Nobody knows more about anything and everything than Donald Trump

[Rumpole]

I offer my rebuttal to Meese's declaration:

1. Credentials Don't Equate to Infallibility: While Mr. Meese's extensive background in law and public policy is commendable, it does not make his opinions or interpretations infallible. Expertise is valuable, but it does not exempt one from scrutiny or challenge.
2. The Role of AAGs: While the 1983 OLC Opinion might suggest that AAGs have flexible roles, this does not mean that any action taken by an AAG is automatically legitimate or beyond reproach. The discretion to reassign roles does not equate to the discretion to act without checks, balances, or accountability.
3. Constitutional Authority and Privileges: While the President indeed has the authority to solicit opinions, this does not grant carte blanche to any action taken under the guise of "soliciting opinions." The privileges Meese cites, such as executive and deliberative process privileges, are not blanket immunities. They exist to protect the integrity of the executive process, not to shield potential misconduct.
4. Internal Disagreements vs. Misconduct: There's a significant difference between internal disagreements and potential misconduct. While disagreements are natural and even healthy in any organization, they should not be used as a smokescreen to justify or dismiss potential wrongdoing. The indictment's focus isn't on mere disagreement but on actions that might have crossed legal boundaries.
5. The Essence of the Indictment: The core issue isn't whether Mr. Clark had the right to draft a letter or hold a particular opinion. It's about the potential implications and motivations behind those actions. Dismissing the indictment based on the idea of internal disagreement or the flexibility of AAG roles misses the broader context and potential consequences of the actions in question.

So the long and short of it is that while Mr. Meese's declaration provides a perspective based on his experience and interpretation of the law, we must differentiate between the flexibility of roles and the potential misuse of that flexibility. The integrity of our legal system relies on holding individuals accountable, regardless of their position or expertise.

While the court will take his declaration as worthy of consideration, he is not, by any means, the final word nor only merit worthy point of view on the issue. We shall see how the court rules.

 

[Rumpole]

Are we still here? That substantiates the claim considering NYC is supposed to be underwater and the polar ice caps long gone.

You must enjoy being had. Got your mask on?

If you're comment actually substantiated your claim, you'd have a point.

 

[Lastamender]

I offer my rebuttal to Meese's declaration:

1. Credentials Don't Equate to Infallibility: While Mr. Meese's extensive background in law and public policy is commendable, it does not make his opinions or interpretations infallible. Expertise is valuable, but it does not exempt one from scrutiny or challenge.
2. The Role of AAGs: While the 1983 OLC Opinion might suggest that AAGs have flexible roles, this does not mean that any action taken by an AAG is automatically legitimate or beyond reproach. The discretion to reassign roles does not equate to the discretion to act without checks, balances, or accountability.
3. Constitutional Authority and Privileges: While the President indeed has the authority to solicit opinions, this does not grant carte blanche to any action taken under the guise of "soliciting opinions." The privileges Meese cites, such as executive and deliberative process privileges, are not blanket immunities. They exist to protect the integrity of the executive process, not to shield potential misconduct.
4. Internal Disagreements vs. Misconduct: There's a significant difference between internal disagreements and potential misconduct. While disagreements are natural and even healthy in any organization, they should not be used as a smokescreen to justify or dismiss potential wrongdoing. The indictment's focus isn't on mere disagreement but on actions that might have crossed legal boundaries.
5. The Essence of the Indictment: The core issue isn't whether Mr. Clark had the right to draft a letter or hold a particular opinion. It's about the potential implications and motivations behind those actions. Dismissing the indictment based on the idea of internal disagreement or the flexibility of AAG roles misses the broader context and potential consequences of the actions in question.

So the long and short of it is that while Mr. Meese's declaration provides a perspective based on his experience and interpretation of the law, we must differentiate between the flexibility of roles and the potential misuse of that flexibility. The integrity of our legal system relies on holding individuals accountable, regardless of their position or expertise.

