|
quote:I like Tucker. He’s inciteful
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think it's bad if the president can't remember what years he served as VP regardless of the motives of whoever published that information. I only remember the year I got married because of a handy mnemonic. I don't think remembering dates and times is all that important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
^^ I married on the spring equinox expressly and explicitly because I'd never forget that, and guess what my dumb rear end constantly did. Anyway, from the original masters of whataboutism, here's Vladimir Putin Drops a Truth Bomb on US Politicians: Why Is America Fighting for Ukraine’s Border but Refuses to Defend Its Own Border? posted by freeper Kazan Hmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. quote:To: Kazan Freep: quote:To: Kazan This confused me a hell of a lot as well. Russia started using the "Z" in places to represent themselves / their military interests in this conflict and I was having a hell of a time trying to figure out how freepers managed to twist and turn that against the anti-Russia people, and the answer is even loving stupider than I could possibly imagine. quote:
good god I hate these people. quote:To: Kazan I mean, quote:To: Zuben Elgenubi 51 posts before someone finally says it. quote:To: Kazan And, so, of course, he gets shat on. quote:To: JonPreston quote:To: Williams; Zuben Elgenubi Really though, this is what it comes down to. quote:To: Republican Wildcat At some point they were told that Ukraine or Zelenskyy was profiting off of the military aide that they were being given, and that was that. It's effectively become a thought terminating cliche. It doesn't matter that Russia started a war of aggression against a neighbor because they can just invoke the neocons in the same way and any need for deeper thought or consideration is dismissed. They wrap it all up with their hatred of the Democrats because they're kind of in power right now, and end up listening to the Russian party line because it ends up confirming their twisted worldview. In other words, these people are awful and we are immensely hosed as a nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 04:09
|
|
|
Idk I can remember famous dates like the period of the Obama-Biden administration (2009-2017) without looking them up, let alone important events in my own life, and even I forgot if it were relevant to a federal investigation I'd be able to look it up and have it ready at hand. I also don't confuse Mexico for Egypt or claim to have had recent conversations with people who have been dead for years. If you guys really can't remember what year you got married you might want to see a doctor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you guys really can't remember what year you got married you might want to see a doctor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
I'm not coming in hot. I am skeptical of people pretending to have senior moments to excuse the president being unable to recall facts about his own life, thinking he's talking with dead people etc, but since the rules obligate us to assume good faith I am instead suggesting that if that's happening to anyone here they should get it checked out. I'm honestly surprised I have to say this but: I think the president should be able to remember the names of world leaders, whether they are alive or dead, and important dates. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not coming in hot. Sir, this is a freep thread....
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not coming in hot. The mixing up of the presidents of Egypt and Mexico, as well as saying Mitterrand for Macron, seem to be slips of the tongue. When talking at work among colleagues, or even presenting to clients, I've made similar slips. Everybody does it; past presidents have done so regularly. He does seem to be a bit more doddering lately, though, and some of the allegations around dates are concerning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Idk I can remember famous dates like the period of the Obama-Biden administration (2009-2017) without looking them up, let alone important events in my own life, and even I forgot if it were relevant to a federal investigation I'd be able to look it up and have it ready at hand. People tend to forget certain specifics of things that don't feel that important to them. I can remember specific events, conversations, and incidents from when I was in elementary school, middle school and high school but for some reason the years I graduated from high school, my local community college and my other less local community college escape me constantly because those years all just blur together for me. And it's a running joke among my friend group that unless a person continued to be part of that friend group I have 100% forgotten you (so about 70% of the people we used to hang with as a group in hs). Names, even faces, all gone because my brain decided they aren't important. I'm 32. I think Biden's age is showing but I don't really think him remembering specific dates is all that important because he has plenty sharper people working with him and lacks maliciousness, which at this point is really important to me. Are you a malicious rear end in a top hat? Don't like that. Do you forget the date ranges of poo poo that you were involved in? That sucks but Idc as much. Would I like a younger mind who is also not a malicious dickhead as president? Sure, I'd also like to end child hunger and halt the destruction of our ecosystems but those things aren't on the table at this time. It's either the hateful dickhead succumbing to dementia who wants to rain fire on people who hurt his fee-fees, or the old man who is trying to accomplish poo poo and sometimes forgets/mixes things up but isn't openly sliding into dementia. Again, if there was a third and better option, we all would like that, but we have been denied such things. This isn't about what should be or what we want, it's about working with what we got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
