innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,378
And I wonder if her trial will disclose any documentation on her foundation. It may happen...
[RD] The Obama Legacy
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
And I wonder if her trial will disclose any documentation on her foundation. It may happen...
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Why try her? It just gives her free publicity.
J
J
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Two weeks old but I just saw it. There are several in the same vein for Pelosi.
Partly true, but compared with what G.W.Bush administration and the legacy that of repeated white house scandles, two botched wars and economic crisis
Obama is disappointing but at least it was scandal free eight years
Well, 'enforcing laws' isn't part of that. That's part of law enforcement. So your extrapolation doesn't seem quite based on 'reading the Constitution'.
It would be if the president were the leader of his party. But he is not.
Sounds like a legit reason not to go to trial. Oh wait, you need incriminating facts for that first...
You may not have noticed, but since being elected Mr Trump has dropped all reference to 'crooked Hillary'. Even he knows there's nothing to incriminate. (Unlike in the case of Mr Trump.)
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Law enforcement is exactly his purview. That is why the Justice Department answers to him, along with the FBI, NSA, and most of the rest of the alphabet soup.
You keep saying the President is not the leader of his party as if it meant something. He is certainly a significant leader in the party. Please explain the significance of him not being the biggest cheese.
It is a legitimate reason to not try Hillary Clinton. Let's not and say we did.
Mr. Trump is playing nice while Mr. Obama still has the keys.
J
No, that's because the president is the head of state. For the very same reason the entire military is under his supreme command. (And yet, Congress declares war, not the president.)
Obama has no function in the Democratic party indicating that he would be 'the leader'. None. Therefore he is not the leader of the Democratic party. Claiming otherwise is mere rhetoric.
There not being anything incriminating seems to qualify Mr Trump's qualification of Mrs Clinton as 'crooked' as empty rhetoric. Being elected he obviously has no further use for it.
Dito. Also, of course, the president doesn't initiate prosecution - even though prosecution ultimately falls within the realm of the president as the head of state.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
There is incriminating evidence, so it is not empty. A choice to prosecute or not prosecute is not always because of poor evidence. In this case, there was political influence involved.
Your last comment makes no sense. Witness January 2001.
J
Perfection
The Great Head.
The Obama legacy is Perf got to experience 8 years of someone level-headed and responsible at the head of the American government. I'm gonna miss him!
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/12/16/obama-russia-election
"This is what I suspected, but it hurts to hear it. This is a profound stain on Obama’s legacy."
"This is what I suspected, but it hurts to hear it. This is a profound stain on Obama’s legacy."
The president is the head of the executive branch of our government and the executive branch of our government is charged with the enforcement of the laws passed by the legislative branch. Seriously, I learned this in school back in, like, 4th grade so this really shouldn't be that hard of a concept to grasp unless you are just purposely continuing the argument to avoid admitting you didn't have as sound of a grasp on the role of our president as you thought you did.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I don't believe it.The story doesn't hang together. It's just them making excuses for blowing what should have been an easy win.
J
That's one part of his job, yes. But the president doesn't enforce laws. He's the not even the head of the department that does, which would be the Secretary of Justice. Who resorts under the president. It doesn't follow from that that the president is in charge of law enforcement, now does it. Nor does the executive branch simply execute laws (it is part of its job though). That's the difference between theory (what you learned in 4th grade) and actual practice.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
That's one way of dealing with things that don't fit your narrative.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
You left out the important part, "The story doesn't hang together." As noted, they have good reason to exaggerate.
J
It's his responsibility, but he doesn't do it personally. Nice argument.
It is, actually. The president also is in charge of the military; that doesn't mean he personally invades countries, now does it?
(And yet, during the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers were sent to Vietnam on the authority of the president to fight a war that Congress never declared. So what was being executed there? That's the difference between theory and practice.)
I don't have a narrative.
Last edited:
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Were you able to type that with a straight face? If so, you should be in politics yourself.
J
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I thought not.
Since you did not mean what you wrote, why write it in the first place?
J
