Trump's Russian Collusion

[jhu72]

He did nothing. More fake news.

[6ftstick]

He did nothing. More fake news.

George Stephanopolis (Clinton campaign War Room player) opened this can of worms again. Like he and the Clintons never ever never had anything to do with foreign entangelments or COLLUSION. Just showed you 600,000 examples of them. 22 Clinton fundraisers plead guilty. 120 people connected to the Clintons and the investigation fled the country or took the fifth. Plus Charlie Trie went to the White House 23 times. Maybe he was delivering Generals Chicken! Hypocrisy. Chuckle all you want Chucle head.

FBI agents found Charlie Trie (who never earned more than 30K a year) transferred $1.4 million—wire transfers from Asia—to the Clinton campaign.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-f ... -and-mr-wu

[foreverlax]

The hypocrisy is suggesting that there is a difference between Rs and Ds - when it comes to corruption, they are all the same.

[6ftstick]

The hypocrisy is suggesting that there is a difference between Rs and Ds - when it comes to corruption, they are all the same.

I've been saying that for years.

[foreverlax]

The hypocrisy is suggesting that there is a difference between Rs and Ds - when it comes to corruption, they are all the same.

I've been saying that for years.

Except you don't...it's always about how bad the are Ds, while crickets when it comes to Rs.

[6ftstick]

The hypocrisy is suggesting that there is a difference between Rs and Ds - when it comes to corruption, they are all the same.

I've been saying that for years.

Except you don't...it's always about how bad the are Ds, while crickets when it comes to Rs.

Then you haven't been listening. Republicans have failed to do what they're constituents want them to do. Thats why we there them out in 2006 and again in 2016— after we gave the nm all the powers of the government—they still did nothing to make government smaller or close the border.

Conversely I hear little from you regarding folks with D's after their names. Like afan who pretends he's a moderate.

[a fan]

Then you haven't been listening. Republicans have failed to do what they're constituents want them to do. Thats why we there them out in 2006 and again in 2016— after we gave the nm all the powers of the government—they still did nothing to make government smaller or close the border.

Really? Citation, please. You haven't criticized Trump----not once----since he took office. It's been 2 1/2 years, and you've done nothing but cheer him on. No matter how many times I've pointed out that he's not a conservative, you kept cheering.

So please, use the Laxpower search function, and pull up criticism you've given Trump and his party.

Conversely I hear little from you regarding folks with D's after their names. Like afan who pretends he's a moderate.

I already told you why. They're not in charge, and haven't been since Obama's first two years. That was a full decade ago. Can Pelosi pass a bill? Nope. So what is there to criticize?

If you want to talk about Dems failings in my home State? Let me know. I've got a list.

[6ftstick]

Then you haven't been listening. Republicans have failed to do what they're constituents want them to do. Thats why we there them out in 2006 and again in 2016— after we gave the nm all the powers of the government—they still did nothing to make government smaller or close the border.

Really? Citation, please. You haven't criticized Trump----not once----since he took office. It's been 2 1/2 years, and you've done nothing but cheer him on. No matter how many times I've pointed out that he's not a conservative, you kept cheering.

So please, use the Laxpower search function, and pull up criticism you've given Trump and his party.

Conversely I hear little from you regarding folks with D's after their names. Like afan who pretends he's a moderate.

I already told you why. They're not in charge, and haven't been since Obama's first two years. That was a full decade ago. Can Pelosi pass a bill? Nope. So what is there to criticize?

If you want to talk about Dems failings in my home State? Let me know. I've got a list.

I have no complaints against Trump. I'm enjoying him shove it back at democrats and their accomplices—the MSM.

Paul Ryan and the other clown Mitch McConnell I can do without.

Thank God Pelosi is powerless to pass a bill. Last one she passed she didn't know what was in it till it passed.

[jhu72]

He did nothing. More fake news.

George Stephanopolis (Clinton campaign War Room player) opened this can of worms again. Like he and the Clintons never ever never had anything to do with foreign entangelments or COLLUSION. Just showed you 600,000 examples of them. 22 Clinton fundraisers plead guilty. 120 people connected to the Clintons and the investigation fled the country or took the fifth. Plus Charlie Trie went to the White House 23 times. Maybe he was delivering Generals Chicken! Hypocrisy. Chuckle all you want Chucle head.

FBI agents found Charlie Trie (who never earned more than 30K a year) transferred $1.4 million—wire transfers from Asia—to the Clinton campaign.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-f ... -and-mr-wu

All lies. Fake news.

[6ftstick]

He did nothing. More fake news.

George Stephanopolis (Clinton campaign War Room player) opened this can of worms again. Like he and the Clintons never ever never had anything to do with foreign entangelments or COLLUSION. Just showed you 600,000 examples of them. 22 Clinton fundraisers plead guilty. 120 people connected to the Clintons and the investigation fled the country or took the fifth. Plus Charlie Trie went to the White House 23 times. Maybe he was delivering Generals Chicken! Hypocrisy. Chuckle all you want Chucle head.

