I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view
Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.
But Whitaker went the farthest: "Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government ..."
"Levitical or New Testament?" interrupted Erickson.
"I'm a New Testament," continued Whitaker. "And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge."
I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
He believes he is responsible for the increased majority in the Senate.
Seems like another instance of how things are assumed to go in an order but it's only done that way out of tradition and not actually a hard rule because everyone in government is just on the honor system then right?
Or just that it was assumed POTUS would want to pick the most qualified person to run his departments in a manner that would not scandalize them.
So. Do we need to make a new thread for the response to this? Not allowed to talk about in here but I think it’s important to coordinate and spread the word
No, we do not.
And there will not be any organizing of protests on the forums.
Posting news articles/photos of protests that do happen is fine.
I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
He believes he is responsible for the increased majority in the Senate.
Which is kinda funny as it’s not 60 votes, so the one or two seats they picked up in the Senate (not all states are done yet) is small potatoes compared to losing the House.
Trump lost and lost bigly and seems to be taking it well.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+1
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
I write this letter in haste and pray that it finds you while you are still able to receive it. I have just received word that you have been mired in some troubling circumstances, and I felt that, if ever you needed to hear these words, it was now:
Good fucking riddance to you, you racist authoritarian fuck.
Warmly,
Arbitrarius Description IV
I know I'm pushing it here (and I apologize), but I hope some levity is okay in this thread.
I feel like Sessions is actually kinda fucked now if the Russia investigation continues to ramp. He doesn't have the power of the office any more and he's not in Congress. And he bold face lied...repeatedly to the Committees.
I feel like Sessions is actually kinda fucked now if the Russia investigation continues to ramp. He doesn't have the power of the office any more and he's not in Congress. And he bold face lied...repeatedly to the Committees.
Happily for him, he lied to the Senate and not the House.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
He believes he is responsible for the increased majority in the Senate.
Which is kinda funny as it’s not 60 votes, so the one or two seats they picked up in the Senate (not all states are done yet) is small potatoes compared to losing the House.
Trump lost and lost bigly and seems to be taking it well.
It does turn any judicial or cabinet nominations into something he doesn't even have to pretend to fight for, though. With 50 or 51 senators there's a couple people who can pretend to be on the fence to throw some weight around; if it's a few more than that they can let a couple of rebels be rebels and still get their people confirmed.
Given Trump doesn't really believe in the other two branches of government as anything other than bodies of uppity employees, I can totally see him fixating on that as a victory.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
It’s a pretty non-charitable of saying a specific rank in a civilian government job.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
If you describe something by the actual rank and responsibilities, it's fine.
When you start describing something by the amount of money the person makes, then things don't quite read as legit anymore, because unless you're well versed on the pay structures of the Federal Bureaucracy, it comes across as a very different take, entirely divorced from any idea of actual experience or readiness.
I would hope when discussing a position within the federal bureaucracy one would be at least tangentially familiar with, you know, the basics of the federal bureaucracy.
"The Basics of Federal Bureaucracy" isn't "I have memorized pay structure by rank."
You're a hierarchical civilian command structure! Just use the damned ranks!
This isn't some bullshit wonk-off where posters get to show off how much fucking smarter they are than other posters by going "Oh, $105,123 a year, that's clearly a GS-15! This is a completely normal way to talk about human beings and their merit for placement in the government, by their financial compensation!"
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
It’s a pretty non-charitable of saying a specific rank in a civilian government job.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
If you describe something by the actual rank and responsibilities, it's fine.
When you start describing something by the amount of money the person makes, then things don't quite read as legit anymore, because unless you're well versed on the pay structures of the Federal Bureaucracy, it comes across as a very different take, entirely divorced from any idea of actual experience or readiness.
I would hope when discussing a position within the federal bureaucracy one would be at least tangentially familiar with, you know, the basics of the federal bureaucracy.
"The Basics of Federal Bureaucracy" isn't "I have memorized pay structure by rank."
You're a hierarchical civilian command structure! Just use the damned ranks!
This isn't some bullshit wonk-off where posters get to show off how much fucking smarter they are than other posters by going "Oh, $105,123 a year, that's clearly a GS-15! This is a completely normal way to talk about human beings and their merit for placement in the government, by their financial compensation!"
The issue wasn't being aware of what level that exact number equated to whatever rank.
The issue was you apparently being unaware that the federal bureaucracy has a codified pay scale and yes that would fall under "The Basics of Federal Bureaucracy".
You didn't know something. Some other people did and provided that information to give context.
That's not "some bullshit wonk-off".
It's how discussions like this are supposed to go.
I'm seeing reports that protests are happening tomorrow, but I'm only seeing them from Common Dreams and Quartz
I've been looking to see if some of the bigger outlets are confirming that it is happening. Would mainstream media outlets report on plans of protests or just report on them if they happen?
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view
Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.
But Whitaker went the farthest: "Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government ..."
"Levitical or New Testament?" interrupted Erickson.
"I'm a New Testament," continued Whitaker. "And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge."
Oh. He is that kind of Republican lawyer.
So like
Guessing he doesn't know we were founded by a bunch of Secularists and Deists, huh?
I'm seeing reports that protests are happening tomorrow, but I'm only seeing them from Common Dreams and Quartz
I've been looking to see if some of the bigger outlets are confirming that it is happening. Would mainstream media outlets report on plans of protests or just report on them if they happen?
Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view
Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.
But Whitaker went the farthest: "Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government ..."
"Levitical or New Testament?" interrupted Erickson.
"I'm a New Testament," continued Whitaker. "And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge."
Oh. He is that kind of Republican lawyer.
So like
Guessing he doesn't know we were founded by a bunch of Secularists and Deists, huh?
Like, five people know what deists are. We don’t teach history good.
+26
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view
Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.
But Whitaker went the farthest: "Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government ..."
"Levitical or New Testament?" interrupted Erickson.
"I'm a New Testament," continued Whitaker. "And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge."
Oh. He is that kind of Republican lawyer.
So like
Guessing he doesn't know we were founded by a bunch of Secularists and Deists, huh?
Like, five people know what deists are. We don’t teach history good.
Matt.7. [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Matt.7. [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
No no not that part
The "Rich People Should Get All the Money" and "Stone the Gays" parts.
I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
He believes he is responsible for the increased majority in the Senate.
I think he also believes that said majority is instantaneous. That putting forward a new AG now means an absolute clear victory instead of a few holdouts with Nixon memories.
Or perhaps he just believes he'll let a temp fill the position indefinitely. Like a good capitalist would.
Now I'm remembering how Jefferson literally had a Bible, or at least a New Testament, where he literally cut out anything that suggested the Divinity of Jesus
“Judge not lest ye be judged” doesn’t mean “don’t take up a career in the legal industry.” It means “don’t be judgemental.” (Which, of course, Republicans very much are!)
“Judge not lest ye be judged” doesn’t mean “don’t take up a career in the legal industry.” It means “don’t be judgemental.” (Which, of course, Republicans very much are!)
Yeah, (although there are other passages in the new testament implying that harsh punishments are to be disfavored among Christians in favor of social interventions, and Jesus really didn’t care for strict legalism favoring leniency and flexibility coming from a moral-ethical point of view. “ Don’t be a dick” is a much higher biblical Christian value than “follow all the rules. )
I just thought it was a really ironic quote.
+1
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view
Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.
But Whitaker went the farthest: "Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government ..."
"Levitical or New Testament?" interrupted Erickson.
"I'm a New Testament," continued Whitaker. "And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge."
Oh. He is that kind of Republican lawyer.
So like
Guessing he doesn't know we were founded by a bunch of Secularists and Deists, huh?
Like, five people know what deists are. We don’t teach history good.
He’s the dude who sang Holy Diver
I'd say his Black Sabbath output is more in line for the founders, Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules in particular.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
He believes he is responsible for the increased majority in the Senate.
Which is kinda funny as it’s not 60 votes, so the one or two seats they picked up in the Senate (not all states are done yet) is small potatoes compared to losing the House.
Trump lost and lost bigly and seems to be taking it well.
It does turn any judicial or cabinet nominations into something he doesn't even have to pretend to fight for, though. With 50 or 51 senators there's a couple people who can pretend to be on the fence to throw some weight around; if it's a few more than that they can let a couple of rebels be rebels and still get their people confirmed.
Given Trump doesn't really believe in the other two branches of government as anything other than bodies of uppity employees, I can totally see him fixating on that as a victory.
While true, it’s not exactly like Trump hasn’t already gotten two SCOTUS picks combined with Schumer conceding even more judicial picks in that ridiculous deal to get more campaign time.
