Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 9, 2017 7:52:16 GMT -5
So Comey really is a lineal descendant of Hoover. When things are out of line, he does not stand up to people. Rather, he writes a little Memo and file sit away until he needs it for leverage or self-preservation.
His only honest man in Washington act is tiresome. Wonder if he wrote the memo in drag like Edgar...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,071
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 9, 2017 7:59:47 GMT -5
Guy who defended OJ puts forth a justification for totalitarianism, Ed wonders if it's kosher. Too bad Nixon didn't know about this fun idea! Interesting that you did not answer the question. Doesn't the President have the power to order the FBI to drop investigation into Flynn? If so, why is the press homing in on obstruction of justice? Ed, there's a difference between the use of power and the abuse of power. Yes, a President may have that authority but when it is abused to shield your buddy and your administration from a legitimate investigation, that's an abuse of power. And if you are willing to defend Trump's action here, can you explain why he asked everyone else to leave before he had that discussion with Comey regarding Flynn? Was it Trump's consciousness of guilt as he knew he was doing something improper. If it was all above aboard and proper why not make the same statement in front of your Attorney General? Can you not see the difference? (It is not dissimilar to the discussion we had regarding the President being the ultimate declassification authority -- simply because a President may have authority does not mean he necessarily uses it appropriately).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jun 9, 2017 8:45:06 GMT -5
Practically speaking, what's the point of this whole thing? To find out what happened in 2016 and who was involved with the Russians, and figure out how to prevent it in 2018 or 2020. If Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, Page, Kushner, Stone, Epshetyn, Cohen, Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Trump, Pence, Priebus were colluding, they should be charged. If you see the only remedy here as impeachment, you're likely to be pretty disappointed given that the Republicans have less spine than a jellyfish, but from what Warner was hinting at yesterday, there's a lot more here. That NSA doc that was leaked this week is incredibly troubling. It says that the Russians successfully hacked into election vendors and state and local election boards. I think it had been public knowledge that the Russians had hacked into a few election boards, but the vendor thing was new. The Senators who know what is going on keep repeating that there's no evidence that any votes were changed, but if you break into election vendors and state and local election boards, you can manipulate the voter rolls. If you have already stolen the Democratic Party likely voter data, and know which voters you want to throw off the rolls, and the state has voter ID, what happens if you change some addresses? Misspell some names? Change some middle initials? Those people can't vote.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,071
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 9, 2017 8:55:39 GMT -5
Practically speaking, what's the point of this whole thing? To find out what happened in 2016 and who was involved with the Russians, and figure out how to prevent it in 2018 or 2020. If Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, Page, Kushner, Stone, Epshetyn, Cohen, Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Trump, Pence, Priebus were colluding, they should be charged. If you see the only remedy here as impeachment, you're likely to be pretty disappointed given that the Republicans have less spine than a jellyfish, but from what Warner was hinting at yesterday, there's a lot more here. That NSA doc that was leaked this week is incredibly troubling. It says that the Russians successfully hacked into election vendors and state and local election boards. I think it had been public knowledge that the Russians had hacked into a few election boards, but the vendor thing was new. The Senators who know what is going on keep repeating that there's no evidence that any votes were changed, but if you break into election vendors and state and local election boards, you can manipulate the voter rolls. If you have already stolen the Democratic Party likely voter data, and know which voters you want to throw off the rolls, and the state has voter ID, what happens if you change some addresses? Misspell some names? Change some middle initials? Those people can't vote. The problem is that "collusion" is not a crime. Is it impeachable? Yes, but there is no statutory basis for a criminal prosecution. That's why I posited in other comments that Mueller's investigation may turn up evidence of other crimes (FARA violations, false statements under 18 USC 1001 re: all the omissions by Trump's staff on SF-86s, money laundering and financial crimes perhaps) but nothing directly linked to "collusion" which has no legal meaning. Keep your eye on the ball : The foreign counterintelligence investigation is designed to discover and counter the threat to US national security due to the Russian interference with our elections. The criminal matters are collateral in some respects. See e.g., Comey's initial disclosure of the existence of the FCI on March 20th in which he "footnoted" other criminal matters that may arise. I had linked to this article several months ago: "There is, in fact, copious evidence of at least tacit collaboration between the Russians and the Trump campaign, collaboration in which Trump personally participated on multiple occasions. But we have collectively discounted this cooperation for two related, and quite perverse, reasons: It was overt and public and it was legal. The consequence has been that we largely ignore it in discussing the matter." "Collusion, in this context anyway, is not a legal term. For legal purposes, it matters if Trump or his people conspired with Russian agents to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or some other criminal law; it matters if they acted as agents of a foreign power within the meaning of FISA or as agents of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA." www.lawfareblog.com/course-theres-evidence-trump-colluded-russian-intelligence
