TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

[evillawyer]

Should be required viewing for our tin foil hat wearing brethren:

Stupid Watergate II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

 

[hog88]

The obstruction inquiry will focus on Trump's intent. It certainly helps his case if there was an objectively valid basis to fire Comey, but the real question still is what intent motivated the firing. And there's lots of evidence that Trump acted with a corrupt intent. You should also realize that the IG report may rely on facts that Trump was not privy to at the time he fired Comey. Thus, he can't invoke those facts to show his motive was pure.

Good luck with that.

 

[hog88]

You are the one defensive. I asked if you if it was "noteworthy" that she was not SOS at that time. You make claims that Obama didn't follow the law but offer nothing but that accusation.

What else do I need to offer? I never mentioned Hillary and it's pretty dang clear in the article that Obama's administration destroyed 10s of thousand of records they were supposed to hand over.

 

[Mick]

What else do I need to offer? I never mentioned Hillary and it's pretty dang clear in the article that Obama's administration destroyed 10s of thousand of records they were supposed to hand over.

Accusation from that blatantly bias article mean absolutely nothing the same as your insistent that I inferred that you mentioned HC. It was a question that I proposed to you and you won't answer. Obviously you are not interested in an actual discussion.

 

[hog88]

Accusation from that blatantly bias article mean absolutely nothing the same as your insistent that I inferred that you mentioned HC. It was a question that I proposed to you and you won't answer. Obviously you are not interested in an actual discussion.

Unlike most of the articles you and your buddies link this actually had direct named sources, like the guy in charge of the archives. It wasn't biased in the least.

What was your question again?

 

[Mick]

Unlike most of the articles you and your buddies link this actually had direct named sources, like the guy in charge of the archives. It wasn't biased in the least.

What was your question again?

GW administration had private servers and destroyed millions of emails and it was not mentioned. Yes it is completely bias.

 

[volinbham]

The obstruction inquiry will focus on Trump's intent. It certainly helps his case if there was an objectively valid basis to fire Comey, but the real question still is what intent motivated the firing. And there's lots of evidence that Trump acted with a corrupt intent. You should also realize that the IG report may rely on facts that Trump was not privy to at the time he fired Comey. Thus, he can't invoke those facts to show his motive was pure.

Link to "lots of evidence"?

As for facts and motive we have Rosenstein's letter recommending a firing which may actually include some of these facts since R. may have been privy to them.

To recap:

1. POTUS has the authority to fire
2. Firing (for cause) was recommended by senior FBI official
3. IG report likely to confirm wrong doing that was at least partly the motivation for #2.
4. Comey testified the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying and recent documents showed the Trump legal team was getting that vibe from the FBI thus the "can't you just drop it (the Flynn pursuit)" comments to Comey.

But you know of "lots of evidence" that the intent was to obstruct. Hmmmm, what to believe, what to believe.

 

[hog88]

GW administration had private servers and destroyed millions of emails and it was not mentioned. Yes it is completely bias.

It wasn't mentioned because what GW did had nothing to do with the law signed by Obama requiring a POTUS to hand over documents to the National Archive. It's two completely different subjects.

If GW violated another law then I'm all for the AG going after him and his people but he couldn't have violated a law his successor put in place.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Politico reports that Trump usually rips up papers when he’s done with them, and tosses them in the trash or on the floor – a process some people described as his “filing system.” ]This does not jibe with the Presidential Records Act, which stipulates that basically every piece of paper the president touches must be shipped off to the National Archives to be preserved for posterity. But instead of saying “Mr. President, you need to stop tearing up these documents because it’s illegal, and also deeply weird,” White House staffers decided it was easier to collect the scraps of paper and have a whole team of government employees tape them back together.

Trump Loves Tearing Papers, Staffers Tape Them Back Together

Would it be better for national security to preserve documents and emails or to destroy them if they contain sensitive information?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

[NorthDallas40]

The obstruction inquiry will focus on Trump's intent. It certainly helps his case if there was an objectively valid basis to fire Comey, but the real question still is what intent motivated the firing. And there's lots of evidence that Trump acted with a corrupt intent. You should also realize that the IG report may rely on facts that Trump was not privy to at the time he fired Comey. Thus, he can't invoke those facts to show his motive was pure.

He doesn’t have to. Article 2 says he can get pissed at him and fire him at the drop of a hat.

 

[Mick]

It wasn't mentioned because what GW did had nothing to do with the law signed by Obama requiring a POTUS to hand over documents to the National Archive. It's two completely different subjects.

If GW violated another law then I'm all for the AG going after him and his people but he couldn't have violated a law his successor put in place.

Neither could HC is also "noteworthy" based on that same argument.

Now back to the original question. Would it be better for national security if a lot of the documents and communications are not archived? Its the line between transparency and national security. Its an opinion question and not a but Obama statement.

 

[evillawyer]

Link to "lots of evidence"?

As for facts and motive we have Rosenstein's letter recommending a firing which may actually include some of these facts since R. may have been privy to them.

To recap:

1. POTUS has the authority to fire
2. Firing (for cause) was recommended by senior FBI official
3. IG report likely to confirm wrong doing that was at least partly the motivation for #2.
4. Comey testified the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying and recent documents showed the Trump legal team was getting that vibe from the FBI thus the "can't you just drop it (the Flynn pursuit)" comments to Comey.

