Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

05-22-2017 , 06:28 PM
Uh

05-22-2017 , 06:29 PM
Time for your daily Trump scandal!
Quote:
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Quote:
A senior intelligence official said that Trump’s goal was to “muddy the waters” about the scope of the FBI probe at a time when Democrats were ramping up their calls for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, a step announced last week.

Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.

“The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats.
Quote:
In addition to the requests to Coats and Rogers, senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, according to people familiar with the matter. The officials said the White House appeared uncertain about its power to influence the FBI.

“Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?” one official said of the line of questioning from the White House.
Isn't that similar to what Nixon did or at least planned to do?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.00a3a7328d73
05-22-2017 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
I think the US has to walk an extremely delicate line when it comes to Iran.
Quote:
Re: The Presidency of Donald J. Trump
Yeah, good luck USA.
05-22-2017 , 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Time for your daily Trump scandal!


Isn't that similar to what Nixon did or at least planned to do?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.00a3a7328d73
Republicans actually had the steel balls to claim "there is no evidence for obstruction so far" on TV this weekend. Sigh.
05-22-2017 , 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Time for your daily Trump scandal!






Isn't that similar to what Nixon did or at least planned to do?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.00a3a7328d73
That's not a ****ing scandal, that's pure obstruction. It's impeachable, and the ball is in the repubs courts now. Solid testimony from the intelligence community.
05-22-2017 , 06:40 PM
Finally some good news. Strange alliance but at least the right of SCOTUS don't vote as a block all times.

This seems like a huge win for progressives.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...stricting.html
05-22-2017 , 06:41 PM
05-22-2017 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004
I would rather be the guy who mops up cum at at $5 peep show than be Trumps lawyer on this. Has to be worst job in America.
05-22-2017 , 06:44 PM
Re: The Presidency of Donald J. Trump
Manchester "bombing" is Fake News

Why do you say that?
05-22-2017 , 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004
That's not a ****ing scandal, that's pure obstruction. It's impeachable, and the ball is in the repubs courts now. Solid testimony from the intelligence community.
Indeed.

Question: It seems most lawyers believe Mueller can't prosecute the President directly. But I am unclear on whether or not he can issue a report to congress showing the evidence for obstruction of justice. I've seen some people on TV say yes and some say no. Any ideas on this?

Apparently a report like this was done during Watergate, but only because Nixon was considered a co-conspirator in the actual prosecutions?
05-22-2017 , 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatkid
Re: The Presidency of Donald J. Trump
Manchester "bombing" is Fake News

Why do you say that?
I see Twitter reports of 2 loud bangs and injured people, lots of police.
05-22-2017 , 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoltinJake
Indeed.

Question: It seems most lawyers believe Mueller can't prosecute the President directly. But I am unclear on whether or not he can issue a report to congress showing the evidence for obstruction of justice. I've seen some people on TV say yes and some say no. Any ideas on this?

Apparently a report like this was done during Watergate, but only because Nixon was considered a co-conspirator in the actual prosecutions?
I'm certainly no constitutional lawyer but I don't think he can be charged by anyone directly. Impeachment requires charges by the senate which requires 2/3 amd only occurrs after the house has agreed with a majority.
05-22-2017 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoltinJake
Indeed.

Question: It seems most lawyers believe Mueller can't prosecute the President directly. But I am unclear on whether or not he can issue a report to congress showing the evidence for obstruction of justice. I've seen some people on TV say yes and some say no. Any ideas on this?

Apparently a report like this was done during Watergate, but only because Nixon was considered a co-conspirator in the actual prosecutions?
From what I heard, no. For that, it's a special council or whatever Ken Starr was. That position can't be fired by the executive and reports to congress. Mueller is basically a deputized FBI agent when they need someone from outside the organization, but he still falls under the umbrella of the executive.
05-22-2017 , 07:02 PM
05-22-2017 , 07:04 PM
Gotta ****ing love FOX. They move at a snail's pace on anything Trump related but by God, they are on top of this attack in England.
05-22-2017 , 07:04 PM
confirmed deaths at the concert apparently
05-22-2017 , 07:06 PM
Fox PRAYING this is terror attack while literally no one else covering it. Hysterical and sad.
05-22-2017 , 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatkid
Re: The Presidency of Donald J. Trump
Manchester "bombing" is Fake News

Why do you say that?
Given that it happened at the very end of the concert, it could very easily be a pyrotechnic or electrical problem that led to this rather than terrorism. Perhaps some fireworks were supposed to go off or something like that and it blew up in their faces.
05-22-2017 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
My bad. He must've ran fresh out of scruples when it came time for Snowden.
Criticizing progress is a really poor way of encouraging progress.
05-22-2017 , 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooders0n
Fox PRAYING this is terror attack while literally no one else covering it. Hysterical and sad.
Hannety probably jizzed in his pants thinking "hopefully lots of people died!"
05-22-2017 , 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
Hannety probably jizzed in his pants thinking "hopefully lots of people died!"
Probably.

Deaths make news. If that guy in NYC killed the people he only injured, it'd still be the top story.
05-22-2017 , 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
Finally some good news. Strange alliance but at least the right of SCOTUS don't vote as a block all times.

This seems like a huge win for progressives.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...stricting.html
As I said earlier, it's not as strange a coalition as you might think. It's not that unusual for a liberal justice to vote with conservative colleagues, or vice versa.

Scalia wrote some very good 4th Amendment decisions. And I'm sure that most posters on this site would disagree with John Paul Stevens's views on flag burning. It really depends on the issue.

SCOTUS decision making is politicized, but less so than most assume.
05-22-2017 , 07:23 PM
I thought i heard there had been some studies on supreme court decisions that found it to be very non partisan.
05-22-2017 , 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
Given that it happened at the very end of the concert, it could very easily be a pyrotechnic or electrical problem that led to this rather than terrorism. Perhaps some fireworks were supposed to go off or something like that and it blew up in their faces.
Much more likely to be terrorism, I think anyone would agree based on early reports and images coming out.
05-22-2017 , 07:29 PM
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.dc1ef582768a

      
m