While the court will take his declaration as worthy of consideration, he is not, by any means, the final word nor only merit worthy point of view on the issue. We shall see how the court rules.

And your law degree is from Tommy Tainant university?

 

[Lastamender]

If you're comment actually substantiated your claim, you'd have a point.

Meese will do the substantiation.

 

[Rumpole]

The planet is FAR cleaner thanks to the use of fossil fuels.

Educate yourself on the history of the planet.

Fossil fuels allow a standard of living to everyone, that was only available to the wealthy a mere 125 years ago.

Why do you hate poor people?

I'll offer my reply and certain lines with annotations hotlink to sources:

The use of fossil fuels has indeed contributed significantly to the development of modern society. They have enabled an era of explosive growth, ushering in dramatic improvements in productivity, income, wealth, and living standards12. However, it’s also crucial to recognize the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.

When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These gases trap heat in our atmosphere, leading to global warming and climate change 3456. Over the past two decades, nearly three-fourths of human-caused emissions came from burning fossil fuels3. This increased heat causes extreme weather, biodiversity loss, worsened health, and rising sea levels3.

Moreover, burning fossil fuels also emits harmful pollutants like sulfur dioxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, and soot, which can cause health problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung cancer3.

As for the claim that the planet is far cleaner thanks to the use of fossil fuels, note that while technological advancements (many of which were powered by fossil fuels) have led to improvements in certain aspects of environmental health (like reducing smog in cities), the overall impact of fossil fuel use on the environment has been largely negative due to the reasons mentioned above.

The goal is not to “hate” on any group of people but to find sustainable solutions that allow everyone to maintain or improve their standard of living without causing harm to our planet. Transitioning to cleaner energy sources is a part of this solution. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers, but it’s a challenge we must face for the sake of future generations.

Humbly tendered,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Meese will do the substantiation.

Please reread the comment, and note my reply on another rebuttal to Meese. (#41) which clearly has nothing to do with your claim.

 

[Rumpole]

And your law degree is from Tommy Tainant university?

There is NO authority on an internet debate forum where the contributors are anonymous (so it doesn't matter if I claim a JD or bar membership, anyway). All that matters is the argument.

The point is that the argument in question will stand on it's own merits. That doesn't prove it is correct, but that isn't the point, either.

The principle here is simple; if you disagree with any argument, then offer a counter argument. You can supplement your argument by links to authoritative sources, it could make your argument stronger, (depending on the caliber of it) but no one authority is the final word on anything.

 

[Lastamender]

Please reread the comment, and note my reply on another rebuttal to Meese. (#41) which clearly has nothing to do with your claim.

If it has nothing to do with my claim why would I care?

 

[Rumpole]

If it has nothing to do with my claim why would I care?

You tell me, you're the one who claimed Meese would counter my comment.

 

[Lastamender]

You tell me, you're the one who claimed Meese would counter my comment.

I doubt if Meese pays any kind of attention to you. I try not to.

 

[beautress]

Honey, Donald Trump has an intelligent quotient that may exceed Einstein's. Trump is bright in many, many avenues. He is not pretentious nor braggadocious about his gift, He is not Jesus Christ, but he is a believer along with those Christians who are appreciative of Trump's leaning toward peace on earth starting with the 5000 year

Oops. I must have gotten called awayon this one because I didn't finish the sentence, which should have finished about Trump's peace on earth policy starting with the 5,000 year grudge between the Arabs and the Hebrews over the Promised Land's ownership. It was supposed to have been resolved following the end of WWII when the powers that be gave it back to the Hebrews who had been were driven out of the promised land by the Arabs and went to Europe that at first welcomed them, and generations later, Hitler's Nazis in conspiracy with several other European countries began eliminating them with sundry murder schemes beginning with Kristalnacht and ended with the mass murders of Jews in Concentration Camps that forced them into baths to "clean up" but instead were poisoned with sarin-like gases instead of soap and water. The American public were not told about the mass murders until after the Nazis were defeated. Many of the defeated Nazis found new homes in South America, so they say. They had all those treasures and jewels the people they murdered left behind in designated areas where the poison gasses would not kill off the Nazis who engaged in ripping off the newly dead who brought jewels and gold to get by on when they got out of the Concentration Camps, which of course didn't happen. The torture and murder of the European Jews has to be one of the lowest points in the history of mankind. Germany was not the only country that put the 6 million European Jews to death in.The face of discrimination and marginalization of groups of human beings is not a pretty face.