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jun 9, 2017 9:14:14 GMT -5
I get that collusion isn't a crime, but that list you put up of possible crimes is pretty long and I think you're missing a ton of possibilities even after you edited and added a bunch. There needs to be some word to combine them - I don't know if collusion is the right word or not.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jun 9, 2017 9:19:26 GMT -5
Interesting that you did not answer the question. Doesn't the President have the power to order the FBI to drop investigation into Flynn? If so, why is the press homing in on obstruction of justice? The police have the power to shoot you, Ed. That doesn't make it legal if they bust into your house without a warrant and do it while you are sitting on your couch watching Fox News. Kinda amazing to me that after years of complaining about purported executive abuses and overreach, Fox is putting this stuff out there. I thought conservatives were all about limited federal government and a limited executive branch.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,071
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 9, 2017 9:27:59 GMT -5
I get that collusion isn't a crime, but that list you put up of possible crimes is pretty long and I think you're missing a ton of possibilities even after you edited and added a bunch. There needs to be some word to combine them - I don't know if collusion is the right word or not. I'm just stating the more obvious ones. TC, don't know if you're a lawyer but I think the word you're looking for is RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization). The question I have is there a criminal conspiracy that can encompass the whole enterprise, i.e., a criminal RICO prosecution which is typically used to go after organized crime. To that end, Mueller has brought on board Deputy SG Michael Dreeben to assist in the investigation. The man is brilliant. He successfully argued on appeal the civil RICO case DOJ brought against Big Tobacco in the DC Circuit and did so without notes. We had a lawyer from the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section detailed to our trial team re: all the issues that arose under RICO. "Deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket, will be assisting Mueller on a part-time basis, according to sources familiar with the arrangement." www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202789177543/Mueller-Enlists-Top-Criminal-Law-Expert-for-Russia-Probe?et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20170609&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 9, 2017 12:19:00 GMT -5
Interesting that you did not answer the question. Doesn't the President have the power to order the FBI to drop investigation into Flynn? If so, why is the press homing in on obstruction of justice? The police have the power to shoot you, Ed. That doesn't make it legal if they bust into your house without a warrant and do it while you are sitting on your couch watching Fox News. Kinda amazing to me that after years of complaining about purported executive abuses and overreach, Fox is putting this stuff out there. I thought conservatives were all about limited federal government and a limited executive branch. I am not defending Trump but am merely saying he has the constitutional authority to tell Comey to ease up on Flynn and that is not obstruction ofjustice, despite the press's use of that specific term. I have not said anything beyond that. I would also suggest you watch Foxnews' Special Report with Bret Baier as host. I think you will find very balanced reporting of the news as well as hearing items the MSM chooses not to cover. There is also some excellent foreign affairs reporting by Catherine Herrige and others. I fully admit that there are opinion programs on Fox that do not purport to be balanced, like Sean Hannity.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jun 9, 2017 13:31:02 GMT -5
I am not defending Trump but am merely saying he has the constitutional authority to tell Comey to ease up on Flynn and that is not obstruction of justice, despite the press's use of that specific term. I have not said anything beyond that. Having the power or authority to do something legally is dependent upon the actor's motive and circumstance. Cops can't come in and randomly shoot you because of that, though they do have the power to use lethal force if necessary. Context matters. Both you and Dershowitz are completely ignoring that with a basic might makes right defense. Brett Baier is a total tool, and the MSM argument mainly has been that firing Comey and Trump admitting the Russia investigation was the reason for the firing was the better example for obstruction of justice.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,071
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 9, 2017 14:30:51 GMT -5
