LIBERBAL propaganda; the DOJ is NOT independent of the president.

Yes the President is in charge of all those agencies, they fall under the DOJ,, the AG is the cabinet position that oversees them.

it’s very alarming you didn’t know that

 

He wasn't just "throwing" words. He defined what obstruction meant, he quoted the corresponding legislation, he described the case history to show what would be needed to demonstrate obstruction in a legal court setting, and then he showed proof that Trump's actions met all the criteria. You can't get hope to ever find anything farther from just "throwing out words" Which won't keep the Fox echo-chamber from interpreting them as differently as they see fit to their fabricated narrative

I'm afraid you are the one who on every post demonstrate more and more how you have blindly fallen hook, line and sinker for the Fox News echo-chamber narrative. And, while I show quotes, facts and reality; you instead have chosen projection and ignoring facts, as required by the echo-chamber, as your only arguments.

 

I very seldom watch Fox News. I occasionally watch MSNBC for the sheer entertainment value, ya know like watching a Disney movie.

 

So, where would you say you get most of your misinformation?

 

I get very little misinformation except for a few posts on PF.

 

Makes no difference whatsoever to what I said.

 

I am the one who is telling you, why the President is NOT the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the Government. Not you. I am the one, who is providing all the evidence and facts to support my assertions. Not you. I am the one who is explaining WHY the President does not control, or is in charge, of any independent agencies under the DOJ. Not you. I am the one, who has listed the primary duties of the President(Commander in Chief, ADMISNISTRATIVE HEAD of the Executive Branch). Not you. I have asked many times, for you to deposit objective evidence, or address my questions. But, you just keep avoiding, ignoring, and deflecting, to keep repeating ad nauseum, the same faulty logic.

You have contributed nothing to the argument, except a faulty deduction and division fallacy. Just because something is true about the whole, doesn't infer that something is true about the parts of the whole. Top-down logic.
the President is the chief executive, and is directly in charge of the Executive Branch of government.(true)
the DOJ is one of many parts of the Executive branch.(true)
the AG is in directly in charge of the DOJ, including all of its Federal Enforcement Agencies.(true)
therefore, The President, is also directly in charge of the DOJ, and all of its Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.(FALSE).

At least answer me this. How does any man, with no political, military, legal, elected, or law enforcement experience, directly oversee the Justice Department? Specifically, the Office of the Attorney General? Also, if the Office of the AG becomes corrupted, does that mean that the President is ultimately responsible? You do realize, that being in charge, works both ways, right? What was the results of your internet searches(or other sources), regarding the Chief Law Enforcement Officer? Or, how many different pay-checks does the President receives? Never mind, just more common sense for you to avoid.

What is very alarming, is even after all the information/facts/examples I have provided, you still would rather cling to a lie, than accept the truth. Part of the process of learning is through the mistakes we make. There are many people like you, that will accept your faulty conclusion without question. There are also many people like you, who simply argue to go the distance, and are only interested in THIER own truth, no matter what. I am NOT one of those people. Now I truly understand the meaning of TDS.

 

Clearly you do not. Since you enjoy implying that my factual, and evidence based version of the Stone incident is wrong, let's hear your own fact-based version? What was the initial sentencing recommendation by the AG's US Attorneys for Stone? Was it probation? Did the sentencing change occur after Trump's tirade of tweets, or before? Is it logical to recommend a lower sentence, and then for some unknown reason, change and recommend a higher sentence? Is it logical that all 4 US attorneys would quit the Stone's case out of protest, because they were upset because of a situation that they were the cause(changing the recommendation from less-severe to more-severe)? That would be illogical, right? So, lets hear the evidence and facts, that will back up your version of the events. I didn't think so. It is always far easier to accuse others of lying, than it is to prove it.

THE PRESIDENT CAN ONLY HIRE AND FIRE ANYONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ELECTED, OR THAT HE HAS APPOINTED(with Senate confirmation). These "Principal Officers", do indeed serve at the pleasure of the President. However the "Inferior Officers" and "Federal Employees(none-officers)", are all protected by civil service laws. Which among other things, impose limits on when and how they can be terminated. He can't even fire his own VP. So stop disseminating only half-truths, and disinformation. And, try researching the facts first.

