Trump and Russia

[thebug]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Do you come here just to practice being an asswhole?

I was replying to someone else about something that doesn’t concern you jackoff! 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, thebug said:

I was replying to someone else about something that doesn’t concern you jackoff! 

Then PM them if you want to keep yourshit private. I asked if you come here to practice being an asswhole because I was going to tell you not to bother, you've accomplished your goal.

[thebug]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Then PM them if you want to keep yourshit private. I asked if you come here to practice being an asswhole because I was going to tell you not to bother, you've accomplished your goal.

Thanks! 

[boyst]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Then PM them if you want to keep yourshit private. I asked if you come here to practice being an asswhole because I was going to tell you not to bother, you've accomplished your goal.

No, remember he came here because he was challenged to survive a month. And he hasn't because he didn't, he doesn't exist here

[thebug]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

No, remember he came here because he was challenged to survive a month. And he hasn't because he didn't, he doesn't exist here

Yeah everyone has me on ignore, yet continues to reply. 

[Tiberius]

7 hours ago, thebug said:

Yeah everyone has me on ignore, yet continues to reply. 

Funny how that works, right? I see you have been attacked by the right wing mob! They are not bright enough to handle anyone on their own so they have to work in groups to try and "win" an argument collectively. Hope you wore boots, their crap can get deep  

[GG]

8 hours ago, thebug said:

I was replying to someone else about something that doesn’t concern you jackoff! 

It is a public forum.  Should be obvious for pontificators.  

[4merper4mer]

12 minutes ago, GG said:

It is a public forum.  Should be obvious for pontificators.  

Geez dude at least keep the Pope out of this thread.  He has enough issues on this board already.

[thebug]

36 minutes ago, GG said:

It is a public forum.  Should be obvious for pontificators.  

I get that. That was me being polite. 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, thebug said:

I get that. That was me being polite. 

Practice, practice, practice.

[B-Man]

Byron York: On the Trump-Russia investigation and the rule of law

This week I took part in a debate on the question "Does the Russia investigation endanger the rule of law?" I said yes, and here is why:

 

First, a caveat: If "endanger the rule of law" means "destroys our legal order and threatens our democracy," then no, I don't think the Trump-Russia investigation does that. But if it means "involves our nation's most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies in reckless political conduct that undermines our system of elections and the orderly transfer of power," then yes, the Trump-Russia investigation does, in fact, endanger the rule of law.

 

Two incidents from 2016 and early 2017 point to the danger posed by overzealous Trump-Russia investigators.

 

The first is that the Justice Department used the Logan Act, which bars private Americans from conducting foreign policy, as a pretense to pursue an investigation against the Trump team.

 

The Logan Act was passed in 1799 and has never been used to successfully prosecute anybody. No one has even tried since the 19th Century. It is, by any practical measure, dead — look up the legal concept of "desuetude."

 

And yet, in the summer of 2016, some prominent Democrats began accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of violating the Logan Act. They said he broke the law by sarcastically encouraging Russia to release Hillary Clinton's famous deleted emails. Several called for hearings.

Then, after Trump's victory, stunned and angry Democrats watched him prepare for the presidency — and prepare to undo many of former President Barack Obama's policies.

 

Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California introduced the One President at a Time Act of 2016 which would specifically subject presidents-elect to the Logan Act. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, then the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.

 

All of that was just political posturing — not a threat to the rule of law. But unbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.

 

When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the new national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the Obama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. (It wasn't; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.)

 

Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the Obama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act. (She also said she was worried that Flynn might be subject to blackmail, which seemed at least as dubious as a Logan Act violation.)

 

It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.

 

The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before — when in fact, the new administration's real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor's policies.

 

The second incident that suggests the Trump investigation threatens the rule of law is the FBI's use of the Trump dossier — a Clinton campaign opposition research product — as a part of its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.

 

More at the link:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-on-the-trump-russia-investigation-and-the-rule-of-law?platform=hootsuite

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Byron York: On the Trump-Russia investigation and the rule of law

This week I took part in a debate on the question "Does the Russia investigation endanger the rule of law?" I said yes, and here is why:

 

First, a caveat: If "endanger the rule of law" means "destroys our legal order and threatens our democracy," then no, I don't think the Trump-Russia investigation does that. But if it means "involves our nation's most powerful law enforcement and intelligence agencies in reckless political conduct that undermines our system of elections and the orderly transfer of power," then yes, the Trump-Russia investigation does, in fact, endanger the rule of law.

