- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 97+% of DOJ donations went to HRC... Gingrich NPR interview
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:59 pm to Bass Tiger
Posted on 7/27/17 at 7:59 pm to Bass Tiger
The fact is Trump should have came in day one and fired every person at every agency head down 20 levels at every agency, and replaced them with people loyal to him, The problem is not even he thought he was going to win, so he didn't have people lined up.
There's no excuse now after almost seven months in office for not having replaced these people.
There's no excuse now after almost seven months in office for not having replaced these people.
1
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:02 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:He can't even get a number of people closest to him to be honest and loyal or at the very least, not backstabbing one another. Even when Sessions remained loyal to him, he threw him under the bus, because he can't accept that Sessions made an ethical decision.
The fact is Trump should have came in day one and fired every person at every agency head down 20 levels at every agency, and replaced them with people loyal to him,
Yet, you think he would have been able to fill thousands of positions?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:04 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
He can't even get a number of people closest to him to be honest and loyal or at the very least, not backstabbing one another. Even when Sessions remained loyal to him, he threw him under the bus, because he can't accept that Sessions made an ethical decision.
Yet, you think he would have been able to fill thousands of positions?
I said he should have, not that he could.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:19 pm to Scruffy
quote:The department of Justice had over 113,000 employees, most of whom are just low-level employees with little power.
Why the frick are they allowed to even donate money?
That is a huge conflict of interest.
More proof that government workers should be barred from any political elections and, imo, should be completely and absolutely barred from voting.
Even then, they donates $675,000 to 142 indivdual candidates across races during the entire election cycle. That amounts $5.90 per employee, if every employee donated an equal amount.
But since the average donation to indivduals was a little over $2000, that means about 330 employees donated, if they only donated to one candidate, so it may be far less.
So we are outraged over AT MOST, 0.3% of all 113,000 DOJ employees donated.
Edit: The 113,000 was from 2012, it was actually 117,700 in 2016, so the percentage is even lower. Budget and Employees
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:22 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Well I guess I think could is a necessary but insufficient condition of should.
I said he should have, not that he could.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:23 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The department of Justice had over 113,000 employees, most of whom are just low-level employees with little power.
Even then, they donates $675,000 to 142 indivdual candidates across races during the entire election cycle. That amounts $5.90 per employee, if every employee donated an equal amount.
But since the average donation to indivduals was a little over $2000, that means about 330 employees donated, if they only donated to one candidate, so it may be far less.
So we are outraged over AT MOST, 0.3% of all 113,000 DOJ employees donated.
Yeah thats not a big enough sample size to make any sort of judgement
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:32 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Agreed. But that clearly didn't stop Newt from extrapolating that small sample to other 99.7%, and worse, using that extrapolation to imugn everyone's integrity.
Yeah thats not a big enough sample size to make any sort of judgement
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:32 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Sessions can fire all of his direct reports. There is no reason he can't fire people.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:37 pm to AUX3
quote:But there may also be no reason to fire them, especially someone like Rosenstein who is by all accounts an indivdual of high integrity.
Sessions can fire all of his direct reports. There is no reason he can't fire people.
Firing people of integrity because for purely political reasons is the ultimate swamp behavior. And all of that talk about rebuilding the respect after the Hillary investigation would be pure nonsense as that would be far more damaging.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:38 pm to MButterfly
Even black people are saying "Damn" at those percentages.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:40 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
But there may also be no reason to fire them, especially someone like Rosenstein who is by all accounts an indivdual of high integrity.
Then he must be a fricking moron if he thinks comey's mentor is going to be impartial about an investigation partly about comey's firing
moron or corrupt, has to be one or the other
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:51 pm to PsychTiger
quote:About 140 or so people donated to Hillary out of 117,700 employees. So 0.12% of all DOJ employees. That's a percentage Newt somehow avoided.
Damn" at those percentages.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:54 pm to AUX3
quote:
Sessions can fire all of his direct reports. There is no reason he can't fire people.
I'm not sure why you directed this at me, but to answer your comment. No Sessions can't fire Mueller. That's a matter of law. Mueller was hired to investigate a case that Sessions has recused himself from and so Rosenstein hired and only Rosenstein can directly fire him.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 8:54 pm to MButterfly
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:03 pm to gthog61
quote:Believe it or not, some people value honesty, integrity, and professionalism.
