Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2672
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:33 am

coolian2 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Image

Now, can we please let The President get back to #MAGA !!!

Get him off the fucking golf course then.


Wait a minute, important things are discussed and decided on golf courses by people who have power, unlike, uhhh Barry, who just wanted to play "golf".

#MAGA Donald !
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2672
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:36 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
coolian2 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Now, can we please let The President get back to #MAGA !!!

Get him off the fucking golf course then.


Wait a minute, important things are discussed and decided on golf courses by people who have power, unlike, uhhh Barry, who just wanted to play "golf".

#MAGA Donald !
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:18 pm

Flighty wrote:
Mmmbos, if you feel that the Justice Dept is an independent organization, or enjoys some form of constitutional protection from presidential supervision, can you cite a source for that?

I think that is kind of a made-up thing. J Edgar Hoover was independent, not by statute, but because he blackmailed people. Subsequently, the ten year term at least implies some separation. I get that there is an implication there, so that's nice.


I didn't say that I "feel" the Justice Department is a more independent organization than that of a regular administrative department such as DOE; I said I know this to be the case.

And of course you think it's a "made up thing" because as I stated in an earlier post, your statements indicate your are misinformed about how government works, particularly in the area of checks and balances.
The first and most obvious place to start is Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe ... government

But there's no need to provide you with more citations when a simple browser search will deliver plenty of information on the subject. Now that you know that, you can go educate yourself!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:24 pm

mbmbos wrote:
I didn't say that I "feel" the Justice Department is a more independent organization than that of a regular administrative department such as DOE; I said I know this to be the case.

The first and most obvious place to start is Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe ... government


I understand where you are coming from and agree that the Justice Department is "more independent" than, say, the Dept. of Transportation. It is supposed to be free of political influence to the greatest extent possible.

But the Wikipedia page does not mention the Justice Department, so a better source of information might be hoped for.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:47 pm

You're right that it's not the source that most directly addresses the issue. But right on the first line of the Wikipedia entry, it mentions independent agencies and contrasts them with departments that have a secretary as head, as appointed by the POTUS. That's a start.

Last week I read a very interesting piece that was specifically about the FBI and the DOJ, and their structural independence/distance they have from the Administration, but I can't remember the source. Nonetheless, there are plenty of articles out there. And also, this is something I already knew - from junior high civics classes, lo those many decades ago.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:09 pm

You might read Alan Dershowitz on this before you just slag me as completely ignorant. Alan says the president can directly order the FBI to take any tactic he deems appropriate, as their direct supervisor. Just as he is the military chief of the country, he is also the law enforcement chief of the country. Then again, Nixon ordered the FBI to stop investigating Watergate, which itself was a crime. My take is the president could be rightfully impeached for making such a direction -- but, such a direction is within his power. Can the FBI refuse unlawful orders, that's tricky. But in the normal course of things, I think the president directly supervises the Dept of Justice much like any other department. Jeff Sessions is a member of Trump's cabinet. Trump supervises Sessions. Sessions supervises the FBI Director.

It's not really clear cut... sorry...
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11480
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:57 pm

Flighty wrote:
Can the FBI refuse unlawful orders, that's tricky.

The thing is they are essentially required to refuse unlawful orders. That is the standard that is set. Like the military, a junior person is allowed to refuse orders that are unlawful and in fact they are required to refuse such. We train our military to have a mind as much as possible, to think about what is occurring and proceed from there. That does not mean the person will not be hung out to dry or forced to obey or disciplined etc. But long ago it was determined by free countries that "I was only following orders" is not a defense for doing wrong actions.

So yes, the FBI can refuse unlawful orders. It just is not easy (often nothing of such consequence is) but needed in this world.

Tugg
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:28 pm

Tugger wrote:
The thing is they are essentially required to refuse unlawful orders.


It is rather difficult for the President to give an unlawful order to a member of the executive branch. The President has supreme constitutional powers over the executive, he can order the Director of the FBI to end any ongoing investigation. That is completely within his legal status. Bush 41 did this and nobody ever mentions that in this debate.

