|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted?
Trump's brash character is just Trump being Trump. It's not a strategy. It's terrible for getting things done in government, and was always going to be. Saying, in the abstract, "shake up the establishment" doesn't get Trump anywhere.
|
On June 15 2017 22:50 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 22:45 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2017 22:25 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 15 2017 22:15 Plansix wrote:On June 15 2017 22:09 NewSunshine wrote:On June 15 2017 22:02 Simberto wrote:On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster? You have more than two parties. It is easier to admit that one of those was shit, and find another one. In the US system, if you admit that your party is shit, you have to support THE ENEMY!!!, which is a lot harder than just supporting someone else that you didn't exactly support before, but who you also didn't really fight. Well Trump was the closest we've gotten to having a true 3rd party president, and look how it's working out. Every time we inch closer to having a solid victory for some 3rd party here, I wish we hadn't lol. Third parties in the US seem to shoot the moon and always go for the big office first, rather than slow roll it by taking over a state through local elections. Every four years they decide “this is our time” and run for one office, even though we hold elections every 2 years for 500+ seats at the table. The Tea Party went for the latter approach and had amazing success, its astonishing that no one has looked at what they accomplished and said hey lets do that... The tea party is an example of a close to single issue party. Their candidates focus on one issue, which is opposing government expansion and lowering taxes/spending. And from what I can tell, that is all their voters care about. But I also get the impression they have no idea how that tea party formed and why it was successful. I would love it if the left had a faction that formed around a singular issue like election reform. I think the difficulty there is that the left would have a harder time defining a singular end goal. For the Tea Party "smaller federal government, lower taxes" is a single conceptual end goal that they can collectively focus on. Defining the end goal of "election reform" would be much more difficult.
The beauty of that single issue is that they can use that single line of attack for any number of government programs. if you dont like the EPA and their regulations... cut the size of government. Dont like bank regulations? Cut the size of government. Dont like abortion? Cut the size of government. Dont like welfare programs? Cut the size of government. They managed to stumble onto a one size fits all approach that sells really well with their base, and they (along with all of the other more traditional republicans that took advantage of it) rode that motto all the way home to a majority in both houses.
This was possible only because at its core it is a reductionist philosophy and agenda, whereas the democratic philosophy is to be everything to everyone, which almost by definition has led us to a place where the democratic party's direction is unintelligible, and a single issue can not sustain the interest of all the voters. This is why you get the pandering to every single interest group.
|
On June 15 2017 22:34 Haemonculus wrote:
I honestly don't know what to think of Trump anymore. All through the campaign and early presidency I was convinced that he's way smarter than he lets on and is simply acting crazy as part of the game. Distract folks from legislation he's passing, keep the media obsessing over stupid comments rather than anything of substance... etc. I just couldn't accept the idea that he somehow Mr. Magoo'd his way into the highest office in the land.
Now it feels like he's been a monkey the whole time and the party just propped him up as a distraction while they do their thing.
I'm still fairly convinced they'll toss him after midterms to save the GOP's reputation and blame everything on Trump the "conman" while propping up their next "maverick outsider."
He is conservative talk show radio come to life. It's no wonder that he was able to draw a base of support by tapping into that demographic. But he is also an unqualified president who is finding out that leading a country isn't as easy as beating Hillary Clinton and then calling it a day.
|
On June 15 2017 08:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 07:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 15 2017 07:41 Doodsmack wrote:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s own conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.
Trump had received private assurances from former FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing. www.washingtonpost.com Somewhat big deal. For Trump to now officially be "under investigation", I imagine Trump will go into full on ego mode. Given how hard he pushed for Comey to say he isn't being investigated, Mueller actually directly investigating Trump is a big deal. For the record, you're looking at an anonymous leak to conclude "now officially be under investigation?" I might just have a different definition of 'officially' than you.
On June 15 2017 21:44 Nevuk wrote:
And his earlier tweet on the matter :
|
Canada11449 Posts
On June 15 2017 17:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Think of the $$$$ the holy spirit could lose. Show nested quote +The Southern Baptist Convention voted to formally "denounce and repudiate" white nationalism and the alt-right movement at the church's annual meeting Wednesday, but only after the denomination's leadership was criticized for initially bypassing the proposal.
The resolution decries "every form of racism, including alt-right white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as of the devil."
There was a standing ovation in the crowded convention room in Phoenix after the resolution was passed.
Southern Baptist leaders had declined to consider the resolution the day before, saying they were concerned that the proposed language was too strong. The decision was met with confusion and anger from members of the denomination and the public. And it highlighted divisions in the roughly 15 million member denomination that surfaced during last year's election.
