Indictments coming...

[brandonbull]

"Here come the indictments! They'll be here any minute now! The indictments told me they're coming, they wouldn't lie to me, the indictments are my friends, I want to have the indictments' babies," say insane leftists as they thrash around in their straitjackets.

Where is Paul Revere when you need him? One if by land, two if by sea?

 

[vi edit]

Where is Paul Revere when you need him? One if by land, two if by sea?

Or one in the Trump and two in the Kush.

 

[werepossum]

I asked a simple question, can you answer it?

How about "all of it"? Really difficult to evaluate accusations based on "anonymous sources". Not for people like you, obviously, but for the rest of us.

 

[werepossum]

Well the nature of Clinton's impeachment wasn't exactly what anyone anticipated in launching the Whitewater investigation.

I wonder if Trump could be held accountable as president for corrupt business practices not related to Russia's involvement in the campaign.

Impeachment is an inherently political process. Assuming the Dems take the House, OR something comes out that the Pubbies (who initially hated Trump anyway and I very much doubt that proximity has lessened that) find sufficiently embarrassing, of course Trump could be impeached for something done before becoming President. Especially given that he is still owner of and involved in the same businesses. Removal is obviously a different matter, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[fskimospy]

How about "all of it"? Really difficult to evaluate accusations based on "anonymous sources". Not for people like you, obviously, but for the rest of us.

I'm sorry you find it so difficult to evaluate accusations based on anonymous sources. If you'd like I can tutor you a bit on how to do it: you evaluate the credibility of the source using the anonymous sources and see how well previous reporting using those anonymous sources has held up in the past. When it comes to Russia, the credibility of mainstream press reporting utilizing anonymous sources so far has been quite good.

As for 'all of it' being 'lunacy', that's pretty amusing considering quite a lot of that 'lunacy' has later been confirmed. When that happens does it stop being lunacy? I'm genuinely curious as to how your brain rationalizes that one.

 

[Jhhnn]

Comey to testify on 6/8:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/comey-testify/index.html

Graham's desperate bloviating in the downpage video is pure conspiracy theorizing of the bamboozle variety.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm sorry you find it so difficult to evaluate accusations based on anonymous sources. If you'd like I can tutor you a bit on how to do it: you evaluate the credibility of the source using the anonymous sources and see how well previous reporting using those anonymous sources has held up in the past. When it comes to Russia, the credibility of mainstream press reporting utilizing anonymous sources so far has been quite good.

As for 'all of it' being 'lunacy', that's pretty amusing considering quite a lot of that 'lunacy' has later been confirmed. When that happens does it stop being lunacy? I'm genuinely curious as to how your brain rationalizes that one.

I'm not so sure a day passes that an anonymously sourced story isn't verified, and practically no one even notices. For example, Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Anonymously sourced stories for days, then... That's just the most recent, as of an hour ago.

There are far too many to even begin a proper tally. Werepossum knows better. He's just talking out of his ass.

 

[Roflmouth]

I'm not so sure a day passes that an anonymously sourced story isn't verified, and practically no one even notices. For example, Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Anonymously sourced stories for days, then... That's just the most recent, as of an hour ago.

There are far too many to even begin a proper tally.

Yes. You provided one. And there might even be two, but that would be too many to properly tally.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. You provided one. And there might even be two, but that would be too many to properly tally.

How many would it take for you to accept that they have usually been right?

Please provide a specific number if possible. Also if you're not actually open to having your mind changed by evidence you can just say that too.

 

[pcgeek11]

You probably read the Drudge Report daily, because they gifted you the Lewinski affair, remember?

Nope never been there. This place is as close as I get to a blog.

 

[pcgeek11]

That's cool. I guess we all get to wait and see if your beliefs are relevant to the facts that get stirred up.

Yes.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Or one in the Trump and two in the Kush.

I'm trying not to think of the position that would make this possible

 

[HTFOff]

WHY AREN'T I 50 INDICTMENTS AHEAD BY NOW?

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes. You provided one. And there might even be two, but that would be too many to properly tally.

Yes, I provided the one in most recent memory, from literally hours ago.

- When the WaPo article came out saying that Sally Yates had warned the White House that Flynn had lied to the public and Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, the White House fired Flynn the same day, then made a big deal, which continues up to today, about "unmasking" and "leakers." I hope even you can understand that a false story is incompatible with leaking classified information. It's either one or the other, not both.

- In March, several stories indicated that Flynn would ask for immunity. This was then confirmed by many sitting members of Congress in subsequent stories, and in a letter from Flynn's attorney.

- Starting from October of last year up through March of this year, there were scads of press reports mentioning an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the election, including possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Comey verified the existence of this investigation on March 20 in his testimony before the House Intel Committee. While styled as a "bombshell" by many commentators, it really wasn't all that much of a bombshell to anyone who had been reading the newspapers for the past several months.

- When Trump fired Comey, numerous reports came out within hours saying that White House officials had said the real reason Trump fired Comey was that he was "fuming over the Russia investigation." Trump proceeded to confirm this first to the Russians, then in a TV interview with Lester Holt.

- In the aforementioned conversation that Trump had with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister, a report stated that Trump had disclosed classified information. The White House later verified this, claiming that he nevertheless didn't reveal any information to suggest the identity of the source.

- A separate leak from that same conversation said that Trump told the Russians that Comey was a "nutjob" and that he fired Comey to relieve the pressure from the Russia investigation. Also verified by the White House.

- the story about Kushner asking for a back channel with the Russians received a "no comment" from the White House, but numerous people associated with the administration, and GOP in Congress, have either attempted to justify it by saying there is nothing wrong with a back channel, or else condemning it (as with McCain.) The "no comment" alone is close enough verification even without Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security defending Kushner's behavior in a TV interview.

- when in January CNN, citing anonymous sources, reported that Trump and Obama had been briefed by Clapper about the Steele dossier, the fact that this briefing took place was verified by Obama, Biden, Clapper and ultimately, Trump himself.

You now have 9 examples. That's what I came up with off the top of my head in 5 minutes here, without googling around to look for more.

Edit: adding another example which occurred to me later. I think I'll keep updating this for whenever this "anonymous sources are bunk" argument gets made. Feel free to just link to this list.

 

[woolfe9998]

Trump seriously mulling whether to invoke executive privilege to preclude Comey from testifying:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/trump-james-comey-executive-privilege/index.html

How much longer can he keep this obstruction game up? He has to know the entire truth is eventually going to come out one way or the other.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump seriously mulling whether to invoke executive privilege to preclude Comey from testifying:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/trump-james-comey-executive-privilege/index.html

How much longer can he keep this obstruction game up? He has to know the entire truth is eventually going to come out one way or the other.

What's he gonna do about it? Fire Comey?

 

[hal2kilo]

How about "all of it"? Really difficult to evaluate accusations based on "anonymous sources". Not for people like you, obviously, but for the rest of us.

Yes that really stopped your commenting on Hillarie's issues with the various Republican witch hunt committees.

 

[woolfe9998]

What's he gonna do about it? Fire Comey?

His executive privilege in theory makes it illegal for Comey to testify. In concept, the way a privilege works, it's as if Comey wasTrump's lawyer every time they spoke, and Comey is gagged from discussing any of those conversations. However, from my fairly solid understanding of the way legal privileges works, this is almost 100% likely to be accurate:

Legal experts, however, are skeptical the President could successfully invoke the privilege to muzzle Comey because Trump has already written a letter about their conversations, talked about them publicly and even tweeted about them.
In other words, they say, the President can't use the privilege as a sword in one context and a shield in another.

What this means is that a privilege holder like Trump isn't allowed to selectively disclose privileged communications when it helps him to do so, then bar the other party from telling his side of the story about those communications. You either keep to the privilege, in which case no one can talk about any of it, or it's entirely waived. It seems clear that Trump has yet again f***cked himself by opening up that stupid pie hole of his. Among the many virtues that Trump has never learned is the value of keeping your trap shut.

 

[Jhhnn]

His executive privilege in theory makes it illegal for Comey to testify.

What's the penalty?

 

[woolfe9998]

What's the penalty?

I'm not 100% sure, but with attorney-client privilege, it has two effects. The first is that the attorney's law license is under threat because A-C privilege is an ethical obligation for members of the bar. Comey is a member of the bar but I'm not sure if breaching executive privilege implicates any canons of ethics for attorneys.

The second is that it's a rule of evidentiary exclusion - privileged information is not admissible as evidence and cannot be used to incriminate someone, meaning even if it is disclosed, it can't be legally used. This would certainly apply here as with any kind of privilege.

I think what could happen here is that if Comey decided to testify anyway in spite of Trump invoking the privilege, Trump could take it to court and have the court order Comey not to testify, then if he testifies, he gets held in contempt of court and presumably put in jail.

 

[woolfe9998]

I should add one thing: my wife has a pretty good theory about what's really going on here. She thinks that Trump has already been advised by White House counsel that he has likely waived the privilege by talking/tweeting about his conversations with Comey, and that he therefore has no intention of invoking the privilege. But he's having Conway and Spicer raise the implication that he is considering doing so, so that he can later come out and announce that he has no intention of invoking the privilege, even though he could (not) do so, because he has nothing to hide.

This sounds a little too clever for Trump himself, but it's possible that this strategy was suggested to him by others. It's certainly logical.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Bannon's sitting next to Trump much of the time. Trump is not the brains of the operation. Even Invanka comes off as wiser.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not 100% sure, but with attorney-client privilege, it has two effects. The first is that the attorney's law license is under threat because A-C privilege is an ethical obligation for members of the bar. Comey is a member of the bar but I'm not sure if breaching executive privilege implicates any canons of ethics for attorneys.

Comey did not have a lawyer client relationship with Trump. He wasn't White House counsel or Trump's attorney.

The second is that it's a rule of evidentiary exclusion - privileged information is not admissible as evidence and cannot be used to incriminate someone, meaning even if it is disclosed, it can't be legally used. This would certainly apply here as with any kind of privilege.

I don't think that the exclusionary rules of evidence apply to impeachment & conviction. Congress makes their own rules in that regard. Impeachment occupies a Constitutional niche that's actually above ordinary statutes.

I think what could happen here is that if Comey decided to testify anyway in spite of Trump invoking the privilege, Trump could take it to court and have the court order Comey not to testify, then if he testifies, he gets held in contempt of court and presumably put in jail.

It seems to me that Trump already waived privilege by shooting off his mouth.

 

[Pens1566]

I haven't seen/read/heard anyone claiming it's illegal for Comey to testify if Treason-weasel invokes executive privilege. There's no law specific to the concept, only SCOTUS affirmation/precedent. Also, it's typically only invoked when the witness doesn't want to testify. That's not the case here by any stretch of the imagination. The best that Trump can do by invoking is force the committee to cancel the hearing if they are backing him on it. It's likely he tries it anyway, as the testimony will be far more damaging than any fallout from the invocation.

 

[woolfe9998]

Comey did not have a lawyer client relationship with Trump. He wasn't White House counsel or Trump's attorney.

Right, this is a different privilege than A-C which I was comparing/contrasting it with. What I don't know is if the attorney ethics rules preclude attorneys from breaching another kind of privilege besides A-C.

I don't think that the exclusionary rules of evidence apply to impeachment & conviction. Congress makes their own rules in that regard. Impeachment occupies a Constitutional niche that's actually above ordinary statutes.

I don't know about that. Executive privilege, though not explicitly in the Constitution, has been held to be a Constitutional privilege accruing to the POTUS. You may still be correct in so far as impeachment goes. I doubt that is a settled question of law.

It seems to me that Trump already waived privilege by shooting off his mouth.

Yes, based on what I already said, I obviously agree.