Why? Did she suddenly become relevant again? Oh wait...whataboutism...for the 1000th time. You may want to try a new strategy with someone who IS relevant.
No, it’s called confirmation bias. Without knowing how many Russians contacted Hillary folks, there is no context to determine if the Russian attempted contacts with Trump folks were out of line. Man, you are either dense and/or completely infected with TDS.
This is the level of IQ that we're dealing with, folks. Congressman shades Attorney General Barr by bringing bucket of KFC and chicken statue to the hearing Barr skipped Congressman shades Attorney General Barr by bringing bucket of KFC and chicken statue to the hearing Barr skipped
They're desperate. Their coup didn't work so they're they to come up with something. Their "Mueller hinted at criminality" rants have been quite entertaining.
They are using the “if Mack didn’t have Vince, he wouldn’t have won the MNC” line of attack. If Trump wasn’t president, etc
Frankly, if people want to criticize Barr for not showing up, that's fine. I err strongly on the side of open government and oversight unless there's a very clear legal basis to resist Congress. I think Barr should show up, and if he wants to assert executive privilege to a particular point of inquiry, he can do that. However, in my view, refusal to appear altogether isn't appropriate. However, it is a bit nauseating to see people acting as though the Trump Administration is the first one to resist congressional oversight. It isn't. Hell, Eric Holder was previously held in contempt for lack of cooperation, which mostly prompted eye-rolls and allegations of racism. The bottom line is that presidents generally resist oversight when they think it's beneficial to do so or when they suspect that such oversight will become a partisan political affair. That is the norm, not the exception. That's why it was considered so exceptional when Gerald Ford waived executive privilege and personally testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Nixon pardon. Most presidents would have resisted. In addition, both parties complain about it when the other party does it and then do exactly what it complained about ten minutes ago. It's like the filibuster.
Boeing outsourced the software engineering for the 737 MAX to $9/hr foreign labor jobs. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Did I miss the part of the article that said the $9/hr programmers actually made the mistakes that caused the crashes? I saw where mistakes in coding were discovered during the software development process but that's why tests are run to discover those mistakes and fix them before release. I've been up since 3:30 and couldn't go back to sleep so I may have missed that part.
That's one, care to name some more? Just to make another point, there were at 20 Democrats that voted with the Republicans on the contempt charge and a couple of Republicans voted against contempt. Do you see that happening during the reign of Trump?
Really, we cannot determine if this was out of line. You must not have been paying attention to what the FBI has stated and what Putin has stated.
I can name more. Holder wasn't the first person to be held in contempt of Congress. What's your point? Probably a few would break ranks but not many. We're extremely polarized. Again what's your point?
It's relevant to restore confidence in the FBI and other federal investigatory bodies. We have two separate witnesses with no allegiance to Trump or the Republican party testify that the Obama Justice department tried to influence the HRC investigation.
I thought it would be fairly obvious, sorry, my bad. Will you name more than 1 members of Obama's white house that failed to comply with a congressional subpoena? I am sure you are aware of all the current white house that have failed to comply with a congressional subpoena. That is the point.
Again, I thought it would be fairly obvious. There are degrees of divided government. 21 Democrats voted to hold Holders in contempt. There were zero republicans that voted to hold Barr in contempt. See the difference?
Yes. The contempt charges against Holder were that egregious. The contempt charges against Barr are that flimsy.
That the Clinton campaign colluded with Michael Steel. The Clinton Campaign never had any contact with Michael Steel.
Actually I don't know them all, because it's not relevant. I didn't say Barr shouldn't comply with the subpoena. He should show up, and if he wants to to assert privilege on a particular point of inquiry, he can do that. My only point is that his refusal to comply is no worse than what Holder did but sparked far more outrage when Holder's mostly sparked eyerolls. However, if you want to get into a partisan pissing match, we can talk about Lois Lerner (held in contempt of Congress), James Clapper (lied to Congress about NSA spying), Hillary Clinton (lied about her email server), John Brennan (lied to Congress about the CIA spying on Senate staffers). And did Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton testify before Congress that the internet video caused the attack? I honestly can't remember if they only lied to the public about that or if they testified about it to Congress. They lied about it so much that it's hard to keep track of when they stopped lying about it. However, getting into all that doesn't seem productive in light of the fact that I didn't compare the two administrations. (By the way, lying to Congress is worse than resisting a subpoena.) I do see the difference. I also see a difference in the merits and purposes of the contempt motions.
"Steele was paid $160,000 to create the Trump dossier for Fusion GPS. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee financed the work. So the FBI and Justice Department used opposition research from a presidential campaign to launch an investigation into that campaign's political opponent — a likely illegal use of federal government surveillance for political purposes." Memo: FBI Used Tainted Steele Dossier, Paid For By Hillary Clinton, As Reason To Spy On Trump | Investor's Business Daily " After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information." The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It
The steele dossier was NOT what trigger the FBI investigation. It was an Australian diplomat contacting the FBI with the information that a Trump campaign workers bragging about his contact with the Russians. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...igation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.58480b1e4e16 You left out the initial start of Fusion contact with Steele. Conservative Website Initially Hired Firm That Later Produced Trump Dossier
Which one? the declassified by Trump did not result into any "Gottcha's". There were 2 or 4 prior to the last one that had to yield something problematic. So I would say earlier Fisa warrants that all happened before the Steele Dossier. I would say that Trump contacts should be viewed as a real problem. Factbox: Smoke or fire? Contacts between Trump campaign and Russia - Reuters
I’m shocked Andy Sullivan would have written this biased article. He constantly blathers the liberal agenda. The FISA courts were presented the Steele Dossier multiple times. The FBI became a weapon under the Obama administration just as the IRS was against the Tea Party.