Sending bombs to a country committing genocide in Gaza is pretty malicious imo But I also think the president's brain should work. We're not discussing whether pee-paw can handle an afternoon at a baseball game, this is a guy with the power to end human civilization at his command. Somewhat academic in 2024 I suppose since the other guy is almost 80 and also declining mentally, but that just means the whole situation is very not great. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
Don't most people have older relatives? Even without a specific diagnosis at a certain point varying by person all old people will lose the daily energy to do a full time job. Grandpa needs naps throughout the day, and if you make him skip those he's gonna be incoherent. Most men in their 80s can't reasonably be active as long as the job of president demands of Biden at this point, again even if their brain does work just fine after a good sleep. He ain't making mistakes a normal adult would, because he's not a normal adult he's an old man who should have retired. Unfortunately most of the other options are also old men who should have retired, and we have evidently as a country have removed the ability to tell any grandpa they're too old to do what they used to do every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Remembering how Dianne Feinstein was referring to herself as Mayor Feinstein and had to be instructed by aides which way to vote on legislation, and yet the Democratic leadership was denying that she had any cognitive problems at all until she literally fell over and died. How am I supposed to take their word for anyone's mental competency after that. I'd be a lot more willing to take their word for it that behind closed doors Biden is the opposite of the confused, doddering, angry old man we saw in the press conference if they had a record of transparency, but unfortunately they have a history of lies, cover-up, and denial of this exact issue so the reality is probably even worse than they are letting on. E: lol they even called it sexist to want a senator to know what year it is VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
I can't even imagine being 70+ years old and even remotely THINKING about wanting or feeling obligated to do any work at all tbf
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I can't even imagine being 70+ years old and even remotely THINKING about wanting or feeling obligated to do any work at all tbf Now how about being hustled out of bed at 2am into the situation room because some missionaries got grabbed by Boko Haram or something and now you've got to be up for the next 36 hours through the rescue mission's planning, approval, and execution? I'm starting to think Trump might be the superior candidate because he limited his presidenting to five hours a day (including lunch), five days a week. Keeps a guy young and fresh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Sexual Aluminum posted:Look at people taking a republican at face value. Just look at it Wasn't Hur appointed by Merrick Garland It seems he was, yes. I am skeptical that Biden's own attorney general would select a liar or a partisan for such an important matter with such a big impact on the administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
While we have spirited discussions on Biden's age and how it would effect his current and potential second term, freepers are incapable of finding anything wrong with Trump's business acumen or multiple marriages. This is obviously not new since these Bible thumpers went through similar prognostications during the 2016 and 2020 elections and haven't got their heads out of their own asses since. IS/WAS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP A BAD BUSINESSMAN? quote:The past several years, I have heard and/or read of how bad a businessman President Donald Trump is and has been during his life. quote:To: 7thson quote:To: 7thson quote:To: Reno89519 quote:To: 7thson quote:To: 7thson quote:To: Jemian quote:To: 7thson quote:To: 7thson; All quote:To: T.B. Yoits
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wasn't Hur appointed by Merrick Garland Hur was a Trump appointee who was also specifically selected because he was a Trump appointee to show that the DOJ wouldn't be biased or go easy on Biden and to preempt Republican criticisms that Biden would get special treatment compared to Trump and Pence. He was also retired, so not a current DOJ employee, and selected to demonstrate even further attempts at independence from the DOJ. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but "Merrick Garland picked him" isn't really an excuse because Garland was picking someone who was supposed to go very hard on him to prove even-handedness. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
If the administration picked a liar to investigate the president that indicates poor judgment and/or poor leadership and isn't much of a comfort imo. At least one honest Republican exists somewhere they should have picked one if it had to be a Republican. Or failing that, an honest Independent. I guess it's slightly more comforting that the guy with the nuclear codes is incompetent instead of senile, but not like much more. And I'm skeptical Hur is lying. This is a pretty Trumpy defense tbh. Most of Trump's appointments were establishment Federalist Society types recommended to him, and not like his personal cronies, and Hur seems to be one of those standard Republicans types Biden also loves. Reminding me of all the times Trump called someone a disloyal lying dog, then it turns out Trump picked him and there's video of Trump calling him his beautiful friend. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the administration picked a liar to investigate the president that indicates poor judgment and/or poor leadership and isn't much of a comfort imo Your original reasoning for your decision (Garland would pick someone fair or friendly to Biden) was wrong and it was the opposite (he picked someone specifically appointed by Trump and not even a DOJ employee). You just should know the basic facts. That can cause issues determining cause and effect if you are basing it on something that isn't true. If I say the sky is blue because of aliens, then I am still correct that the sky is blue, but my a priori assumption of how I got to that conclusion is going to cause me to incorrectly explain a lot of other issues. Posters and the President should both try to mix up basic information as little as possible, imho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