So in theory, losing two seats gives more latitude for appointees, in practice it’s irrelevant since Trump was getting what he wanted anyhow. Especially compared with the value of gaining the House.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I can’t imagjne the investigation team didn’t have a plan in place for this NOT AT ALL telegraphed moment, but I’ve been wrong before once or twice in my life.
My current theory is that Mueller just dumps everything he has in the hands of everyone everywhere; state governors, newspapers, 24 hours, the daily show, law enforcement...
I think it's weird that The Senate would be okay to accept that reasoning. We all know they're basically unwilling to move against Trump. I don't know that Trump bragging about how he controls them will actually work though. It's like he thinks they work for him and he's the CEO. Generally even shitty public servants are offended by that idea.
I mean, as long as Mitch is willing to prop him up he's not really wrong...
I can’t imagjne the investigation team didn’t have a plan in place for this NOT AT ALL telegraphed moment, but I’ve been wrong before once or twice in my life.
My current theory is that Mueller just dumps everything he has in the hands of everyone everywhere; state governors, newspapers, 24 hours, the daily show, law enforcement...
I think it's weird that The Senate would be okay to accept that reasoning. We all know they're basically unwilling to move against Trump. I don't know that Trump bragging about how he controls them will actually work though. It's like he thinks they work for him and he's the CEO. Generally even shitty public servants are offended by that idea.
I mean, as long as Mitch is willing to prop him up he's not really wrong...
Unless the result of his investigation would lead to a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the nation, if they were withheld by the DoJ or White House, there is no possible way this occurs.
The investigation is clearly functioning on a base assumption that the structure of our government is sound and can withstand whatever results. Releasing the results outside of the normal procedure would represent something so unprecedented that the action in of itself would put the government at risk by potentially evoking a level of civil unrest that could undermine whatever chance the process that is supposed to take place could possibly prevent.
Additionally, if the results are that dramatic and criminal, the White House would immediately deny it and use the narrative they've been fostering for some time, that it is all a witch hunt, and the actual threat, to rile up their base.
It could quite literally result in violent conflict, and the circumstances I can imagine someone like Mueller, based on his past and the way the investigation has been proceeding thus far, are so far fetched that even someone who is utterly disgusted by Trump and the people who support him, as I am, think are damn near impossible.
It isn't out of the question that the results can and will be leaked by someone before they get sanitized by the DoJ under the White House's direction; but that leak isn't going to come from Mueller, nor, I would imagine, anyone he's hand picked to handle the information and work on the investigation.
But my perspective is that if the results are as bad as some fear (or hope, I guess, depending if your perspective is "how bad is this" vs "how can we take down Trump"), we absolutely need the systems put in place to function as designed, with as little intercession as possible, in order to reaffirm that our system of government can actually survive. I think, ultimately, if it is so dire that Mueller feels the need to breach every system in place in order for the public to know, it's done, over, time to start over; because this shit isn't going to burn, it would mean it already has and we just didn't know it.
I can’t imagjne the investigation team didn’t have a plan in place for this NOT AT ALL telegraphed moment, but I’ve been wrong before once or twice in my life.
My current theory is that Mueller just dumps everything he has in the hands of everyone everywhere; state governors, newspapers, 24 hours, the daily show, law enforcement...
I think it's weird that The Senate would be okay to accept that reasoning. We all know they're basically unwilling to move against Trump. I don't know that Trump bragging about how he controls them will actually work though. It's like he thinks they work for him and he's the CEO. Generally even shitty public servants are offended by that idea.
I mean, as long as Mitch is willing to prop him up he's not really wrong...
Unless the result of his investigation would lead to a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the nation, if they were withheld by the DoJ or White House, there is no possible way this occurs.
The investigation is clearly functioning on a base assumption that the structure of our government is sound and can withstand whatever results. Releasing the results outside of the normal procedure would represent something so unprecedented that the action in of itself would put the government at risk by potentially evoking a level of civil unrest that could undermine whatever chance the process that is supposed to take place could possibly prevent.
Additionally, if the results are that dramatic and criminal, the White House would immediately deny it and use the narrative they've been fostering for some time, that it is all a witch hunt, and the actual threat, to rile up their base.
It could quite literally result in violent conflict, and the circumstances I can imagine someone like Mueller, based on his past and the way the investigation has been proceeding thus far, are so far fetched that even someone who is utterly disgusted by Trump and the people who support him, as I am, think are damn near impossible.