So Comey's argument that he took Trump 'hoping' that he could let this go as an order to do so is
a) stupid, because as Comey well knows Trump had the power to just flat out order him to do so
b) if it was a command as Comey claims he took it, Trump would have had a more than good reason to fire Comey on the spot for not complying

Of course Trump saying he hoped Comey would let this go was just that, a voicing of concern for a man with unquestionable merits and a long history of service to the United States, General Flynn. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't meant as an order and a highly trained lawyer such as Comey would hardly have taken it as one in all seriousness.

This entire obstruction of justice hogwash on television is just absolute garbage, because the President can't possible commit obstruction. The laws simply don't apply to him.

That's not saying he can't be impeached over it. He could be impeached for having orange skin for that matter, if a large enough majority could be found. Impeachment is not a criminal matter.

What I personally find rather alarming is how the media is jumping on this to construe an obstruction situation, while plainly ignoring Comey's testimony as to what AG Lynch ORDERED (not hoped or anything the likes) him to do with regards to the Clinton criminal investigation. That is far more concerning than what Trump did, in just about any possible way. That was a REAL attempt of the executive branch to manipulate the Presidential elections.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12585
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:39 pm

aviationaware wrote:
This entire obstruction of justice hogwash on television is just absolute garbage, because the President can't possible commit obstruction. The laws simply don't apply to him.


I sincerely hope this isn't true. Nobody should be above the law. Why did Nixon leave if he didn't do anything wrong?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11480
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:57 pm

aviationaware wrote:
This entire obstruction of justice hogwash on television is just absolute garbage, because the President can't possible commit obstruction. The laws simply don't apply to him.

I think you are trying to be specific to the idea of "obstruction of justice" but please clarify exactly what you mean when you say " laws simply don't apply to him."

The simple fact to me is that the president swears an oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And that oath has within it, by the powers contained within the US Constitution, the requirement follow laws and be lawful. Because you cannot defend, protect, and preserve something by violating that very thing.

Tugg
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:14 pm

Well the definition of "justice" is to a large extent any (legal) strategy the president deems is appropriate for the DOJ to take. Somebody like me can't obstruct the FBI's investigation or a federal prosecutor's strategy. That would be illegal for me. Trump can - those are among his powers.

But, he can't order people to lie to the FBI (which Nixon did) and he can't order Comey to do something criminal like go beat up Brad Pitt. I think Trump actually did pretty well here - he gave an appropriate amount of guidance while respecting that he should not give Comey direct orders unless absolutely necessary. He actually gave considerable deference to the tradition of independent thinking at the FBI. Comey said he felt Trump was ordering him to close the case. Good! So Trump's communication was understood. But Comey rejected the subtle approach. The other approach (firing Comey and explicitly directing investigations) is unfortunate for all. And the person responsible for this loss of honor appears to be Comey.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:02 pm

Tugger wrote:
The simple fact to me is that the president swears an oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And that oath has within it, by the powers contained within the US Constitution, the requirement follow laws and be lawful. Because you cannot defend, protect, and preserve something by violating that very thing.


The constitution states very clearly:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. (Article two)

That is a very broad and unspecific statement. The going interpretation among constitutional scholars is that this gives the President unlimited power over the executive branch unless specifically limited by a specific law. For example, the President can send troops to war solely at his own discretion (he cannot declare war, that power rests with congress only); but congress could pull them back out again.
Consequently, the President can also give direct orders to any federal employee he so wishes; including the Director of the FBI, so long as that order does not violate any law itself or requires the federal employee to break any law. For example, the President can order the Director of the CIA to reveal to him the true identity of any covert asset the CIA has worldwide, even if the Director thinks that the President does not need to know that. But the President could not order the Director to perjure himself in front of congress, because that would violate a specific law.

Flighty has gotten that point, CNN aka VFN does not seem to have.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2672
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:34 pm

Whether or not Trump or his team colluded with the Russians to hack the election (and I don't think Trump or his team did....), what point everyone on the Left and Right seems to have missed, is that, in 2016 (or earlier) Russia made attempts to hack the the election, the DNC and the RNC. In 2016, it was the Obama Administration's failure that this attack succeeded. Why not the focus on the failure of the Obama Administration in 2016 by anyone on the Left or the Right ???
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14662
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:30 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Why not the focus on the failure of the Obama Administration in 2016 by anyone on the Left or the Right ???


