CarpetCrawler Posted June 20, 2020 Posted June 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, Hedge said: And here we go: But he submitted a letter of resignation?? 3
Cinga Posted June 20, 2020 Posted June 20, 2020 14 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said: But he submitted a letter of resignation?? But #orangemanbad 1
3rdnlng Posted June 20, 2020 Posted June 20, 2020 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2007/03/surprise-clinton-fired-all-93-us-attorneys-in-1993/ Well this is a shocker… Democrats are making a stink over the fact that Attorney General Gonzales firing 8 US attorneys despite the fact that when Bill Clinton came into office he fired all 93 US attorneys in 1993!The Political Grapevine reported this news tonight: News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office in 1993. The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff, now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff’s job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in The New York Times and Washington Post, or in the AP’s story on the subject. By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no Congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer. Advertisement - story continues below 2
Deranged Rhino Posted June 21, 2020 Author Posted June 21, 2020 This man is running for Congress. Here he lights AOC on fire. 3
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 On 6/20/2020 at 6:43 PM, CarpetCrawler said: But he submitted a letter of resignation?? To be fair, this is basically the equivalent of 'but Flynn plead guilty'. I don't know your stance on that but please be consistent. Neither was given a choice. Either both are acceptable defenses, or neither is. I'm in the neither is a good rebuttal camp, though I disagree with Nadler's decision to investigate every Trump action. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 16 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: To be fair, this is basically the equivalent of 'but Flynn plead guilty'. I don't know your stance on that but please be consistent. Neither was given a choice. Either both are acceptable defenses, or neither is. I'm in the neither is a good rebuttal camp, though I disagree with Nadler's decision to investigate every Trump action. In one case, a man was framed for a crime he did not commit by the United States government. In the other case, a person who serves at the leisure of the President of the United States was "asked to resign" to "save face" after not doing his job. Those are the same to you?
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: In one case, a man was framed for a crime he did not commit by the United States government. In the other case, a person who serves at the leisure of the President of the United States was "asked to resign" to "save face" after not doing his job. Those are the same to you? Insisting that the Flynn case must continue 'because he plead guilty' is the same as you can't investigate Berman's firing 'because he resigned'. Both are terrible rebuttals in my opinion regardless of where I stand on the actual issues surrounding the two. Edited June 22, 2020 by BuffaloHokie13
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said: Insisting that the Flynn case must continue 'because he plead guilty' is the same as you can't investigate Berman's firing 'because he resigned'. Both are terrible rebuttals in my opinion regardless of where I stand on the actual issues surrounding the two. Flynn was FRAMED. If you think it is a-ok for the United States government to FRAME a person for crimes they did not commit, you are wrong.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Flynn was FRAMED. If you think it is a-ok for the United States government to FRAME a person for crimes they did not commit, you are wrong. Not what I said or intended to imply. I'm speaking specifically about the faulty logic of a bad rebuttal, not about the circumstances. The 'he can't be innocent because he plead guilty' crowd is wrong and using bad logic. To use the same logic by saying 'but he wasn't fired. He resigned!' is stooping to their level.
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 22, 2020 Posted June 22, 2020 1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Not what I said or intended to imply. I'm speaking specifically about the faulty logic of a bad rebuttal, not about the circumstances. The 'he can't be innocent because he plead guilty' crowd is wrong and using bad logic. To use the same logic by saying 'but he wasn't fired. He resigned!' is stooping to their level. ok 1
Recommended Posts