It isn't out of the question that the results can and will be leaked by someone before they get sanitized by the DoJ under the White House's direction; but that leak isn't going to come from Mueller, nor, I would imagine, anyone he's hand picked to handle the information and work on the investigation.
But my perspective is that if the results are as bad as some fear (or hope, I guess, depending if your perspective is "how bad is this" vs "how can we take down Trump"), we absolutely need the systems put in place to function as designed, with as little intercession as possible, in order to reaffirm that our system of government can actually survive. I think, ultimately, if it is so dire that Mueller feels the need to breach every system in place in order for the public to know, it's done, over, time to start over; because this shit isn't going to burn, it would mean it already has and we just didn't know it.
I feel like the reason the investigation is not being broadcast is for exactly the opposite reason; that your government can't withstand the results of it, and that Mueller's attempting to thread the needle between preventing Republican betrayal of your country, and open disillusionment with your government.
It would be much better if the Dems could retake control of the country before charging Trump.
But even that... Trump has not been one for advocating the peaceful transfer of power since 2016.
I really hope Mueller can thread the needle is all I can say.
And I also really hope I'm just being overly pessimistic about it all.
I never had much of a belief that Mueller's investigation would result in Trump seeing any direct consequences for his actions, especially after Kavanaugh's nomination. I just wanted the truth to be out there for the history books, really. Wonder if that's even possible now.
Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view
Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.
But Whitaker went the farthest: "Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government ..."
"Levitical or New Testament?" interrupted Erickson.
"I'm a New Testament," continued Whitaker. "And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I'm going to be very concerned about that judge."
Oh. He is that kind of Republican lawyer.
So like
Guessing he doesn't know we were founded by a bunch of Secularists and Deists, huh?
Like, five people know what deists are. We don’t teach history good.
He’s the dude who sang Holy Diver
I'd say his Black Sabbath output is more in line for the founders, Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules in particular.
The modern day Republican party prefers Dehumanizer.
The worst part of this scenario that I don’t believe anyone has mentioned yet is that Whitaker is in a position to access everything that Mueller has in his investigation and then give all of that information to Donald Trump.
Need to know is still a thing, just because you have a certain clearance level or are "the boss" didn't mean you have the need to know. The question is then
- how much of Muller's stuff is at least confidential
- how much will the new guy care
The new guy was called the "Eyes and Ears of the White House" regarding the investigation before he was the one with direct oversight of it. We've had multiple people post numerous articles and op-eds showing Whitaker to be very willing to suck up to Trump for his own personal gain and that he is a willing con artist. Whitaker will absolutely abuse his position to give any and all information he can get his hands on to Trump.
They've known they were planning on firing Sessions for at least a year. Probably more. That they chose this guy to be the acting AG is completely, 100% intentional. His baggage isn't baggage, it's his CV.
Posts
But....he lost the house?
Honestly I think either his staff promised him the ability to do this post mid terms and he's been chomping at the bit ever since, or he's real fucking scared of the house doing some actual investigating.
He believes he is responsible for the increased majority in the Senate.
Or just that it was assumed POTUS would want to pick the most qualified person to run his departments in a manner that would not scandalize them.
Lol.
No, we do not.
And there will not be any organizing of protests on the forums.
Posting news articles/photos of protests that do happen is fine.
Which is kinda funny as it’s not 60 votes, so the one or two seats they picked up in the Senate (not all states are done yet) is small potatoes compared to losing the House.
Trump lost and lost bigly and seems to be taking it well.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I know I'm pushing it here (and I apologize), but I hope some levity is okay in this thread.
(I had to immortalize this somehow)
Happily for him, he lied to the Senate and not the House.
It does turn any judicial or cabinet nominations into something he doesn't even have to pretend to fight for, though. With 50 or 51 senators there's a couple people who can pretend to be on the fence to throw some weight around; if it's a few more than that they can let a couple of rebels be rebels and still get their people confirmed.
Given Trump doesn't really believe in the other two branches of government as anything other than bodies of uppity employees, I can totally see him fixating on that as a victory.
"The Basics of Federal Bureaucracy" isn't "I have memorized pay structure by rank."
You're a hierarchical civilian command structure! Just use the damned ranks!
This isn't some bullshit wonk-off where posters get to show off how much fucking smarter they are than other posters by going "Oh, $105,123 a year, that's clearly a GS-15! This is a completely normal way to talk about human beings and their merit for placement in the government, by their financial compensation!"
The issue wasn't being aware of what level that exact number equated to whatever rank.
The issue was you apparently being unaware that the federal bureaucracy has a codified pay scale and yes that would fall under "The Basics of Federal Bureaucracy".
You didn't know something. Some other people did and provided that information to give context.
That's not "some bullshit wonk-off".
It's how discussions like this are supposed to go.
I've been looking to see if some of the bigger outlets are confirming that it is happening. Would mainstream media outlets report on plans of protests or just report on them if they happen?
So like
Guessing he doesn't know we were founded by a bunch of Secularists and Deists, huh?
This is the organizing point that I'm aware of.
https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/
Like, five people know what deists are. We don’t teach history good.
He’s the dude who sang Holy Diver
No no not that part
The "Rich People Should Get All the Money" and "Stone the Gays" parts.
You know
The American Bible.
I think he also believes that said majority is instantaneous. That putting forward a new AG now means an absolute clear victory instead of a few holdouts with Nixon memories.
Or perhaps he just believes he'll let a temp fill the position indefinitely. Like a good capitalist would.
Yeah, (although there are other passages in the new testament implying that harsh punishments are to be disfavored among Christians in favor of social interventions, and Jesus really didn’t care for strict legalism favoring leniency and flexibility coming from a moral-ethical point of view. “ Don’t be a dick” is a much higher biblical Christian value than “follow all the rules. )
I just thought it was a really ironic quote.
I'd say his Black Sabbath output is more in line for the founders, Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules in particular.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
While true, it’s not exactly like Trump hasn’t already gotten two SCOTUS picks combined with Schumer conceding even more judicial picks in that ridiculous deal to get more campaign time.
So in theory, losing two seats gives more latitude for appointees, in practice it’s irrelevant since Trump was getting what he wanted anyhow. Especially compared with the value of gaining the House.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
My current theory is that Mueller just dumps everything he has in the hands of everyone everywhere; state governors, newspapers, 24 hours, the daily show, law enforcement...
I mean, as long as Mitch is willing to prop him up he's not really wrong...
Unless the result of his investigation would lead to a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the nation, if they were withheld by the DoJ or White House, there is no possible way this occurs.
The investigation is clearly functioning on a base assumption that the structure of our government is sound and can withstand whatever results. Releasing the results outside of the normal procedure would represent something so unprecedented that the action in of itself would put the government at risk by potentially evoking a level of civil unrest that could undermine whatever chance the process that is supposed to take place could possibly prevent.
Additionally, if the results are that dramatic and criminal, the White House would immediately deny it and use the narrative they've been fostering for some time, that it is all a witch hunt, and the actual threat, to rile up their base.
It could quite literally result in violent conflict, and the circumstances I can imagine someone like Mueller, based on his past and the way the investigation has been proceeding thus far, are so far fetched that even someone who is utterly disgusted by Trump and the people who support him, as I am, think are damn near impossible.
It isn't out of the question that the results can and will be leaked by someone before they get sanitized by the DoJ under the White House's direction; but that leak isn't going to come from Mueller, nor, I would imagine, anyone he's hand picked to handle the information and work on the investigation.
But my perspective is that if the results are as bad as some fear (or hope, I guess, depending if your perspective is "how bad is this" vs "how can we take down Trump"), we absolutely need the systems put in place to function as designed, with as little intercession as possible, in order to reaffirm that our system of government can actually survive. I think, ultimately, if it is so dire that Mueller feels the need to breach every system in place in order for the public to know, it's done, over, time to start over; because this shit isn't going to burn, it would mean it already has and we just didn't know it.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Shammas is a reporter with Miami New Times.
I feel like the reason the investigation is not being broadcast is for exactly the opposite reason; that your government can't withstand the results of it, and that Mueller's attempting to thread the needle between preventing Republican betrayal of your country, and open disillusionment with your government.
It would be much better if the Dems could retake control of the country before charging Trump.
But even that... Trump has not been one for advocating the peaceful transfer of power since 2016.
I really hope Mueller can thread the needle is all I can say.
And I also really hope I'm just being overly pessimistic about it all.
Whatever the consequences, the people need to know.
If the US can't survive that, then the experiment is already a failure.
The modern day Republican party prefers Dehumanizer.
Steam | XBL
The experiment is not a failure, it is simply time to revise the test conditions
- how much of Muller's stuff is at least confidential
- how much will the new guy care
Could choosing to seek out and access materials from an investigation against him count as... wait, no, I hope I already know the answer here.