"We regret and apologize for the pain and the confusion that we created for you and a watching world when we decided not to report out a resolution on alt-right racism," Barrett Duke, the resolutions committee chairman, told the gathered crowd of about 5,000. "Please know it wasn't because we don't share your abhorrence of racism and especially the particularly vicious form of racism that has manifested itself in the alt-right movement. We do share your abhorrence."
The original resolution was brought by Dwight McKissic, an African American pastor in Texas. He urged the Southern Baptist Convention to "reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so-called 'Alt-Right' that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society and infect our political system."
The resolution did not originally get approved by a committee while several others, including condemnations of gambling and Planned Parenthood, did. McKissic told The Atlantic it was "a mystery how you can so easily affirm standard beliefs about other things, but we get to white supremacy ... and all of a sudden, we've got a problem here."
The move was criticized by Southern Baptist members and pastors on social media, including Trillia Newbell. Newbell is an author and the director of community outreach at the denomination's Ethics and Religious Liberty commission. She's also African American.
"Was I hurt? Absolutely. Was I discouraged? Yes," she says.
But she says she's encouraged by the denomination's resounding approval of the amended resolution.
"I think it's important that we take every opportunity to denounce and set ourselves apart from anything that is racist or alienates our brothers and sisters in Christ who are people of color, especially given our history," she says.
The Southern Baptist Convention has taken steps to distance itself from that history. The convention was created in 1845 after it split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery. In 1995, the convention apologized for its role in sustaining and promoting slavery. Ten years later, in 2015, it passed a resolution supporting racial reconciliation.
Newbell says she's heartened by those moves and the denomination's decision to condemn white supremacy. Source
You mock, but I think the wording distinction is actually important from one day to the next.
"reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so-called 'Alt-Right' that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society and infect our political system."
"every form of racism, including alt-right white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as of the devil."
The first primarily rejects a political ideology because the entire ideology is claimed to be racist. The second rejects all racism, including any racism to be found in the particular ideology. The first is primarily political and makes too wide a claim on the alt right. I believe racism is a large component within the alt right, but I don't believe the entire alt right is that way. The second gets to the heart of the matter and avoids making a sweeping claim for the entire alt right. That sort of wording is important because the church should be in the business of rejecting racism, not aligning its members politically. Tensions are high for many historical reason, but if denuciations are to be made, they must be well-crafted and mean precisely what you mean to say.
|
Trump *really* needs to learn not to appear to corroborate media stories (and others' stories) so quickly if he's going to decry them as fake. He's probably increased his average supporter's systolic blood pressure by like 4 mmHg at this point.
|
On June 15 2017 12:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:37 rageprotosscheesy wrote:On June 15 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:18 rageprotosscheesy wrote:On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Aside from US right wing media (right wing media being Fox News and Info Wars grade garbage), does anyone believe that Mueller won't be impartial? Everyone who has met him, regardless of political affiliation, has described him as nothing but the model civil servant and law enforcement officer. For something as serious as Russian digital interference and espionage, you pick the best man possible and that's who Rosenstein appointed. For close personal friends, you're giving the appearance of corruption to even the sturdiest career government official. They need someone at arms length from Comey to properly assess his role in all this. It really should be clear to everybody upon examination that good character doesn't trump the circumstances of the investigation. Let's be honest, anyone put in the position will be biased in some capacity. The difference is that Mueller has a long history of having a stellar reputation. The optics are only negative if you actually believe he's a quack, which is really only isolated to the Fox News die hards and people who believe the DEEP STATE is trying to stop Trump from draining the swamp, whatever the swamp is these days. Fun fact: my former boss, whose a registered Republican, actually worked with Mueller for a little while. He doesn't believe the reports from the NYT and WaPo but when I asked him if he'll believe Mueller's findings, he said he would 100% believe him. He was selected by the DoJ because he's probably the single most trustworthy individual around who already knows his way around the block. Anyone with the ability to actually investigate foreign criminal espionage in the US election is going to be connected to a degree of people in Washington. Everyone will be biased, but close personal friends you've known for years will be unconscionably biased in a serious investigation and should recuse themselves if they have any sense. It makes the investigation anything but independent around a Comey that unilaterally decides things to the chagrin of both parties. I don't know why you twist my words. I say the evidence shows he can't be expected to treat fairly his mentee, I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. So I know you want to bring up Fox News and DEEP STATE at every turn, but I see this as more attempts to tar by association because your argument is weak. Your argument about Mueller is literally tar by association. And yes, your argument against a legendary FBI director who was appointed by 3 Republican Presidents is weak.
No, he's investigating a close friend he's known for years, mentioned in interviews, who others describe as a mentor/mentee relationship. He is first person to this situation. The guy I responded to felt like bringing up Fox News die-hards, pretty much highlighting his trouble contesting my points.
|
On June 15 2017 23:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 12:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:37 rageprotosscheesy wrote:On June 15 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:18 rageprotosscheesy wrote:On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Aside from US right wing media (right wing media being Fox News and Info Wars grade garbage), does anyone believe that Mueller won't be impartial? Everyone who has met him, regardless of political affiliation, has described him as nothing but the model civil servant and law enforcement officer. For something as serious as Russian digital interference and espionage, you pick the best man possible and that's who Rosenstein appointed. For close personal friends, you're giving the appearance of corruption to even the sturdiest career government official. They need someone at arms length from Comey to properly assess his role in all this. It really should be clear to everybody upon examination that good character doesn't trump the circumstances of the investigation. Let's be honest, anyone put in the position will be biased in some capacity. The difference is that Mueller has a long history of having a stellar reputation. The optics are only negative if you actually believe he's a quack, which is really only isolated to the Fox News die hards and people who believe the DEEP STATE is trying to stop Trump from draining the swamp, whatever the swamp is these days. Fun fact: my former boss, whose a registered Republican, actually worked with Mueller for a little while. He doesn't believe the reports from the NYT and WaPo but when I asked him if he'll believe Mueller's findings, he said he would 100% believe him. He was selected by the DoJ because he's probably the single most trustworthy individual around who already knows his way around the block. Anyone with the ability to actually investigate foreign criminal espionage in the US election is going to be connected to a degree of people in Washington. Everyone will be biased, but close personal friends you've known for years will be unconscionably biased in a serious investigation and should recuse themselves if they have any sense. It makes the investigation anything but independent around a Comey that unilaterally decides things to the chagrin of both parties. I don't know why you twist my words. I say the evidence shows he can't be expected to treat fairly his mentee, I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. So I know you want to bring up Fox News and DEEP STATE at every turn, but I see this as more attempts to tar by association because your argument is weak. Your argument about Mueller is literally tar by association. And yes, your argument against a legendary FBI director who was appointed by 3 Republican Presidents is weak. No, he's investigating a close friend he's known for years, mentioned in interviews, who others describe as a mentor/mentee relationship. He is first person to this situation. The guy I responded to felt like bringing up Fox News die-hards, pretty much highlighting his trouble contesting my points.
Who chose Mueller and why do you think he was chosen?
|
Canada13404 Posts
Dude, when you're looking for a special investigator the list of people who could do it starts small.
When you consider the history this man has had as a previous FBI director and how well respected he is by both sides of the aisle, I challenge you to find ONE person who would be better suited than Mueller.
Seriously. Find me ONE person that can get nearly unanimous support from both the R and D sides of the current American Political climate where partisanship is the order of the day.
You probably can't.
|
On June 15 2017 14:00 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Focusing solely on the evidence aspect I am going to take a trip down the lane of hypotheticals to illustrate how these sorts of things would work out and why there would be no evidence that they possess to implicate Trump if it even existed in the first place (do remember though that obstruction is a real thing since Nixon was destroyed for that and not for watergate which I do not believe they ever were able to tie to him or at least not until well after). I want to be very clear before I do this I think Trump an idiot who wants to make the bad press go away and will break laws to do it but did not actually collude with Russia because like with superpacs you do not need to actually directly collude to collude, if you have a joint interest and semi-intelligent people behind it then your messages will be pretty aligned without directly colluding. On to the main point though, Think of it like organized crime. The boss sends his number 2 to deliver a message to his guy who tells his guy who has his guy on the street do as he is bid. The street guy knows to keep his mouth shut and as long as he does it ends with him but even if he opens his mouth he cant point to the boss he can only point 1 up the ladder and THAT guy would know to keep his mouth shut. Flynn may or may not be able to implicate people further up the ladder but unless he actually does that its going to be nearly impossible to prove any collusion because he seems to be the go between if one exists which again I do not think it does.
Nixon had evidence. Deleted portions of tapes under subpoena. Trump does not. Your lane of hypotheticals is meandering and tough to see your parallels beyond cool fiction. It's sometimes tough to prove cases? We're learning that on the unmasking investigation as well, but the claims right now lack substance.
|
On June 15 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 14:00 Adreme wrote:On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Focusing solely on the evidence aspect I am going to take a trip down the lane of hypotheticals to illustrate how these sorts of things would work out and why there would be no evidence that they possess to implicate Trump if it even existed in the first place (do remember though that obstruction is a real thing since Nixon was destroyed for that and not for watergate which I do not believe they ever were able to tie to him or at least not until well after). I want to be very clear before I do this I think Trump an idiot who wants to make the bad press go away and will break laws to do it but did not actually collude with Russia because like with superpacs you do not need to actually directly collude to collude, if you have a joint interest and semi-intelligent people behind it then your messages will be pretty aligned without directly colluding. On to the main point though, Think of it like organized crime. The boss sends his number 2 to deliver a message to his guy who tells his guy who has his guy on the street do as he is bid. The street guy knows to keep his mouth shut and as long as he does it ends with him but even if he opens his mouth he cant point to the boss he can only point 1 up the ladder and THAT guy would know to keep his mouth shut. Flynn may or may not be able to implicate people further up the ladder but unless he actually does that its going to be nearly impossible to prove any collusion because he seems to be the go between if one exists which again I do not think it does. Nixon had evidence. Deleted portions of tapes under subpoena. Trump does not. Your lane of hypotheticals is meandering and tough to see your parallels beyond cool fiction. It's sometimes tough to prove cases? We're learning that on the unmasking investigation as well, but the claims right now lack substance.
I mean, there seems to be that White House memo listing where Trump telling Russians during a meeting that now that he fired Comey the Russia investigation should go away that the admin never contested. And documentation from Comey that's uncontested in any real way. Just because Trump hasn't hidden the evidence and incriminated himself because he's a bumbling buffoon doesn't mean there isn't evidence, this isn't "he said/she said."
Plus Trump's magical mystery lie tapes are going to be subpoenaed at some point.
|
On June 15 2017 23:42 ZeromuS wrote:
Dude, when you're looking for a special investigator the list of people who could do it starts small.
When you consider the history this man has had as a previous FBI director and how well respected he is by both sides of the aisle, I challenge you to find ONE person who would be better suited than Mueller.
Seriously. Find me ONE person that can get nearly unanimous support from both the R and D sides of the current American Political climate where partisanship is the order of the day.
You probably can't.
But he happens to have a good relationship with another well-respected FBI director, so clearly we can't trust him. /s
|
On June 15 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 14:00 Adreme wrote:On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Focusing solely on the evidence aspect I am going to take a trip down the lane of hypotheticals to illustrate how these sorts of things would work out and why there would be no evidence that they possess to implicate Trump if it even existed in the first place (do remember though that obstruction is a real thing since Nixon was destroyed for that and not for watergate which I do not believe they ever were able to tie to him or at least not until well after). I want to be very clear before I do this I think Trump an idiot who wants to make the bad press go away and will break laws to do it but did not actually collude with Russia because like with superpacs you do not need to actually directly collude to collude, if you have a joint interest and semi-intelligent people behind it then your messages will be pretty aligned without directly colluding. On to the main point though, Think of it like organized crime. The boss sends his number 2 to deliver a message to his guy who tells his guy who has his guy on the street do as he is bid. The street guy knows to keep his mouth shut and as long as he does it ends with him but even if he opens his mouth he cant point to the boss he can only point 1 up the ladder and THAT guy would know to keep his mouth shut. Flynn may or may not be able to implicate people further up the ladder but unless he actually does that its going to be nearly impossible to prove any collusion because he seems to be the go between if one exists which again I do not think it does. Nixon had evidence. Deleted portions of tapes under subpoena. Trump does not. Your lane of hypotheticals is meandering and tough to see your parallels beyond cool fiction. It's sometimes tough to prove cases? We're learning that on the unmasking investigation as well, but the claims right now lack substance.
Watergate took two years and happened as a result of a FBI leaker. We are barely one year into the Russia investigation and Comey was only fired a little while ago. If you are going to complain about lack of evidence, you need to wait until the investigation is done.
On June 15 2017 23:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 14:00 Adreme wrote:On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Focusing solely on the evidence aspect I am going to take a trip down the lane of hypotheticals to illustrate how these sorts of things would work out and why there would be no evidence that they possess to implicate Trump if it even existed in the first place (do remember though that obstruction is a real thing since Nixon was destroyed for that and not for watergate which I do not believe they ever were able to tie to him or at least not until well after). I want to be very clear before I do this I think Trump an idiot who wants to make the bad press go away and will break laws to do it but did not actually collude with Russia because like with superpacs you do not need to actually directly collude to collude, if you have a joint interest and semi-intelligent people behind it then your messages will be pretty aligned without directly colluding. On to the main point though, Think of it like organized crime. The boss sends his number 2 to deliver a message to his guy who tells his guy who has his guy on the street do as he is bid. The street guy knows to keep his mouth shut and as long as he does it ends with him but even if he opens his mouth he cant point to the boss he can only point 1 up the ladder and THAT guy would know to keep his mouth shut. Flynn may or may not be able to implicate people further up the ladder but unless he actually does that its going to be nearly impossible to prove any collusion because he seems to be the go between if one exists which again I do not think it does. Nixon had evidence. Deleted portions of tapes under subpoena. Trump does not. Your lane of hypotheticals is meandering and tough to see your parallels beyond cool fiction. It's sometimes tough to prove cases? We're learning that on the unmasking investigation as well, but the claims right now lack substance. I mean, there seems to be that White House memo listing where Trump telling Russians during a meeting that now that he fired Comey the Russia investigation should go away that the admin never contested. And documentation from Comey that's uncontested in any real way. Just because Trump hasn't hidden the evidence and incriminated himself because he's a bumbling buffoon doesn't mean there isn't evidence, this isn't "he said/she said." Plus Trump's magical mystery lie tapes are going to be subpoenaed at some point.
With the language he used during the NBC interview and the reported language with the Russia FM, it shouldn’t be a shock that an obstruction investigation case was opened. It is the most unsurprising leak thus far.
|
On June 15 2017 19:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:
I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. I've heard this proposed by @realDonaldTrump but I haven't been told anywhere what crime Comey might have committed. Do you know? Why are Trump and his supporters discussing how it might have been a crime? Either what he released was legal to release, or it was not. I just can't wrap my head around what makes it illegal. If the president calls me while I'm at work in my government job, and tells me "the sky is red" and I write down "trump said the sky is read on x date and time on a phone call with me" and then 'leak' that memo, is that illegal? If not, then obviously the content of the released information must have been illegal to release (e.g., classified), otherwise Comey couldn't have committed a crime by leaking his memo. So, what information was in the memo that was illegal to release to the public? Perhaps it's illegal to release information Trump says that makes Trump sound bad?
You need a lawyer to see through. There's good arguments on both sides. His memos on privileged conversations made in the course of his official position in the government are subject to records acts such as 18 USC 641. It was done with the attempt to force an independent counsel. He transmitted government information and property to a private citizen for the purpose of leaking its contents to the media, which was done. Private citizens (Comey's first defense) are not free to take government property and leak it. The special counsel conducting the criminal investigation has also sought/received memos including Comey's properties for conduct of the criminal investigation. It could be expected to be part of the criminal investigation, and leaking it during the course of a criminal investigation when you have reason to believe that the special counsel may want that information, could well be obstruction. Former FBI directors should know better than to deliberately leak the contents of a government document in hopes to prompt an investigation (and maybe you say this illegal act was justified extra-judicially which is a fine point to make). Comey ALSO was asked (senate judiciary committee, under oath) if he was ever an anonymous source for leaks in the Clinton email/Russia, he said no. He was asked whether he had ever authorized others to be anonymous sources on his behalf, and Comey also said no. Was that false testimony under oath? You can google the statute (cited by a liberal Turley, good to see a few like Dershowitz coming around), his testimony, and various lawyers commenting on it beyond Trump's lawyer. I don't know how much you're interested on pursuing this on your own with an open mind, but there you have the outline and there's good arguments against too that you'll find.
|
On June 15 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 14:00 Adreme wrote:On June 15 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Classic bit of Washington misdirection.
Mueller having 3 donors to the Democratic Party on his 5-person special counsel team was starting to get attention.
Bippidee boppidee boop Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice! Now Mueller can't be criticized without the accusation being leveled that it is just to save Trump from the obvious obstruction of justice charges that were going to be the result of the investigation.
Classic fed nonsense too. They do it all the time. They can't prove the initial crime so they go after people for "obstructing" them in the course of their investigation into a crime that never happened. The FBI has been investigating MUH RUSSIA since last June. There has not been a single piece of evidence uncovered that any of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo are true. Multiple anonymously sourced news stories regarding BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONTACT WITH RUSSIA! have been shown to be utter nonsense. Multiple statements have been made and retracted by Democrat politicians regarding the existence of evidence.
This is a president who is more hated by elite Washington culture and the bureaucracy than any president since Lincoln. The first 6 months of the Trump administration has been one of the leakiest in history, if not the leakiest. I find it very hard to believe that the FBI or any other agency, bureau or department would be able to prevent the leak of any real evidence it possessed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government worked together in any way to beat Hillary Clinton. If such evidence existed, leaking it would pretty much instantly end his presidency. So why hasn't it been leaked? The bureaucrats who hate Trump are leaking everything but not the one thing that would 100% destroy Trump? Your final paragraph has been obvious for months to anyone outside the media bubble. For specifically the Mueller bit, you're absolutely right on the smell test for narrative-switching. Secondly, let's not forget that Mueller and Comey are close personal friends as said in interviews and three newspapers. The man at the center, or a key witness of you will, is buddies with the investigator that must impartially judge his credibility as a witness. Only in Washington does friends investigating friends constitute an independent investigation. Mueller should publically step aside from Comey's testimony and obstruction angle to restore America's faith in the investigation. Focusing solely on the evidence aspect I am going to take a trip down the lane of hypotheticals to illustrate how these sorts of things would work out and why there would be no evidence that they possess to implicate Trump if it even existed in the first place (do remember though that obstruction is a real thing since Nixon was destroyed for that and not for watergate which I do not believe they ever were able to tie to him or at least not until well after). I want to be very clear before I do this I think Trump an idiot who wants to make the bad press go away and will break laws to do it but did not actually collude with Russia because like with superpacs you do not need to actually directly collude to collude, if you have a joint interest and semi-intelligent people behind it then your messages will be pretty aligned without directly colluding. On to the main point though, Think of it like organized crime. The boss sends his number 2 to deliver a message to his guy who tells his guy who has his guy on the street do as he is bid. The street guy knows to keep his mouth shut and as long as he does it ends with him but even if he opens his mouth he cant point to the boss he can only point 1 up the ladder and THAT guy would know to keep his mouth shut. Flynn may or may not be able to implicate people further up the ladder but unless he actually does that its going to be nearly impossible to prove any collusion because he seems to be the go between if one exists which again I do not think it does. Nixon had evidence. Deleted portions of tapes under subpoena. Trump does not. Your lane of hypotheticals is meandering and tough to see your parallels beyond cool fiction. It's sometimes tough to prove cases? We're learning that on the unmasking investigation as well, but the claims right now lack substance.
Don't you think it is a little early to be saying evidence doesn't exist? Mueller was still hiring people as of like a week ago. We are in the very, very early stages.
|
On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster?
Maybe you missed when I've routinely criticized Trump on issues where we disagree. It still doesn't excuse acting like court jesters inventing laws and peddling conspiracy theories when he can be legitimately criticized on any number of fronts from AHCA to twitter to inappropriate conversation to foreign policy to going overboard on fake news. The search function is open to you want to correct your understanding of my posting history.
|
On June 16 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 19:23 micronesia wrote:On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:
I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. I've heard this proposed by @realDonaldTrump but I haven't been told anywhere what crime Comey might have committed. Do you know? Why are Trump and his supporters discussing how it might have been a crime? Either what he released was legal to release, or it was not. I just can't wrap my head around what makes it illegal. If the president calls me while I'm at work in my government job, and tells me "the sky is red" and I write down "trump said the sky is read on x date and time on a phone call with me" and then 'leak' that memo, is that illegal? If not, then obviously the content of the released information must have been illegal to release (e.g., classified), otherwise Comey couldn't have committed a crime by leaking his memo. So, what information was in the memo that was illegal to release to the public? Perhaps it's illegal to release information Trump says that makes Trump sound bad? You need a lawyer to see through. There's good arguments on both sides. His memos on privileged conversations made in the course of his official position in the government are subject to records acts such as 18 USC 641. It was done with the attempt to force an independent counsel. He transmitted government information and property to a private citizen for the purpose of leaking its contents to the media, which was done. Private citizens (Comey's first defense) are not free to take government property and leak it. The special counsel conducting the criminal investigation has also sought/received memos including Comey's properties for conduct of the criminal investigation. It could be expected to be part of the criminal investigation, and leaking it during the course of a criminal investigation when you have reason to believe that the special counsel may want that information, could well be obstruction. Former FBI directors should know better than to deliberately leak the contents of a government document in hopes to prompt an investigation (and maybe you say this illegal act was justified extra-judicially which is a fine point to make). Comey ALSO was asked (senate judiciary committee, under oath) if he was ever an anonymous source for leaks in the Clinton email/Russia, he said no. He was asked whether he had ever authorized others to be anonymous sources on his behalf, and Comey also said no. Was that false testimony under oath? You can google the statute (cited by a liberal Turley, good to see a few like Dershowitz coming around), his testimony, and various lawyers commenting on it beyond Trump's lawyer. I don't know how much you're interested on pursuing this on your own with an open mind, but there you have the outline and there's good arguments against too that you'll find.
I assume you're talking about separate leaks by Comey, right? Because he appeared in front of the Senate Judiciary committee on May 3rd. The Comey memos were only leaked after May 12th. There's no perjury there. Unless I missed a second Senate Judiciary committee meeting (was this the June 6th one?)
Edit: It's also pretty clearly not literal perjury because sending the memos =/= to be an anonymous source
Edit2: I also can't help but think if it IS the June 6th one that Comey would be nowhere near dumb enough to contradict his own testimony in a perjury way 2 days later
Edit3: I'm now nearly 100% sure it was the May 3rd hearing judging by this article. Unless he got asked again. Anyone saying he perjured himself there needs to look at a calendar.
|
On June 16 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 19:23 micronesia wrote:On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:
I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. I've heard this proposed by @realDonaldTrump but I haven't been told anywhere what crime Comey might have committed. Do you know? Why are Trump and his supporters discussing how it might have been a crime? Either what he released was legal to release, or it was not. I just can't wrap my head around what makes it illegal. If the president calls me while I'm at work in my government job, and tells me "the sky is red" and I write down "trump said the sky is read on x date and time on a phone call with me" and then 'leak' that memo, is that illegal? If not, then obviously the content of the released information must have been illegal to release (e.g., classified), otherwise Comey couldn't have committed a crime by leaking his memo. So, what information was in the memo that was illegal to release to the public? Perhaps it's illegal to release information Trump says that makes Trump sound bad? You need a lawyer to see through. There's good arguments on both sides. His memos on privileged conversations made in the course of his official position in the government are subject to records acts such as 18 USC 641. It was done with the attempt to force an independent counsel. He transmitted government information and property to a private citizen for the purpose of leaking its contents to the media, which was done. Private citizens (Comey's first defense) are not free to take government property and leak it. The special counsel conducting the criminal investigation has also sought/received memos including Comey's properties for conduct of the criminal investigation. It could be expected to be part of the criminal investigation, and leaking it during the course of a criminal investigation when you have reason to believe that the special counsel may want that information, could well be obstruction. Former FBI directors should know better than to deliberately leak the contents of a government document in hopes to prompt an investigation (and maybe you say this illegal act was justified extra-judicially which is a fine point to make). Comey ALSO was asked (senate judiciary committee, under oath) if he was ever an anonymous source for leaks in the Clinton email/Russia, he said no. He was asked whether he had ever authorized others to be anonymous sources on his behalf, and Comey also said no. Was that false testimony under oath? You can google the statute (cited by a liberal Turley, good to see a few like Dershowitz coming around), his testimony, and various lawyers commenting on it beyond Trump's lawyer. I don't know how much you're interested on pursuing this on your own with an open mind, but there you have the outline and there's good arguments against too that you'll find.
The cited regulation is stealing government property, which is valid. However, that regulation bases the punishment on the value of the property that was stolen and with the intent personal gain. It specifically states using the stolen goods to be converted into personal gain. Unless Comey signs a really dope book deal during the investigation, I wouldn’t hold my breath on any AG trying to bring that charge against Comey.
|
Canada13404 Posts
On June 16 2017 00:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:23 micronesia wrote:On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:
I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. I've heard this proposed by @realDonaldTrump but I haven't been told anywhere what crime Comey might have committed. Do you know? Why are Trump and his supporters discussing how it might have been a crime? Either what he released was legal to release, or it was not. I just can't wrap my head around what makes it illegal. If the president calls me while I'm at work in my government job, and tells me "the sky is red" and I write down "trump said the sky is read on x date and time on a phone call with me" and then 'leak' that memo, is that illegal? If not, then obviously the content of the released information must have been illegal to release (e.g., classified), otherwise Comey couldn't have committed a crime by leaking his memo. So, what information was in the memo that was illegal to release to the public? Perhaps it's illegal to release information Trump says that makes Trump sound bad? You need a lawyer to see through. There's good arguments on both sides. His memos on privileged conversations made in the course of his official position in the government are subject to records acts such as 18 USC 641. It was done with the attempt to force an independent counsel. He transmitted government information and property to a private citizen for the purpose of leaking its contents to the media, which was done. Private citizens (Comey's first defense) are not free to take government property and leak it. The special counsel conducting the criminal investigation has also sought/received memos including Comey's properties for conduct of the criminal investigation. It could be expected to be part of the criminal investigation, and leaking it during the course of a criminal investigation when you have reason to believe that the special counsel may want that information, could well be obstruction. Former FBI directors should know better than to deliberately leak the contents of a government document in hopes to prompt an investigation (and maybe you say this illegal act was justified extra-judicially which is a fine point to make). Comey ALSO was asked (senate judiciary committee, under oath) if he was ever an anonymous source for leaks in the Clinton email/Russia, he said no. He was asked whether he had ever authorized others to be anonymous sources on his behalf, and Comey also said no. Was that false testimony under oath? You can google the statute (cited by a liberal Turley, good to see a few like Dershowitz coming around), his testimony, and various lawyers commenting on it beyond Trump's lawyer. I don't know how much you're interested on pursuing this on your own with an open mind, but there you have the outline and there's good arguments against too that you'll find. I assume you're talking about separate leaks by Comey, right? Because he appeared in front of the Senate Judiciary committee on May 3rd. The Comey memos were only leaked after May 12th. There's no perjury there. Unless I missed a second Senate Judiciary committee meeting (was this the June 6th one?) Edit: It's also pretty clearly not literal perjury because sending the memos =/= to be an anonymous source
And if the records act is anything like it is in Canada, an unclassified personal memo is not a government document in any sort of official/bureaucratic sense.
And does it really matter how he provided his memos? I mean even if it was wrong and he faces consequences, the content of those memos does not change and the necessary outcome of that content, likewise, remains the same.
I mean a bunch of the information that took Nixon down was the result of leaks and sources. That didn't change what happened to him did it?
|
On June 16 2017 00:24 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 00:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 16 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:23 micronesia wrote:On June 15 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:
I mean for god's sakes Comey might have even committed a crime leaking government property. I've heard this proposed by @realDonaldTrump but I haven't been told anywhere what crime Comey might have committed. Do you know? Why are Trump and his supporters discussing how it might have been a crime? Either what he released was legal to release, or it was not. I just can't wrap my head around what makes it illegal. If the president calls me while I'm at work in my government job, and tells me "the sky is red" and I write down "trump said the sky is read on x date and time on a phone call with me" and then 'leak' that memo, is that illegal? If not, then obviously the content of the released information must have been illegal to release (e.g., classified), otherwise Comey couldn't have committed a crime by leaking his memo. So, what information was in the memo that was illegal to release to the public? Perhaps it's illegal to release information Trump says that makes Trump sound bad? You need a lawyer to see through. There's good arguments on both sides. His memos on privileged conversations made in the course of his official position in the government are subject to records acts such as 18 USC 641. It was done with the attempt to force an independent counsel. He transmitted government information and property to a private citizen for the purpose of leaking its contents to the media, which was done. Private citizens (Comey's first defense) are not free to take government property and leak it. The special counsel conducting the criminal investigation has also sought/received memos including Comey's properties for conduct of the criminal investigation. It could be expected to be part of the criminal investigation, and leaking it during the course of a criminal investigation when you have reason to believe that the special counsel may want that information, could well be obstruction. Former FBI directors should know better than to deliberately leak the contents of a government document in hopes to prompt an investigation (and maybe you say this illegal act was justified extra-judicially which is a fine point to make). Comey ALSO was asked (senate judiciary committee, under oath) if he was ever an anonymous source for leaks in the Clinton email/Russia, he said no. He was asked whether he had ever authorized others to be anonymous sources on his behalf, and Comey also said no. Was that false testimony under oath? You can google the statute (cited by a liberal Turley, good to see a few like Dershowitz coming around), his testimony, and various lawyers commenting on it beyond Trump's lawyer. I don't know how much you're interested on pursuing this on your own with an open mind, but there you have the outline and there's good arguments against too that you'll find. I assume you're talking about separate leaks by Comey, right? Because he appeared in front of the Senate Judiciary committee on May 3rd. The Comey memos were only leaked after May 12th. There's no perjury there. Unless I missed a second Senate Judiciary committee meeting (was this the June 6th one?) Edit: It's also pretty clearly not literal perjury because sending the memos =/= to be an anonymous source And if the records act is anything like it is in Canada, an unclassified personal memo is not a government document in any sort of official/bureaucratic sense. And does it really matter how he provided his memos? I mean even if it was wrong and he faces consequences, the content of those memos does not change and the necessary outcome of that content, likewise, remains the same. I mean a bunch of the information that took Nixon down was the result of leaks and sources. That didn't change what happened to him did it?
I think the memo would be considered work product, since it was Comey recording his interactions with the president in his official capacity of FBI direction. He had clear intent in creating it, which as to memorialize the interaction in writing to be used as evidence later. In that sense, it is a government record.
But making a photo copy of it wouldn’t strictly be considered stealing. The value of the document is not diminished through copying it and its existence is not classified. He did not personally gain anything by leaking it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