FBI agents found Charlie Trie (who never earned more than 30K a year) transferred $1.4 million—wire transfers from Asia—to the Clinton campaign.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-f ... -and-mr-wu

All lies. Fake news.

Troll

[jhu72]

He did nothing. More fake news.

George Stephanopolis (Clinton campaign War Room player) opened this can of worms again. Like he and the Clintons never ever never had anything to do with foreign entangelments or COLLUSION. Just showed you 600,000 examples of them. 22 Clinton fundraisers plead guilty. 120 people connected to the Clintons and the investigation fled the country or took the fifth. Plus Charlie Trie went to the White House 23 times. Maybe he was delivering Generals Chicken! Hypocrisy. Chuckle all you want Chucle head.

FBI agents found Charlie Trie (who never earned more than 30K a year) transferred $1.4 million—wire transfers from Asia—to the Clinton campaign.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-f ... -and-mr-wu

All lies. Fake news.

Troll

Orc

[Typical Lax Dad]

He did nothing. More fake news.

George Stephanopolis (Clinton campaign War Room player) opened this can of worms again. Like he and the Clintons never ever never had anything to do with foreign entangelments or COLLUSION. Just showed you 600,000 examples of them. 22 Clinton fundraisers plead guilty. 120 people connected to the Clintons and the investigation fled the country or took the fifth. Plus Charlie Trie went to the White House 23 times. Maybe he was delivering Generals Chicken! Hypocrisy. Chuckle all you want Chucle head.

FBI agents found Charlie Trie (who never earned more than 30K a year) transferred $1.4 million—wire transfers from Asia—to the Clinton campaign.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-f ... -and-mr-wu

All lies. Fake news.

Troll

Orc

[MDlaxfan76]

Then you haven't been listening. Republicans have failed to do what they're constituents want them to do. Thats why we there them out in 2006 and again in 2016— after we gave the nm all the powers of the government—they still did nothing to make government smaller or close the border.

Really? Citation, please. You haven't criticized Trump----not once----since he took office. It's been 2 1/2 years, and you've done nothing but cheer him on. No matter how many times I've pointed out that he's not a conservative, you kept cheering.

So please, use the Laxpower search function, and pull up criticism you've given Trump and his party.

Conversely I hear little from you regarding folks with D's after their names. Like afan who pretends he's a moderate.

I already told you why. They're not in charge, and haven't been since Obama's first two years. That was a full decade ago. Can Pelosi pass a bill? Nope. So what is there to criticize?

If you want to talk about Dems failings in my home State? Let me know. I've got a list.

I have no complaints against Trump. I'm enjoying him shove it back at democrats and their accomplices—the MSM.

Paul Ryan and the other clown Mitch McConnell I can do without.

Thank God Pelosi is powerless to pass a bill. Last one she passed she didn't know what was in it till it passed.

Ok, let's just be clear: You're 100% fine with Trump (or Clinton) accepting aid and support in an election from a foreign government? Really?

Maybe the question should be asked differently.
Where exactly would you draw the line on Trump?
Is there any criminal, unethical, or immoral act he could do that would lose you?
Or are you with him as long as he sticks it to the Dems and MSM?

[a fan]

I have no complaints against Trump.

Who do you think is the guy who's signing all those massive spending bills? And cut taxes to make the deficit bigger than ever? You were livid about the deficit and spending for 8 years, remember?

Who is making the Federal government bigger than ever? More socialism. Tens of billions in cash handouts to farmers for doing nothing.

And you're cool with all that? Dude. Come on. You have to turn in your conservative fan club card, my friend. Because now "a fan" is the right of you.

I'm enjoying him shove it back at democrats and their accomplices—the MSM.

So are the rest of the Trump fans. Trump is playing you.

Watch what he does with his left hand, meanwhile, his right hand is doing all the things that you'd swear on a stack of Bibles that you hate: more spending, more socialism, more money to the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Keep your eye on the ball. You're missing the game entirely.

Thank God Pelosi is powerless to pass a bill. Last one she passed she didn't know what was in it till it passed.

Great. So now we have an understanding. You accept that the Dems are powerless to pass legislation. THAT is why you don't read criticism from me about the Federal Dems.

Have a great weekend1

[dislaxxic]

Watch what he does with his left hand, meanwhile, his right hand is doing all the things that you'd swear on a stack of Bibles that you hate: more spending, more socialism, more money to the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

The truth comes out for all to see. This type of conservative was masquerading all those years of D "rule" as concerned, principled defenders of small government, low taxes and less regulation, blah, blah, BLAH. Turns out that the truth of the matter is that they are not much more than partisan hacks that looked for ANY reason to pi$$ and moan about the "rulers" because - horrors! - they were "libruls".

Plain old garden variety unprincipled partisan hacks with no moral compass this side of what's being spouted at a given moment on Faux News...

By the by...those of us paying attention have known this for years...

..