When your house is on fire, do you want the fire inspector to figure out what started the fire or the fire fighters to put it out first?

Best regards
Thomas
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:02 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
what point everyone on the Left and Right seems to have missed, is that, in 2016 (or earlier) Russia made attempts to hack the the election, the DNC and the RNC. In 2016, it was the Obama Administration's failure that this attack succeeded. Why not the focus on the failure of the Obama Administration in 2016 by anyone on the Left or the Right ???

The CIA and NSC became aware of these goings on before 2016 and at least by sometime in 2016 the FBI had been brought into the investigation. When the scope of Russian activity became known President Obama iniated sanctions against Russia as an immediate stopgap action before he left office.

We note that the Russian lackey Donald Trump now wants to eliminate the Obama order to eject the Russians from their spy dens in Maryland and on Long Island.

How can you trumpistas complain about Obama being soft on the Russians out of one side of their mouths while you guys call for cozying up with the Russians out the other side of your mouths? Hypocrite much?
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:54 am

ThePointblank wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Mir wrote:
Other than suggest to the FBI director that he should drop an investigation into one of his buddies, and then fire him when he refused to do it. You know, obstruction of justice and all that.


Trump fired the Director, he did *not* fire "the FBI" !

Nothing Trump did rises to the level of impeachment. It's perfectly legal for the President to fire the FBI director, for ANY reason. Even if that makes you feel unhappy.

Unless the President fired the director of the FBI in an attempt to hinder or shut down an investigation... That's easily impeachable, as that's obstruction of justice.


Which the president basically admitted to. On national TV.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:57 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Whether or not Trump or his team colluded with the Russians to hack the election (and I don't think Trump or his team did....), what point everyone on the Left and Right seems to have missed, is that, in 2016 (or earlier) Russia made attempts to hack the the election, the DNC and the RNC. In 2016, it was the Obama Administration's failure that this attack succeeded. Why not the focus on the failure of the Obama Administration in 2016 by anyone on the Left or the Right ???


So when you call the police to report a burglary, do you expect them to try and find the burglar, or to show up at your house and start interrogating you as to why they were able to get in so easily?
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6170
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:20 am

Latest news is that the President is ready to testify.

Oh, gawd... I have to buy a heavy duty popcorn machine with a fresh D check.

David
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14662
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:29 am

flyingturtle wrote:
Latest news is that the President is ready to testify.

Oh, gawd... I have to buy a heavy duty popcorn machine with a fresh D check.

David


After that we know if he really is mentally sick, e.g. can't see the difference between fact and fiction or lying fully consious.

Best regards
Thomas
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:34 am

If John McCain asks Trump a question everyone on earth will lose IQ points for the question and the answer.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:21 am

Mir wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

Trump fired the Director, he did *not* fire "the FBI" !

Nothing Trump did rises to the level of impeachment. It's perfectly legal for the President to fire the FBI director, for ANY reason. Even if that makes you feel unhappy.

Unless the President fired the director of the FBI in an attempt to hinder or shut down an investigation... That's easily impeachable, as that's obstruction of justice.


Which the president basically admitted to. On national TV.


Again, the President asking or even ordering the FBI to shut down an investigation is not obstruction of justice, it's his prerogative as President. Countless Presidents have done so before him, including Bush 41.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6170
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:05 am

aviationaware wrote:
Again, the President asking or even ordering the FBI to shut down an investigation is not obstruction of justice, it's his prerogative as President. Countless Presidents have done so before him, including Bush 41.


You may or may not call it obstruction, and it may or may not be obstruction in any real legal sense. :old:

But the fact remains that telling the FBI not to investigate something reeks of... you know. As a social democrat, a real liberal, I'll tell you that I find the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch very questionable, too.

The Trump fanboys clamoring "Now it's official that Trump is not under investigation!!!1!!" are not helpful, as I believe Trump to be too stupid to commit any serious crime himself, like colluding with Russian organizations. Anything he does is gross negligence anyway, except when he wilfully grabs some pussies.


