I have a serious question for the Trump haters on this board?

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Now, as far as the  IGs... couple of things. Obama fired IGs. (2009 article)  But worse, the very first thing Obama did was neuter the IGs. If they asked for information and were denied that information by the agencies they were supposed to be investigating, that was it.  Grassley has to pass a law to reverse this.  Congressional record. 

Can't let the IGs inspect!

</snip>

Last year, 47 of the nation’s 73 federal IGs signed an open letter decrying the Obama administration’s stonewalling of their investigations. The White House, they reported, had placed “serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work” of IGs at the Peace Corps, the EPA and the Department of Justice, and jeopardized their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently and in a timely manner.”

At the rotten core of the war on federal watchdogs: Obama’s undermining Justice Department, which has distorted and destroyed the plain meaning of “all records.”

Earlier this year in congressional testimony, DOJ IG Michael Horowitz exposed the Obama administration’s “continued refusal by the Department to recognize that Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act authorizes the DOJ OIG to obtain access to all records in the Department’s possession that we need in order to perform our oversight responsibilities” as the office investigates the IRS witch hunts, the Fast and Furious scandal and systemic public disclosure evasions.

</snip>

I didn't think that was right either.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Then all the more reason to allow your staff to testify.  If you are innocent then there should be no problem with folks testifying.  And that escapes the point.,  The point is that there is supposed to be a balance of power as envisioned by our founding fathers.  And it is apparent to me that Trump wants to ignore that.  I do not recall any other president saying, and I'll paraphrase here, that they have complete power.

 

Do you want a dictator or president?  I want a president.  And I will come back to one of my original points.  If the party labels were different and this were a Democrat would your response be identical.  To be fair, I think yours would.  I would not say that for many.

Yes I voted for McCain.  And Romney.  I started this off indicating I would like to have a civil discourse on this but expected the opposite.  And here you are calling me a liar.  As I expected.  I have never actually voted for a Democrat for president and my first presidential vote was 1976.  

I have a President, my problem is the folks trying to ice him outside the ballot box. 

 

To the bolded, this has never been the standard, never will be the standard and is naive to the point of absurdity.  If, generally, you as a voter think every investigation some junior politico can come up with requires voluntarily submitting to a tribunal to prove one's innocence, great.  It's a noble aspiration indeed.  Hold your people to account for it and vote accordingly.  

 

Since it never happens in real life, why apply that standard to everyone else?  If one is innocent, why have limitations on police powers and prosecutions to safeguard civil liberties to begin with?  If one is innocent, why would a search warrant be necessary for police to perform a search in the name of public safety?  Why have attorney/client privilege?  Why have a required Miranda disclosure, and a constitutional right to refuse to answer?  To take this through to it's natural conclusion, why tie the hands of the CIA and FBI if people are innocent?  It cannot be cost, because as everyone knows, defending oneself is completely and totally without cost. 

 

What were your general feelings on the Kavanaugh hearings?  Better, worse or the same as treatment of Garland?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Gal....I think the heart of this issue is whether the IG's are supposed to be working at the will and direction of the President.  In other words, is the President supposed to be directing what he/she wants them to be 'inspectoring'.  Or, are they supposed to be looking into anything they want to.

Well, if they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs, they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs.

Inspector General act 1978.
( b ) An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Well, if they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs, they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs.

Inspector General act 1978.
( b ) An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. 

 

Everyone knows this to be true, and if they didn't, it takes less than 5 minutes to find on the internet.  It's a common political tactic, report on something perfectly legal and just as if it's an outrageous act of tyranny.  It lather up the uninformed. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I didn't think that was right either.

You said Trump lied about having the authority. Like it or not, he did NOT lie about having that authority. 

 

[oldmanfan]

As for Kavanaugh, I think it was bad.   I don't necessarily agree with his judicial views, but presidents get to pick their justices and having an 11th hour woman who had no real evidence of his misconduct was wrong.  And I say that as one who has daughters and is firmly on the side of women who, if they feel they have been wronged, should be encouraged to come forward and who should be heard.  They just should have some evidence in support.  Same thing with this Reid woman and Biden.

 

Garland I thought was ridiculous for the same reason.  The president has the right to send up nominees for the court, it's his constitutional responsibility.  And they should be considered by the Senate.  I am not a big fan of professional politicians and McConnell to me is the slimiest of the current bunch.  Because he has already stated he would seat someone this year before the election.  

