns out.
 

Quote

 

In Barr's view, however, sending American soldiers to "arrest" Noriega—notwithstanding the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits using the military for law enforcement without congressional approval—was "a justifiable defensive act by the United States." Barr, who served as attorney general for about a year at the end of the first Bush administration, likens drug trafficking to terrorism, saying it is "really a national security issue."

That comparison is alarming, because Barr has criticized relying on a law enforcement model, with its cumbersome protections for privacy and due process, to fight terrorism, which he sees as an act of war. Furthermore, he argues that "the Constitution vests the broadest possible defense powers in the president," such that "no foreign threat can arise that the Constitution does not empower the President to meet and defeat."

The implication is that the president has a free hand to treat drug traffickers as combatants, possibly meaning they can be assassinated at will rather than arrested and tried. "Using the military in drugs was always under discussion," Barr said in a 2001 interview about his experiences in the Bush administration. "The best thing to do is not to extradite Pablo Escobar and bring him to the United States and try him. That's not the most effective way of destroying that organization."

Leaving aside the possibility of military operations in which the U.S. government imposes its policies on other countries, Barr is an old-fashioned drug warrior who defends "tough, mandatory minimum sentences" and opposes criminal justice reform, a cause that has attracted broad bipartisan support. Although even Trump has endorsed legislation that would reduce sentences for some nonviolent drug offenders, Barr is satisfied that current federal law "strikes the right balance."

Nor does Barr seem to have any serious misgivings about civil asset forfeiture, a system of legalized theft in which the government seizes property that is allegedly connected to criminal activity, typically involving drugs, without having to prove the owner broke the law. During his confirmation hearings in 1991, Barr described civil forfeiture as "such an important program," while allowing that it might be appropriate to keep an eye on how law enforcement agencies spend the loot "to maintain the integrity of the program."

 

My take: you don't get to be Attorney General unless you're a strong supporter of your team's preferred prohibition program(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now