David
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:22 am

Yes, Trump being so stupid certainly got him to becoming a billionaire and the most powerful person on the planet. You are right.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14662
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:09 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Yes, Trump being so stupid certainly got him to becoming a billionaire and the most powerful person on the planet..


Amazing how far you can come if you are white, born rich and have no ethics whatsoever. Probably even in prison to serve out a life sentence for treason. We'd see about that...
And even rich, he still had to sexually abuse and rape to get laid.....

And what billionaire needs to steal money from kids with cancer and go golfin almost every weekend to shovel more tax payers money into his own pocket? Well, probably the same guy that plans to let tens of thousands US citizens die every year to give himself a tax break.
Probably he just doesn't publish is tax returns because people could figure put he is nowhere near a billion. We only has his word, and we know he lies about everything, especially when it comes to his wealth. He even himself says that his net worth is mood dependent. I.e. Made up.

Best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:46 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Again, the President asking or even ordering the FBI to shut down an investigation is not obstruction of justice,


It is if the investigation concerns his close allies and members of his campaign team, or even his own family and if he believes that it might concern him in the future... Which would explain his insistance to get Comey to say he wasn't under investigation, which Comey refused to do since, whereas it was true at the time, might not stay that way forever.


The president is not above the law, he still answers for whatever contemptible act he does, although the process is different than for a civilian. Despite what Trump himself and a lot of his adoring fans would very much like, he is not a dictator.
He answers to the congress, which itself answers to the people.

One would have to be blinded by said adoration to not see the telltale signs of collusion with Russia. From Trump's previous history with Russia to his current stance on Russia. And with multiple investigations concerning members of his campaign and his entourage having dealt with Russian officials, one would also have to be very gullible to believe that Trump was at least not informed of what was going on, even if he will be shielded as much as possible from it by his friends.

Trump chose Flynn despite having been briefed of his affiliations with Russia (and Turkey, among a few despotic regimes) for a reason. And this is why when he clears the room to speak directly to the FBI chief investigation Flynn and asking him for his absolute loyalty and tells him he hopes he would drop the investigation on him, it is easy to understand the context and the subtext...

At this stage, Trump's fans are as removed from reality as he his. They are so taken by their utopia in which Trump, despite his obvious incompetence and shortcomings, will solve every problem America has, which apparently involves mostly helping the rich (like himself) get richer.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6170
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:09 pm

From CNN:

During a news conference Friday, Trump said he'd have more information related to whether tapes exist at a later date.

"I am not hinting at anything," Trump said, twice declining to elaborate. "I will tell you about it over a very short period of time."


Does this inspire confidence? Any confidence? :scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:

If he really has no tapes of the Comey meetings, he could simply say so. And such a clear answer, if it was honest, would take a lot of pressure off him.


David
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10372
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:37 pm

Having tapes or having no tapes, I am not sure what is worse.

Option A having tapes - what other purpose can they serve than blackmail the person on the tape, as the president has the power to remove anybody working for the executive if he does not trust him or thinks he is doing a bad job
Option B not having tapes - would expose another lie
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:51 pm

Francoflier wrote:
It is if the investigation concerns his close allies and members of his campaign team, or even his own family and if he believes that it might concern him in the future...


No. Even in that case it would be perfectly legal for the President to order the FBI to cease that investigation.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:52 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Mir wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
Unless the President fired the director of the FBI in an attempt to hinder or shut down an investigation... That's easily impeachable, as that's obstruction of justice.


Which the president basically admitted to. On national TV.


Again, the President asking or even ordering the FBI to shut down an investigation is not obstruction of justice, it's his prerogative as President. Countless Presidents have done so before him, including Bush 41.


Lawful acts, if done with corrupt purposes, are considered obstruction of justice. Trump was asking Comey to stop investigating a member of his own staff, which easily meets the standard of a corrupt purpose. He asked everyone else to leave the room, which means he knew what he was about to do was wrong.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:04 pm

Whatever your personal opinion is, it does not matter. The President can't be guilty of obstruction. Period. Not if he directly orders an investigation to be shut down, and certainly not if he expresses his hopes it would be done. Under no circumstance.

