Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 07:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good, glad to see we're on the same page.

We are not on the same page. 

You said either McCabe was lying and corrupt or the FBI Department of Internal Affairs was lying and corrupt.

I said that the DOJ could be the lying corrupt party with no one at the FBI at fault.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 07:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never claimed CNN was the guilty party in that thread.  If you believe I am incorrect then simply provide the unedited post in which I did.ment?  If McCabe is innocent of these allegations then he absolutely deserves his retirement and then some.

This is ridiculous.  Whya did you even bring that up?

before I go dig it up just to see you play some silly semantics game do you admit that you said one of them is lying and CNN has no credibility?  Because if you want to admit that and then claim you never said CNN was lying I am not going to waste my time.  Everyone here will understand what you are trying to do without seeing the actual post.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 07:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would just reiterate that former agents actually guilty of crimes were afforded the ability to retire with their pensions. I know there was an agent that assisted Bulger, and I am fairly certain that Hanssen, who spied on behalf of the USSR and later Russia, was granted his pension. I have no objections to there being a line that we draw and say that it disqualifies you from a pension, I do have objections for that line being arbitrary based on politics.

You will get zero argument form me on this. 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-19-2018, 07:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would just reiterate that former agents actually guilty of crimes were afforded the ability to retire with their pensions. I know there was an agent that assisted Bulger, and I am fairly certain that Hanssen, who spied on behalf of the USSR and later Russia, was granted his pension. I have no objections to there being a line that we draw and say that it disqualifies you from a pension, I do have objections for that line being arbitrary based on politics.

What if the people recommending the firing were standing appointees, from previous administrations?  Wouldn't that make this move one to clear the agency of any purported political bias?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 07:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We are not on the same page. 

You said either McCabe was lying and corrupt or the FBI Department of Internal Affairs was lying and corrupt.

I said that the DOJ could be the lying corrupt party with no one at the FBI at fault.

Ok, someone is lying and corrupt.

(03-19-2018, 07:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is ridiculous.  Whya did you even bring that up?

Oh, Fred.  I shouldn't have to explain this to someone with a high school diploma, much less a law degree.

Quote:before I go dig it up just to see you play some silly semantics game do you admit that you said one of them is lying and CNN has no credibility?

 
Oh, you don't like semantics now?  I am pleased to hear this.  What I specifically stated was that, not long ago, I would have automatically believed CNN but their recent credibility issues prevented that from occurring now.  So, not quite what you just claimed, unless you think I'm engaging in semantics.

Quote:Because if you want to admit that and then claim you never said CNN was lying I am not going to waste my time.  Everyone here will understand what you are trying to do without seeing the actual post.

Oh no, please get the post.  Let the people decide for themselves.  Power to the people, workers unite!

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2018, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What if the people recommending the firing were standing appointees, from previous administrations?  Wouldn't that make this move one to clear the agency of any purported political bias?

No. Sessions had discretion here on when to act on that recommendation. The dismissal itself is not what I am saying was politically motivated, I am saying the timing and its impact to his retirement was, especially when taking into account prior dismissed agents and their pensions. This line is arbitrary, and arbitrary in Washington means political.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-19-2018, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Sessions had discretion here on when to act on that recommendation. The dismissal itself is not what I am saying was politically motivated, I am saying the timing and its impact to his retirement was, especially when taking into account prior dismissed agents and their pensions. This line is arbitrary, and arbitrary in Washington means political.

Again, he's not "losing" his retirement.  Only not being allowed to start collecting the early retirement.  Now, we don't know all the facts of the story, yet.  However, if his intent for lying was to hinder an incoming POTUS, then I'd say he's getting off light.  From what I understand, the guy is already worth approximately 11.2M.  It's not like he's going to starve.

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2018, 08:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Again, he's not "losing" his retirement.  Only not being allowed to start collecting the early retirement.  Now, we don't know all the facts of the story, yet.  However, if his intent for lying was to hinder an incoming POTUS, then I'd say he's getting off light.  From what I understand, the guy is already worth approximately 11.2M.  It's not like he's going to starve.