Again Hur is a Federalist Society clone Trump probably didn't even know. If the Biden administration didn't do it's due diligence on who they were appointing that's a sign of poor leadership. And again this is a Trumpy excuse. This guy is great trust me folks, we have the utmost faith in his integrity, whoa he said something I don't like, well he was always a dishonest scumbag who couldn't be trusted to be dogcatcher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Again Hur is a Federalist Society clone Trump probably didn't even know. Please read the original post you were responding to: Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but "Merrick Garland picked him" isn't really an excuse because Garland was picking someone who was supposed to go very hard on him to prove even-handedness. Not saying anything one way or the other, but using "a federalist society clone" as a defense for judicial impartiality is a little silly. I think you can still be right, but you were wrong about a basic fact that was underlying your assumption (and not just wrong, but it was the actual opposite of your assumption) and you should just be aware of that when assessing things. Even if you are arguing something that is correct, if you are reaching that point and arguing it based on easily disprovable assumptions, then people are not likely to believe you know what you are talking about and it will hurt your argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
It wasn't a defense of his impartiality, it was a defense of him not being a Trump crony. Trump appointed a lot of people. Garland picked this one to be impartial. If he's not impartial that was poor judgment. This is not complicated. And again "if" since protests of his partiality are only conveniently surfacing now that he reported something we don't like to hear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Wait didn't the Republicans complain that he was some sort of radical left deep state plant that would go easy? Or was that someone else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Wait didn't the Republicans complain that he was some sort of radical left deep state plant that would go easy? Or was that someone else? They did initially, which is why the DOJ backed away from using a U.S. Attorney and Hur was selected as an outside special counsel. They selected him because he was retired from the DOJ and appointed by Trump, so he had no ties to the current DOJ and couldn't be seen as someone who had it in for Trump. VitalSigns posted:It wasn't a defense of his impartiality, it was a defense of him not being a Trump crony. Not disagreeing with that at all. But, your original claim was that because Merrick Garland selected him, then he couldn't be a sympathetic Republican or would be friendly/impartial to Biden. He was selected specifically to go out of their way to assuage Republican concerns that it would not be impartial because anyone at the DOJ would be sympathetic to Biden. I think your assessment could still be correct, but just noting that you originally came to it from an assumption that was the opposite of what you initially assumed and to just keep that in mind because when you argue and cite that it hurts your case even if you are arguing something correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Wait didn't the Republicans complain that he was some sort of radical left deep state plant that would go easy? Or was that someone else? Probably. That's what's so baffling. If Hur is the far-right lying partisan hack the Dems say he is now, why was he appointed? Did they think Republicans would give them credit for reaching across the aisle and appointing one of their own? If they did think that, they are dangerously naive. If they did not think that and picked a dishonest hack anyway, what the gently caress are they doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
VitalSigns posted:Wasn't Hur appointed by Merrick Garland VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Probably. My whole point is not that you are incorrect about your conclusion, but you are asking questions and making basic assumptions that are not correct and easily checkable to reach those conclusions. Garland does not have direct authority over a special counsel, that is the entire point of the special counsel and why Republicans wanted one. He took the original USDA off the case after Republicans complained and he put someone who would be tough in charge to assuage any possible accusations of impartiality. The original USDA selected was also a Trump appointee because of Republican concerns that any non-Trump appointee would be biased and that Trump appointee recommended the special counsel. Even if your conclusion is 100% right, then you should get the basic facts for how you reached it correct just as a matter of analysis and as a way to not damage your argument's credibility. That's all. quote:Garland appointed former U.S. Attorney Robert Hur as special counsel to oversee the investigation, the attorney general said Thursday, arguing that it was in the “public interest” to do so. quote:Garland had previously asked U.S. Attorney John Lausch, a Trump appointee, to review the matter, and said Lausch had recommended to him that a special counsel be appointed. quote:The move will appease Republicans who had been publicly pushing for Garland to ramp up the investigation with a special counsel, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) saying it would “hurt the country” if he didn’t, given a related DOJ investigation into former President Donald Trump. quote:GOP lawmakers have criticized the Biden Administration for its alleged hypocrisy in downplaying these documents after going after Trump—likely helping to prompt Garland’s special counsel appointment—with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) claiming on Fox News the “double standard is obvious.