It's funny that all allies of the criminal Clinton family are now coming out of the woodworks to accuse the President of unlawfulness when he didn't even step a toe over the line. I keep seeing the Very Fake News media claim this is somehow worse than Watergate, when in Watergate, President Nixon actually solicited criminal acts by his underlings. Trump didn't even do something remotely close to that.

This entire Russia story is a terribly transparent charade to derail Trump's legislative agenda, and unfortunately it is working just fine - at the cost of the people's confidence in our democratic system. Those pushing it are disgusting people and enemies of the constitution.
 
wingman
Posts: 4171
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:04 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Whatever your personal opinion is, it does not matter. The President can't be guilty of obstruction. Period. Not if he directly orders an investigation to be shut down, and certainly not if he expresses his hopes it would be done. Under no circumstance.

It's funny that all allies of the criminal Clinton family are now coming out of the woodworks to accuse the President of unlawfulness when he didn't even step a toe over the line. I keep seeing the Very Fake News media claim this is somehow worse than Watergate, when in Watergate, President Nixon actually solicited criminal acts by his underlings. Trump didn't even do something remotely close to that.

This entire Russia story is a terribly transparent charade to derail Trump's legislative agenda, and unfortunately it is working just fine - at the cost of the people's confidence in our democratic system. Those pushing it are disgusting people and enemies of the constitution.


Indicting a sitting President and prosecuting him in this case would be virtually impossible. But he could still be impeached. So Trump could yet end up being "guilty" of obstruction of justice in the "court" of Congress. You guys are splitting hairs in my view.

However, your bullshit meter goes off the charts with your last statement. The NSA, CIA, DOJ and FBI are not the "Deep State" you allude to. They are investigating the very real possibility of collusion between either Trump directly or his staff and Russian government operatives. You and your cadre of Fox News apologists, the true charade bullshit artists here, are the ones who should be ashamed of yourselves. You went 11 rounds trying to find your "truth" on Benghazi and yet you won't go Round 1 on Trump and Russia. It's the ultimate definition of hypocrisy and is actually quite repulsive given the vastly more heinous nature of the possible crime. I'll side with carelessness or recklessness over treason any day of the week.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:15 pm

wingman wrote:

Indicting a sitting President and prosecuting him in this case would be virtually impossible. But he could still be impeached.


You can impeach a President for jaywalking if you can get a majority for that. Impeachment is not a criminal procedure.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:51 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Whatever your personal opinion is, it does not matter. The President can't be guilty of obstruction. Period. Not if he directly orders an investigation to be shut down, and certainly not if he expresses his hopes it would be done. Under no circumstance.


The president cannot go into a court of law and be sentences by a judge. So, yes, you are technically correct.

But, again, he is no autocrat, despite his wish, and he still has to answer to the congress.
There's only so much incompetence, lying and suspicious/fraudulent behavior a President can display before the congress eventually turns on him, even a congress that's as enamored with Trump as this one and that seems to have set the bar for Trump barely an inch off the floor.

Then again, there is little use in debating that with you if your denial is so intense that you even refuse to appreciate the severity of the Russia meddling or even its existence!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:19 pm

Francoflier wrote:
Then again, there is little use in debating that with you if your denial is so intense that you even refuse to appreciate the severity of the Russia meddling or even its existence!


Well you tell me, why should I believe the CIA that Russia tried to meddle when the CIA was also adamant Iraq had WMDs and they really didn't? Do you think the CIA really thought they had? I know I don't. The DNC did not even allow the FBI access to their servers for the investigation. Can you tell me how they are supposed to know who did the hacking? Call me a tinfoil hat, I don't care. All I care about is this: The intelligence agencies, under the Bush and Obama administrations, have gained far too much power. Spying on Americans is now widely accepted (in fact, not even talked about anymore), and extrajudicial killings by the CIA with drones designed for the military are taking place all over the world on a daily basis, many of them on civilian targets. Those are war crimes for that matter.
I don't believe one word the CIA or any other intelligence agency puts out - it's their purpose to lie and deceive. They need to be curbed, they have become sinister agents with a life of their own. And I certainly don't believe them as long as they don't present iron clad proof for Russian meddling. They are not even presenting a shred of evidence. They are just saying 'Russia did this, believe us'. Well I don't. I believe Seth Rich sent Hillary's emails to Wikileaks and was killed for it by a hitman. There is just as much proof for that as for the Russia story - exactly none. Well not really, there is circumstantial evidence for the Seth Rich story, which is more than there is for the Russia story. So don't tell me I am being ridiculous, because you are on no more solid ground than I am.