 

Going back to what I would do if I were Obama, or if I had been Trump last fall, I absolutely agree with innocent before proven guilty, a bedrock of our legal foundation.  what I am saying is that if I knew I was innocent, and a Congressional committee, using its oversight authority, called  my staff as witnesses (or even myself), I would have no problem having myself or them testify.  Because I would know I was innocent, and from a more political perspective I know it would look really bad on the opposing party.

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

You said Trump lied about having the authority. Like it or not, he did NOT lie about having that authority. 

 

I believe IG's should be independent, or else they have no real authority.  If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government.  I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens.

[njbuff]

I didn't expect this type of response to my thread.

 

I wish I was getting paid by each comment.

 

I can't even get this damn quarantine to work in my favor. ?

[Bill from NYC]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 12:45 PM, RochesterRob said:

  Their lives are an endless tire fire of their own creation.  20 years after the fact they cannot cope with admitting that some degree in poetry was not the path to a job above working at Walmart.  That poorly done facial hair and crappy clothes do not lead to a hot and successful woman.  That greasy hair and endless tats make people cross the street to avoid them.  

You forgot to mention the horrible, unlistenable music.

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

 

  If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government.  I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens.

It's the only way a republic can function properly 

[SectionC3]

46 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

As for Kavanaugh, I think it was bad.   I don't necessarily agree with his judicial views, but presidents get to pick their justices and having an 11th hour woman who had no real evidence of his misconduct was wrong.  And I say that as one who has daughters and is firmly on the side of women who, if they feel they have been wronged, should be encouraged to come forward and who should be heard.  They just should have some evidence in support.  Same thing with this Reid woman and Biden.

 

Garland I thought was ridiculous for the same reason.  The president has the right to send up nominees for the court, it's his constitutional responsibility.  And they should be considered by the Senate.  I am not a big fan of professional politicians and McConnell to me is the slimiest of the current bunch.  Because he has already stated he would seat someone this year before the election.  

 

Going back to what I would do if I were Obama, or if I had been Trump last fall, I absolutely agree with innocent before proven guilty, a bedrock of our legal foundation.  what I am saying is that if I knew I was innocent, and a Congressional committee, using its oversight authority, called  my staff as witnesses (or even myself), I would have no problem having myself or them testify.  Because I would know I was innocent, and from a more political perspective I know it would look really bad on the opposing party.

I believe IG's should be independent, or else they have no real authority.  If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government.  I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens.

Agreed on 11th hour.  Kavanaugh is a d-bag, but the time to try to play that card against him had passed.  Elections have consequences, and the Republicans got to pick their guy.  That’s the way it goes. 

 

Disagreed on “real evidence.”  She had her (powerful) testimony, which in many cases like this is just about all that the victim can come up with.  

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So, if it was a different Democrat you would have voted for that person? 

 

Can you name several Democrats that are better than Trump right now? 

Sorry (I suppose) if this offends you, but I am shocked to see a post from you that makes even a molecule of sense.

 

The above was indeed a fair, intelligent question, one that might even be asked by a person who was not a brainwashed, robotic, blind sheep.

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try hot shot. If you are correct, then why is the wall being built?  Go sell your 'expertise' somewhere else.

 

The Sierra Club case didn’t result in an injunction.  I don’t know the status of the “other” case challenging the constitutionality of the reprogramming.  The direct answer to your question, though, is that agencies and other entities subject to the the control of the executive branch are following the directive of their superior to construct a wall using monies that were not constitutionally obtained and the courts have not had proper occasion to enjoin the construction.  

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

Sorry (I suppose) if this offends you, but I am shocked to see a post from you that makes even a molecule of sense.

 

The above was indeed a fair, intelligent question, one that might even be asked by a person who was not a brainwashed, robotic, blind sheep.

My neighbor's dog has walked down here and the owners are calling for it and it won't come, lol. Cute dog, just wants to hang out I guess. I think it saw me cutting grass and came over. 

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Agreed on 11th hour.  Kavanaugh is a d-bag, but the time to try to play that card against him had passed.  Elections have consequences, and the Republicans got to pick their guy.  That’s the way it goes. 

 

Disagreed on “real evidence.”  She had her (powerful) testimony, which in many cases like this is just about all that the victim can come up with.  

Understand.  I’m not sure what the best way is to say that.  If it were my daughter I’d believe her, but when nothing has been said for decades and then it comes up what do you do?  My daughter and I have discussed and even she struggles with it.  How do you go back 20 years and then make claims of misconduct?

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 Kavanaugh is a d-bag,

 

And you know this how?

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Understand.  I’m not sure what the best way is to say that.  If it were my daughter I’d believe her, but when nothing has been said for decades and then it comes up what do you do?  My daughter and I have discussed and even she struggles with it.  How do you go back 20 years and then make claims of misconduct?

 

It’s hard to do such things.  Normally you wouldn’t see a “stale” claim like this because the criminal and civil statutes of limitation would have run. The Kavanaugh instance was an outlier; apparently somebody who felt strongly about something terrible that happened earlier in her life felt compelled to speak up about it when the career arc of the alleged perpetrator became too much for her to handle.  We also see it in aged cases involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of religious orders.  But the bottom line is something this stale normally doesn’t come up because there’s no incentive for the alleged victim to “out” himself or herself as a victim of sexual abuse. 

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And you know this how?

 

It’s impossible to know such a thing.  But it is possible to have an opinion.  My opinion is based on his poor, defiant temperament, my belief in his accuser’s testimony, the general story of his formative years and professional background that was told through his confirmation proceeding, and my intuition (based in part on the coupling of his background with his hiring practices) that he is not a good guy. 

[Bill from NYC]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s hard to do such things.  Normally you wouldn’t see a “stale” claim like this because the criminal and civil statutes of limitation would have run. The Kavanaugh instance was an outlier; apparently somebody who felt strongly about something terrible that happened earlier in her life felt compelled to speak up about it when the career arc of the alleged perpetrator became too much for her to handle.  We also see it in aged cases involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of religious orders.  But the bottom line is something this stale normally doesn’t come up because there’s no incentive for the alleged victim to “out” himself or herself as a victim of sexual abuse. 

Do you remember the envelope that was handed to her and caught on film? Or, when she claimed to have fear of flying except for when she was on vacation? How about zero confirmation from her "witnesses?" Her details of the event also were impossible to believe.  They made no sense at all.

Biden is all over you tube molesting women and little girls. He puts his mouth on their hair and talks of little kids rubbing his leg hair in a pool. Don't you see these things?

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

Do you remember the envelope that was handed to her and caught on film? Or, when she claimed to have fear of flying except for when she was on vacation? How about zero confirmation from her "witnesses?" Her details of the event also were impossible to believe.  They made no sense at all.

Biden is all over you tube molesting women and little girls. He puts his mouth on their hair and talks of little kids rubbing his leg hair in a pool. Don't you see these things?

 

 

“Molesting” is an intentionally incendiary word and, in any event, Joe Biden is not the issue here.  

 

I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them.  I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases.  I believe his accuser.  

 

***

 

Two additional points.  

 

1.  Someone can fear flying but still take a plane.   The two aren’t mutually exclusive.  

 

2.  Corroboration is of course preferred but not essential in a sexual assault case.  The very nature of the act often does not lend itself to corroboration.  Google the “prompt outcry” rule.  You’ll find that courts are lenient on admitting such evidence (the outcry sometimes is far from what most would consider prompt) because of the shame in disclosing a sexual assault to another person.  

[SoCal Deek]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s impossible to know such a thing.  But it is possible to have an opinion.  My opinion is based on his poor, defiant temperament, my belief in his accuser’s testimony, the general story of his formative years and professional background that was told through his confirmation proceeding, and my intuition (based in part on the coupling of his background with his hiring practices) that he is not a good guy. 

Wow!  This is one of the problems with the internet and social media.  You've formed and espouse an 'opinion' of someone that you know virtually nothing about and I'm guessing you've never met.  So much of an opinion that you label this man to be a d-bag?  Now, I can see using that phrase to reference Rex Ryan (it's a Bills chat after all ) but a Supreme Court judge?  Really?

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wow!  This is one of the problems with the internet and social media.  You've formed and espouse an 'opinion' of someone that you know virtually nothing about and I'm guessing you've never met.  So much of an opinion that you label this man to be a d-bag?  Now, I can see using that phrase to reference Rex Ryan (it's a Bills chat after all ) but a Supreme Court judge?  Really?

Really.  Normally the higher you get the better the people are (someone who gets that high usually has to be likable).  The fact that I feel that way about Kavanaugh should tell you something.  To me the worst part of the hearing wasnt the Ford testimony.  It was Kavanaugh’s response and his awful temperament. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by SectionC3