Jump to content

Eskimohorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    4,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Eskimohorn

  1. I am really enjoying this new trend of pundits getting dunked on by high school kids. This is why Al Gore invented the internet. 


    But they should just get shot and take it, the throw rocks
  2. It's really hard to tell.  While McRaven apparently did not endear himself to the lege, it is impossible to achieve flag rank without fair political acumen, at least at the federal level, which I assume may be a different game than Austin-level.  Tillerson might have precisely the same problem.
    I'm not sure it's fair to judge Tillerson on his stint in a very dysfunctional administration.  I suppose you could judge him for accepting a position within that administration, though.  Then again, who really expected this shitshow.
    Other than optics, not really sure what his Russia ties, or lack thereof, have to do with the position of Chancellor.


    It would be great to judge him and it was easy to predict the Trump shitshow. Tillerson’s a character in what could be the worst scandal in US history. Lets find someone else.
  3. He may or may not be a good fit for this role but judging his fitness for duty based on how he is perceived from his time serving the tweeter in chief seems a bit unfair.  Show me the person who you think has handled working on either the Trump campaign or administration well and done a good job of controlling perceptions / the message.


    There’s a massive criminal investigation, which includes reports that Russia handpicked Tillerson for the position. There’s no way to unravel Tillerson’s role. He cannot be vetted, so he should not be considered.
  4. I guarantee you that no lawyer is stating that if you know about a contract, you are a party to it.  The concept is known as third party beneficiary.  I learned it in law school.
    Avenatti’s main theory is that the contractual language places obligations on Trump personally, meaning that his actual consent to the agreement (signature) would be required in order to manifest a valid enforceable contract.
    Cohen’s defense is that the agreement is between himself and Stormy.  The point of contention is not whether or not Trump knew.  It’s whether he needed to know/consent in order for her to be bound.
    Thats the main legal issue.  The tweet is asserting a different theory altogether. 
    If you can show me other colleagues on a thread somewhere that disagree with that, I’m open to discussion.
    FYI, I lean towards the Daniels side of the debate I laid out above.


    So would it matter that there was a line for Trump’s alias to sign but never did? That would seem deceptive.
  5. 12 minutes ago, swraith said:

    So maybe the search committee should focus on candidates with actual government, politics, and education experience for a larger higher education system.

    Totally agree. And Tillerson’s Russia and Trump cabinet connections are a complete non-starter. He cannot be vetted. We have no way of knowing how involved he was in the Russian scandal, even if it’s just as a witness.

×
×
  • Create New...