Also, I absolutely love this deep state talking point about 17 intelligence agencies all concluding that Russia hacked the election. I am sure the Office of National Security Intelligence, which is an arm of the DEA, is an absolute expert on computer hacking. And Coast Guard Intelligence, dude, the best! Nobody knows hacking like they do! Did I mention the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency? There must be plenty of geo-imaging evidence for Russian hacking if they can be so sure about it! Let's see it?
You sheeps are being taken for a ride and are so enthusiastic about it you don't even notice how you are being punked. Just sad...
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:29 pm

aviationaware wrote:
why should I believe the CIA that Russia tried to meddle when the CIA was also adamant Iraq had WMDs and they really didn't?

The CIA didn't think Saddam had WMDs, they were pressured into acquiescing on the subject by Dick Cheney, who, in a first ever, even visited CIA headquarters to twist arms on this subject. The CIA held out for a long time but eventually they had to acknowledge that they had a boss, they worked for the Bush administration, and so had to cooperate with the POTUS.

Frontline did a revealing episode about all this; I believe it was called "Cheney's war", it ran in 2004 I believe.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:08 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Whatever your personal opinion is, it does not matter. The President can't be guilty of obstruction. Period. Not if he directly orders an investigation to be shut down, and certainly not if he expresses his hopes it would be done. Under no circumstance.

It's funny that all allies of the criminal Clinton family are now coming out of the woodworks to accuse the President of unlawfulness when he didn't even step a toe over the line. I keep seeing the Very Fake News media claim this is somehow worse than Watergate, when in Watergate, President Nixon actually solicited criminal acts by his underlings. Trump didn't even do something remotely close to that.

This entire Russia story is a terribly transparent charade to derail Trump's legislative agenda, and unfortunately it is working just fine - at the cost of the people's confidence in our democratic system. Those pushing it are disgusting people and enemies of the constitution.


The splendid irony of someone branding others as 'enemies of the constitution' while suggesting that it's fine for the president to use his powers for personal ends.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:00 pm

Mir wrote:
The splendid irony of someone branding others as 'enemies of the constitution' while suggesting that it's fine for the president to use his powers for personal ends.


I wouldn't be okay with it, but that's not what Trump did so why the commotion?
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:45 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Mir wrote:
The splendid irony of someone branding others as 'enemies of the constitution' while suggesting that it's fine for the president to use his powers for personal ends.


I wouldn't be okay with it, but that's not what Trump did so why the commotion?


Shutting down an investigation to protect a member of his staff isn't using his power for personal ends? Okay then.
 
wingman
Posts: 4171
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:52 pm

aviationaware wrote:
I wouldn't be okay with it, but that's not what Trump did so why the commotion?


You don't know what Trump did, we don't know what Trump did. The same can be said for his staff. But there's enough smoke swirling that his very own appointees have established an independent investigation process. Are we all supposed to take your and Sean Hannity's word for it that Trump and his staff are innocent and no investigation should take place to find out if you're wrong? Are you in fact saying that?

Furthermore, you say Russian meddling in the US election is a farce because the CIA was wrong about Iraq's WMD? The only logical conclusion one can draw from that idiotic gem is that the CIA should be dismantled because any intelligence they've produced since is 100% wrong and any intel they produce in the future will need to automatically discounted as false.

Your arguments contain zero logic and zero coherence whatsoever unless you're nothing but a Russian web-bot. Or you simply represent the very worst of partisan apologists that put party above country. There's no other choice here based on your posts so which is it?
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:54 pm

aviationaware wrote:
I don't believe one word the CIA or any other intelligence agency puts out - it's their purpose to lie and deceive. They need to be curbed, they have become sinister agents with a life of their own.