But you know of "lots of evidence" that the intent was to obstruct. Hmmmm, what to believe, what to believe.

Google is a wonderful thing. Just search things Trump has done to obstruct justice. Plenty of well-sourced lists out there.

Here's just one: Trump's treatment of Jeff Sessions shows: Of course Trump obstructed justice - The Washington Post

 

[evillawyer]

He doesn’t have to. Article 2 says he can get pissed at him and fire him at the drop of a hat.

Plenty of case law out there holding that obstruction can be based on what are otherwise legally permitted actions if the intent is to obstruct.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Plenty of case law out there holding that obstruction can be based on what are otherwise legally permitted actions if the intent is to obstruct.

Not for this context there isn’t. Give it a shot though. When you get the door slammed in your face the leftist wailing will be glorious.

 

[hog88]

Neither could HC is also "noteworthy" based on that same argument.

Now back to the original question. Would it be better for national security if a lot of the documents and communications are not archived? Its the line between transparency and national security. Its an opinion question and not a but Obama statement.

Again, I didn't mention HC. You did.

No.

 

[evillawyer]

Not for this context there isn’t. Give it a shot though. When you get the door slammed in your face the leftist wailing will be glorious.

You're right. Not much in this context...because we haven't had too many presidents hellbent on obstructing justice or too many congresses willing to totally acquiesce to it.

 

[hog88]

Google is a wonderful thing. Just search things Trump has done to obstruct justice. Plenty of well-sourced lists out there.

Here's just one: Trump's treatment of Jeff Sessions shows: Of course Trump obstructed justice - The Washington Post

:lolabove:

 

[hog88]

Plenty of case law out there holding that obstruction can be based on what are otherwise legally permitted actions if the intent is to obstruct.

But none involving a sitting POTUS.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You're right. Not much in this context...because we haven't had too many presidents hellbent on obstructing justice or too many congresses willing to totally acquiesce to it.

Or... we know what powers Article 2 of the Constitution empower our president with and we normally don’t invent the level of bull**** to obstruct him from doing his job like we have for the last year and a half.

 

[evillawyer]

Or... we know what powers Article 2 of the Constitution empower our president with and we normally don’t invent the level of bull**** to obstruct him from doing his job like we have for the last year and a half.

Haha. That's cute. You really believe Trump waited for months after he was elected to fire Comey because he thought Comey treated Hillary unfairly?

 

[volinbham]

Google is a wonderful thing. Just search things Trump has done to obstruct justice. Plenty of well-sourced lists out there.

Here's just one: Trump's treatment of Jeff Sessions shows: Of course Trump obstructed justice - The Washington Post

The only thing in there is what we already knew - the request vis a vis Flynn and a public statement about Russian investigation.

The Sessions stuff is pure speculation (in regards to constituting collusion) and is not linked to the firing of Comey.

As for public statements there are plenty more from Trump expressing legitimate reasons to fire Comey.

Instead of evidence you brought what was already known and opinion.

Even the author says:

I say that because we may be thinking of the question of whether Trump has in fact obstructed justice in too narrow a way. If we’re asking “Will Trump be indicted for, and convicted of, this crime?” then the answer is probably no. While scholars are not united on this question, many believe that a sitting president can’t be indicted, and it’s highly unlikely that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will issue an indictment for Trump, no matter what the investigation produces.

Keep hope alive EL

 

[NorthDallas40]

Haha. That's cute. You really believe Trump waited for months after he was elected to fire Comey because he thought Comey treated Hillary unfairly?

Trumps failing was he should have fired him day 1.

And what’s cuter is you really think you’re gonna get Trump on obstruction for firing him. Lol.

 

[Mick]

The US Treasury Department has imposed fresh sanctions on five Russian entities and three individuals, including a firm that's controlled by Russia's Federal Security Service. The latest step by the Trump administration comes in response to Russian cyberattacks on the US and its allies, including the NotPetya cyberattack and cyber intrusions of the US energy grid.

The firms designated in Monday's announcement have directly contributed to improving Russia's cyber capabilities through their work with the FSB, which has compromised the security of the US and its allies, Mnuchin said. They include Digital Security, ERPScan and Embedi.

US unveils new Russia sanctions - CNNPolitics

 

[NorthDallas40]

The US Treasury Department has imposed fresh sanctions on five Russian entities and three individuals, including a firm that's controlled by Russia's Federal Security Service. The latest step by the Trump administration comes in response to Russian cyberattacks on the US and its allies, including the NotPetya cyberattack and cyber intrusions of the US energy grid.

The firms designated in Monday's announcement have directly contributed to improving Russia's cyber capabilities through their work with the FSB, which has compromised the security of the US and its allies, Mnuchin said. They include Digital Security, ERPScan and Embedi.

US unveils new Russia sanctions - CNNPolitics

Wait I thought Trump was in Russia’s pocket. So when he hears about this I guess he’s gonna vacate them then? They did it while he was out of town? I’m so confused.

 

[Mick]

Wait I thought Trump was in Russia’s pocket. So when he hears about this I guess he’s gonna vacate them then? They did it while he was out of town? I’m so confused.

Of course your confused as evident by you trying to put a spin on it. Some thing you just can't spin.