Mulvaney says the question is not was it ethical in response to Schiff's comments

[sjmay]

Interesting....position, I agree AND disagree,

Here is the link,

Mick Mulvaney on Trump campaign's contacts with Russians: 'The issue is not whether it's ethical' - CNNPolitics

I think this a KEY quote to the article,

" "That's not the job of the House Intelligence Committee. It's not the job of the House Judiciary Committee. It's not the job of the House Oversight Committee."
He continued: "They're supposed to review the functioning of government. Voters make decisions about the candidates in other places. And, importantly, members of Congress, even if they are the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, don't get to substitute their judgment for the voters."

I think he's absolutely spot on, and I think it's on both sides that members of the House and Senate are trying to substitute their judgement for the voters....

But I also think that you have to hold the President to an ethical standard as well....but I think that's the voters job, so yes, it does matter if it was ethical or not, but it's not Congress's job to make that determination.

 

[Xelor]

Interesting....position, I agree AND disagree,

Here is the link,

Mick Mulvaney on Trump campaign's contacts with Russians: 'The issue is not whether it's ethical' - CNNPolitics

I think this a KEY quote to the article,

" "That's not the job of the House Intelligence Committee. It's not the job of the House Judiciary Committee. It's not the job of the House Oversight Committee."
He continued: "They're supposed to review the functioning of government. Voters make decisions about the candidates in other places. And, importantly, members of Congress, even if they are the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, don't get to substitute their judgment for the voters."

I think he's absolutely spot on, and I think it's on both sides that members of the House and Senate are trying to substitute their judgement for the voters....

But I also think that you have to hold the President to an ethical standard as well....but I think that's the voters job, so yes, it does matter if it was ethical or not, but it's not Congress's job to make that determination.

When comes to light information that wasn't available to voters when they voted, it is the Congress' job to evaluate that information and decide whether it warrants impeaching and removing a POTUS from office.

It's worth noting that information can merit impeachment sans removal. The former has to do with whether the information may be sufficient to remove a POTUS from office, whereas the latter takes a "closer look," so to speak to determine whether the information does indeed militate for a POTUS' removal.

 

[Linc]

More both sidesing and false equivalence from an inbred administration.

 

[nekrodev]

While technically true, I don't know if that's the type of argument they want to make. Bill Clinton was done in because he lied about an issue that shouldn't even have been an issue. Surely, if it was worth investigating his sex life, then it would be worth it to continue to investigate Trump for other matters we've learned about?

Would it not be fine to continue investigation into Trump's finances, and to have him testify under oath before Congress?

I don't like Adam Schiff, and the obsession over the Russian stuff was just silly, but there are very real concerns about Trump, and there's plenty to investigate outside of Russia.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Mick Mulvaney, an extremely unlikable fast talking Trumpanzee, sounded like a Chump shill through out the interview with Jake Tapper.

Mulvaney attempted to portray Barr's 4 page summary of Mueller's Report as the definitive exoneration of any collusion or obstruction by Chump. Mulvaney also went on to trash Obamacare. When challenged with what Chump and the GOP party would replace Obamacare with, Mulvaney, as usual, went into obfuscation mode.

Mulvaney specializes in spewing out alternative facts for an alternate universe.

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting....position, I agree AND disagree,

Here is the link,

Mick Mulvaney on Trump campaign's contacts with Russians: 'The issue is not whether it's ethical' - CNNPolitics

I think this a KEY quote to the article,

" "That's not the job of the House Intelligence Committee. It's not the job of the House Judiciary Committee. It's not the job of the House Oversight Committee."
He continued: "They're supposed to review the functioning of government. Voters make decisions about the candidates in other places. And, importantly, members of Congress, even if they are the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, don't get to substitute their judgment for the voters."

I think he's absolutely spot on, and I think it's on both sides that members of the House and Senate are trying to substitute their judgement for the voters....

But I also think that you have to hold the President to an ethical standard as well....but I think that's the voters job, so yes, it does matter if it was ethical or not, but it's not Congress's job to make that determination.

There is no question that Congress is using their Constitutional power to undermine and take down the President.

That is just as bad as the Obama administration using their governmental power to do the same.

Both groups are crooked and corrupt.

 

[joko104]

He's GOT to be kidding. The Clintons bought the Dossier report that portrayed itself as information bought from Russians against Trump.

 

[nekrodev]

There is no question that Congress is using their Constitutional power to undermine and take down the President.

That is just as bad as the Obama administration using their governmental power to do the same.

Both groups are crooked and corrupt.

While both Democrats and Republicans, very generally speaking, are usually corrupt and crooked, the extent to which they are, are rarely equivalent.

the top 3 most corrupt administrations in the US were all Republican - Reagan, Nixon, and Bush #2.

Trump's admin will probably beat at least one of those by the time it's all said and done.

 

[Mycroft]

While both Democrats and Republicans, very generally speaking, are usually corrupt and crooked, the extent to which they are, are rarely equivalent.

the top 3 most corrupt administrations in the US were all Republican - Reagan, Nixon, and Bush #2.

Trump's admin will probably beat at least one of those by the time it's all said and done.

Bull****, plain and simple.

There's a reason it's called the "UniParty". Doesn't matter which one is in power. Doesn't matter which one has the WH. All that matters is who is paying.

btw, nobody is paying Trump. Instead the UniParty is opposing him.

 

[nekrodev]

Bull****, plain and simple.

There's a reason it's called the "UniParty". Doesn't matter which one is in power. Doesn't matter which one has the WH. All that matters is who is paying.

btw, nobody is paying Trump. Instead the UniParty is opposing him.

whew, you're deep into this, my dude. using terms literally only fringe lunatics do. at best, that could be somewhat true, in the sense that the Democratic and Republican parties aren't actually much different, and that they do tend to exhibit a lot of the same failings (taking money from large corporations and rich folk, and doing their bidding, mainly), but they're definitely not "the same" and there are very real differences between them when they're in control.

Also, Trump was very much paid. You're just lying to yourself.

President Trump’s top donors: Where are they now?

 

[Mycroft]

whew, you're deep into this, my dude. using terms literally only fringe lunatics do. at best, that could be somewhat true, in the sense that the Democratic and Republican parties aren't actually much different, and that they do tend to exhibit a lot of the same failings (taking money from large corporations and rich folk, and doing their bidding, mainly), but they're definitely not "the same" and there are very real differences between them when they're in control.

Also, Trump was very much paid. You're just lying to yourself.

President Trump’s top donors: Where are they now?

Ah...if it's not a term used by the mainstream media, it's a fringe lunatic's term.

Yeah...those Congressmen love people like you...so gullible.

btw, those donors? They gave very little to Trump's campaign...at least, that's what your article says.

 

[Kobie]

There is no question that Congress is using their Constitutional power to undermine and take down the President.

That is just as bad as the Obama administration using their governmental power to do the same.

Both groups are crooked and corrupt.

Is it impossible for you to admit that maybe Trump isn't as squeaky clean as you wish him to be?

 

[Mycroft]

Is it impossible for you to admit that maybe Trump isn't as squeaky clean as you wish him to be?

shrug...

I'm being honest about Congress...and, of course, you want to talk about Trump. As if that excuses Congress, I guess.

 

[Kobie]

shrug...

I'm being honest about Congress...and, of course, you want to talk about Trump. As if that excuses Congress, I guess.

Dude, you're all over the map in this thread. You basically seem to believe anything that makes your sainted Trump look like your god-king.

You're beyond hope.

 

[nekrodev]

Ah...if it's not a term used by the mainstream media, it's a fringe lunatic's term.

Yeah...those Congressmen love people like you...so gullible.

btw, those donors? They gave very little to Trump's campaign...at least, that's what your article says.

It's not used by any media outside of fringe conservatives. That is not a word anyone would come across in their daily lives, even as a regular Fox viewer. You'd have to be pretty deep in the rabbit hole.

They shouldn't love me, because I'm surely no friend to most of them. There's probably enough to count on hand that I'm fond of at all.

Those donors gave a lot to Trump, just not as much as Hillary. $300 million is not a small amount of money. Hillary is also a huge outlier, her money raised was absurd.

 

[Mycroft]

Dude, you're all over the map in this thread. You basically seem to believe anything that makes your sainted Trump look like your god-king.

You're beyond hope.

Wrong.

I am being quite consistent.

 

[Mycroft]

It's not used by any media outside of fringe conservatives. That is not a word anyone would come across in their daily lives, even as a regular Fox viewer. You'd have to be pretty deep in the rabbit hole.

They shouldn't love me, because I'm surely no friend to most of them. There's probably enough to count on hand that I'm fond of at all.

Those donors gave a lot to Trump, just not as much as Hillary. $300 million is not a small amount of money. Hillary is also a huge outlier, her money raised was absurd.

If the mainstream media were honest, they would be using that term.

 

[Cardinal]

Interesting....position, I agree AND disagree,

Here is the link,

Mick Mulvaney on Trump campaign's contacts with Russians: 'The issue is not whether it's ethical' - CNNPolitics

I think this a KEY quote to the article,

" "That's not the job of the House Intelligence Committee. It's not the job of the House Judiciary Committee. It's not the job of the House Oversight Committee."
He continued: "They're supposed to review the functioning of government. Voters make decisions about the candidates in other places. And, importantly, members of Congress, even if they are the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, don't get to substitute their judgment for the voters."

I think he's absolutely spot on, and I think it's on both sides that members of the House and Senate are trying to substitute their judgement for the voters....

But I also think that you have to hold the President to an ethical standard as well....but I think that's the voters job, so yes, it does matter if it was ethical or not, but it's not Congress's job to make that determination.

We can’t know for certain if the results of the election would have been any different if voters had known of trump’s unethical actions, but he did choose to defraud the American public, and now it’s Congress’s job to investigate him so there can be a full accounting to the people.

 

[sjmay]

We can’t know for certain if the results of the election would have been any different if voters had known of trump’s unethical actions, but he did choose to defraud the American public, and now it’s Congress’s job to investigate him so there can be a full accounting to the people.

What makes you think the voters DID NOT KNOW of Trump's "unethical" actions?

You had the access hollywood tape, you had the immigration comments, you had the Central Park 5, you had birtherism, you had a littany of facts that voters knew about, and disregarded.

 

[Cardinal]

What makes you think the voters DID NOT KNOW of Trump's "unethical" actions?

You had the access hollywood tape, you had the immigration comments, you had the Central Park 5, you had birtherism, you had a littany of facts that voters knew about, and disregarded.

His abhorrent behavior is not a free license to be fraudulent elsewhere.

 

[sjmay]

That’s not a free license to be fraudulent elsewhere.

Never said it was, but you said "We can’t know for certain if the results of the election would have been any different if voters had known of trump’s unethical actions,"

I am saying there were already SEVERAL known, so we kinda do know what the results were...

 

[Airyaman]

I don't think anyone is really saying that any of these committees are trying to make a determination on the ethics of president or his staff. You cannot misconstrue Schiff's reaction to the GOP members call for him to resign as the stated purpose of these oversight committees.

Mulvaney is creating a strawman.

 

[Cardinal]

Never said it was, but you said "We can’t know for certain if the results of the election would have been any different if voters had known of trump’s unethical actions,"

I am saying there were already SEVERAL known, so we kinda do know what the results were...

The populism is why it’s an open question, but that’s still no license for him to commit fraud without having to face accountability.

 

[Cardinal]

I don't think anyone is really saying that any of these committees are trying to make a determination on the ethics of president or his staff. You cannot misconstrue Schiff's reaction to the GOP members call for him to resign as the stated purpose of these oversight committees.

Mulvaney is creating a strawman.

I’ll take a hit for the team and be the one to ask the stupid question: why shouldn’t oversight committees make a determination about the ethics of the President and his staff?

 

[Airyaman]

I’ll take a hit for the team and be the one to ask the stupid question: why shouldn’t oversight committees make a determination about the ethics of the President and his staff?

Well, supposedly some actually do.

Who Oversees The President's Ethics? Here's Our List : NPR