The police have the power to shoot you, Ed. That doesn't make it legal if they bust into your house without a warrant and do it while you are sitting on your couch watching Fox News. Kinda amazing to me that after years of complaining about purported executive abuses and overreach, Fox is putting this stuff out there. I thought conservatives were all about limited federal government and a limited executive branch. I am not defending Trump but am merely saying he has the constitutional authority to tell Comey to ease up on Flynn and that is not obstruction ofjustice, despite the press's use of that specific term. I have not said anything beyond that. I would also suggest you watch Foxnews' Special Report with Bret Baier as host. I think you will find very balanced reporting of the news as well as hearing items the MSM chooses not to cover. There is also some excellent foreign affairs reporting by Catherine Herrige and others. I fully admit that there are opinion programs on Fox that do not purport to be balanced, like Sean Hannity. 1. So, Trump has the constitutional authority to tell Comey to let Flynn go. You still have offered no explanation of why if that is so why Trump felt the need to usher any witnesses out of the Oval Office while he made that statement. If it was such a benign request, why the consciousness of guilt? Any good lawyer could argue the adverse inference from Trump's conduct in keeping that conversation about Flynn one-on-one. 2. You want to divorce Trump's conduct in this one instance from all the other factual predicates that are part of the picture. Why? Inconvenient facts? Why hasn't Trump in any of his interactions with Comey asked about the Russian threat to our electoral system but has focused solely on: 1) whether I am a target of an investigation; and 2) why can't you go easy on by good buddy Mike Flynn, who secretly took money from Russia and Turkey and lied about it on his SF-86, lied about it to the Vice President and was terminated only after 18 days of passage of time because it was reported in the hated MSM? And for a more in depth view of Presidential powers: "But Dershowitz fails to take into account that the Supreme Court has decisively rejected this view. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), a 7-1 Supreme Court turned back constitutional challenges to Congress’ creation of the Act that gave us the office of the Independent Counsel—and in doing so, dismissed exactly the argument that Dershowitz now seeks to invoke." "In Morrison, the Act was challenged on the ground that it violated the separation of powers because it took unfettered investigative and prosecutorial control over these politically sensitive potential crimes out of the President’s hands. But in firmly rejecting that challenge, the Court held that the President’s constitutional powers were not violated by cabining his control over the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving himself and his top aides. The Act and the Court’s decision reflected the common sense understanding that the President has an inherent conflict of interest when he or his top aides are potential subjects of criminal investigation—and that nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to completely control those investigations or shut them down." www.lawfareblog.com/view-supreme-court-alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-powers-presidentExplanation, please. Or feel free to call this "spin." Use of power v. abuse of power. Also, given the plethora of lies from Trump and his minions whose credibility is greater? Comey has made mistakes in judgment but please identify when he has intentionally lied.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,423
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 9, 2017 18:34:32 GMT -5
Tribe v. Dershowitz at about 2:42 in the video. ("He couldn't possibly be more wrong.") The difference between use of Presidential power and the abuse of that power. Sure, Trump has the power but then there's the abuse of it to derail an investigation into your administration and to protect your good buddy Comrade Flynn. Interesting that in all these interactions with Comey Trump never once expressed concern over the Russian interference in the US election. www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/for-trump-abuse-of-power-could-be-as-bad-as-obstruction-963560515810And perhaps this explains why, back in the day, Tribe taught Constitutional Law at Harvard Law Sshool and the Dersh taught Criminal Law.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,423
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 9, 2017 18:38:04 GMT -5
The silence from the conservative members of this message board is deafening. If President Obama had asked Comey to drop the Hillary Clinton e-mails investigation in this manner, and was then made public like this, please tell me you would not be calling for Obama's impeachment. Message boards notwithstanding, many veteran conservatives are resolutely critical of Trump--George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Erick Erickson, Bill Kristol, to name a few. At his core, Trump is not a conservative but a populist. Names like Buckley and Kirk mean nothing to him. I don't mean to sound petty here, but I believe that Trump has no core of political beliefs. He's not a populist, either. He's a faux-populist. What he really is is a huckster and a con man. He's the Wizard of Oz.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 9, 2017 18:59:54 GMT -5
SS, thanks for your last reply as it addresses my original post. Particularly, thanks for the info on Morrison. I now have a much better understanding of the limitations on the President's authority.
As for why Trump wanted to meet with Comey in private, I am not sure but I think he, at least, knew it was improper. But this is merely my opinion.
TC, as for you calling Bret Baier a tool, I suspect you have never watched him objectively over a period of time so as to have observed him grill Republicans, including Trump. Nor have you observed him allowing Democratic Congresspersons and Senators the opportunity to state their cases on different items without harassing them like you might find Republicans on other networks.
My purpose in posting on this thread is an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion as there is an overwhelming anti-Trump flavor. And, as I have said in other threads, I did not vote for Trump and think he is making a mess in how he is managing the office, but I support most of his agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 21:32:34 GMT -5
Mr Projection...
US Gov/DOJ now arguing it's ok for POTUS to receive direct payments, bribes whatever you want to call it from foreign Governments, lobbyists, businesses etc...
Based on members previous posts I'm sure you guys will find this distasteful...