A little list of the sites of extermination camps:

Extermination camps​

During the Final Solution of the Holocaust, Nazi Germany created six extermination camps to carry out the systematic genocide of the Jews in German-occupied Europe. All the camps were located in the General Government area of German-occupied Poland, with the exception of Chelmno, which was located in the Reichsgau Wartheland of German-occupied Poland.

• Chelmno (December 1941 – July 1944). Located near Chełmno nad Nerem (German: Kulmhof), 48 km (30 mi) northwest of the city of Łódź.[2]
• Belzec (March 1942 – June 1943). Located near the village of Bełżec, approximately 114 km (71 mi) southeast of Lublin.[a][3]
• Sobibor (May 1942 – November 1943). Located near the village of Sobibór, approximately 80 km (50 mi) east of Lublin.[4]
• Treblinka (July 1942 – September 1943). Located near the village of Treblinka, approximately 80 kilometres (50 miles) northeast of Warsaw.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_extermination_camps_and_euthanasia_centers#cite_note-6[5]
  [*]Majdanek (October 1942 – July 1944). Located just outside the city of Lublin.[c][d][6]
  [*]Auschwitz-Birkenau (February 1942 – November 1944). Located near the town of Oświęcim (German: Auschwitz), 50 kilometres (31 mi) west of Kraków.[e][7]
  

Euthanasia extermination centers​

In the period leading to the Final Solution, Nazi Germany created eight major euthanasia extermination centers to carry out the systematic genocide of the disabled.[8] Scholars have established a fundamental connection between the motivation, the practical experience and psychological preparation, and the technology used in the Nazi euthanasia centers as part of Aktion T4 and Action 14f13 and the extermination camps used in the Holocaust.[9][10][11][12] The dates of operation are for the period the facility operated as a euthanasia killing center.

Germany [13]

• Bernburg. Located in Saxony near Magdeburg.[f]
• Brandenburg. Located near Berlin.
• Grafeneck. Located in Gomadingen near Stuttgart.
• Hadamar. Located in Hessen near Frankfurt.[g]
• Sonnenstein. Located in Saxony near Dresden.

Austria [13]

• Am Spiegelgrund. Located in Vienna.
• Gugging. Located just outside Vienna.
• Hartheim. Located near Linz.

Wikipedia

 

[Hellbilly]

The man-made global warming DOOMSDAY scare is a hoax

We are not destroying the planet

We are destroying the humans ability to live on this planet.

 

[Mac-7]

What planet did these kooks come from.....

From a star far, far away

 

[Mac-7]

Feel free to substantiate your claim

the same goes for you

Lefties have been making hysterical predictions about man destroying life on earth for the past 50 plus years and we are no closer to the end than when libs started

 

[Mac-7]

We are destroying the humans ability to live on this planet.

Thats the lie that enables libs to seize power

 

[miketx]

I mean, he says so, so it's gotta be true, right?

I mean, after all, he's a stable genius.

You just love you some orange man badly.

 

[miketx]

Feel free to substantiate your claim

You vermin don't accept proof.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

I'm sleeping with Trump tonight! I got his T shirt and I wearing him tonight.

 

[miketx]

We are destroying the humans ability to live on this planet.

Then how about stopping it?

 

[Mac-7]

You vermin don't accept proof.

The enviro’s cant prove it is and we cant prove its not

But they want to push radical changes anyway