[seacoaster]

Not sure where to park this question/thought, so here:

Hope Hicks arrived at the House Judiciary Committee this morning, almost certainly in perfect raiment for the occasion, and then -- on directives from the White House counsel attending -- refused to answer any question of any substance. So my question is this: does anyone here know the scope of contours of this executive privilege that is begin invoked?

Here's a start: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766

"Having determined that the requirements of Rule 17(c) were satisfied, we turn to the claim that the subpoena should be quashed because it demands "confidential conversations between a President and his close advisors that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce." App. 48a. The first contention is a broad claim that the separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial review of a President's claim of privilege. The second contention is that, if he does not prevail on the claim of absolute privilege, the court should hold as a matter of constitutional law that the privilege prevails over the subpoena duces tecum.

In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others. The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Court, however, have unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Id. at 5 U. S. 177. No holding of the Court has defined the scope of judicial power specifically relating to the enforcement of a subpoena for confidential Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution, but other exercises of power by the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have been found invalid as in conflict with the Constitution. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486 (1969); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952). In a series of cases, the Court interpreted the explicit immunity conferred by express provisions of the Constitution on Members of the House and Senate by the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S.Const. Art. I, § 6. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U. S. 306 (1973); Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606 (1972); United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972); United States v. Johnson 383 U. S. 169 (1966). Since this Court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers.

Our system of government "requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch." Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 395 U. S. 549. And in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. at 369 U. S. 211, the Court stated:

"Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."

Notwithstanding the deference each branch must accord the others, the "judicial Power of the United States" vested in the federal courts by Art. III, § 1, of the Constitution can no more be shared with the Executive Branch than the Chief Executive, for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto. Any other conclusion would be contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite government. The Federalist, No. 47, p. 313 (S. Mittell ed. 1938). We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison, supra at 5 U. S. 177.

B

In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. [Footnote 15] Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; [Footnote 16] the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 295 U. S. 629-630 (1935); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 103 U. S. 190-191 (1881), insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.

However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.

"While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplate that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity."

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. at 343 U. S. 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III."

[LandM]

sea - no idea on the answer but she was interviewed by Mueller - what question is someone on that panel going to ask that she has not answered probably multiple times that is going to be asked? Is some smart junior whiz kid working for Nadler going to come up with something? To me this is a charade and the longer it goes on...........your gonna have 4 more years of it. Might be time to get some adults in the room and do the work of the people's business which is why they are elected, IMHO. This is like a shareholder who makes a bad investment and cannot accept that the 15 multiple he was promised in the offering document is not gonna happen and he can take his $3,000 a year w/o, whining is not gonna fix it........the horse is glue and it is over - Pelosi as much as I do not like her seems to the adult for the most part.

[a fan]

Benghazi. The R's invented this timeline. Now it's the idiots in the Dem party's turn. Yes, this will last at least until the election. Longer, depending on who wins.

The Benghazi investigation closed exactly two weeks after Trump won the election. A coincidence, to be sure.

[seacoaster]

sea - no idea on the answer but she was interviewed by Mueller - what question is someone on that panel going to ask that she has not answered probably multiple times that is going to be asked? Is some smart junior whiz kid working for Nadler going to come up with something? To me this is a charade and the longer it goes on...........your gonna have 4 more years of it. Might be time to get some adults in the room and do the work of the people's business which is why they are elected, IMHO. This is like a shareholder who makes a bad investment and cannot accept that the 15 multiple he was promised in the offering document is not gonna happen and he can take his $3,000 a year w/o, whining is not gonna fix it........the horse is glue and it is over - Pelosi as much as I do not like her seems to the adult for the most part.

This is the response that the GOP cherishes; they might send you a nosegay from the FTD florist nearest you.

The House is entitled to follow up on a report that summarizes and quotes some, but hardly all, of Hicks's and others testimony and interviews with the Special Counsel. The question I asked is different and, perhaps, you missed it: can a President, in our constitutional system under these circumstances, make what appears to a remarkably sweeping declaration of executive privilege, such that no communications with or about the President may be disclosed, even in a closed-door hearing in the Congress? Assume that the circumstances are these: (1) the House has received a redacted copy of an exhaustive report from an official charged with the investigation of some subject matter; (2) the House believes that there are areas in which follow up and clarification might be required or helpful to its oversight of a co-equal and coordinate branch of government; (3) the House chooses as witnesses persons it believes will be likely to provide at least some of that follow up and clarification; and (4) (and this is why I posted the link to US v. Nixon) there is no pending criminal proceeding.

This is not like a shareholder whining about her return on an investment; that's a private transaction that comes with at least some understanding of the risks associated with it. It has no ramifications for the general public or the body politic. It doesn't implicate nifty stuff like the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and the legal force and meaning in the transactions of business between the branches of government. It doesn't potentially hobble the ability of one branch to act as a meaningful check on the near-imperial powers of another. And you talk about adults in the room. Jesus F. Christ.

[LandM]

a fan,
I think if you were to ask Newt what his three biggest regrets are it would be:
1. Impeach BC;
2. Impeach BC;
3. Impeach BC
That seems to be what started this train leaving the tracks