The Right Side of the News

OK prerogative. But only in the situations where he has the complete choice on his own, not where any other person or body is required to approve or disapprove. There are plenty of appointments he can make without any other input. Can hire them, can fire them as they suit him.

We are essentially bankrupt now, we just keep pretending we aren't.A

The general manager of the store I work at tells me what a great staff she has (and I agree). I remind her that "somebody" must be making good hiring decisions.

This is really about the extent to which Trump's staff share his point of view and support him in it, not about what kind of job they do or don't do. While you might think one could tell right away if someone agrees with you or not, Trump's Presidency has been plagued by people in his inner circle who are traitors to him personally. If they don't reveal their views completely transparently how is he to know if there are areas of disagreement that would show up later? Maybe there isn't even an intentional withholding, it just turns out they disagree but didn't know it at first. So he's within his prerogative to fire them. Maybe he should have known, but what's the point of saying that? When he finds out, he's allowed to get rid of them.When Obama took office he threw out everybody in the White House from the previous administration, Trump didn't do that. Maybe he's too trusting? I don't know, but it was a big mistake. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe he should have known not to invade Russia in winter, but what's the point of saying that? The point is that it's big decisions can have big consequences and it's better to have a big leader making them, not a child. Nobody's suggesting that he isn't "allowed" - but it reflects on his competence. With an election coming up, the Peter Principle rears its head: "people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence": an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another." Wikipedia

Who were all these people that Trump kept on? Because I'm bored I just went through the entire White House Executive Office under Obama, couldn't find a soul who was still there on January 21st 2017.

I don't know, I keep hearing about one person or another who was "an Obama appointee" still working in the White House and that sort of thing. Sorry.

If it were Obama we'd never ever have heard of hirings or firings the way we do with Trump. It's all part of the witch hunt.

You keep saying that but you can never back it up. The term "witch hunt" implies looking for something that isn't real. In this case, the witch is real, so ironically, it isn't a witch hunt.

Yes but not because of any social programs, rather because we have chosen to spend the money on really stupid stuff like the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, a border wall, tax cuts for businesses and corporations ...

Two can play that silly game. No, there was no witch, it's been nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning.

Oh another silly little game we can play. Let's just exchange our political platforms now until we run out of breath.

Then why have there been so many indictments? The so-called "witch hunt" found a lot of wrong-doing by people Trump hired. If he isn't bright enough to hire decent people, at least the so-called "witch hunt" was useful enough to root them out.

We're talking about lost emails, not deleted emails that were recovered from other computers and backups. Who are these "sources," and why would you trust them when they're saying something nonsensical? It's not possible to know the nature of emails no one can read. You're blathering interminably about baloney. Barr released his memo a few weeks before releasing the redacted report, and even in redacted form it was clearly obvious to all that Barr had misrepresented the report. Mueller himself in a private letter to Barr said as much (READ: Robert Mueller's Letter To William Barr On Special Counsel's Report : NPR):

quote:

---

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions...There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
...
Release [of enclosed summary materials] at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.

---

What you're describing is not anything Barr or Mueller wrote or said but what a Barr Department of Justice spokeswoman said about a phone conversation between Barr and Mueller (Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe):

quote:

---

In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis.

---

This characterization is likely as misleading as Barr's memo, which we already know was misleading after comparing it to the redacted report, and because of Mueller's letter of complaint. We have no indication from Mueller that he agrees with the Barr spokeswoman's characterization, including in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee where he wasn't asked about it.No, Barr did not dismiss that position. He said that the DoJ policy should not have prevented Mueller from stating which criminal acts deserved indictments. Except that's all you can do is cast disparaging remarks. You can't come up with any actual information or reasoning. You can read the Mueller report and the Barr memo and see the discrepancies for yourself. As Mueller stated during his congressional testimony, the obstructions of justice described in the report remain indictable after Trump leaves office and is no longer president. The Mueller investigation was not an investigation of Trump personally but of the Trump campaign. Mueller indicted plenty of people, just not Trump who while president is not indictable. Since they found nothing then I guess nobody's in jail. Oh, wait, people are in jail at this very moment based on what was found. I mentioned above that this was a point on which Barr and Mueller disagreed. Mueller stated in the report that they could not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice, only present what was done:

quote:

---

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

---

Barr disagreed, feeling that Mueller could have concluded whether the evidence warranted indictment. Volume II of the report describes the obstructions of justice: The Mueller ReportYou're making no sense. People are in jail due to information in the report. Barr has raised more than mere suspicion that he is a Trump partisan, behaving more like the president's attorney and defender than an objective administer of justice. The Barr handling of the Mueller report is just one instance. I've read both the Barr memo and the Mueller report and would be happy to discuss their content with you if you would like. If you think there are smears in the Mueller report then read it and tell us about them. I've brought facts and reasoning to the table, you've only brought an ugly cesspool of nastiness. While I do think Barr's honesty, especially with himself about what he is doing, should also be questioned I feel this is less an issue of honesty than of integrity. The evidence that you're turning a blind eye toward strongly suggests that Barr, like his employer, is not a man of integrity.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Trump trusts his appointees up until the point where he feels they're exhibiting too much integrity and backbone for his taste. Commentators are tracing the Mulvaney firing back to his assertion last year of a Trump quid pro quo with the Ukraine, but they forget that just a few weeks ago in Ireland he declared that the United States needed more immigration. My guess is that this was the final straw.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.