+ Reply to Thread
Page 1957 of 2110 FirstFirst ... 957 1457 1857 1907 1947 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1967 2007 2057 ... LastLast
Results 48,901 to 48,925 of 52742
  1. #48901
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Absolutely.

  2. #48902
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Absolutely.
    why even bother with government at all?
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  3. #48903
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    First, let’s be clear that we’re talking about bad appearances, not hypothetical behavior. You don’t think Bill Clinton can hold a 20-minute conversation about golf and grandchildren with a near-stranger? I’m sure he’s had longer conversations with less substance hundreds of times, if not thousands. If there’s one thing the man can do, it’s schmooze
    You're talking about bad appearances. I believe it went beyond that, or at a minimum was intended to. Sure, I bet Bill Clinton could hold a 20 minute conversation with a brick wall if he wanted to, about things less interesting than golf and grandchildren. Do I believe that good ol' Bill Clinton huffed and puffed across a tarmac in the desert's 100+ degree air temperatures (far hotter than that on the tarmac, I can tell you from experiences) because he wanted a grandchild update from a woman he appointed as a US Attorney 17 years prior yet had never during his time in office or after built any sort of social relationship with? That the fact that it happened 17 years later at a time where his wife just so happened to be running for president and was also the subject of a serious, active investigation with criminally and politically high stakes? No, I don't believe that for a second. I believe Bill Clinton has been proven to be morally and ethically corrupt, and I believe regardless of whether he had any official authority to speak of he believed he had real or perceived ability to influence. I'm sure as an ex-POTUS and (at the time) the front runner to be FGOTUS he had some political clout.

    Second, nothing was influenced. Maybe that’s just the "failed crime" defense that Trump uses, except there’s no evidence in process or outcome of any influence. The major change to procedure was Comey's announcement that she screwed up, but he wasn’t going to prosecute - and that change was a key to Hillary's loss. Since then it’s been reinvestigated and reinvestigated, with no change in outcome. What is Lynch even suspected of doing?
    Nothing was proven to be influenced, because neither Clinton nor Lynch confessed to any inappropriate discussion or undertones. But Comey has specifically alleged that Lynch influenced some very important vernacular in his findings that teetered on the verge of criminal negligence for Mrs. Clinton. You don't find it odd that the AG refused to recuse herself, but publicly said Comey's recommendation would effectively get straight-through-processing with no objection from her, but then later she had him change the verbiage to deescalate the very real concerns stemming from his investigation?

    Third, what was Lynch supposed to have been offered? That she would stay on as AG under a Hillary administration? Unlikely. Lynch would see that, correctly, as an empty promise. If Lynch's ambition had truly been that unbridled, she wouldn’t have needed to be told a thing. She’d certainly get the message just from Bill asking to talk to her, and would know the best thing to do would be to send him away. Stay involved, get Hillary cleared, and send her a note saying "Don’t forget your friends."
    Dunno. Maybe it's ambition, maybe it's self preservation, maybe it's fear that could motivate an influenced outcome. If it was September 2020, and Michelle Obama was the clear front-runner to be elected POTUS in November, you feel that Barack Obama would have zero political influence right now?

    Finally, even putting all that aside, the difference between a President and an ex-President really does put these in completely different classes, not at all comparable - especially when the President is Trump, and the AG is Barr. TheDurk is correct that no other president has so openly viewed DOJ as an instrument to reward loyalty and punish opponents (real or perceived). I’d go further - there’s no reason to think that any other president in the past 45 years has actually viewed or used it that way, overtly or covertly. Barr has made it clear that he also sees the DOJ as representing the President rather than the law. Clinton, on the other hand, was at worst a private citizen asking a favor in exchange for a hypothetical (and unlikely) reward. There is no parallel.
    I have no argument with this (except perhaps for the last sentence) and stated as much in my first response. Trump is in a class all by himself. Just surprised in the degree of confidence you're expressing that these two Democrats were completely above board and so intent on having that 17 year family update that they just had to make it happen in these specific circumstances. That seems incredulous to me.

