Politicspolitics

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 08:12 AM

Senator Lindsey Graham Discusses The Curious Susan Rice Email



https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/12/senator-lindsey-graham-discusses-the-curious-susan-rice-email/









22 replies, 256 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senator Lindsey Graham Discusses The Curious Susan Rice Email (Original post)
Let it go Feb 2018 OP
Gamle-ged Feb 2018 #1
rh24 Feb 2018 #2
Let it go Feb 2018 #3
rh24 Feb 2018 #4
Let it go Feb 2018 #5
rh24 Feb 2018 #8
Carl Feb 2018 #11
Bob the Bilderberger Feb 2018 #6
rh24 Feb 2018 #9
turquoise Feb 2018 #7
rh24 Feb 2018 #10
turquoise Feb 2018 #12
Carl Feb 2018 #13
turquoise Feb 2018 #14
Carl Feb 2018 #15
turquoise Feb 2018 #17
Carl Feb 2018 #18
turquoise Feb 2018 #19
Carl Feb 2018 #20
turquoise Feb 2018 #21
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #16
Doctor_R Feb 2018 #22

Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 08:24 AM

1. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 08:55 AM

2. Obama is used to everyone covering up his corruption and providing him

with plausible deniability.

Susan Rice was the designated liar for Mullah Obama. Her reputation was shit, she was dangerously incompetent and out of her depth in national security issues, so that was her role in the administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rh24 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:00 AM

3. Well she sure screwed I only had two meetings Comey

So we have found two more meetings than what Comey told us about

Who called this meeting and why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:03 AM

4. The women is so incorrigibly dumb she literally can't keep her lies straight.

That was Susie Rice's one job---and she effed it up.

WTF writes an e-mai like the one referenced to themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rh24 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:07 AM

5. Obviously a cya.

Tells me they were freaking out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:17 AM

8. As was stated in the video, something had happened that prompted that

ridiculous e-mail Susie sent to herself.

Obama is a massive pussy. Ever since he was spawned as a Chicago ward heeler, he has surrounded himself with corrupt cronies, but always managed to insulate himself from the fallout by using handlers and intermediaries to do his dirty work.

My guess is he starting freaking out that he would be implicated in this somehow and whined to Rice to do what she does--cover and lie for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rh24 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:31 AM

11. No better description of her ever.

She had all the things needed to not be questioned by the complicit MSM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:15 AM

6. Hillary was right

"If he wins this thing, we ALL hang!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:19 AM

9. With all the unsourced accounts of what Hillary said and did during the campaign---

that one had a real ring of truth to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:15 AM

7. "The Senate Judiciary Committee has a Constitutional duty to conduct

oversight of the FBI and the broader Department of Justice."

I'd dearly love to see the copy of the Constitution in which Graham and Grassley found that.


However, over the years, we have accepted that Congress has the *power* to question the Executive Branch, even though the Constitution does not say that, either. Heck, Lincoln himself voluntrily popped in to assure Congress that his wife was loyal to the Union in the Civil War, thereby finessing Congress out of hauling in a woman of fragile emotional health for questioning. However, power born of tradition and duty imposed by the Constitution are two very different things. And, Graham, at least, knows that perfectly well.

Some of the questions are nitpicky, some aren't. They are, I think, entitled to answers. So are we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:23 AM

10. It is an implied power rather than an expressed one.

I think there is more Constitutional basis for congressional oversight than you can find for judicial review.

But then again, the power of precedent....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rh24 (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:46 AM

12. Implied by what provision(s)? How? I disagree it's implied and simply claiming it is

to try to give the authors of the letter cover doesn't make it true. If you want to give a textual analysis to support your claim, I'd be interested to read it.

Judicial review has less than noting to do with the letter or Congressional oversight, so let's not deflect, k?

Aside from anything else, none of the three entities the letter named in the first sentence were even a gleam in the eye of any Framer when the Constitution was written, nor do they appear in any amendment, as Graham and Grassley well know. Sorry, but the first sentence of the letter is self-important gasbag bs, designed to impress people who don't know better and don't check.

As for the rest, my post said the power appears nowhere in the Constitution, which is the same as saying it's not express; and my post said there's been precedent and even cited an example, although Lincoln did do that voluntarily and to spare his emotionally fragile wife the harassment and embarrassment. He probably wanted to avoid a Constitutional crisis at such a time in the nation's history as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:51 AM

13. I know it is Wiki but some general insight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:03 AM

14. Seriously?

I am not disparaging wiki. I use it all the time. But, I don't know why, given my original post about the letter, you would assume that I am unaware of what wiki says about Congressional oversight. Anyone can claim anything is "implied." *But,* please note the specificity of the first sentence of the letter and the three entities named. And again, "power" is very different from "duty." Wording matters. Graham knows that better than I.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:16 AM

15. As was mentioned above,find me anywhere in the Constitution where the SCOTUS is the final word on

legislative or executive actions.
Or for that matter where any court has a say.

At least the implied power of oversight has some basis in Constitutional wording.
If you want to quibble over exact words then meh,have fun with it as far as making a distinction of using the word power instead of duty.

As far as it goes based on saying none of those agencies were around at the writing of the Constitution are you suggesting (not implying since that word is troublesome) that they are Unconstitutional?
How about numerous other agencies like the EPA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:34 AM

17. I am talking about the first sentence of the letter being bs.

"As far as it goes based on saying none of those agencies were around at the writing of the Constitution are you suggesting (not implying since that word is troublesome) that they are Unconstitutional? "

FFS, no. I am saying what I said from my first post forward--that the sentence, as worded, is bs.

Look at the specificity of the sentence. It says nothing about a general *Congressional* *power* to oversee the *Executive Branch.*

It claims the Constitution itself imposes a *duty* on the *Senate Judiciary Committee* to investigate the *FBI* and the *D of J.* As worded, it is bs. If you don't get that, I give up. I've now made four or five posts about it and I don't know how to make it clearer.

And again, please stop trying to deflect to judicial review. As I said in a prior post, that has zero to do with the letter or with Congressional oversight. No sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:38 AM

18. You just don't like the wording,can't help you with that.

For heavens sake talk about using a shotgun on a gnat.

Nothing in its wording is inherently wrong unless one wants to just have a snit over something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:44 AM

19. The wording is bs and intentionally. I posted ONE sentence to that effect over an hour and a half

ago. However, Republicans go batshit if anyone says anything even a teensy negative about someone from their party. So two of you made a big deal out of it. The only mistake I made was replying to your posts. So, now, "I',* supposedly the one who made a big deal out of it, instead of you two. One freaking sentence neither of your could let go?

My bad for replying Next time, I'll know just to post "LOL." or maybe one of the ROFL emotes y'all like so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:47 AM

20. If every thing that some Congress critter wrote had to strictly adhere to exact Constitutional

verbiage it would be great.
They would write and say almost nothing.

Never going to happen though so I don`t see the point in worrying over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:49 AM

21. LOL!

And US Senators, lawyers with staffs, would write nothing if they had to get it right?

BULLSHIT

I got it right in a fucking post off the top of my head.

Graham knows better.

All the spinning and attempts at deflection have been a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:32 AM

16. Checks and Balances...

All government agencies, bureaus, offices, et al have oversight from some entity. The DOJ is an executive branch department, which was set up by congress. If a hostile Cabinet office and the police power of the cabinet office are corrupted, and seem to be against the Executive who IS their superior, then a third arbiter must be involved. Since Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch, at least slightly, it makes sense that Congress would be the ultimate oversight in such a donnybrook as this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Politicspolitics