Then he must be a fricking moron if he thinks comey's mentor is going to be impartial about an investigation partly about comey's firing
moron or corrupt, has to be one or the other
Mueller spent 12 years in the Marine Corps, then started his 26 years in the DOJ as a Reagan appointee, before being appointed to FBI Director by Bush, where he served 12 years, the second longest tenure in history.
And before his FBI appointment, he was a register Republican since we are talking about partisan donations.
But nevermind those decades spent building a stellar reputation, let's instead assume he's willing to throw that all away, despite being under a microscope, all because his former colleague was maybe unjustly fired, even though that only makes up a small--if any--part of a large investigation.
The fact that you all are willing to go to such lengths to form an unnecessary defense, with no evidence to support it and all evidence to the contrary, because Trump may (but he may not) be at some sort of risk is some of the most hackish. dishonest, and ignorant junk I've seen.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:37 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Believe it or not, some people value honesty, integrity, and professionalism.
Mueller spent 12 years in the Marine Corps, then started his 26 years in the DOJ as a Reagan appointee, before being appointed to FBI Director by Bush, where he served 12 years, the second longest tenure in history.
And before his FBI appointment, he was a register Republican since we are talking about partisan donations.
But nevermind those decades spent building a stellar reputation, let's instead assume he's willing to throw that all away, despite being under a microscope, all because his former colleague was maybe unjustly fired, even though that only makes up a small--if any--part of a large investigation.
The fact that you all are willing to go to such lengths to form an unnecessary defense, with no evidence to support it and all evidence to the contrary, because Trump may (but he may not) be at some sort of risk is some of the most hackish. dishonest, and ignorant junk I've seen.
All true, but by the same token, only partisan morons question Sessions's integrity yet he recused himself under similar circumstances.
However, I believe that Mueller would recuse himself if the question of did Trump obstruct and was Comey tgelling the truth or not was going to come up which tells me that there is no obstruction investigation going on. Nor will there be.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:52 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Well I question his political integrity because of policy stances, but that's suggest than professional integrity in general.
All true, but by the same token, only partisan morons question Sessions's integrity yet he recused himself under similar circumstances.
That being said, I wouldn't call the circumstances similar since (a) he would investigating people close to his boss, possibly the boss himself, & (b) the omission of the meetings under direct questioning painted him a corner because it's possible to vague that it was an intentional omission.
I don't really think he was lying, but it was a mistake that didn't help his cause. But more importantly, when the investigation surrounds and may include your boss and friend, it is unfair position for anyone to be in when independence is important but far too impractical.
That being said, I think it was the just and right decision, even if it wasn't 100% necessary. And while I still despise many of his policy views and think he was a terrible pick, I can't understand why Trump would throw him under the bus for making the most ethical decision, the opposite of what the previous administration did (or failed to do).
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:56 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Agreed. I don't think there was obstruction, so other than the memos themselves, I think the Comey part of it is a very minor portion, if that.
However, I believe that Mueller would recuse himself if the question of did Trump obstruct and was Comey tgelling the truth or not was going to come up which tells me that there is no obstruction investigation going on. Nor will there be.
And since the obstruction part was only a small (again if any) part of the investigation, and the investigation is more than Trump himself (probably little to do with Trump anyways), I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to recuse himself from the entirety of it.
And if obstruction is an issue, then I don't know why couldn't recuse himself from that portion anyways.
Regardless, I just hate how people are painting Mueller as some person who is corrupt, dishonest, and/or lacks integrity because solely based on a professional relationship with one minor party, and despite his history showing otherwise.
And it's fine to argue witch hunt because they haven't seen any smoking gun evidence, but it'd ridiculous to make that argument then question Mueller with a complete lack of evidence, but worse yet, evidence to the contrary.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:56 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So the DOJ donates 13% and Wilmer Hale donates 21% to Republicans.
The thing is, nobody wanted to donate to Trump. Jeb Bush got considerably more. So did Scott Walker and even John Kasich. Mitt Romney got exponentially more in 2012.
This is supposed to make us feel better?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:04 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:It should make you feel better that, at the MOST 0.28% of all DOJ employees donated to any of 142 candidates (Republican and Democrat) in federal elections during the 2016 election cycle.
This is supposed to make us feel better?
And that's assuming none of the roughly 330 donations were from the same person, and that all 117,700 full time equivalent positions were all full time employee without a single employment turnover.
It's entirely possible for fewer than 330 employees donated and far more than 117,700 people were employed by the DOJ.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 10:06 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News