    EDIT: What theDurk said, in far more concise and impactful terms.

  4. #48904
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Let me take a different approach to this. Let's face it, there aren't a lot of facts on either side. If you want to say that there seem to be problems with the Clinton-Lynch story, fine - but that's basically just Kennedy-assassination-level conspiracy theory unless you have a competing narrative that makes more sense. And, frankly, if you think the official version strains credulity, any competing version I can think of completely fractures credulity.

    Let's start with the mechanics of the meeting. Officially, their presence on the tarmac at the same time was just happenstance. If there was something untoward going on, Clinton would have had to decide, "You know, this would be a great opportunity for me to stroll over there and offer Lynch a bribe." That seems unlikely; if they wanted to bribe the AG, I doubt they would have chosen just to wait and see if their paths crossed by chance. The alternative would be that one side reached out to the other to set up a meeting where Clinton could offer a bribe. (No, they wouldn't have used those words, but they'd both have to know. "Yes, we'll have the watch ready for you at midnight.......the watch.....the Chinese watch....yes, right-oh, bye-bye. Mother."). And in their surreptitious planning, they decided that the best time and place for this meeting would be a Phoenix tarmac in mid-summer. People as devious as the Clintons should certainly be able to do better than that - I'm sure they had close contacts within DOJ, and could have worked through intermediaries.

    More people involved? Sure. But there had to be a whole lot of people involved anyway.

    Let's also take Lynch's interest. OK, maybe there was an offer of a seat on the federal bench, or some other influential job. I'm sure she'd be interested in that - but she'd have to want it so much that she'd be willing to take a bribe to get it, putting her entire career at risk, a danger that would never go away. Or she could just leave the AG spot and parlay her reputation into any of a number of seven-figure jobs...Might she figure that they could keep it secret, that no one would ever find out? Sure, because questionable matters involving the Clintons tend to just go away without further investigation.

    If it was September 2032 (a more appropriate time frame) and Michelle Obama were the front-runner, Barack would have massive influence within the Democratic party (influence that is already his for the asking). Within DOJ, probably not so much - not obviously enough to be able to pass bribes to the AG.

    Those are just a couple of points tht would have to make some sense before the bribery narrative fits. I don't see it coming togther to make more sense, it just keeps making less sense.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow
    Person, woman, man, camera, TV

  5. #48905
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Let me take a different approach to this. Let's face it, there aren't a lot of facts on either side. If you want to say that there seem to be problems with the Clinton-Lynch story, fine - but that's basically just Kennedy-assassination-level conspiracy theory unless you have a competing narrative that makes more sense. And, frankly, if you think the official version strains credulity, any competing version I can think of completely fractures credulity.

    Let's start with the mechanics of the meeting. Officially, their presence on the tarmac at the same time was just happenstance. If there was something untoward going on, Clinton would have had to decide, "You know, this would be a great opportunity for me to stroll over there and offer Lynch a bribe." That seems unlikely; if they wanted to bribe the AG, I doubt they would have chosen just to wait and see if their paths crossed by chance. The alternative would be that one side reached out to the other to set up a meeting where Clinton could offer a bribe. (No, they wouldn't have used those words, but they'd both have to know. "Yes, we'll have the watch ready for you at midnight.......the watch.....the Chinese watch....yes, right-oh, bye-bye. Mother."). And in their surreptitious planning, they decided that the best time and place for this meeting would be a Phoenix tarmac in mid-summer. People as devious as the Clintons should certainly be able to do better than that - I'm sure they had close contacts within DOJ, and could have worked through intermediaries.

    More people involved? Sure. But there had to be a whole lot of people involved anyway.

    Let's also take Lynch's interest. OK, maybe there was an offer of a seat on the federal bench, or some other influential job. I'm sure she'd be interested in that - but she'd have to want it so much that she'd be willing to take a bribe to get it, putting her entire career at risk, a danger that would never go away. Or she could just leave the AG spot and parlay her reputation into any of a number of seven-figure jobs...Might she figure that they could keep it secret, that no one would ever find out? Sure, because questionable matters involving the Clintons tend to just go away without further investigation.

