Not Guilty
-
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
It's pretty fucked up if some guys got indicted and prosecuted after having been roped into a scheme by the feds, only to have too little evidence to even convict them.
Yeah. Trump’s FBI looks pretty bad in this.
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Guilty:
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
It's pretty fucked up if some guys got indicted and prosecuted after having been roped into a scheme by the feds, only to have too little evidence to even convict them.
Yeah. Trump’s FBI looks pretty bad in this.
It's my understanding that it's the deep state's FBI.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Guilty:
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
It's pretty fucked up if some guys got indicted and prosecuted after having been roped into a scheme by the feds, only to have too little evidence to even convict them.
Yeah. Trump’s FBI looks pretty bad in this.
It's my understanding that it's the deep state's FBI.
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Guilty:
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
It's pretty fucked up if some guys got indicted and prosecuted after having been roped into a scheme by the feds, only to have too little evidence to even convict them.
Yeah. Trump’s FBI looks pretty bad in this.
It's my understanding that it's the deep state's FBI.
Couldn’t be. Trump drained that swamp. He said so..
-
It raises an interesting question. How much knowledge does POTUS have about his "appointees?" Weiss was nominated by both (D) senators from Delaware. Of the hundreds of approved nominations awaiting POTUS' signature every year, how many get his careful scrutiny? I'd guess fewer than the number of fingers I have on both (if not one) hand.
Biden has, so far, "nominated" 71 US attorneys. That's about than 2 1/2 per month.
Trump "nominated" 86 US attorneys, a bit less than two per month.
My guess is that his
handlersadvisors say, "Hey, Mr. President, this sounds like a good guy. Sign here."In the case of high-profile noms, like Wray, I'm sure there's more scrutiny, of course.
-
The buck stops and all that. The effectiveness and success of an administration is completely dependent on the staff that the Executive puts together and then on the staff that they put together down the line. It’s possible to miss on an appointment or two, but the absolute failure and miss on such a large number of Trump appointments comes back to an institutional failure on the part of that administration.
And the fact is that there were already so many issues with the FBI showing a deep-seated political bias in the top law enforcement agency, that reforming the FBI should have been a priority that the administration was actively involved in and overseeing. Not just appoint a new director and leave it be…
-
The buck stops and all that. The effectiveness and success of an administration is completely dependent on the staff that the Executive puts together and then on the staff that they put together down the line. It’s possible to miss on an appointment or two, but the absolute failure and miss on such a large number of Trump appointments comes back to an institutional failure on the part of that administration.
And the fact is that there were already so many issues with the FBI showing a deep-seated political bias in the top law enforcement agency, that reforming the FBI should have been a priority that the administration was actively involved in and overseeing. Not just appoint a new director and leave it be…
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Guilty:
the absolute failure and miss on such a large number of Trump appointments comes back to an institutional failure on the part of that administration.
Yes. I've read that the possibility of removing/replacing "civil service" non-political jobs is remote. These "servants" are well-entrenched, and protected by all kinds of regulations/laws. There's a movement afoot to make it even more difficult.
"Sorry, Mr. President, you can't fire him. He's 'civil service' not political."
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Guilty:
the absolute failure and miss on such a large number of Trump appointments comes back to an institutional failure on the part of that administration.
Yes. I've read that the possibility of removing/replacing "civil service" non-political jobs is remote. These "servants" are well-entrenched, and protected by all kinds of regulations/laws. There's a movement afoot to make it even more difficult.
"Sorry, Mr. President, you can't fire him. He's 'civil service' not political."
@George-K said in Not Guilty:
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Guilty:
the absolute failure and miss on such a large number of Trump appointments comes back to an institutional failure on the part of that administration.
Yes. I've read that the possibility of removing/replacing "civil service" non-political jobs is remote. These "servants" are well-entrenched, and protected by all kinds of regulations/laws. There's a movement afoot to make it even more difficult.
"Sorry, Mr. President, you can't fire him. He's 'civil service' not political."
But Trump is a WARRIOR that will/did drain the swamp!
Sorry, but being hard is not an excuse. You still run the probes. You still promote the candidates that will implement the reforms that need instituted, and you identify the barriers. There are plenty of offices and assignments that can be given to limit the harm and damage these “servants” can do. You don’t shrug and say “the lawyers won’t let me, but I was going to do it anyway but COVID!”
Man, did Trump come across as a whiny bitch in that Megyn Kelly interview, or what?
-
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
So, what's the story? I know nothing of the trial, but I sniff entrapment.
Not a bad synopsis...
https://www.declassified.live/p/another-whitmer-fednapping-case-goes
-
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
So, what's the story? I know nothing of the trial, but I sniff entrapment.
Not a bad synopsis...
https://www.declassified.live/p/another-whitmer-fednapping-case-goes
@Jolly said in Not Guilty:
@Horace said in Not Guilty:
So, what's the story? I know nothing of the trial, but I sniff entrapment.
Not a bad synopsis...
https://www.declassified.live/p/another-whitmer-fednapping-case-goes
Thanks. That's egregious on the part of the FBI.
