Comey's opening statement is out.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.

Is this "gotcha" or "obtuse"?  I lose track. 

That thing needs a coder to read.

[GMDino]

(06-09-2017, 10:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That thing needs a coder to read.

For some reason the color codes that copied from the original article show up in the quote but not when I post.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 10:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://newrepublic.com/article/143184/trump-ignorant-guilty-hes-ignorant-president



So while to some he may have appeared to be the perfect outsider, instead he is exactly what he seemed to be on the campaign trail: Stuck in doing things "his way" and unwilling to learn how to do things within the framework of the government that helps avoid things like needing a special prosecutor to determine how badly things were done.

The rule of law says he can direct investigations, so maybe he does understand it.  Congress pass laws to limit his powers?  Someone doesn't understand the rule of law.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 10:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: For some reason the color codes that copied from the original article show up in the quote but not when I post.

ahhhh

[JustWinBaby]

(06-09-2017, 09:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yep, "evidence". 

LOL, "not a smidgeon of corruption"....."no there there".....Your partisan ability to completely ignore facts and reality is adorable.

[Bengalzona]

(06-09-2017, 10:12 AM)Dill Wrote: That is the essence of any clearance--not whether the subject has been in the military or whatever.

But I am thinking she must have had SOME level of clearance already to be doing what she was doing.

When you get to NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. level, there is an entire spectrum of specialized identifiers beyond just top secret. When you are at that level of the intelligence biz, it is a whole new ballgame (so to speak). Your standard TS (which I had) does not mean a whole hill of beans in that world. You need specialized identifier showing that you have a need to know. And unlike the standard military three (classified, secret and top secret), there is no more generalization. For example, an Army officer could move from unit to unit and be able to access the new unit's TS documents without having to renew the clearance (although you do have to periodically renew it) because he has a TS clearance and a need to know. At NSA level, a person working on say satellite imagery would need a new security clearance if she took a new position in say human intel. Specialization and compartmentalizing: the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Only a handful of people know all or most of what is going on at a big organization like NSA or the FBI.

Some positions at NSA, FBI, etc. require psyche profiles. Not enough, IMO. Especially when it comes to contractors. Which leads me to my next big soapbox: too many g** d*** f****** contractors!

BTW - My comment about her was mainly about her name. But I come from old school military where no one would have an issue with saying, "Reality Winner?!?! WTF is that? Some kinda new game show?!?!?!"

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2017, 10:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The rule of law says he can direct investigations, so maybe he does understand it.  Congress pass laws to limit his powers?  Someone doesn't understand the rule of law.

So, I'm not sitting here and saying that Trump is guilty of obstruction, I am merely discussing a hypothetical situation. So before anyone's knickers get in a twist, I just want to put that out there.

Yes, the POTUS has the discretion to direct investigations. But, this does not mean that the POTUS is exempt from the idea of obstruction of justice in doing so. Were a POTUS to have an investigation ended, or even impede one in any way, and Congress felt something was off about it, they could bring proceedings forward for impeachment based on obstruction of justice. The idea of justice being served is above the office of the POTUS, so if Congress feels that the POTUS obstructed justice with their actions, even if they are powers of the executive, then Congress can rightfully impeach on those grounds.

I know this isn't the greatest comparison, but we grant police powers to officers. If they use their authority incorrectly then there is a check to that process. They may be allowed to do something in a broad sense, but abuse of that power is still illegal and there are mechanisms in place to handle that situation. Those mechanisms exist all the way through our government, from the part-time greeter at your local town office all the way to Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS. They have broad authority, but if it is abused it can still be deemed illegal by another branch and they can be punished for it.

[Dill]

(06-09-2017, 11:11 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Some positions at NSA, FBI, etc. require psyche profiles. Not enough, IMO. Especially when it comes to contractors. Which leads me to my next big soapbox: too many g** d*** f****** contractors!

Now Zona, you know that government cannot do anything right. Therefore, it makes sense to contract out all manner of formerly military work to honest American corporations ready to place the profit motive in service of the American people.

Get that taxpayer money out of the government's hands and put it back in the pockets of the people. Some people, anyway. Contractors who work for the government and corporations who lobby for government work.

What could go wrong?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 11:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I'm not sitting here and saying that Trump is guilty of obstruction, I am merely discussing a hypothetical situation. So before anyone's knickers get in a twist, I just want to put that out there.

Yes, the POTUS has the discretion to direct investigations. But, this does not mean that the POTUS is exempt from the idea of obstruction of justice in doing so. Were a POTUS to have an investigation ended, or even impede one in any way, and Congress felt something was off about it, they could bring proceedings forward for impeachment based on obstruction of justice. The idea of justice being served is above the office of the POTUS, so if Congress feels that the POTUS obstructed justice with their actions, even if they are powers of the executive, then Congress can rightfully impeach on those grounds.

I know this isn't the greatest comparison, but we grant police powers to officers. If they use their authority incorrectly then there is a check to that process. They may be allowed to do something in a broad sense, but abuse of that power is still illegal and there are mechanisms in place to handle that situation. Those mechanisms exist all the way through our government, from the part-time greeter at your local town office all the way to Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS. They have broad authority, but if it is abused it can still be deemed illegal by another branch and they can be punished for it.

Well yeah Congress can decide anything they want with enough votes. There is no court of appeals. If they decide he obstructed justice, even if he doesn't meet the legal requirements, they can impeach and oust him.  The protection being the high number of votes needed for removal.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 11:11 AM)Bengalzona Wrote:  

BTW - My comment about her was mainly about her name. But I come from old school military where no one would have an issue with saying, "Reality Winner?!?! WTF is that? Some kinda new game show?!?!?!"

 Sorry. Name fail.  It's the first thing we check.

[GMDino]

(06-09-2017, 10:49 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, "not a smidgeon of corruption"....."no there there".....Your partisan ability to completely ignore facts and reality is adorable.

I'm simply saying that so far I've seen multiple posts in this thread about how Obama or the Clinton's were worse and had all these "scandals" than were never investigated...and no specifics.  Or any acknowledgement of all the investigations into the Clintons or the all the investigations and hearings done by the GOP controlled congress for six years.

But yep, I'm the partisan one.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2017, 11:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well yeah Congress can decide anything they want with enough votes. There is no court of appeals. If they decide he obstructed justice, even if he doesn't meet the legal requirements, they can impeach and oust him.  The protection being the high number of votes needed for removal.

What I am saying, and maybe I didn't clarify this well enough, the POTUS impeding an investigation can meet the legal requirements for obstruction.

[Bengalzona]

(06-09-2017, 11:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  Sorry. Name fail.  It's the first thing we check.

My drill sergeant would have been all over that. I could hear him now:

"Reality Winner?!?!?! Yo baby mama name you that? Or did you think it up on yo own and decide to name yoself that?"

After 8 weeks of it, she would have wanted to change her name!

[Dill]

(06-09-2017, 11:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, the POTUS has the discretion to direct investigations. But, this does not mean that the POTUS is exempt from the idea of obstruction of justice in doing so. Were a POTUS to have an investigation ended, or even impede one in any way, and Congress felt something was off about it, they could bring proceedings forward for impeachment based on obstruction of justice. The idea of justice being served is above the office of the POTUS, so if Congress feels that the POTUS obstructed justice with their actions, even if they are powers of the executive, then Congress can rightfully impeach on those grounds.

Well explained, Bels. Though I would add that in the case of the POTUS, it very difficult to penalize obstruction. The punishment, impeachment, is so consequential for party and country that the offense has to be both blatant and serious enough to secure bipartisan agreement, and that in turn often requires loss of public support for a president.

Thus, unlike obstruction at other levels of government, prosecution of a president requires a complex alignment of usually counter interests. It is quite possible that in Trump's case even more evidence of obstruction emerges over the next two weeks, and there might still be no indictment referred to the House, and if there is, no conviction.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2017, 11:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I am saying, and maybe I didn't clarify this well enough, the POTUS impeding an investigation can meet the legal requirements for obstruction.

If you read the Dershowitz column I put, he thinks manipulating (ala Nixon) would come closer than just flat out ending it.  He asked what if Trump just pardoned Flynn effectively ending the investigation on him.  Can you impeach him for exercising his constitutionally given powers?  One would hope not.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-09-2017, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm simply saying that so far I've seen multiple posts in this thread about how Obama or the Clinton's were worse and had all these "scandals" than were never investigated...and no specifics.  Or any acknowledgement of all the investigations into the Clintons or the all the investigations and hearings done by the GOP controlled congress for six years.

But yep, I'm the partisan one.

No, it's that you fail to acknowledge evidence where it was with respect to Clinton and Obama, and seeing evidence where we've seen none with respect to Trump.  Benghazi, Fast 'n Furious, IRS, AP, emails - if you weren't being partisan, you readily recognize the investigations and evidence that came from those.

And, yes, despite calls for special prosecutors in more than one of those scandals it was never allowed.

But don't worry, given time I'm sure Trump will have some real scandals of his own that produce tangible evidence where you can then be someone reacting to evidence rather than partisan hopes.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2017, 11:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If you read the Dershowitz column I put, he thinks manipulating (ala Nixon) would come closer than just flat out ending it.  He asked what if Trump just pardoned Flynn effectively ending the investigation on him.  Can you impeach him for exercising his constitutionally given powers?  One would hope not.

That would be one for constitutional scholars, but on the surface I believe they could. Pardons may be the purview of the POTUS, but pardons and grants of clemency are vetted by the DoJ and other administration officials for a reason. Obviously the POTUS could still decide to do so, but if it is something big that the person took part in and the IC and Congress are against it, then there could be an enormous backlash politically, and possible obstruction charges brought depending on timing.

There is no constitutional power that is limitless.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-09-2017, 11:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I am saying, and maybe I didn't clarify this well enough, the POTUS impeding an investigation can meet the legal requirements for obstruction.

But isn't obstruction in this case largely whatever Congress says it is?

We'll see what happens with Flynn, since the POTUS could pardon him but that's not the route he took.  Otherwise, when there's no criminal investigation and you're not a target and the investigation is proceeding with multiple committees and a special prosecutor, it would seem to be a tough sell to claim obstruction [based on what we know today].

Something far more concrete and damning could emerge, but otherwise this is just the latest transition to a new hope in the "get Trump" saga.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2017, 12:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But isn't obstruction in this case largely whatever Congress says it is?

We'll see what happens with Flynn, since the POTUS could pardon him but that's not the route he took.  Otherwise, when there's no criminal investigation and you're not a target and the investigation is proceeding with multiple committees and a special prosecutor, it would seem to be a tough sell to claim obstruction [based on what we know today].

Something far more concrete and damning could emerge, but otherwise this is just the latest transition to a new hope in the "get Trump" saga.

Yes, obstruction in this case is mostly going to be what Congress determines it to be. And again, I'm not saying Trump is guilty of obstruction, just that the POTUS could be charged with it, and impeached for it, even if exercising their constitutional duties.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-09-2017, 12:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, obstruction in this case is mostly going to be what Congress determines it to be. And again, I'm not saying Trump is guilty of obstruction, just that the POTUS could be charged with it, and impeached for it, even if exercising their constitutional duties.

Agreed.

Get him lying under oath, then you can have the dog-and-pony show where Trump can debate what the definition of "hope" is.