    If it was September 2032 (a more appropriate time frame) and Michelle Obama were the front-runner, Barack would have massive influence within the Democratic party (influence that is already his for the asking). Within DOJ, probably not so much - not obviously enough to be able to pass bribes to the AG.

    Those are just a couple of points tht would have to make some sense before the bribery narrative fits. I don't see it coming togther to make more sense, it just keeps making less sense.
    Well, if you think influence can only come in the form of Clinton announcing to Lynch on that plane that "I'd like to make you a bribe" and Lynch declaring "yes, I'd like to accept that bribe" then I could see why you'd feel this way.

    I happen to feel like while their planes may have been in that specific place at that specific time coincidentally (perhaps), that Clinton's absolute aim in getting off his plane and holding up his detail to get on Lynch's and hold up hers was absolutely not to catch up on family and golf. Even if he didn't overtly offer a quid pro quo, I'd bet an awful lot that was the impression he was trying to give. Leave her at a minimum with the perception that doing right by the Clintons could have benefits, and doing wrong by them may have consequences.

    And whaddya know... after acknowledging the meeting was completely inappropriate when it came out in the press, after refusing to recuse herself (she should have), after stating she would not fulfill her duty as AG by being involved in determining whether charges should be filed or not and that she would just rubber stamp Comey's recommendation, she in fact did insert herself in a way beneficial to the Clintons.

  6. #48906
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: President Donald Trump

    There was an ethics recommendation that she did not have to recuse, and those ethics boards werenít political weapons in anything like the same way. The acknowledgement was about appearances being inappropriate, period.

    Granted, she changed the wording. Did that affect the decision in any way, shape, or form, or even the public persecution of Comey's statement?

    By taking the meeting and then taking herself off the investigation, she removed any political influence she might have had.

    They could use different words, but if they were talking about benefits they could offer in exchange for a whitewash, they were soliciting an illegal. Campaign contribution and offering a bribe. Both are pretty aware of the law, and knew it couldnít have been mistaken for anything else.

  7. #48907
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    There was an ethics recommendation that she did not have to recuse, and those ethics boards werenít political weapons in anything like the same way. The acknowledgement was about appearances being inappropriate, period.

    Granted, she changed the wording. Did that affect the decision in any way, shape, or form, or even the public persecution of Comey's statement?

    By taking the meeting and then taking herself off the investigation, she removed any political influence she might have had.

    They could use different words, but if they were talking about benefits they could offer in exchange for a whitewash, they were soliciting an illegal. Campaign contribution and offering a bribe. Both are pretty aware of the law, and knew it couldnít have been mistaken for anything else.
    Without admission of any corrupt intent, why would the acknowledgment have been about anything other than appearances?

    She didn't have to recuse, but she kind of did, but then kind of didn't. She took herself off the investigation, but then she didn't. She couldn't quite make up her mind. She promised not to act as AG on that investigation, but wouldn't let anybody else do it in her stead, but then reneged on her promise.

    If the changing of the wording was irrelevant, and she knew that any involvement by her would be viewed through the lens of the aforementioned appearances, why insist on it? Why did it concern Comey and why did he get the impression the AG was trying to align the vernacular with the Clinton campaign (his words, not mine)?

    Sure - both were aware of the law, and I'm sure both are aware of plausible deniability.

    You think Clinton was just dying to talk grandkids and golf with someone he had hardly interacted with in two decades. Even though we have evidence that he is morally bankrupt, and even with all the rather odd coincidences here, it's clear I'm not going to change your mind.

  8. #48908
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Without admission of any corrupt intent, why would the acknowledgment have been about anything other than appearances?

    She didn't have to recuse, but she kind of did, but then kind of didn't. She took herself off the investigation, but then she didn't. She couldn't quite make up her mind. She promised not to act as AG on that investigation, but wouldn't let anybody else do it in her stead, but then reneged on her promise.

    If the changing of the wording was irrelevant, and she knew that any involvement by her would be viewed through the lens of the aforementioned appearances, why insist on it? Why did it concern Comey and why did he get the impression the AG was trying to align the vernacular with the Clinton campaign (his words, not mine)?

    Sure - both were aware of the law, and I'm sure both are aware of plausible deniability.

    You think Clinton was just dying to talk grandkids and golf with someone he had hardly interacted with in two decades. Even though we have evidence that he is morally bankrupt, and even with all the rather odd coincidences here, it's clear I'm not going to change your mind.
    And an equally -possibly even more - nonsensical narrative explains your viewpoint.

    When I said te acknowledgment had only to do with appearances, it was to counter the idea there there was some implication of substance in giving it.

    I donít know why Lynch changed the language. Only the final decision mattered. I donít know what her thinking was, but if thatís the extent of nfluence, itís nothing. Comey's presentation, otoh, which she kept herself out of - that was huge.

    Plausible deniability has risks. The risks in this one were huge. I see no reason to think that Lynch would risk the rest of her career by committing an act so corrupt, and with so little upside for her.

  9. #48909
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Barr's comments yesterday have been reported as him telling the president not to interfere with DOJ, trying to address morale there, sticking up for the principle of independence, and so on. I don't know - I read it, and it just sounds to me like Barr saying, "Stop worrying so much. I got this."
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow
    Person, woman, man, camera, TV

  10. #48910
    Death Star Fully Operational
    Join Date
    Jan 2004

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Barr's comments yesterday have been reported as him telling the president not to interfere with DOJ, trying to address morale there, sticking up for the principle of independence, and so on. I don't know - I read it, and it just sounds to me like Barr saying, "Stop worrying so much. I got this."
    What's humorous is that all this talk about Lynch seems like a deflecting attempt by one poster not to discuss the open corruption being executed by our current AG and POTUS in real time

  11. #48911
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CT

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Barr's comments yesterday have been reported as him telling the president not to interfere with DOJ, trying to address morale there, sticking up for the principle of independence, and so on. I don't know - I read it, and it just sounds to me like Barr saying, "Stop worrying so much. I got this."
    The White House response was they had no issues with what Barr said and he is entitled to his opinion. When in the history of Donald J Trump has he ever not responded to an attack with an attack 10 times as loud? This should tell you how ďauthenticĒ this was.

  12. #48912
    once more unto the breach Texsahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankees1962 View Post
    What's humorous is that all this talk about Lynch seems like a deflecting attempt by one poster not to discuss the open corruption being executed by our current AG and POTUS in real time
    It's just this site's version of Godwin's law. "As a discussion on nyyfans grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison to Hillary, or another Clinton reference, increases."

  13. #48913
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CT

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    It's just this site's version of Godwin's law. "As a discussion on nyyfans grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison to Hillary, or another Clinton reference, increases."
    #bothsides

  14. #48914
    Death Star Fully Operational
    Join Date
    Jan 2004

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    It's just this site's version of Godwin's law. "As a discussion on nyyfans grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison to Hillary, or another Clinton reference, increases."
    They keep the Hillary comparison going even though she wasn't elected POTUS. To me, they're being disingenuous as they're trying to deflect from the open corruption this current administration is doing out in plain sight.

  15. #48915

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    It's just this site's version of Godwin's law. "As a discussion on nyyfans grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison to Hillary, or another Clinton reference, increases."
    Somewhere into the mix comes Obama. I'm half surprised FDR hasn't been brought up more often.
    Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. ~ Dale Carnegie

  16. #48916
    NYYF Legend

    RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Manchester, NJ

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by fredgmuggs View Post
    Somewhere into the mix comes Obama. I'm half surprised FDR hasn't been brought up more often.
    Trump may break norms every day, but FDR broke norms by running for a third and fourth term so really both sides do it!

  17. #48917

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees View Post
    Trump may break norms every day, but FDR broke norms by running for a third and fourth term so really both sides do it!
    I shudder to think of what nickname Trump would have come up with for him.
    Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. ~ Dale Carnegie

  18. #48918
    NYYF Legend

    RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Manchester, NJ

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by fredgmuggs View Post
    I shudder to think of what nickname Trump would have come up with for him.
    "Fumblin' Frankie over there. Some people say 'sir, he had polio' but I don't know" followed by mimicking his disability.

  19. #48919

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees View Post
    "Fumblin' Frankie over there. Some people say 'sir, he had polio' but I don't know" followed by mimicking his disability.
    I think you should throw a "Very Weak" in there, too. With a great possibility that weak would be spelled incorrectly.
    Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. ~ Dale Carnegie

  20. #48920
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: President Donald Trump

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...457480194?s=20
    Iím seeing Governor Cuomo today at The White House. He must understand that National Security far exceeds politics. New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes. Build relationships, but donít bring Fredo!
    Oh, just the President demanding that New York stop investigating the crimes of him & his family for New York residents to get federal services.

    We're a few months away from him telling Florida to purge voter rolls if they want FEMA money for a hurricane.

    The corruption is done in plain sight and we aren't equipped to deal with it. If this was in a leaked email it would be a much bigger story, but since Trump does his crimes in the open it's not seen as big a deal for some reason.

  21. #48921
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankees1962 View Post
    What's humorous is that all this talk about Lynch seems like a deflecting attempt by one poster not to discuss the open corruption being executed by our current AG and POTUS in real time
    I actually brought it up pre-emptively as the whataboutism I saw coming. Another poster decided to play devil's advocate and present a serious argument. Another poster took up the cause because he hates the Clintons and loves to argue with me. Neither is anything close to a Trump defender.

  22. #48922
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankees1962 View Post
    What's humorous is that all this talk about Lynch seems like a deflecting attempt by one poster not to discuss the open corruption being executed by our current AG and POTUS in real time


    Whatever. I didn't bring this up. I've repeatedly agreed with John, who did bring this up, that these things are not the same. I've said I think Trump's actions are wrong. I've said that I didn't vote Trump and won't vote Trump.

    Sorry to interrupt your sheep grazing, but what's humorous is that you'd be a horrible investigator if that's your take on this.

  23. #48923
    New Murderer's Row False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    It's just this site's version of Godwin's law. "As a discussion on nyyfans grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison to Hillary, or another Clinton reference, increases."
    Quote Originally Posted by YankeePride1967 View Post
    #bothsides
    and

    This was brought up by someone who aligns pretty closely to both of you politically. But, glad you got a chance to rally together and support each other. Go team!

  24. #48924
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Baby tyrant, do do do do....


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/u...gtype=Homepage
    Trump Claims ĎLegal Rightí to Interfere in Justice Dept. Cases
    A day after the attorney general publicly rebuked him, President Trump rejected the tradition of an independent Justice Department.

  25. #48925
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Turn my headphones up

    Re: President Donald Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post


    Whatever. I didn't bring this up. I've repeatedly agreed with John, who did bring this up, that these things are not the same. I've said I think Trump's actions are wrong. I've said that I didn't vote Trump and won't vote Trump.

    Sorry to interrupt your sheep grazing, but what's humorous is that you'd be a horrible investigator if that's your take on this.
    Quote Originally Posted by False1
    This was brought up by someone who aligns pretty closely to both of you politically. But, glad you got a chance to rally together and support each other. Go team!
    I'm not "aligned politically" with anyone, but it strikes me that you'd continue to play devil's advocate and attempt to catch people in minor contradictions/enforce meaningless logical consistency while the world burns around you. Team checks and balances is losing right now.

    The Loretta Lynch meeting does look like some form of corruption. Of course, that one years-old instance of corruption by private citizens is being topped essentially daily by the current president, who has declared that he can interfere with criminal investigations (especially those of his friends, of course) whenever he wants.

    Ad hominem attacks like "sheep grazing" align you rhetorically, if not politically, with certain politicians (and their zealous followers). Not sure what your insult and sneering emojis add.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts