Twittergate aka The Twitter Files

[Couchpotato]

They used procedures that were available to them. Procedures that are specifically awarded to them by the Constitution. I agree that chances are they did so in bad faith. Knowing that the chances they would get away with were slim. But quite honestly "gaming the system" as they call it, happens all the time by loads of people. that is a whataboutism (an argument I don't like, and that this is by the way from your side) but the fact stands.

It also is a direct consequence I might add of the simple fact that when it comes to passing laws congress has become incredibly ineffective. In this particular case for instance the President personally intervened because congress wasn't willing to protect millions of people from eviction. I understand that there is another side to the argument. Namely homeowners being able to rent out their properties but you can hardly claim it was done for some nefarious purpose.

The President doesnt get to do things just because Congress doesnt do what he wants on his timeline regardless of how well intentioned he might be. What kind of fucked rationale is that? You're only ok with it because your guy did it. If someone from the "other team" did it you'd be screaming foul.

My main point is again. In my view there is a fundamental difference between a president being prepared to game a system in order to reach desired goals. (Something that every president, every congress, millions of Americans have done before him, including the guy you are defending by this whataboutism but only to a far greater extent). And the presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican Presidential ticket saying that he wants to terminate parts of the Constitution. The first is playing by the rules. The second is saying you don't want any rules.

Im not defending anyone, though Im not sure why you're so bent out of shape because some asshole politician (AHP) who isnt in office said something all the while defending an AHP who is doing essentially what the first AHP said he wanted to do.

 

[Delldude]

Quote Mueller saying that...

For you, no problem.

Robert Mueller's testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, delivered July 24, 2019.

" First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not. "

 

[Delldude]

The only thing that was known at the time was that a laptop was delivered to the New York Post by Rudy Guiliani.

Guilliani gave NY Post a hard drive copy.

 

[Delldude]

Which is what the FBI is supposed to do, combat Russian election interference.

Social media are at liberty to act as they see fit.

So lying and using "Russian election interference" to quash an unrelated unreleased story that could harm the Biden campaign is what they should do?

How is it FBI knew this story, as yet unpublished was going to come out?

 

[forkup]

So if a President signs an EO that abridges free speech you would be ok with that? You’re contention is that Presidents are under no obligation to not intentionally violate the Constitution?

Until the Supreme Court rules they are violating the Constitution they are not doing so. I don't think that's a hard concept. When the court rules, at that point the president's EO gets voided. So yes I think they shouldn't violate the constitution meaning, they respect the rulings of the Supreme Court. That is the only obligation laid down for them in the Constitution. I don't know how I can make it clearer.

As for what I find problematic. I can remember quite a few of these situations during the Trump presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/

Seventy Times that's the times Trump policies got overturned. I will not claim I was aware of all of them, but I surely was for some. Just as surely I knew that some were clearly gonna get struck down. And no I wasn't OK with it. But he was the President no matter how much it pained me and he had the right to sign the EO and he had the right to have that EO be adjudicated by the courts. That is how it works according to the Constitution.

 

[forkup]

Guilliani gave NY Post a hard drive copy.

Sure, the point stands. At that time there simply wasn't enough information to make verification of authenticity possible. Which was your question.

It strikes me as weird in this conversation. Not necessarily with you but in general. That people who are invested in this story are the same people who were berating the left for taking the Steele Dossier seriously because it was OPPO research by the Clinton campaign. Yet they are all up in arms because Twitter blocked a link to an easily accessible article in a major newspaper for 2 days despite it being known that the information came from Trump's personal lawyer. It seems terribly inconsistent.

 

[Couchpotato]

Until the Supreme Court rules they are violating the Constitution they are not doing so. I don't think that's a hard concept. When the court rules, at that point the president's EO gets voided. So yes I think they shouldn't violate the constitution meaning, they respect the rulings of the Supreme Court. That is the only obligation laid down for them in the Constitution. I don't know how I can make it clearer.

