As much as I despise Sessions as a George Wallace throwback/southern right-wingnut, if what he claims is true then technically he was probably within legal bounds.
This is more of the Dem's faction of the oligarchy doing what used to be called "Red-baiting", except this time it's not the old Soviet Union, it's Russia. Don't know why some of you are still buying into this tripe.
Not so fast. Even if it's true that as claimed, it's not uncommon for senators to meet with diplomats, seems its' still illegal under the Logan act, isn't it?
"Everybody else does it" didn't work for me growing up, but maybe different standards apply to Congress.
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
Posted:
Mar 2, 2017 - 3:42pm
Proclivities wrote:
To be fair, it's not illegal or unusual for US Senators to meet with foreign ambassadors - it's pretty common for some of them The problem is that then-Senator Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in July and September but denied any contact with Russian government officials when asked about it during his confirmation hearings in January. On Wednesday, his response has been modified to:"I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign..."
As much as I despise Sessions as a George Wallace throwback/southern right-wingnut, if what he claims is true then technically he was probably within legal bounds.
This is more of the Dem's faction of the oligarchy doing what used to be called "Red-baiting", except this time it's not the old Soviet Union, it's Russia. Don't know why some of you are still buying into this tripe.
To be fair, it's not illegal or unusual for US Senators to meet with foreign ambassadors - it's pretty common for some of them The problem is that then-Senator Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in July and September but denied any contact with Russian government officials when asked about it during his confirmation hearings in January. On Wednesday, his response has been modified to:"I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign..."
Sessions perjured himself during confirmation hearings. Time to go!
To be fair, it's not illegal or unusual for US Senators to meet with foreign ambassadors - it's pretty common for some of them The problem is that then-Senator Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in July and September but denied any contact with Russian government officials when asked about it during his confirmation hearings in January. On Wednesday, his response has been modified to:"I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign..."
Ya know ... I simply responded to Richard's synopsis / quote from his link which was enough to make his point and provide me the opportunity to reply with what I did. I at least gave the courtesy of stating I didn't read it. I have been recently criticized for not reading someone's link all the way through and commenting unnecessarily had I read all of it.
Thank's for your due diligence in patrolling the boards. If I hadn't satisfied Richard with my reply, I'm sure he would have replied as he has never, ever had a problem telling me where I was wrong about something.
Keep up the good work !
If you meant to say "I haven't had a chance to look at them yet", well, that's what the edit button is for.
Ya know ... I simply responded to Richard's synopsis / quote from his link which was enough to make his point and provide me the opportunity to reply with what I did. I at least gave the courtesy of stating I didn't read it. I have been recently criticized for not reading someone's link all the way through and commenting unnecessarily had I read all of it.
Thank's for your due diligence in patrolling the boards. If I hadn't satisfied Richard with my reply, I'm sure he would have replied as he has never, ever had a problem telling me where I was wrong about something.
You are now bouncing from one point to another. I responded to your complaint that those in an agency, like EPA, that are promulgating regulations are "unaccountable." I pointed out that Congress has the power to eliminate any problematic regulation by statute. Of course, you have to get that act through Congress, and signed by the President, which can prove difficult for any act. However, that is our system of checks and balances under the Constitution. You seem to now be complaining that the entire system is corrupt — except for Obi Wan Trump, our only hope.
You obfuscate my point with your deliberate deflection.
(...) Before the rule was finalized, the EPA invited public comment and the regulation ofpuddles became a talking point for conservatives and business advocates who bashed the rule as federal overreach. To clear up matters, the final rule explicitly addressed the question of puddles:
"The proposed rule did not explicitly exclude puddles because the agencies have never considered puddles to meet the minimum standard for being a 'water of the United States,' and it is an inexact term. A puddle is commonly considered a very small, shallow, and highly transitory pool of water that forms on pavement or uplands during or immediately after a rainstorm or similar precipitation event. However, numerous commenters asked that the agencies expressly exclude them in a rule. The final rule does so." (...)
I didn't read any of your links. But your truth - o - meter lies.
These are a couple of the cases I am referring to, specifically ... been following them for a few years and are part of the cases in the article I linked earlier. Even posted both of these somewhere here when they were fresh.
"You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: 'You have filled in wetlands, so you can't build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'" Alito said. "You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don't do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you."
(...) Before the rule was finalized, the EPA invited public comment and the regulation ofpuddles became a talking point for conservatives and business advocates who bashed the rule as federal overreach. To clear up matters, the final rule explicitly addressed the question of puddles:
"The proposed rule did not explicitly exclude puddles because the agencies have never considered puddles to meet the minimum standard for being a 'water of the United States,' and it is an inexact term. A puddle is commonly considered a very small, shallow, and highly transitory pool of water that forms on pavement or uplands during or immediately after a rainstorm or similar precipitation event. However, numerous commenters asked that the agencies expressly exclude them in a rule. The final rule does so." (...)
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 28, 2017 - 1:59pm
kurtster wrote:
Yeah like that's ever going to happen. If I lived to be 100, Congress would still not have acted. The environmental lobbies are too strong, too deep and cannot be reasoned with. They truly believe that all science of these subjects is settled in their favor and will not budge one mm.
One of the reasons we have a POTUS.
You are now bouncing from one point to another. I responded to your complaint that those in an agency, like EPA, that are promulgating regulations are "unaccountable." I pointed out that Congress has the power to eliminate any problematic regulation by statute. Of course, you have to get that act through Congress, and signed by the President, which can prove difficult for any act. However, that is our system of checks and balances under the Constitution. You seem to now be complaining that the entire system is corrupt — except for Obi Wan Trump, our only hope.
Ya know ... I simply responded to Richard's synopsis / quote from his link which was enough to make his point and provide me the opportunity to reply with what I did. I at least gave the courtesy of stating I didn't read it. I have been recently criticized for not reading someone's link all the way through and commenting unnecessarily had I read all of it.
It must be hard to be Kurt some days. Throw out a platitude like this, thinking "no one can disagree with that" and have it rebutted instantly. 