Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

If he win another 4 years, I will feel sorry for America and the rest of the world and I would say the global climate and environment too. Big if but if public sentiment for his impeachment, polls and the massive funds generated by the Dems are to go by, he probably will lose. The world will be a better place without him. Mother Nature will sigh a relief too. 

Me too but win he will due to the Dems strategy - people, generally, hate obvious bias and hypocrisy.  

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

We can't take anything for granted. He'll still have an advantage in terms of the electoral college regardless.

That’s right. It is like Prayut having that advantage to be PM with help from the constitution and election laws. Bottom line undeserving, 

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Me too but win he will due to the Dems strategy - people, generally, hate obvious bias and hypocrisy.  

Agree. It’s for the Dems to lose not because of bias and hypocrisy ( plenty in the Reps camp) but poor strategic planning and too timid to face down Trump. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

My jaw just hit the floor.  I mean, I've read some freakishly outlandish, flat-out false claims by you guys before, such as one poster claiming that Trump's leaked calls to Australian and Mexican heads of state were leaked by those respective countries, but this takes the cake.  With no proof whatsoever you assert that all of the documents uploaded by Solomon, and there are a lot of them, are not real and were in fact fictitiously created by Solomon.

 

If you previously had even the slightest credibility left at all you've just lost the rest of it, johnny, with this latest and most grotesque perversion of reality.  Wow.  Just wow.

 

Care to back track while you can, johnny?

No I'm good.

I tell you what I will do though, if ANY wrong dealings are ever formally  (through the DOJ or similar body) proven to be the case regarding Hunter Biden then I will come on to this forum and publicly apologise to you. Now this should be easy now that so much evidence has been supplied by that bastion of integrity John Solomon which you have been kind enough to post here. With such overwhelming evidence I'm sure Trumps gang will be knocking on Bidens door any day now.

Now on the off chance that these documents are just another red-herring and aren't proving a 'slush fund owned and operated by Devon Archer, John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden?  and that they don't actually confirm 'Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine? any chance you will come on here and apologise instead?

 

[Tippaporn]

48 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

<snip>

 

For all the corruption going on in ukraine its strange the only one trump wanted investigated was biden.

 

<snip>

<snip>

 

As to your misinformation that Trump was interested only in Biden I suggest you go back and reread the call transcript.  From the top of page 3:

 

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with
this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the
whole situation .. I think you're surrounding yourself with some
of the same people.  I would like to have the Attorney General
call you or your people and I would like you to get to the
bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueler, an
incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with
Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it
if that's possible.

 

Show me where they are discussing Biden.

 

<snip>

 

You should have kept reading:

 

"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

 

No!

Are you saying, a Trump- fan edited and doctored a source or a quote, to fit their own narrative?

Now I have seen everything!

????

LOL, you people can't follow a thread, let alone facts.

 

Notice where Sujo is distorting the facts by claiming that for all of the Ukraine corruption Trump was only interested in a Biden investigation?

 

Notice where I snipped a quote from the call transcript to show that Trump started out by requesting an investigation into the origins of Russia hoax?  Proving to Sujo that Trump was interested in not just Biden corruption but Russia hoax corruption as well.

 

Notice where heybruce completely loses the point I made in providing proof that it's not just Biden and writes, "You should have kept reading:"

 

Notice where Saint Nick chimes in and utterly twists facts so he can falsely claim that I "edited and doctored a source or quote" to fit my narrative?

 

Notice the left's shameless, deceitful and unscrupulous tactics?  Don't believe me.  I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.  Who they are is right here for all to see.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

No I'm good.

I tell you what I will do though, if ANY wrong dealings are ever formally  (through the DOJ or similar body) proven to be the case regarding Hunter Biden then I will come on to this forum and publicly apologise to you. Now this should be easy now that so much evidence has been supplied by that bastion of integrity John Solomon which you have been kind enough to post here. With such overwhelming evidence I'm sure Trumps gang will be knocking on Bidens door any day now.

Now on the off chance that these documents are just another red-herring and aren't proving a 'slush fund owned and operated by Devon Archer, John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden?  and that they don't actually confirm 'Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine? any chance you will come on here and apologise instead?

 

Sorry, pal, but your offer doesn't excuse you from perverting reality and then, incredulously, foolishly sticking by it.  You should have fessed up when you had the chance.  I give you zero credibility.  Zero in the honesty department as well.

[BobBKK]

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

No I'm good.

