US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Méo

What are you insinuating?

[vienna]

Interesting aspects to the statement read by Trump's personal attorney:

1) Trump is "vindicated" because Comey has now publicly stated he told Trump three times Trump was not a subject of the Russian influence/interference probe, however...

2) Comey's testimony is unreliable because he lies...

Perplexing...

...given how Senate investigatory panel members, from both parties, lauded and praised Comey for his career-long reputation and his record of being forthright...

...I guess the only person who doesn't share that view is the guy in the Oval Office wildly flailing to save what's left of his failure of a presidency...

Boils down to this; who do you trust more to tell the truth: a career law enforcement and justice official with as near to an impeccable record as you could find; or, someone with a long, long track record of lying, double-dealing, and crass disregard for facts if they do not suit his purpose...

Let's expand a bit: what would you think of someone whose reputation is so bad, at least four prominent law firms refused to represent him, not only because of the nature of his case, but because he has a very long record and reputation of not honoring his debts?...

Of note is something that seemed to slide by in Comey's testimony: all of Comey's memos and any other documentation regarding his interactions with Trump are now in the hands of the Special Counsel (Prosecutor) and are now within the purview of his investigations:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...se-file-239319

So, I guess, if Trump were to ask if he is the target of a criminal investigation now, the answer would be...Yes...

An interesting analysis of the Trump camp's reactions to Comey's testimony:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...failed/529743/



<O>

[vienna]

This was something I noticed when Trump's attorney was reading his statement, but I wanted to see if any of the press caught this glaring lie er.. , um... 'misstatement":

In his effort to undercut former FBI director James Comey’s Senate testimony Thursday, President Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, appears to have misstated the sequence of two crucial events in the ongoing probe of the administration: Trump’s now infamous tweet implying he may have tapes of his conversations with Comey, and a New York Times article disclosing the existence of Comey’s memos about his meetings with the president.

Trump’s lawyer cites a questionable timeline in disputing Comey --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-la...211953908.html

I guess Trump can use this snafu as a reason not to pay this lawyer's bill, too...



<O>

[Dowly]

I think someone finally took Trump's phone away, he hasn't tweeted since Wednesday.

EDIT: Oops, spoke too soon.

[Rockstar]

Wow you found the missing pieces and cracked the case Sherlock.

According to Alan Dershowitz you're the problem, you're the one destroying this country from within. And ya know what? I think he's right. Working for Putin aren't ya. Lol

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

[Dowly]

Who the hell are you talking to?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I think someone finally took Trump's phone away, he hasn't tweeted since Wednesday.

EDIT: Oops, spoke too soon.

Required a recharge. He is back.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by eddie

Aint it interesting that Reagen rented out the Lincoln bedroom too, and that his stupid head of the Dept of the Interior had a New Years Eve party in the Custis-Lee Mansion, Oh yeah, Republicans are all about honor and respect!

Who did Reagan put in the Lincoln bedroom? Lawmakers like Obama? If so he also would be much more guilty of overstepping his bounds than Trump. Saying "I hope the investigation can be dropped" isn't saying "close the investigation no matter what the facts are." The President has even that authority you know, but that isn't what he said. It was sympathetic conversation "Comey's a nice guy, you know that. I hope he can be cleared. It would be a shame if he did anything wrong."

Trump had exactly that conversation in the public arena before, so his Comey conversation is in agreement with his state of mind hating to see a good man go down. Comey, by the way, agreed with Trump. Comey, by the way did not register a complaint as he was legally required to do if he thought the President was committing any kind of offense during the conversation.

So Trump is completely vindicated in this one, 100% clear of the plot to impeach on that. Get used to it. There's more of that to come and more corrections from the news media who release the damning evidence before it isn't found. News reporting is as dead as Latin. It just doesn't exist any longer.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by eddie

Aint it interesting that Reagen rented out the Lincoln bedroom too, and that his stupid head of the Dept of the Interior had a New Years Eve party in the Custis-Lee Mansion, Oh yeah, Republicans are all about honor and respect!

Wrong on both counts

Republicans are not all about honor and respect. Evil is an equal opportunity employer.

And according to the Washington Post, the Lincoln Bedroom started being used for contribution extraction by Bill Clinton (no surprise there), who established the precedent after Reagan's presidency. Sorry you strike out there:

Evan S. Dobelle, who was President Jimmy Carter's finance chairman in 1980 and now is president of Trinity College in Connecticut, said: "The world has changed in the sense that people on both sides of the aisle have been caught up in a situation that I'm unaccustomed to and not used to. I can't suggest whether it's ethical, moral or legal. All I'm saying is that we didn't do it and we could have. . . . Carter set a tone that you wouldn't even consider it."

When the office of former president George Bush released a list of the 284 overnight guests during his four years in office that included only a few major contributors, his spokesman Jim McGrath issued a statement that said: "President Bush asked me to reiterate that there was never any solicitation, either direct or indirect, made of the Bushes' guests to make political contributions. Furthermore, no staff or political committee member ever suggested that the Bushes invite someone to stay in the White House based on past or future fund-raising activities."

A spokeswoman for the Reagan office in Los Angeles said contributors were not invited to stay overnight at the White House during the Reagan presidency. "Family members stayed at the White House and a handful of longtime personal friends," said Joanne Drake, chief of staff for Reagan's office and a former member of the advance staff in the Reagan White House. "Use of the Lincoln Bedroom was never made available to anyone on the basis of past or future contributions. It simply wasn't done."

By the way the Lincoln Bedroom is part of the guest suite at the White House and its use for purposes not involving contribution extraction can be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Wow you found the missing pieces and cracked the case Sherlock.

According to Alan Dershowitz you're the problem, you're the one destroying this country from within. And ya know what? I think he's right. Working for Putin aren't ya. Lol

In case anyone wanted know where this came from (always handy when trying to make a point), here is a link to the source:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...are-wrong.html

Yes, the President has a right to direct the FBI and/or the Justice Department as he wishes, but, as with any right, it is not absolute. The President cannot exert his right in an effort to obstruct a lawful investigation of potentially criminal actions, particularly if those actions are, so to speak, "close to home". This is true no matter what level of authority: a mayor cannot order a chief-of-police to stop a criminal corruption investigation into his administration; he may have the right to do so, being the chief's 'boss', but the law prohibits obstruction of justice and the law supersedes whatever putative rights the mayor may have, particularly if the mayor is acting in a manner so as to evade possible prosecution as either an actor in the original crime or as an accessory after the fact. As with many other rights, its not that you have them, its how and why you choose to exercise them, and exerting a right to conceal, abet, or obstruct is still a crime no matter what the reason. Nixon had the right to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973, but his reasons for doing so led to a House Committee recommending impeachment charges of obstruction of justice against Nixon. The "why" of Nixon's actions mattered as much, if not more, than the "what" of his actions ...

A right is a right until it becomes a crime...



<O>

[Platapus]

Just like with the handling of classified information, the President has considerable (but not unlimited) authority over federal investigations. However, he can't make these types of decisions casually and undocumented.

The President has, under the Clemency Powers, the right to grant special amnesty for any person who is accused, or may be accused of violating specific types of federal laws. More specifically against "crimes against the United States" (not all federal crimes are crimes against the United States which is why Clemency Power is not unlimited). But that granting of Amnesty is an official act that requires documentation and publication into the official records.

BTW: Technically, granting a special Amnesty Order does not actually stop the investigation it just means that the United States will not prosecute. So the investigation might as well stop. It is one of those de facto vs de jour things.

This is the same type of issue we had with Trump handing classified information. As President he has Original Classification Authority and can make a decision to release any US controlled information to any person.. but he can't do it casually. It has to be an official act backed up with documentation and publication in the appropriate records.

Other than using his Clemency Powers, can the president order someone else to drop an already existing federal investigation?

In true American Jurisdictional manner the answer is a simple Yes, no, and perhaps maybe.

The answer is Yes...

Unless the investigation is about the President, then the answer is no....

Unless the investigation might be about the President, than the answer is maybe.

Ordinarily, the answer would be yes, unless the investigation involved the President him or herself, then the answer would no or maybe. The SCotUS has not ruled on this specifically.

It would depend on whether the president was guilty of obstructing justice. What's that mean?

Well 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 states in its entirety

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or


Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—


Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

The underlined word "corruptly" is one of the key issues.



The president can, in effect "obstruct justice" by just using his powers of office to call for either a stoppage of a federal investigation or simply by using his powers of clemency issue a special amnesty order.


But he can't do this "corruptly". Proving corruptness means proving intent and that is not always easy. However, if it can be proved that the president attempted to stop a federal investigation that could have reasonably resulted in an article of impeachment against the president, that would be pretty good evidence of corruptness in this context.



In the current case, the defense will attempt to demonstrate that since the President was not the focus of the investigation that there can not be any corruptness on the part of the president. The prosecution will argue that the president had a vested interest in this investigation being stopped and ultimately someone will have to decide.


The National Review published a pretty good article on this.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...justice-system


Bottom line?


This ain't over. As a matter of fact, the Fat Lady has not even arrived at the opera house yet.

[ikalugin]

but he can't do it casually.

Can't or shouldn't?

[vienna]

Both...



<O>

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Can't or shouldn't?

Can't but he probably has minions to handle the paperwork.

[Platapus]

In the year 2017



Actually, I would rather have George Bush back in office now. And that's saying a lot considering how I felt about the Bush administration.