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...sh=19394ddd1ff3 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Your own source appears to say that it was indeed Garland's prerogative to appoint the special counsel, that attempting to appease Republicans was a choice, and that at the time of his appointment Garland believed selecting Hur was in the public interest. Given that I think it validates the reasonableness of my skepticism of post hoc claims that Hur is actually a lying hack. Garland could also be an incompetent idiot though, that hypothesis works as well, though it doesn't reflect much better on the administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Your own source appears to say that it was indeed Garland's prerogative to appoint the special counsel, that attempting to appease Republicans was a choice, and that at the time of his appointment Garland believed selecting Hur was in the public interest. That is better at least because your assumption starts from an accurate base that you can argue from and cite back towards. Even if you are reaching the same conclusion, you are citing the correct series of events as the basis for your assumption. Previously, it was a much worse argument because the facts of the original basis were basically the opposite of what you were implying and it weakened the support of your conclusion. This would be much more convincing to someone who you were trying to argue your point to. That was the main issue with the previous arguments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Like, this wasn't a special prosecutor appointed by law like Ken Starr (a position that doesn't exist anymore iirc) Special counsels are executive appointments and they can pick anyone they want. They don't have to pick someone Republicans like, nothing tied anyone's hands here. If he's a liar then the DOJ hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is better at least because your assumption starts from an accurate base that you can argue from and cite back towards. Even if you are reaching the same conclusion, you are citing the correct series of events as the basis for your assumption. Previously, it was a much worse argument because the facts of the original basis were basically the opposite of what you were implying and it weakened the support of your conclusion. This would be much more convincing to someone who you were trying to argue your point to. That was the main issue with the previous arguments. Again I think you have an incorrect idea of my position was. I didn't say Hur was definitely fair or friendly to Biden, I merely said I was skeptical of assertions that he is lying that have no evidence for them and seem to be motivated by a dislike of his conclusions, since his political affiliation was known when he was appointed and the administration considered it in the public interest to choose him. Transcripts of these interviews should exist, if Hur lied about their content, it would be easy for the DOJ to prove that by releasing them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like, this wasn't a special prosecutor appointed by law like Ken Starr (a position that doesn't exist anymore iirc) All 100% correct. This is a much better, more concise, and factual argument to reach basically the same conclusion. The distinct options are: - Garland made a very poor choice because Hur may be totally factually correct, but his editorializing might have been the result of his personal and professional biases (possibly because he wanted to editorialize to go harder to justify the lack of prosecution or possibly because of his career as a prosecutor and federalist society) because of bowing to pressure to make the DOJ look impartial. - Hur was accurately describing the situation and Biden was obviously showing signs of severe mental decline due to either advanced age, stress from Oct 7th (as his press secretary alleges), advice from attorney to claim you don't recall or don't remember when not sure to avoid perjury or incrimination, or some combination of them. Nobody was there during the interview and Hur was the only author, so this argument is even better because nobody has any way to prove it definitively wrong and it uses confirmed publicly available facts to support the assumptions leading to the conclusion. This is much more solid and persuasive than the original way you were supporting the argument, even though the conclusion was basically the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Again I think you have an incorrect idea of my position was. Right, but my issue wasn't about your position itself. It was that you had incorrect assumptions or unclear knowledge of the specifics you were using as the foundation initially. Replacing them with factually grounded assumptions that are the basis for the position makes the argument much stronger for the exact same position. I think we are delving far too deep into the pedantry trenches of the original point, though. I think everything you say above is a totally legit argument that you can cite facts to back up and argue. Having the correct details about the origins and backgrounds of the special counsel makes the same points much more persuasive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Nothing I said was incorrect or contradicted by this tedious WaPo fact-checking back and forth. This is all just a much wordier version of my original concise observation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nothing I said was incorrect or contradicted by this tedious WaPo fact-checking back and forth. That was entirely post-hoc with made up details. But if you whine enough it’ll definitely look less dumb. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
What details did I make up
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nothing I said was incorrect or contradicted by this tedious WaPo fact-checking back and forth. i just don't think it's a disqualifying problem because the job of the president isn't to be superman and handle everything by himself. biden has, by all appearances, put together a competent staff that are doing a competent job. it's the opposite with truump: he's a lovely manager that picks lovely people and tries to do poo poo by himself that he really shouldn't so him being confused or not knowing things is bad because he's the one in charge by his own design. it matters that he called that guy tim apple because trump will be making all the decisions based on what he thinks of a guy who he can't remember the name of; being slightly confused about details doesn't matter as much when you're willingly handing off remembering those details duty to people who do a job you approve of. *shrug* even with the jhistory of gaffes and recent decline i feel like biden can still be an effective manager and the president's job is to be an effective manager. edit: also he's been outmaneuvering the gop for his entire presidency, "this guy who keeps beating us is incompetent" is not something that should be taken seriously. InsertPotPun fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Tbh that's pretty close to the only argument I find convincing for Biden. Namely, that the president doesn't need to be competent or even aware 99% of the time (Trump famously watched Fox News all day, tweeted until 2am, passed out on the toilet mid-tweet, etc) and the country survived a world destroying pandemic and still invented a revolutionary vaccine. So, if all the work is done by the President's team 99% of the time, it's probably just better to go with the guy with the better team and roll the dice on this term being the 1% of the time the president has to stay up 36 hours and make split-second nuclear decisions or whatever. And in 2024 even that risk is irrelevant since both candidates have failing old man brains. Of course the corollary is a very strong case for not picking a mummy for a candidate in the primary in the first place but apparently the DNC is committed to gerontocracy so we're already locked onto this path.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nothing I said was incorrect or contradicted by this tedious WaPo fact-checking back and forth. The original USDA assigned to the case was John Lausch and he recommended Hur as a special counsel. Based on you linking a news article about Garland appointing him and saying, "Garland picked him" it seems like you did not know that. With the additional context that the first choice was specifically a USDA and not a special counsel, which was done as an accommodation to pick someone who was assumed would be someone harder on Biden than on Trump to preempt Republican accusations of foul play, makes the initial claim that there were no complaints about him when he was originally appointed incorrect. As I said before, this doesn't really prove anything one way or the other, but you were originally arguing that his appointment by Garland was indicative that concerns or criticisms of him were all post-hoc justifications because it was Garland who specifically chose him and implying he was Garland's first choice. When I clicked on post history to find your earlier post and quote it, I also found this post from a different thread where you make that point more explicitly, so I don't think you previously knew it and I was misinterpreting you. quote:They still don't believe it bc the official is a Republican (and therefore a Russian spy) (Said official was appointed by Merrick Garland to show how impartial he is That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but you clearly had several basic facts you can easily google that were wrong in the initial analysis and that hurts your argument. I think the more recent streamlining of the argument you have made in your more recent posts is a much stronger argument for the same conclusion. When you are missing basic facts, it hurts the credibility of the argument even if the conclusion is correct. This is a situation where there isn't a legitimately correct answer unless you can read minds or they release a recording of whole thing, so making a good argument is the most important part of discussing it since there is no way to definitively prove any conclusions right now. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
Where are you seeing that John Lausch specifically recommended Robert Hur to be the special counsel? In Garland's statement announcing Hur as special counsel, he said Lausch wasn't able to do it because he was personally leaving the DOJ. From what Garland said, Lausch recommended the appointment of a special counsel, but it was the DOJ who actually picked Hur and Garland who gave the stamp of approval:Merrick Garland posted:On January 5, 2023, Mr. Lausch briefed me on the results of his initial investigation and advised me that further investigation by a Special Counsel was warranted. Based on Mr. Lausch's initial investigation, I concluded that, under the Special Counsel regulations, it was in the public interest to appoint a Special Counsel. In the days since, while Mr. Lausch continued the investigation, the Department identified Mr. Hur for appointment as Special Counsel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 21:19
|
|