I tell you what I will do though, if ANY wrong dealings are ever formally  (through the DOJ or similar body) proven to be the case regarding Hunter Biden then I will come on to this forum and publicly apologise to you. Now this should be easy now that so much evidence has been supplied by that bastion of integrity John Solomon which you have been kind enough to post here. With such overwhelming evidence I'm sure Trumps gang will be knocking on Bidens door any day now.

Now on the off chance that these documents are just another red-herring and aren't proving a 'slush fund owned and operated by Devon Archer, John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden?  and that they don't actually confirm 'Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine? any chance you will come on here and apologise instead?

 

Hunter doesn't speak the language, has no experience but, wait for it Daddy is VP!  Hunter also confessed he would not have got the job without the name Biden.  I am amazed that anyone does not see that as a problem. And don't even start me on Bidens Quid Pro Quo regarding the 1bn in aid and his boasting on camera.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Hunter doesn't speak the language, has no experience but, wait for it Daddy is VP!  Hunter also confessed he would not have got the job without the name Biden.  I am amazed that anyone does not see that as a problem. And don't even start me on Bidens Quid Pro Quo regarding the 1bn in aid and his boasting on camera.

BobBKK, just take a look at the BS they pull with a single, easily provable fact; that Trump was not only interested in Biden corruption but Russia hoax corruption as well.  They distort the facts, ignore the facts, and then turn around and claim you're dishonestly "doctoring" the facts.  I wouldn't expect them to accept any facts, period.  It's not that they're not intelligent.  I believe they are.  But I've never come across a more dishonest lot.

[Becker]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL, you people can't follow a thread, let alone facts.

 

Notice where Sujo is distorting the facts by claiming that for all of the Ukraine corruption Trump was only interested in a Biden investigation?

 

Notice where I snipped a quote from the call transcript to show that Trump started out by requesting an investigation into the origins of Russia hoax?  Proving to Sujo that Trump was interested in not just Biden corruption but Russia hoax corruption as well.

 

Notice where heybruce completely loses the point I made in providing proof that it's not just Biden and writes, "You should have kept reading:"

 

Notice where Saint Nick chimes in and utterly twists facts so he can falsely claim that I "edited and doctored a source or quote" to fit my narrative?

 

Notice the left's shameless, deceitful and unscrupulous tactics?  Don't believe me.  I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.  Who they are is right here for all to see.

 

 

Instead of posting faux outrage ramblings how about you answer post #214?

[johnnybangkok]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry, pal, but your offer doesn't excuse you from perverting reality and then, incredulously, foolishly sticking by it.  You should have fessed up when you had the chance.  I give you zero credibility.  Zero in the honesty department as well.

Perhaps less of the sanctimonious, holier than though attitude would add more to your own credibility.

And when publishing the workings of a known conspiracy punter (he punted the now debunked Uranium One conspiracy as well as many more) and is derided by his co-workers for '....... his questionable reporting, which often seems specifically tailored to stoke the flames of right-wing paranoia' ,  and which 'has enraged many of his colleagues at The Hill who have for years seen his tactics and reporting as overtly ideological, convoluted, and often lacking in crucial context.' you should maybe question that past misdemeanors have a tendency to dictate current plausibility.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-colleagues-unload-on-john-solomon-the-reporter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy

 

And by the way, I've been giving you 'zero credibility' since you started on this site. I'm just too polite to say it. Until now.

Edited November 15, 2019 by johnnybangkok

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

Instead of posting faux outrage ramblings how about you answer post #214?

Faux outrage, eh?  Ramblings, eh?  Thank you for proving my points, Becker.  Dishonest.

 

Should I add they're a blind lot, too?

 

I replied to johnny.  He's washed up in my eyes.

[johnnybangkok]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Hunter doesn't speak the language, has no experience but, wait for it Daddy is VP!  Hunter also confessed he would not have got the job without the name Biden.  I am amazed that anyone does not see that as a problem. And don't even start me on Bidens Quid Pro Quo regarding the 1bn in aid and his boasting on camera.

No one is saying it isn't a problem but when you have Trump offering Ivanka a role that she has no experience in and is massively ill-equipped to handle and getting Jared to 'sort out the Middle East' alongside many other roles, then the word hypocrisy immediately springs to mind. 

ALL children should be banned from using their political parents influence to land plumb jobs but until it becomes illegal for everyone, then you can't just single out Hunter Biden. 

 

[johnnybangkok]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Faux outrage, eh?  Ramblings, eh?  Thank you for proving my points, Becker.  Dishonest.

 

Should I add they're a blind lot, too?

 

I replied to johnny.  He's washed up in my eyes.