To what end? Are you trying to tell me that at the end of the day the CIA and FBI as institutions are full of bleeding heart liberals? Are they also into sex trafficking by pizza joint?

aviationaware wrote:
And I certainly don't believe them as long as they don't present iron clad proof for Russian meddling. They are not even presenting a shred of evidence. They are just saying 'Russia did this, believe us'. Well I don't.


I highly doubt you'll believe it when the investigation is over and it is produced, given your capacity for rationalization.

aviationaware wrote:
Spying on Americans is now widely accepted (in fact, not even talked about anymore), and extrajudicial killings by the CIA with drones designed for the military are taking place all over the world on a daily basis, many of them on civilian targets. Those are war crimes for that matter.


So all high-and-mighty moralistic here, then

aviationaware wrote:
Whatever your personal opinion is, it does not matter. The President can't be guilty of obstruction. Period. Not if he directly orders an investigation to be shut down, and certainly not if he expresses his hopes it would be done. Under no circumstance.


Woo-hoo, America! Guess at the end of the day the jokes on Obama for not shutting down the Clinton e-mail investigation full stop! WHAT AN IDIOT!!! And he calls himself a scholar of constitutional law. Yep, the way things are going, there's no doubt in my mind Trump will blame all of this on Obama . . . and get away with it, trolls and sycophants in tow!

BTW, are you also one to say, well, if Russia did this, well, que sera, sera, not like we didn't do it plenty of places before. I thought you guys were tired of Americans apologizing?

Good Lord, even your screenname is a bot. What's the weather like in Smolensk, comrade?
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:26 pm

jetero wrote:
To what end? Are you trying to tell me that at the end of the day the CIA and FBI as institutions are full of bleeding heart liberals? Are they also into sex trafficking by pizza joint?


Liberal, conservative - those are only labels. Try telling me with a straight face that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have not amassed alarming amounts of power under the last two Presidents.

jetero wrote:
I highly doubt you'll believe it when the investigation is over and it is produced, given your capacity for rationalization.


Maybe, but who can know?

jetero wrote:
So all high-and-mighty moralistic here, then


MORALLY, I would not be okay with Trump shutting down an investigation. I was merely stating the fact that judicially, it would be a non-issue. Again, a moot point because Trump never shut down any investigation.

jetero wrote:
BTW, are you also one to say, well, if Russia did this, well, que sera, sera, not like we didn't do it plenty of places before. I thought you guys were tired of Americans apologizing?


Well, the US DID do it in plenty of places before, and that sucks. That's not saying I won't eat a whole lot of crow if I ever see iron clad, unmanipulable evidence for Russian interference in the US election.

And I resent your calling me 'comrade'. Just because I don't believe in that cock and bull Russia story does not make me Russia sympathizer.
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:47 am

aviationaware wrote:
Liberal, conservative - those are only labels. Try telling me with a straight face that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have not amassed alarming amounts of power under the last two Presidents.


Vlad, buddy, answer the question. To what end? Your mix of strong, strident, absolute, sensationalist opinions about some things and que sera, sera, devil-may-care about the other is impressive. What is your theory of what's going on? Trump is some put-upon, everyman superhero that's waging a battle against the biggest, most corrupt conspiracy in history? If so, God help us, because the guy's a certifiable, self-important idiot who doesn't give a flying crap about taking the rest of the country down with him (blissfully happily, I might add).

Are you a victim of this deep state CIA/FBI conspiracy? Are they watching you? What are you fighting for, Mr Aware? What's your beef? "Freedom"? MAGA?

aviationaware wrote:
Maybe, but who can know?


Oh I have a pretty good idea.

aviationaware wrote:
MORALLY, I would not be okay with Trump shutting down an investigation. I was merely stating the fact that judicially, it would be a non-issue. Again, a moot point because Trump never shut down any investigation.


So somebody who seems to be so concerned about law and order is completely fine with the idea that the head of state in the world's greatest democracy can do no wrong?

aviationaware wrote:
Well, the US DID do it in plenty of places before, and that sucks. That's not saying I won't eat a whole lot of crow if I ever see iron clad, unmanipulable evidence for Russian interference in the US election.