 

Two incidents from 2016 and early 2017 point to the danger posed by overzealous Trump-Russia investigators.

 

The first is that the Justice Department used the Logan Act, which bars private Americans from conducting foreign policy, as a pretense to pursue an investigation against the Trump team.

 

The Logan Act was passed in 1799 and has never been used to successfully prosecute anybody. No one has even tried since the 19th Century. It is, by any practical measure, dead — look up the legal concept of "desuetude."

 

And yet, in the summer of 2016, some prominent Democrats began accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of violating the Logan Act. They said he broke the law by sarcastically encouraging Russia to release Hillary Clinton's famous deleted emails. Several called for hearings.

Then, after Trump's victory, stunned and angry Democrats watched him prepare for the presidency — and prepare to undo many of former President Barack Obama's policies.

 

Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California introduced the One President at a Time Act of 2016 which would specifically subject presidents-elect to the Logan Act. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, then the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.

 

All of that was just political posturing — not a threat to the rule of law. But unbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.

 

When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the new national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the Obama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. (It wasn't; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.)

 

Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the Obama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act. (She also said she was worried that Flynn might be subject to blackmail, which seemed at least as dubious as a Logan Act violation.)

 

It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.

 

The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before — when in fact, the new administration's real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor's policies.

 

The second incident that suggests the Trump investigation threatens the rule of law is the FBI's use of the Trump dossier — a Clinton campaign opposition research product — as a part of its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.

 

More at the link:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-on-the-trump-russia-investigation-and-the-rule-of-law?platform=hootsuite

 

 

I love the whining about the Logan Act.  You'd need a prison the size of Long Island to hold all the Democrats who've violated that.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrats.

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I love the whining about the Logan Act.  You'd need a prison the size of Long Island to hold all the Democrats who've violated that.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrats.

Jimmy Carter alone could fill up a cellblock. 

[snafu]

32 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I love the whining about the Logan Act.  You'd need a prison the size of Long Island to hold all the Democrats who've violated that.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrats.

 

I offer Staten Island as an alternative.  It would be more crowded, but nobody would miss that part of the state for a second. 

 

[Tiberius]

So Russia thinks censorship is bad and just ran an election where the opposition was not allowed to run (Trump still praised Putin's win) are crying about censorship? 

 

3. ANTI-SOCIAL

2 hours ago

Kremlin Calls Facebook’s Removal of Troll Farm ‘Censorship’

 

 

 

 

 

The Kremlin has criticized Facebook for removing dozens of accounts run by a Russian internet troll farm, saying it amounts to “censorship.” On Tuesday, the company announced it had deleted 70 Facebook accounts, 138 Facebook pages, and 65 Instagram accounts run by the Russia-based Internet Research Agency—a site that operated to impersonate Americans to exacerbate political divisions ahead of the 2016 president election. Speaking Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov agreed with a questioner from one of the media outlets affected by the deletions—that it was a hostile step that smacked of censorship. “Yes it is,” Peskov told a conference call with reporters. “We are of course following this and we regret it.”

 

READ IT AT REUTERS

13 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I love the whining about the Logan Act.  You'd need a prison the size of Long Island to hold all the Democrats who've violated that.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrats.

I love how every little thing that can sort of be interpreted as being done wrong in the investigation is suddenly the "central element" of the investigation. Last week it was the dossier, then the FISA court, then the Logan act, next week it will leaks again. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

...No criminal charges for collusion. Anyone want to eat some crow here? Or is intellectually honesty gone?

[Tiberius]

38 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

...No criminal charges for collusion. Anyone want to eat some crow here? Or is intellectually honesty gone?

What? 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/04/mueller-told-trump-hes-not-a-criminal-target-but-that-doesnt-mean-his-evidence-against-trump-is-weak/?utm_term=.796c4e4722bc

 

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/04/mueller-told-trump-hes-not-a-criminal-target-but-that-doesnt-mean-his-evidence-against-trump-is-weak/?utm_term=.796c4e4722bc

 

 

In the end, this could mean any of a number of things, but neither side should take this as foreshadowing of any specific or likely outcome. It's also entirely possible Mueller does think he can criminally charge Trump, but honestly doesn't view him as a target at this juncture. (And that could always change.)

 

Like almost everything in this investigation, only a handful of people know — and they're not talking.

[Deranged Rhino]

Never give up, Gary. The next month is going to be a joy to watch you melt down.

 

Well... if you were honest of course. But you're not.