Whether Trump is, or is not the only President to fire anyone, is just another irrelevant distraction. I realize that the obvious seems hard for you to understand. But, if you stack your cabinet(and other Federal Agencies) with people that will do only your bidding, then you will no longer have a Government of, by, and for the people. You will have a government of, by, and for Donald Trump. So, unless Trump is also God, to any rational thinker, this IS a bad thing. Hitler did exactly the same thing. He filled his "Reich Cabinet" with only Nazi party heads, and obedient nationalists("yes men"). If you can't see the dangers to our agency's autonomy and independence, by stacking them with "yes men", then you are truly part of the problem. In trumps mind, these agencies and people, are just tools to be used, to advance his chronic Delusions of Grandeur.

Clearly your only agenda, is to state unsupported factual errors, and to misrepresent the truth. Eventually, all the excuses for Trump will run out. And once this madman is removed, all of the bat-s**t lunatics, morally bankrupt, and bigoted xenophobes, can go back to being the grandpa(or relative), that the family doesn't talk much about.

 

I stated that,

You stated,

So where do I say/imply that I can 100% prove the posters claims?

Do you know what inductive reasoning is? It is the logic of making conclusions, based on objective facts, that are logically true(not definitely true). For example, if you are in the kitchen, and you hear the door slam(fact), you look at the clock, and it says 3:45 PM(fact). You hear the sound of someone running up the stairs(fact), and the door of your school-age daughter slam shut(fact). You then look at the bottom of the stairs, and see your daughter's school shoes and books on the table and floor(fact). Would it be logically true that your daughter has come home from school? But is it definitely true? Can these facts be OBJECTIVELY verified? When an investigator is told to "follow the evidence", do you think he is being told to follow the evidence he wants(subjective) to, or the objective evidence(facts)?

The rest is just gibberish, ignorance, ad hominems, misrepresentations, and more fact-less assertions.

 

The person gets elected, the Constitution vest the power of the ex

i hear what you are saying you are just wrong. The person gets elected. The Constitution vest the power of the Executive in a President. Did you not know that the DOJ is part of the executive? Who do you think the AG reports to? The FBI director?

 

If you hear what I am saying, then how can you say that I am wrong? Are you saying that I am wrong, and that the President is allowed to fire any person, that is elected by the people(VP), within the Executive Branch of government? Are you saying that I am wrong, and that the President is allowed to fire anyone, regardless of if he/she is a "principal officer, "inferior officer", or just a "federal employee"? Are you saying that I am wrong, and that the President is allowed to violate the Civil Service Laws regarding firing Federal employees, whenever he feels like it? Please show me where I am wrong, other than simply asserting it. And please, not another top-down logical fallacy.

YES, I did know that the DOJ, is one of 15 Cabinet Departments within the Executive branch. Did you know that the FBI director reports to the Attorney General, NOT TO THE PRESIDENT? Did you know that all executive cabinet heads ADVISE the President weekly, on matters of the duties of their respective departments? Do you think that the AG, or any other Cabinet Head, reports to the President for his advice or expertise?

Just like the President, if anyone is elected by the people(mayors, governors, representatives, councilmen, senators, speaker of the house, the VP, etc,), only the people can remove him from office(unless he commits a crime). Why is this even in dispute?

I don't understand why there is so much push-back on something so obvious. You act like you would prefer to give Trump(or any human being) the power to hire and fire anyone he wants to, and for any reason. You don't seem to care, if the President stacks the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security Departments, with obedient YES MEN, to only promote his personal agenda. Like he did in his business life. THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE'S AGENDA, NOT HIS OWN. Trump is only supporting himself, and his future legacy. The latitude that the Constitution has given the President, was intended for a rational, judicious, mature, wise, and responsible person. It was never intended for a narcissistic sociopath, taunting the same slogan as the KKK, "America First".

Fortunately, the framers of our Constitution have protected our Democracy, from a populist autocrat like Trump, through its checks and balances, and its separation of government powers. Our first mistake was ignoring who he was. I sincerely hope that our next mistake is ignoring who WE are.

 

You accused me specifically of being an echo chamber of Fox News. Do a quick shuffle and change the assertion.

 

As far as anyone can discern Barr found out about the sandbagging the same time as Trump and in all logical likelihood responded immediately before any tweet. The motive of the recalcitrant attorneys is anybody's guess. Some have said it was likely payback for Trump's acquittal but I don't think anybody knows. They resigned because the broke DOJ work and ethics rules, and they must have known that Barr would find out and what his reaction had to be. I have heard the initial sentence recommendation was from probation to 2 or 3 years, but we will probably never know for sure until DOJ gives out that info.

You are of course correct. The president cannot fire at will employees protected under civil service or any elected officer, which in this case is only the VP. But you are shifting the goalposts. Your examples that triggered my response were Comey, Sessions, Cohn, Bannon, Spicer, Shaub, Yates, Bharara, and others? and you implied that the president has no right or authority to fire such. My response had no half-truths or misinformation until you changed your point in mid-stream.

No federal officer other than the president or VP is elected by the people and that is what government of, by, and for the people means. Why you think it is a good idea for the president to appoint or keep officers who are against his agenda and policies is absolutely mind boggling and I have no response.

 

Of course the FBI Director reports to the AG, the FBI falls under the DOJ.....which reports to the President. It's not an independent agency....it;s a office, within the DOJ. Of course I care...that's why it's important to elect a President who's agenda you agree with. I expect those agencies to promote his agenda.

I also never said he can violate the Civil Service Act....I just said he was the chief law enforcement officer because he is the President....and that is where the Constitution vest the power of the Executive (law enforcement branch of Govt). All the Cabinet position are developed to help him execute and enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch. This is basic Civics 101.

As far as your personal opinion and shots at the current President, that's fine....unfortuatlely your person didn't win.

Independant Agencies, while still under the Executive, don't fall under any Cabinet postion...like the USPS, SSA or CIA.....the FBI does, because it's under the DOJ, same with the DEA, and ATF ....just like ICE does because it's under the DHS.

 

These are not words of an objective, rational thinker capable of great inductive reasoning.

 

Your patience is admirable.

 

I said no such thing. Quote it!

 

He likely would have found the answers adequate if Trump had not answered "I don't recall" 36 times, while refusing to answer questions on obstruction.

"Mueller’s report concluded that Trump’s campaign did not conspire with the Russian government, but it outlined 10 instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...-counsel-robert-muellers-questions-2019-04-18

 

per your post #152:

I'm afraid you are the one who on every post demonstrate more and more how you have blindly fallen hook, line and sinker for the Fox News echo-chamber narrative. And, while I show quotes, facts and reality; you instead have chosen projection and ignoring facts, as required by the echo-chamber, as your only arguments.​

 

You have a misplaced belief that there is something nefarious or even just plain wrong with someone giving an answer to a prosecutor that "I don't recall." It is like I said you and Mueller think Trump obstructed simply because he did not admit to a bunch of crimes you wishfully hoped for. Prosecutors hate that answer because it greatly limits the possibility of process crimes, although the I don't recall answer can get an individual in trouble and even prison -- just ask Martha Stewart.

 

The people that voted for Trump want an office that does Trump’s bidding. Lol. Trump hasn’t done anything against the wishes of his voters.

Guess what? The people that got/voted for Trump want a justice dept that is subservient to Trump.

Know what presidents we had that filled more cabinets with yes men?

Lincoln (no dissenters, jailed justices who opposed him in the civil war), FDR, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, and many more.

heck our strongest presidents were authoritarian strongmen that borderlines dictatorial tendencies.

 

I stand behind my statement. You cannot prove the poster's claim.

If one has a particular fake narrative, to support, he can choose disparate facts and make them appear to fit into the fake narrative.

If I yell at the television, and then the referee's call gets overturned, did the call get overturned because of my interference?

 

"...fallen hook, line and sinker for the Fox News echo-chamber narrative"

How in the world could that be interpreted as saying that you are "a Fox News echo-chamber".

So if I were to say that "Mohammad Ali fell to Joe Frazier" you would interpret that as Ali becoming Joe Frazier?

 

A little bob; a little weave; a little song; a little dance; a little seltzer down your pants. You are pretty good: most require far more many words to parse statements sufficiently to make it sound like their words were not really their words

 

Quoting is all I got. I don't have the "power" of persuasion that the Fox News echo-chamber seems to have over you. I can only show facts.