As determined by you and only you, buddy, right? And when (and admittedly if) any evidence does come down, you'll be the first one to turn to Alex Jones and find your next Seth Rich.

aviationaware wrote:
And I resent your calling me 'comrade'. Just because I don't believe in that cock and bull Russia story does not make me Russia sympathizer.


It doesn't any more than it does, but you sure as hell seem to be going out of your way to deflect on the Russia question like Comrade Trump while being perfectly happy to imply that the DNC hired a hitman to kill Seth Rich and pay off his parents. I'd really like to create a flowchart of the thought processes of you and your cohort one day. I don't know how on earth you can keep all of these mindblowing contradictions straight in your mind. It'd sure give me an aneurysm.

You're either a bot or you're a victim. You are espousing exactly what has been stated publicly was the intent of the Russian interference. This way, that way, believe in nothing, believe in everything (whatever is most convenient), I don't care, but I can also look the other way, I know this for sure, but at the end of the day who knows about that, though, really? But the punchline ... government is broken, so absolutism A-OK.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12585
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:47 am

So Sessions is next.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15866
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:34 am

Mir wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Mir wrote:
The splendid irony of someone branding others as 'enemies of the constitution' while suggesting that it's fine for the president to use his powers for personal ends.


I wouldn't be okay with it, but that's not what Trump did so why the commotion?


Shutting down an investigation to protect a member of his staff isn't using his power for personal ends? Okay then.


Would you have preferred that President Trump simply told Comey that the investigation was no longer needed since he just signed a Presidential Pardon for Gen. Flynn instead? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6170
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:00 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Would you have preferred that President Trump simply told Comey that the investigation was no longer needed since he just signed a Presidential Pardon for Gen. Flynn instead? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Trump should have pardoned Gen. Flynn, as a pardon insinuates that a real crime has been committed... :devil: :devil: :devil:

You don't pardon somebody who is above all suspicions.

David
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15866
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:17 am

flyingturtle wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
Would you have preferred that President Trump simply told Comey that the investigation was no longer needed since he just signed a Presidential Pardon for Gen. Flynn instead? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Trump should have pardoned Gen. Flynn, as a pardon insinuates that a real crime has been committed... :devil: :devil: :devil:

You don't pardon somebody who is above all suspicions.

David


Or you pardon someone specifically to remove any leverage the Democrats think they have. And state precisely that.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6170
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:36 am

EA CO AS wrote:
Or you pardon someone specifically to remove any leverage the Democrats think they have. And state precisely that.


Which would be just be wonderful news for the Democrats, especially that they have nothing to lose and much to win in 2018. Definite and incontrovertible proof that Trump is happily filling his swamp with ugly toads, mosquitoes and alligators. Trump loves every crook as long as it is a good crook.


David
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:50 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
Mir wrote:
aviationaware wrote:

I wouldn't be okay with it, but that's not what Trump did so why the commotion?


Shutting down an investigation to protect a member of his staff isn't using his power for personal ends? Okay then.


Would you have preferred that President Trump simply told Comey that the investigation was no longer needed since he just signed a Presidential Pardon for Gen. Flynn instead? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Can't pardon someone pre-emptively, and Flynn hadn't been convicted of a crime yet. So that wouldn't have worked.

But no, I would not have been fine with that either. I am not okay with the president shutting down an investigation into a member of his staff by any means, as that is an abuse of power. The president appoints the leadership in the government, but the people he appoints serve the people the law, not him personally. Trump seems to be incapable of understanding that.
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:12 pm

mir wrote:
Can't pardon someone pre-emptively, and Flynn hadn't been convicted of a crime yet. So that wouldn't have worked.


Funny how that works, eh, EA?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Regardless, the pardon will come the moment he's charged, with a full 35% of the country behind him. Lock him up? Nah.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Former FBI director Comey testifies before Senate hearing

Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:13 pm

Mir wrote:
Can't pardon someone pre-emptively, and Flynn hadn't been convicted of a crime yet. So that wouldn't have worked.


Yes you can. Ford's pardon of Nixon was like that. Nixon had not been convicted (or even officially charged) of a crime, since he resigned before impeachment - which is the equivalent of an indictment.

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.


http://watergate.info/1974/09/08/text-of-ford-pardon-proclamation.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos