Congressional hearings

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by In Your Corner, Jun 28, 2018.

  1. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner It's a little-known fact...

    So, Sztrok insists that even though he spoke against Trump repeatedly non-publicly, we have no reason to believe it affected his handling of any investigations, then says that they needed to open the investigation into Trump, despite the fact that RR had written a memo advising Comey be fired, because of something Trump said publicly which suggested Trump might have other motives.
  2. G 97

    G 97 What's my name

    He was doing it on behalf of the American people. You know, trying to keep them safe and what not.

    Hundreds of text, some actually were, fuck Trump, Trump supporters are hillbillies, Trump won’t win, we will stop him. These text were sent on his work phone every day at multiple times of the day, while he was in the course of working. And he honestly says his own personal beliefs have no direct impact or influence on his objectivity or honestly with his investigating Trump. What a bunch of crap.

    So you aren’t who you are because you say so. Well which is it?
    Then he justifies it by saying he has a right to have his own opinions and beliefs and this is the corner stone of a free country. But he has no biased towards Trump, he only said that he did, but he actually doesn’t. WTF?
  3. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    The guy is typical of the extreme progressive that is to populous in DC. They are crazy biased and cannot even see it as they are incensed to the point of irrationality. Yet they think they are above everyone else. Strange and dangerous people.
  4. code3ryder

    code3ryder Well-Known Member

    Sounds like you're describing Trump as well.
  5. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    How so?
  6. code3ryder

    code3ryder Well-Known Member

    Trump has just nominated a S.C. pick that believes a sitting President should be protected from criminal investigations and lawsuits while in office. Not sure why, again, I dipped my toes into a political post in this forum. This forum is even more polarized than my local forum.
  7. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    Trump doesn't have any reason to be impartial in politics.
  8. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    And you believe that is the only reason he picked him?
  9. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    Presidents (and most political leaders like governors, mayors, etc) are already protected from lawsuits. Criminal investigations are another matter.
    code3ryder likes this.
  10. code3ryder

    code3ryder Well-Known Member

    Oh no, not at all. I don't think that his position on this hurt but I believe that it was negotiated with Kennedy and it fit enough with what Trump was looking for.
  11. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    Let's work through the process here so I can figure out if I actually care about this stance or not.

    When does a sitting member of the SCOTUS get to dictate who the FBI/DOJ investigates? Does SCOTUS have the authority to tell the FBI/DOJ they can't investigate someone?
  12. Orvis

    Orvis Well-Known Member

    I tried listening to the hearing while in the car and only lasted about 30 minutes before changing the station. Every Senator had 5 minutes to question the man yet most liberal Senators spent all, or most of, their 5 minutes giving stump speeches. No questions, just preaching about how innocent the man was. Did I not listen long enough? Did some of them actually ask questions?
  13. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    It’s the way the hearings work. If it was a republican you’d get 5 minutes of how the person is well endowed and saved a bus full of children from drowning in a lava pit surrounded by ISIS during a meteor shower.
    code3ryder likes this.
  14. 2blueYam

    2blueYam Track Day Addict

    See the last paragraph of this post:
  15. kangasj

    kangasj Well-Known Member

  16. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner It's a little-known fact...

    For those wondering, Mueller has revealed why he believes the Manafort prosecution is related to the 2016 Trump campaign.

    this is it:

    "Most of the 32 counts against Manafort in the Virginia case concern alleged crimes that took place long before there was a Trump campaign. Some go back as far as 2006. But four of the counts involve a pair of loans Manafort took out between April 2016 and January 2017. For a few months during that time period, Manafort worked for the Trump campaign.

    The loans totaled $16 million and came from a financial institution Mueller refers to as Lender D. According to Mueller, Manafort lied to get the loans, overstating his income and understating his debts.

    Mueller says that some workers at Lender D knew there was a problem with Manafort's application, but that one top executive there, a man who wanted a place in the Trump campaign, granted the loan anyway. From the Mueller filing:

    "The government intends to present evidence that although various Lender D employees identified serious issues with the defendant's loan application, the senior executive at Lender D interceded in the process and approved the loan. During the loan application process, the senior executive expressed interest in working on the Trump campaign, told the defendant about his interest, and eventually secured a position advising the Trump campaign. The senior executive later expressed an interest in serving in the administration of President Trump, but did not secure such a position."

    The lending company and the senior executive are not identified in the indictment, but the loans appear to fit an episode reported in the New York Times involving a small bank in Chicago, the Federal Savings Bank, and its chief executive, Stephen Calk, who was named an economic adviser to the Trump campaign in August 2016 but did not join the administration."
  17. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    So, a bank exec made a bad loan on the basis that he thought it would get him a government job? Why is that an issue for prosecution? His board at the bank might think poorly of him and take remedial action, so be it....Most importantly it didn't happen so there's that.
  18. brex

    brex Well-Known Member

    And again, has nothing to do with any Russia collusion.
    If they wanted to actually prosecute for Russia collusion, they would need to put cuffs on Hillary.
    kangasj likes this.
  19. G 97

    G 97 What's my name

    A high up bank exec over riding a loan denial is hardly ground breaking news. It happens all the time. How can Trump control what a third party bank exec does or does not do to gain favor with a second party. Trying to connect a dotted line where there is none to be connected.

    And again, what does any of this have any thing to do with alleged Russian collusion.
    kangasj likes this.
  20. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member

    The point is to keep a cloud over Trumps Presidency as long as possible. Its working.
    cav115 likes this.

Share This Page