You’ll have to be more specific than saying “what the DoJ did”. Strzok and Page are two people in a large organization, not even part of the DoJ. Their power to push an agenda is basically zero. They were seized on, blown out of proportion, by people with an agenda. The agenda is defend Trump at all costs even if it means damaging the country.
2 Likes
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
And your agenda seems to be to protect the wrong doings in the DOJ at all costs.
We all know that there were problems in the organization and other organizations.
Me I want to know just how bad the problems were and who were the leaders of the pack.
We all know that they had the power to push an agenda. We know there were leaks. Why would they secretly leak information if not to push an agenda. We know that there was talk of resisting Trump at all costs. Now we know there was talk about wearing a wire and using the 25 amendment. This doesn’t sound like people who left political bias at the door.
You all can keep push the talking point of everyone has a political bias but they can still do their work and not let that bias effect their job. Me I’m seeing their bias did effect their job.
Please pay attention. Strozk and Page were the face of the democratic party.
They would still hold the title but it was commandeered by AOC and now co-held by McCabe and Smollett.
What’s the term? “Occupational Hazard?” 
Yes, you did. In the second sentence of your last post:
Not to belabor this, but why would you be satisfied with that? If you can’t even think of any laws that McCabe, Rosenstein et al. may have broken, why the need to investigate? I (and the U.S. intelligence community) think that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and I think that people in the Trump campaign actively participated in that effort. You may disagree with my second assertion. But at least I’m claiming that laws were broken. Why should we investigate McCabe and Rosenstein just because it was “totally not cool” for them to discuss the 25th Amendment?
1 Like
Sedition.
You can’t just say “we know” and act like that’s true.
“We know” nothing of what you’re peddling. You’ve been told these things by people trying to protect Trump. It’s not true. It’s never been true.
SEDITION!!!
I pulled up my trusty PDF of the U.S. Constitution, and came up empty on a word search for “sedition”. So please enlighten us: what specific USC or other law was broken, and in what way did McCabe, Rosenstein et al. break that law?
25th section 4
live it learn it.
Let me help.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide
Are they principal officials?
No…they’re just goverment workers/bureaucracy.
Say it with me…Sedition.
No, I was not suggesting a special counsel in this case. I was using the authorization of the special counsel as an instance of an investigation where no crime was alleged.
And a much lesser requirement exists for the oversight of a congressional oversight committee.
Talk by a fired FBI director of alleged attempts to remove a President just somehow seem worthwhile of investigating to me. For one, if there were sufficient reasons for holding such an investigation (you seem to agree that investigations need a reason) then what were they and do they show that the President is or was incapacitated.
If there were no reasons, then what the heck was the FBI doing talking about removing a President?
These all seem like things an oversight committee would have an interest in, to me.
And added on to all this, the assistant AG and former head of the FBI don’t even agree to what happened. One of them is a liar. Time to find out which.
Have you noticed how no one else is saying it with you?
2 Likes
It says that they are the ones who are authorized to send notice to Congress.
It doesn’t state anything other than that.
There is no restriction on anyone in the DOJ from discussing it.
ALso… working within the framework of the Constitution is not Sedition.
It is silly to say such things.
Great thread.
Language, whether in the U.S. Constitution or graffiti on a bridge is wholly inadequate at conveying one simple, explicit message agreed upon by all.
One of the better threads in a long while!
I now understand your point about the special counsel, and I agree. I would have no problem with a congressional hearing on this either
One thing: I see a lot of people on here claiming that the president must be incapacitated in some way to be removed under the 25th Amendment. That may have been the only reason it has been invoked until now, but section 4 requires only that the president be declared unfit to perform the duties of his office. We can argue all day about whether he is compromised by the Russians, but if he is, he is certainly unfit.
1 Like
Strzok headed the FBI investigation into Hillarys emails.
Strzok was leader of the Russian probe by the FBI.
Strzok was removed by Mueller from his team because of perceived bias against Trump.
That makes him sort of relevant, don’t you think?
Was he part of the 25th amendment discussion?
He’s relevant to the overall story. Don’t know how relevant he is to this chapter.
The IG report makes clear that the Midyear Investigation was an effort with a significant number of professionals involved from numerous areas and departments. It would be disingenuous to say he was in charge.
What’s so hilarious about this sedition thing is that it’s such a 18th century thing being argued buy guys who seem at times to still be living in the 18th century.
1 Like
Yes. The funny thing is people think democrat and republican matters when discussing bureaucrats.
