monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

What the heck is this guy talking about?

Who is the opponent and what is the position?

Is the former Bee? Who would waste their time on opposing her? She's a classless, vulgar, middle aged comedian so desperate to appear edgy, cool and relevant she can only think to use what is probably the most vile of obsceneities in the US on her broadcast TV show.

Is the latter that Ivanka Trump is somehow obligated to change her father's mind and make him enact policies approved by leftie Canadian comedians?

Anyone defending Bee while castigating Barr is a hypocrite, and that the Entertainment industry did not descend on Bee as they did on Barr reveals a clear double-standard.

What is all the blather about what-aboutism? Considering that the Bee incident followed Barr's, the only ones who might be using it are those addressing Bee's critics, and only if they also defended Barr. It's nonsense.

Barr's tweet was reprehensible and so was Bee's slur. "That Guy" and plenty of others are, out of convenience and tribal loyalty, trying to draw a bright line of distinction between them on the basis that Barr's was disgusting and racist while Bee's was only disgusting and misogynist . Total BS. The criticism of Bee I've read and heard from women is not because they are all blue-nosed librarians who blush at the word damn, it's because she used a utterly misogynist term that attempts to reduce a woman into nothing more than her raw sex organ.

If Barr had used the term instead of her racist remark you'd all still be calling for her scalp. It's an absolutely clear double standard. Barr had a target on her back because she supported Trump. Bee is a hero because she attacks Trump. One could do no right and the other could do no wrong. It's that simple

However, if we are going to parse this thing to death, keep in mind that Barr's comment was tweeted in the middle of the night in what was probably a spontaneous, booze doused Id inferno while Bee's was a measured and well considered decision approved by her bosses.

Personally I don't see a measurable difference in either, regardless of how one dissects them, but if you want to bring out the moral protractors and electron woke microscope then examine them both in their entirety and their full context.

Does Ivanka work in the WH as one of the presidents advisors or not? As her role in the WH she should have influence. Trump himself said Ivanka was into



source

She has even substitued for Trump in places. She is not just one of Trump children, she has role in the WH and has influence with Trump.

I disliked her choice of words but I approved Bee's message. Ivanka despite have a role in WH is nothing but window dressing and you guys are admitting it.

As far as this far right horseshit about supposed double standards in the media goes, there is none. They've been consistent when they apply the standards of professional journalism/satire as defined by H L Mencken.

Will Self summed it up post Charlie Hebdo bombings.



https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/kwpvax/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-

What Barr did was attack a minority, black people in the most offensive terms imaginable, what Mencken would call the afflicted, what Bee did was attack the powerful. Therefore Bee's comments pass Mencken's definition, while Barr's fails miserably.

No double standards consistent throughout, the rich and powerful are always fair game. Although I wouldn't have called Ivanka the c word, I see her more as a vacuous bint.

Quote oralloy:
If it's shown that they are doing it for evil intent, (eg preventing them or someone they like from getting caught), then it becomes obstruction of justice.

EPA’s Pruitt spent $1,560 on 12 customized fountain pens from Washington jewelry store

Maybe if Pruitt wasn't living high off the hog's teat's of the government, we wouldn't have to take money from Medicare and food stamps to pay for those tax cuts for the rich.

Re: Builder (Post 6653432)
Quote:



MontereyJack replied;



What you're saying is, you accept that the media isn't in the business of reporting factually, and that propaganda is acceptable to your thinking?

The Russia investigation had started before Trump took office. So it's obstruction of justice for Trump to put an end to it prematurely.

No. The officer in charge of an investigation has the power to end it anytime that he feels that it should be ended.

Not if he has "evil intent" (ie, self-interest), in doing so. Then it becomes obstruction of justice, if proven.

The investigation into the Russian connection was underway well before Trump was ever elected. So you can't simply decide to not to start pursuing something that has been already been underway for months. If Trump tries to end it, and evil intent can be shown, it is obstruction of justice.

I hate to bust your bubble, but when FBI learns there may be dangerous people around the president, it’s investigated. You have completely ignored that the president might be completely innocent but foreign agents may have infiltrated his regime with ill intent. Have you ever heard about Kim Philby? It’s entirely possible that the FBI is only concerned with protecting the president from unfriendlies and have his best interest/and the country’s stability in mind. Do you know about the Secret Service, or do you think it’s just a bunch of agents that fetch coffee.

I find it mind blowing that you can easily believe that Obama was a tool of Islamic terrorists hell bent on bringing down the country, but there can not possibly be any foreign attempts to infiltrate this administration. Why? Do you think the Russians and the Chinese are anxious to see a much stronger USA? You should get a job with Infowars.

That is history now. The rise of terrorism on his watch I can't see how history would say anything else. Factual history.

Dear heart, there are thousands and thousands of career intelligence officers who do nothing but investigate threats against the United States and do everything in their power to foil them. I can only assume whatever you did before you retired was piss-poor, because if you had any pride in your work you would know that others do as well.

True.

You can, however, decide to stop pursuing it.

That is incorrect. Obstruction applies to impeding investigations that the government is pursuing, not to the government deciding not to pursue an investigation.

Perhaps. Although ultimately the President has the power to order them not to do so.

True. I have indeed ignored that.

The name sounds vaguely familiar.

Their primary concern needs to be following the President's orders.

I know about them.

Back in 2000 when W was still running for the Republican nomination, some clown on a messageboard posted that he was going to kill me and my family and then do the same for W and his family. I assessed (correctly) that he was a buffoon, and told him so.

Another poster called the Secret Service. It was 4AM Sunday morning, so he got their answering service. It took two minutes for a Secret Service agent to call him back. That's a pretty fast response for 4AM Sunday morning.

I find it strange that you keep accusing me of views that I don't have and have never expressed.

Perhaps not. But at least they don't call us imperialists and spit on us the way western Europe does.

Do they pay well?

I've wondered before if it might be possible to make a good bit of cash by concocting leftist nonsense and selling books to gullible liberals.

Quote oralloy:
If the investigation has already begun, it is too late to decide not to pursue it. At that point, you can only end it. If you end it and it is proven you did that to prevent things you don't want coming out about you or someone you like, you have committed obstruction of justice.