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.

06-07-2017 , 11:46 AM
these clowns are getting hammered by the Senator from Maine.

06-07-2017 , 11:46 AM
i wish cnn stood for classified news network so i could get some goddamn answers
06-07-2017 , 11:46 AM
"never felt pressured"

RWNs already picking up on this, no obstruction there!
06-07-2017 , 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
Вы знаете, что вы являетесь одним из видных односторонних туннелей, когда вы даже не можете видеть, что обе стороны участвуют в демонической земле выжженной земли с другой стороны.

Поговорите с людьми посередине, теми, кто видит и понимает излишества с обеих сторон, вы знаете, все эти качающиеся избиратели там, они более восприимчивы, чем вы думаете.
You know that you are one of the prominent one-way tunnels, when you can not even see that both sides are participating in the demonic land of scorched earth on the other side.

Talk to the people in the middle, those who see and understand the excesses on both sides, you know, all these voters are swinging there, they are more receptive than you think.
06-07-2017 , 11:49 AM
Alright I've wasted enough time on this garbage, these clowns want to remain employed and that's it. Time to do productive stuff.
06-07-2017 , 11:49 AM
Who was that just asking if they would answer the questions during the closed session?!!?
WOW that was some heat
06-07-2017 , 11:49 AM
It's a fair point. Why is it appropriate for them to say they've never felt pressured, but not appropriate to answer whether they've ever been asked?
06-07-2017 , 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippa58
Senator King taking McCabe to task.
how so?
06-07-2017 , 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippa58
And the reason for these public hearings is what? If nobody feels like they can speak about anything important in an open hearing, then don't bother boring us with insignificant crap. You can do that behind closed doors too.
It's a public hearing about the reauthorization of a law that sunsets. Most hearings in Congress are public, for obvious reason. It's not a hearing into the Russia investigation or Trump's efforts to obstruct, but some of the answers have been telling. A lot of legally baseless confidentiality assertions, but Congress cannot really make them testify if they refuse (at least without a vote compelling the testimony).
06-07-2017 , 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theballer84
Who was that just asking if they would answer the questions during the closed session?!!?
WOW that was some heat
Angus King (I-ME)
06-07-2017 , 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
Angus King (I-ME)
06-07-2017 , 11:54 AM
re: Trump's twitter account being a public forum

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l-as-they-say/

Quote:
[the Knight First Amendment Institute] sent a letter to the president on Tuesday requesting that he unblock two particular users: O’Reilly and Papp. It was signed by the Knight Institute’s founding director Jameel Jaffer and senior Knight Institute attorneys Katie Fallow and Alex Abdo.

The Knight Institute claimed that a space doesn’t have to be physical to constituent a forum — instead it could be “metaphysical.” As its letter said:

Your account constitutes a designated public forum. It is a forum for expression in which you share information and opinions relating to government policy with the public at large and in which members of the public can engage you, engage one another, and sometimes elicit responses from you. Your Twitter account is a designated public forum for essentially the same reasons that open city council meetings and school board meetings are.

That’s key, because if that’s the case and the government has created a public forum, “it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint.”
06-07-2017 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
how so?
He went after all of them..about their unwillingness to share key information about Trump and his purported attempts at obstruction of justice.
06-07-2017 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
she said "thank you"

she phrased the question one way and it didn't really make any sense, so he asked her to clarify/re-phrase. basically it seemed like she was trying to paint the picture that the IC is biased against trump (?) because it cooperated with obama's intel request in january about russian electin meddling but later refused trump's request for intel about russian collusion. i mean clearly they're not going to provide trump with certain classified intel related to collusion between his campaign and russians because it compromises their investigation. hilariously, i think she legit didn't know/realize that.

edit: by rogers responding the way he did, he basically confirmed that trump and/or his senior admin members asked the NSA to do something they considered "illegal, immoral, or unethical" when they made a request for intel wrt russian collusion


tyty appreciate it. amazing stupidity
06-07-2017 , 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
how so?
hard to summarize in a post. look for the YT vid in about an hour or so.
06-07-2017 , 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
It's a public hearing about the reauthorization of a law that sunsets. Most hearings in Congress are public, for obvious reason. It's not a hearing into the Russia investigation or Trump's efforts to obstruct, but some of the answers have been telling. A lot of legally baseless confidentiality assertions, but Congress cannot really make them testify if they refuse (at least without a vote compelling the testimony).
I get that. Just frustrating because it seems that these guys should realize they work for us, and it would be okay to tell us a few things.
06-07-2017 , 11:58 AM
Legal question: is it witness harassment for Trump to run ads attacking Comey?
06-07-2017 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Legal question: is it witness harassment for Trump to run ads attacking Comey?
I think the answer is "only if Congress says so"
06-07-2017 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Legal question: is it witness harassment for Trump to run ads attacking Comey?
Probably only if they're false or inflammatory. Which they are, of course.
06-07-2017 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Legal question: is it witness harassment for Trump to run ads attacking Comey?
is the orange menace running the ads?
06-07-2017 , 12:21 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...27222392504320

Hard to trust anything he says anymore. I wonder if Trumpcare will have "victims" the way Obamacare does.
06-07-2017 , 12:26 PM
the anti-Comey ads are from a PAC
06-07-2017 , 12:29 PM
McCain more than disturbed. Is this progress?
06-07-2017 , 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miajag
the anti-Comey ads are from a PAC
Same as the ones they're inexplicably running on MSNBC during primetime touting the awesomeness of CoathangerCare
06-07-2017 , 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by superleeds
McCain more than disturbed. Is this progress?
McCain has a beef with Trump ever since he said he wasn't a hero.

      
m