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jun 9, 2017 21:36:41 GMT -5
SS, thanks for your last reply as it addresses my original post. Particularly, thanks for the info on Morrison. I now have a much better understanding of the limitations on the President's authority. As for why Trump wanted to meet with Comey in private, I am not sure but I think he, at least, knew it was improper. But this is merely my opinion. TC, as for you calling Bret Baier a tool, I suspect you have never watched him objectively over a period of time so as to have observed him grill Republicans, including Trump. Nor have you observed him allowing Democratic Congresspersons and Senators the opportunity to state their cases on different items without harassing them like you might find Republicans on other networks. My purpose in posting on this thread is an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion as there is an overwhelming anti-Trump flavor. And, as I have said in other threads, I did not vote for Trump and think he is making a mess in how he is managing the office, but I support most of his agenda. You're probably the same kind of guy who argues that we need to bring balance to the study of evolution and teach the creation stories as well. Defending Trump is the same as defending creationism.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,542
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 9, 2017 22:54:33 GMT -5
SS, thanks for your last reply as it addresses my original post. Particularly, thanks for the info on Morrison. I now have a much better understanding of the limitations on the President's authority. As for why Trump wanted to meet with Comey in private, I am not sure but I think he, at least, knew it was improper. But this is merely my opinion. TC, as for you calling Bret Baier a tool, I suspect you have never watched him objectively over a period of time so as to have observed him grill Republicans, including Trump. Nor have you observed him allowing Democratic Congresspersons and Senators the opportunity to state their cases on different items without harassing them like you might find Republicans on other networks. My purpose in posting on this thread is an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion as there is an overwhelming anti-Trump flavor. And, as I have said in other threads, I did not vote for Trump and think he is making a mess in how he is managing the office, but I support most of his agenda. Ed, I respect the fact that you keep posting in this thread even though you get singled out (sometimes by me) and that you offer a different perspective than most of us here. In your estimation, what is President Trump's true agenda? Do you believe his agenda actually is what he professed it to be by his actions so far? Do you feel as though the issues on which you agree with him have actually been addressed to any real or acceptable degree? I'm not trying to be an ass (though, it is partly my nature so I sort of can't help it). I am curious to hear your thoughts.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 10, 2017 7:54:20 GMT -5
SS, thanks for your last reply as it addresses my original post. Particularly, thanks for the info on Morrison. I now have a much better understanding of the limitations on the President's authority. As for why Trump wanted to meet with Comey in private, I am not sure but I think he, at least, knew it was improper. But this is merely my opinion. TC, as for you calling Bret Baier a tool, I suspect you have never watched him objectively over a period of time so as to have observed him grill Republicans, including Trump. Nor have you observed him allowing Democratic Congresspersons and Senators the opportunity to state their cases on different items without harassing them like you might find Republicans on other networks. My purpose in posting on this thread is an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion as there is an overwhelming anti-Trump flavor. And, as I have said in other threads, I did not vote for Trump and think he is making a mess in how he is managing the office, but I support most of his agenda. You're probably the same kind of guy who argues that we need to bring balance to the study of evolution and teach the creation stories as well. Defending Trump is the same as defending creationism. And you seem like the kind of guy that cannot accept that others might have different opinions than you.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 10, 2017 8:14:02 GMT -5
SS, thanks for your last reply as it addresses my original post. Particularly, thanks for the info on Morrison. I now have a much better understanding of the limitations on the President's authority. As for why Trump wanted to meet with Comey in private, I am not sure but I think he, at least, knew it was improper. But this is merely my opinion. TC, as for you calling Bret Baier a tool, I suspect you have never watched him objectively over a period of time so as to have observed him grill Republicans, including Trump. Nor have you observed him allowing Democratic Congresspersons and Senators the opportunity to state their cases on different items without harassing them like you might find Republicans on other networks. My purpose in posting on this thread is an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion as there is an overwhelming anti-Trump flavor. And, as I have said in other threads, I did not vote for Trump and think he is making a mess in how he is managing the office, but I support most of his agenda. Ed, I respect the fact that you keep posting in this thread even though you get singled out (sometimes by me) and that you offer a different perspective than most of us here. In your estimation, what is President Trump's true agenda? Do you believe his agenda actually is what he professed it to be by his actions so far? Do you feel as though the issues on which you agree with him have actually been addressed to any real or acceptable degree? I'm not trying to be an ass (though, it is partly my nature so I sort of can't help it). I am curious to hear your thoughts. Trump is pro life. He is for a stronger defense with allies contributing more for their own defense. He wants to eliminate burdensome regulations and reduce the tax burden. He wants to enforce duly enacted laws on immigration. He wants to make us energy independent using all available sources of income. He is a strong supporter of Israel. These are some. What I don't like is his lack of discipline in governing; his unwillingness to tackle our debt; his dishonesty; his undisciplined tweeting. He has not been successful in enacting most of his agenda but that is on the Congress.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,071
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 10, 2017 8:58:57 GMT -5
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jun 10, 2017 10:21:48 GMT -5
You're probably the same kind of guy who argues that we need to bring balance to the study of evolution and teach the creation stories as well. Defending Trump is the same as defending creationism. And you seem like the kind of guy that cannot accept that others might have different opinions than you. I do have a problem with opinions that are objectively stupid.
|
|