It is still reducing something he had earned. Again, the timing of the decision was arbitrary and political. That is all I am saying. I do not agree with that. This is just based on the history of other dismissed agents.

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2018, 08:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is still reducing something he had earned. Again, the timing of the decision was arbitrary and political. That is all I am saying. I do not agree with that. This is just based on the history of other dismissed agents.

Of all the baseless reasons why we do things folks give me at work is: "We've always done it that way". 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-19-2018, 07:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would just reiterate that former agents actually guilty of crimes were afforded the ability to retire with their pensions. I know there was an agent that assisted Bulger, and I am fairly certain that Hanssen, who spied on behalf of the USSR and later Russia, was granted his pension. I have no objections to there being a line that we draw and say that it disqualifies you from a pension, I do have objections for that line being arbitrary based on politics.

Connolly is in prison for what amounts to life. He retired years before he was charged, but if he is somehow still getting a pension then there is something really wrong.

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2018, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of all the baseless reasons why we do things folks give me at work is: "We've always done it that way". 

I hate that reason, but it is so very common in government work. I push against that every chance I get.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 09:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I hate that reason, but it is so very common in government work. I push against that every chance I get.

Past practice.  I despise it.

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2018, 09:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I hate that reason, but it is so very common in government work. I push against that every chance I get.

So you applaud the current administration for going against the "Let 'em retire" examples you have provided? 

[Benton]

Considering SS is going, restrictions on investing protecting investments are gone, and overall nobody in Congress cares a great deal about the future of the middle class, I've got a hard time feeling sorry for McCabe. He did a job, he (allegedly) did it poorly and he got fired.

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, you don't like semantics now?  I am pleased to hear this.  What I specifically stated was that, not long ago, I would have automatically believed CNN but their recent credibility issues prevented that from occurring now.  So, not quite what you just claimed, unless you think I'm engaging in semantic.

Oh no, please get the post.  Let the people decide for themselves.  Power to the people, workers unite!

(02-23-2018, 01:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: he said they said
https://www.snopes.com/did-cnn-give-shooting-survivor-questions/
LOL Dailywire/Fox

So, either this student is lying or CNN is.  Your assertion then is that this student, who survived a massacre, is lying to score political points?

(02-23-2018, 01:25 AM)Dill Wrote: lol Wow. 
My "assertion" was that he said one thing and CNN said another. And the Snopes search suggested no definitive criteria for deciding one way or another.
No doubt, though, a student who survived a massacre could not lie.
Wonder where you are going with this. Do you have the definitive criteria Snopes didn't or are we just in for an angry framing of the incident?

(02-23-2018, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you think CNN is lying.  Yet another nail in the coffin of a once respected news source.  Sad.

(02-23-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Unless the people at CNN survived a massacre too.
Then we are back to he said they said. 

You can be smartassed about it all day, it doesn't change the facts.  When two sides give completely different versions of events then simple logic tells you one side is not being truthful.  So either this kid and his dad are lying or CNN is lying.  Four or five years ago I would have trusted CNN, they just don't have much credibility anymore.

Cutting to the chase

(03-01-2018, 10:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Simply claiming someone has "comprehension issues" is not demonstrating it.
I said that, based upon Lucy's DW post, we did not have enough relevant information to decide who was lying.

Then your post #3 you attempted to add an inference I did not make.

"So, either this student is lying or CNN is.  Your assertion then is that this student, who survived a massacre, is lying to score political points?"

Why would you need to know that if your ONLY POINT was that "someone"--no favorites here--was lying?

Looks to me like "either this student is lying or CNN is" is a premise, not a conclusion or your main point. It is the basis on which you infer, or try to, that I imply or mean to imply the student is lying. (Which I guess would be really bad because he survived a massacre.) You are not trying to convince readers that "someone"--as in anyone--is lying. You are assessing the likelihood of who is. 

That is why I immediately ask, "Where are you going with this?"  And in post #22 you repeat your premise, again as a premise:
So either this kid and his dad are lying or CNN is lying.  Four or five years ago I would have trusted CNN, they just don't have much credibility anymore.

So if your ONLY point is that "someone must be lying," why the need to add that CNN, is "untrustworthy"? How is that "not favoring anyone"?  Especially in contrast to a student hero?

Funny--when I say there is not enough factual basis to make a judgment either way--without claiming anyone is "untrustworthy"--you need to know whether I am calling a student "survivor" a liar.  But after you EXPLICITLY say one party is untrustworthy, you claim a problem with my comprehension if I say that looks like favoring the other party, the "survivor." 

In short, your points were not simply to establish that "someone was lying"--which no one disputed or was interested in disputing--but to establish a likelihood of who was lying. 

But Fred, BPat, Dino, and Benton smelled a rat where you saw a hero. And your "untrustworthy" party turned out to be telling the truth.

Hence the surprise at your post #84, where we get: So when I said someone is lying I was correct. Fred and I could not help noting the Twisty McTwist.   Your NEW MAIN POINT is that all along you were only claiming SOMEONE was lying--AND YOU WERE CORRECT.  All the talk of survivors and CNN's lack of credibility has evaporated. Nothing to see here folks.

(03-01-2018, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: TL;DR

(03-01-2018, 11:16 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL that is what the bolded type is for, to help you get the gist, if you cannot follow the details.  

[StLucieBengal]

Why are we worried about this guys pension? They said he lied about primary aspects of their investigation. Flynn lied about secondary aspects of the investigation and he is looking at jail time. Why isn’t the question on McCabe about whether he goes to jail instead of a pension from a job he was corrupt as a deputy director. If we aren’t going to hold a deputy director of the fbi to the standard then how can we hold anyone else?

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 01:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: GMDino Wrote: Had the POTUS not called for his firing long before said report you might have a better point.  It "seems" like a report to justify a move already planned.  Time will tell, as they say.

So then, your accusation is that the men and women in the FBI's internal investigations unit fabricated the results of their investigation at the whim of Sessions or Trump?  It's either McCabe was found to be involved in unethical conduct or numerous people in the internal investigations department are engaged in unethical conduct.

So this thread starts out rather like the CNN thread--different content but same logical form.

There is a he said they said issue.

Someone suggests we don't have enough information to judge said issue.

But you insist that one side or the other is lying.  Can't be both. Can't be neither. And then you call that unwarranted oversimplification a "fact."

So when someone says we can't know yet, you conclude there is an "accusation" or "assertion" that one side is lying--the WRONG side, apparently, as your next move is to assess credibility of the OTHER side.

To repeat--on both threads you use your either/or claim to assert that someone who says "we don't know yet" is thereby accusing one side of lying.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 12:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why are we worried about this guys pension?  They said he lied about primary aspects of their investigation.  Flynn lied about secondary aspects of the investigation and he is looking at jail time.   Why isn’t the question on McCabe about whether he goes to jail instead of a pension from a job he was corrupt as a deputy director.    If we aren’t going to hold a deputy director of the fbi to the standard then how can we hold anyone else?

The worry is less about the pension than about a president who blatantly and publicly interferes with judicial process to vindictively punish opponents.

The charge against McCabe, so far as I know, is lack of candor relating to so-called "press leaks."  His defense is that the so-called leaks went through an authorized and routine protocol, and were necessary to counter fake news and rumors about FBI activity.

Except for this charge, he appears to have been an upstanding agent for over two decades.  There could be more charges against him on Fox News, but I am unaware of them.

Flynn lied, actually lied, about many things. Took money without properly reporting it, was serving as NSC advisor while on another country's payroll, trying to skate around intel protocols for meeting foreign agents, etc. etc.

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2018, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you applaud the current administration for going against the "Let 'em retire" examples you have provided? 

Nope, because it is arbitrary and political. That is worse.

[BmorePat87]

(03-19-2018, 07:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree that denying the man his retirement is a brutal move.  Allow me to counter by simply saying, if he was guilty of egregious misconduct would allowing him to retire simply not be an incident of special treatment of law enforcement that so many on this board rail against?

In this case, I don't know if I see it as an egregious misconduct worthy of denying pension. I also find the irregularities, like making this announcement prior to ending the official investigation, odd. 

I very well may change my position once everything is clear, but with what is public, I wouldn't side with firing for this issue.