Oh no, how will I cope!

[Saint Nick]

47 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL, you people can't follow a thread, let alone facts.

 

Notice where Sujo is distorting the facts by claiming that for all of the Ukraine corruption Trump was only interested in a Biden investigation?

 

Notice where I snipped a quote from the call transcript to show that Trump started out by requesting an investigation into the origins of Russia hoax?  Proving to Sujo that Trump was interested in not just Biden corruption but Russia hoax corruption as well.

 

Notice where heybruce completely loses the point I made in providing proof that it's not just Biden and writes, "You should have kept reading:"

 

Notice where Saint Nick chimes in and utterly twists facts so he can falsely claim that I "edited and doctored a source or quote" to fit my narrative?

 

Notice the left's shameless, deceitful and unscrupulous tactics?  Don't believe me.  I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.  Who they are is right here for all to see.

 

 

LOL...you conveniently left out the parts of the conversation, that were damning to your darling- President!

You really shouldn't call anyone shameless, deceitful and whatnot!

 

The Washington Examiner!

'nuff said!

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Faux outrage, eh?  Ramblings, eh?  Thank you for proving my points, Becker.  Dishonest.

 

Should I add they're a blind lot, too?

 

I replied to johnny.  He's washed up in my eyes.

And I could tell you what you and your fellow Trump worshippers are in my eyes but why risk a posting holiday for the likes of you.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Hunter doesn't speak the language, has no experience but, wait for it Daddy is VP!  Hunter also confessed he would not have got the job without the name Biden.  I am amazed that anyone does not see that as a problem. And don't even start me on Bidens Quid Pro Quo regarding the 1bn in aid and his boasting on camera.

And would Ivanka have gotten all those trademarks from China if her father wasn't Donald Trump? Or Jared been given a sweetheart deal to bail him out of his disastrous real estate purchase. Sleazy is bad but it's not synonymous with illegal.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL, you people can't follow a thread, let alone facts.

 

Notice where Sujo is distorting the facts by claiming that for all of the Ukraine corruption Trump was only interested in a Biden investigation?

 

Notice where I snipped a quote from the call transcript to show that Trump started out by requesting an investigation into the origins of Russia hoax?  Proving to Sujo that Trump was interested in not just Biden corruption but Russia hoax corruption as well.

 

Notice where heybruce completely loses the point I made in providing proof that it's not just Biden and writes, "You should have kept reading:"

 

Notice where Saint Nick chimes in and utterly twists facts so he can falsely claim that I "edited and doctored a source or quote" to fit my narrative?

 

Notice the left's shameless, deceitful and unscrupulous tactics?  Don't believe me.  I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.  Who they are is right here for all to see.

 

 

Notice where sondland states trump only wanted updates on biden and giuliano only wanted evidence on biden and crowdstrike.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Notice where sondland states trump only wanted updates on biden and giuliano only wanted evidence on biden and crowdstrike.

I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.

 

Fact:  Trump requested an investigation into Russia hoax and Biden.  It's in the transcript.

Fact:  You were wrong that Trump wanted an investigation into only Biden.

Fact:  You will not post a correction.

Fact:  You will try to spin the facts in an attempt to make your incorrect statement correct.

 

Fail.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Tippaporn

[bristolboy]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.

 

 

This is truly bizarre coming from the proponent of the Special Envoy justification for Rudolph Giuliani.

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.

 

Fact:  Trump requested an investigation into Russia hoax and Biden.  It's in the transcript.

Fact:  You were wrong that Trump wanted an investigation into only Biden.

Fact:  You will not post a correction.

Fact:  You will try to spin the facts in an attempt to make your incorrect statement correct.

 

Fail.

 

Russia hoax is already debunked by every intelligence agency.

 

His request for biden is what got him into this mess. All he had to do was ask the doj or fbi. But no, he prefers the illegal bribery way.

 

Its so funny. The more evidence against trump the louder his supporters scream about biden. Which is totally irrelevant to what trump did.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Russia hoax is already debunked by every intelligence agency.

 

His request for biden is what got him into this mess. All he had to do was ask the doj or fbi. But no, he prefers the illegal bribery way.

 

Its so funny. The more evidence against trump the louder his supporters scream about biden. Which is totally irrelevant to what trump did.

None of what you posted addresses my post.  You will not admit you were wrong.

 

This is what honest posters here have to deal with.

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is truly bizarre coming from the proponent of the Special Envoy justification for Rudolph Giuliani.

It's been pointed out that the use by a President of a citizen not within government has been done before.

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy

 

"Among all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion."

 

I truly don't understand what you're trying to argue since there are supporting facts.  But you, too, can twist facts to suit your purposes and end up calling me a liar.  Your problem, not mine.  But you do expose yourself for who you truly are.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's been pointed out that the use by a President of a citizen not within government has been done before.

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy

 

"Among all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion."

 

I truly don't understand what you're trying to argue since there are supporting facts.  But you, too, can twist facts to suit your purposes and end up calling me a liar.  Your problem, not mine.  But you do expose yourself for who you truly are.

 

How enlightening. So how about staying on the topic of trump. Biden is not relevant.

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How enlightening. So how about staying on the topic of trump. Biden is not relevant.

I guess that's your way of conceding.

[Skallywag]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You're all so convinced that Trump has committed impeachable offences, so how come Nancy doesn't move forward with impeachment? Could it be that there isn't any actual proof?

The Impeachment proceedings, inquiries, in the House oF Representatives will take some time. 

Nixon and Clinton both took around 2 months

Just hang on, then you and all your "friends" on Fox news (other than Chris Wallace and Juan WIlliams) will be eating your words.  5555

[GroveHillWanderer]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

A bit of twisted logic there, GroveHillWanderer.  Nixon committed crimes.  Quite different than questioning a President's chosen policy.

 

If government employees disagree with a President's policy they have a few options.  Quit.  Or run for President yourself.  The President sets policy according to the powers granted him by the Constitution.  Policy makers do not get to impose their ideas of what policy should be.  They have an obligation to carry out the President's directives.  Again, if they so strongly disagree then they can quit and run for office themselves.  Has nothing to do with the false suggestion that it's about loyalty to the President.

No twisted logic. You say, "Nixon committed crimes." Although in actual fact he was never convicted of any crimes, I suspect most people would agree with you. But how and why do we know that? 

 

It's due in large part to the people who wouldn't go along with Nixon's attempt to make sure the presidential tapes were not released. Nixon had come up with a compromise that meant the tapes would not be released. Instead, transcripts would be compiled by notoriously hard-of-hearing Senator John Stennis. 

 

Special prosecutor Archibald Cox refused to abide by Nixon's decision and resigned, then Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both refused to go along with Nixon's decision to fire Cox and also resigned. This was known as "The Saturday Night Massacre" and is what started the final push towards impeaching Nixon, at a time when support for his impeachment was below 30% in the country as a whole.

 

If these three federal employees had simply displayed blind loyalty to the president, instead of following their conscience and their oath of office, the tapes and the impeachable conduct they revealed might never have been heard. None of the decisions they refused to go along with, were actual crimes as far as I'm aware.

 

The basic point I was making though, was and still is that in contrast to what BobBKK was saying, people working in the government are bound by loyalty to the constitution, not to the president.

 

It's also not true that, "They have an obligation to carry out the President's directives," not if those directives would run counter to their oath of office.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No twisted logic. You say, "Nixon committed crimes." Although in actual fact he was never convicted of any crimes, I suspect most people would agree with you. But how and why do we know that? 

 

It's due in large part to the people who wouldn't go along with Nixon's attempt to make sure the presidential tapes were not released. Nixon had come up with a compromise that meant the tapes would not be released. Instead, transcripts would be compiled by notoriously hard-of-hearing Senator John Stennis. 

 

Special prosecutor Archibald Cox refused to abide by Nixon's decision and resigned, then Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both refused to go along with Nixon's decision to fire Cox and also resigned. This was known as "The Saturday Night Massacre" and is what started the final push towards impeaching Nixon, at a time when support for his impeachment was below 30% in the country as a whole.

 

If these three federal employees had simply displayed blind loyalty to the president, instead of following their conscience and their oath of office, the tapes and the impeachable conduct they revealed might never have been heard. None of the decisions they refused to go along with, were actual crimes as far as I'm aware.

 

The basic point I was making though, was and still is that in contrast to what BobBKK was saying, people working in the government are bound by loyalty to the constitution, not to the president.

 

It's also not true that, "They have an obligation to carry out the President's directives," not if those directives would run counter to their oath of office.

 

I won't argue your point that government employees are sworn to defend the Constitution because you are correct.  I believe, as you do, that government employees should question government officials.  I agree as well that loyalty should be first and foremost to the Constitution.  Loyalty to an individual within government I believe is fine but should extend only insofar as it doesn't cross the line into illegality or unethical behaviour.

 

And I'm also concurrent with your view that government employees have an obligation to execute the directives of the President or any other official for whom they work . . . unless, as you stated well, those directives would run counter to their oath of office.

 

Perhaps we're on the same page here and it certainly seems to me that is so.

 

There seems to me to be a shift in logic taking place recently regarding the attitudes of some government employees who feel that the President must abide by the policies or recommendations they conclude should be taken by the President.  I do not at all agree with the below and in my opinion it's utter BS:

 

"Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley wrote.

“It was their decisions, not the president’s, that were in the best interests of America, they said. The president didn’t know what he was doing,” Haley wrote about the two advisers.

 

If they disagree with the President's direction, and the President's direction is legal, then it is baseless for them to claim that "they were trying to save the country," or that their decisions "were in the best interests of America."  Resign and run for office yourself.  Otherwise, do your duty.

 

There is within government those employees who are part of what they themselves term as "The Resistance."  They take a twisted sense of the moral high ground to justify their actions.  These people, I believe, need to be held to account if they are deliberately trying to derail a President's directives.

 

What sparked me to tell you that you were using twisted logic was my interpretation that you were making a comparison between Cox, Richardson, and Ruckelshaus and Kelly and Tillerson.  The former group are to be commended.  The latter group have fooled themselves into thinking that they, rather than the President, should dictate U.S. policy.  They should be admonished.  My apologies if I've misconstrued you.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Tippaporn

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed. Wonder what the haters will do when Trump wins another 4 years? Will we have another 4 years of continual whining from Schiff and Nancy?

If Trump wins four more years I will claim he won because of millions of affluent people with multiple residences using these multiple addresses to vote fraudulently for Trump.

 

In case you're wondering, I have as much evidence to support this claim as Trump has to support his "millions of illegals" claim.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL, you people can't follow a thread, let alone facts.

 

Notice where Sujo is distorting the facts by claiming that for all of the Ukraine corruption Trump was only interested in a Biden investigation?

 

Notice where I snipped a quote from the call transcript to show that Trump started out by requesting an investigation into the origins of Russia hoax?  Proving to Sujo that Trump was interested in not just Biden corruption but Russia hoax corruption as well.

 

Notice where heybruce completely loses the point I made in providing proof that it's not just Biden and writes, "You should have kept reading:"

 

Notice where Saint Nick chimes in and utterly twists facts so he can falsely claim that I "edited and doctored a source or quote" to fit my narrative?

 

Notice the left's shameless, deceitful and unscrupulous tactics?  Don't believe me.  I'll bet not one of them will post a correction or an apology.  Who they are is right here for all to see.

 

 

Notice where you posted " Show me where they are discussing Biden. "

 

I showed you where Trump discussed Biden in the Zelensky phone call.

 

Do you use "shameless, deceitful and unscrupulous tactics"?  Or do you just not read what you post?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I won't argue your point that government employees are sworn to defend the Constitution because you are correct.  I believe, as you do, that government employees should question government officials.  I agree as well that loyalty should be first and foremost to the Constitution.  Loyalty to an individual within government I believe is fine but should extend only insofar as it doesn't cross the line into illegality or unethical behaviour.

 

And I'm also concurrent with your view that government employees have an obligation to execute the directives of the President or any other official for whom they work . . . unless, as you stated well, those directives would run counter to their oath of office.

 

Perhaps we're on the same page here and it certainly seems to me that is so.

 

There seems to me to be a shift in logic taking place recently regarding the attitudes of some government employees who feel that the President must abide by the policies or recommendations they conclude should be taken by the President.  I do not at all agree with the below and in my opinion it's utter BS:

 

"Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley wrote.

“It was their decisions, not the president’s, that were in the best interests of America, they said. The president didn’t know what he was doing,” Haley wrote about the two advisers.

 

If they disagree with the President's direction, and the President's direction is legal, then it is baseless for them to claim that "they were trying to save the country," or that their decisions "were in the best interests of America."  Resign and run for office yourself.  Otherwise, do your duty.

 

There is within government those employees who are part of what they themselves term as "The Resistance."  They take a twisted sense of the moral high ground to justify their actions.  These people, I believe, need to be held to account if they are deliberately trying to derail a President's directives.

 

What sparked me to tell you that you were using twisted logic was my interpretation that you were making a comparison between Cox, Richardson, and Ruckelshaus and Kelly and Tillerson.  The former group are to be commended.  The latter group have fooled themselves into thinking that they, rather than the President, should dictate U.S. policy.  They should be admonished.  My apologies if I've misconstrued you.

 

What tillerson etc did is not relevant. Stop diverting.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sujo