As for what I find problematic. I can remember quite a few of these situations during the Trump presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/

Seventy Times that's the times Trump policies got overturned. I will not claim I was aware of all of them, but I surely was for some. Just as surely I knew that some were clearly gonna get struck down. And no I wasn't OK with it. But he was the President no matter how much it pained me and he had the right to sign the EO and he had the right to have that EO be adjudicated by the courts. That is how it works according to the Constitution.

I expect more from a President than you I guess.

 

[forkup]

The President doesnt get to do things just because Congress doesnt do what he wants on his timeline regardless of how well intentioned he might be. What kind of fucked rationale is that? You're only ok with it because your guy did it. If someone from the "other team" did it you'd be screaming foul.



Im not defending anyone, though Im not sure why you're so bent out of shape because some asshole politician (AHP) who isnt in office said something all the while defending an AHP who is doing essentially what the first AHP said he wanted to do.

What don't you get about FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT?

Do you think bending the rules and breaking the rules are the same thing?

 

[forkup]

I expect more from a President than you I guess.

I somehow doubt that. Unless I'm mistaken at which time I will apologize, you voted for Trump. This despite baggage clear even in 2016 that he was completely unfit to hold the office.

 

[Couchpotato]

What don't you get about FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT?

Do you think bending the rules and breaking the rules are the same thing?

Again, I expect more from a President than you. Though I suspect that expectation changes depending on the letter next to their name.

 

[Couchpotato]

I somehow doubt that. Unless I'm mistaken at which time I will apologize, you voted for Trump. This despite baggage clear even in 2016 that he was completely unfit to hold the office.

You have no idea who I voted for.

 

[forkup]

Again, I expect more from a President than you. Though I suspect that expectation changes depending on the letter next to their name.

Then your suspicion is wrong. I make it a point to at least attempt to hold people to the same standards.

 

[forkup]

You have no idea who I voted for.

You are right. That's why I added the caveat. "Unless I am mistaken." This is however not a denial I note.

 

[Couchpotato]

Then your suspicion is wrong. I make it a point to at least attempt to hold people to the same standards.

Bullshit. Your on here right now giving the current AHP in office a pass for things you're upset about the last AHP in that office talking about doing while not in office.

 

[Couchpotato]

You are right. That's why I added the caveat. "Unless I am mistaken." This is however not a denial I note.

Well consider yourself mistaken dip shit.

 

[forkup]

Bullshit. Your on here right now giving the current AHP in office a pass for things you're upset about the last AHP in that office talking about doing while not in office.

This is getting tedious. Bending the rules is not the same as breaking them. Tell me in what world it is and I'll shut up.

 

[forkup]

Well consider yourself mistaken dip shit.

Then I apologize as I said I would.

 

[Couchpotato]

This is getting tedious. Bending the rules is not the same as breaking them. Tell me in what world it is and I'll shut up.

Again, you're fine with YOUR GUY bending the rules. Just not the other team's guy. It's fine. You're like most of the people on this board.

 

[forkup]

Again, you're fine with YOUR GUY bending the rules. Just not the other team's guy. It's fine. You're like most of the people on this board.

Read my post carefully.

And no I wasn't OK with it. But he was the President no matter how much it pained me and he had the right to sign the EO and he had the right to have that EO be adjudicated by the courts. That is how it works according to the Constitution.

Guys from different teams, being awarded the same rights in my opinion. I challenge you to find any time on this board on any subject where I change my position on the basis of party affiliation. I dare you.

I strife and take pride in my ability to make every effort to base my opinion on rationality.

În fact, find a single poster here who ever did something like this.

I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable.

You will find dozens of examples of me conceding point. Appoligizing. Admitting to the possibilty that I'm wrong etc. etc.

I might not always be right but I always try to be honest.

 

[Faun]

For you, no problem.

Robert Mueller's testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, delivered July 24, 2019.

" First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not. "

You're demented. Nothing in there shows, Mueller said Russia didn't get Trump elected.