Comey Testimony - Live

[wufan]

This is an interesting article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/06/does-trump-have-the-power-to-block-comey-from-testifying-probably-not/?utm_term=.ddeaa91b28da

Skip to the Nixon portion

Sorry, left news...not reliable.

[wufan]

Uh it talks about a legal case and in facts quotes it. Those are facts.

I used the irony of some folks insistence of denying other articles to make a satirical point. It was totally independent of the actual content of the article.

[wufan]

I typically dont read wash post but this article is based on actual court cases. Most of the time they are in the same catergory as fox news

I don't think there is any reason to discount a news source based on lean. You should understand the leanings, read the content, and then decide if it's worth anything.

[shockmonster]

Sessions’s argument is absurd, and the reason it’s absurd is that it turns the president’s executive privilege into any executive officer’s silence. The argument goes something like this: because a president might one day, over the next 3 or 4 years, change his mind and invoke executive privilege, I am permanently silenced by that looming privilege invocation in the future, so that I have to be permanently silenced, no matter who’s asking. There is just no legal basis for that.
Honestly, it’s a ridiculous argument, and it raises questions about Attorney General Sessions’s competence in office. His lack of preparation and his inability to put forward a coherent legal argument showed his disrespect for the process, the senate, and the office of the Attorney General. He embarrassed himself by coming to this hearing totally unprepared to answer a question everyone know he would be asked.

Jed Shugerman, law professor, Fordham University

I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that Sessions invoked the same line of reasoning as AG Holder did for Pres BO.

[SHOXJOCK]

Anything to deflect. I challenge all trump supporters to not mention Hillary for one week.

About 90% of shockernet challenge you to not post about trump for one week. From Dec. 19 2015 to Feb.2 2017 125 posts not one about trump. Feb. 3 2017 to Jun. 12 2017 375 posts more than 350 were Trump related. In your line of work if a patient came to you with this information how would you try to help them?

[wufan]

Also, it is interesting that most people on here choose to attack me personally even going so far as to look at how much I post rather than attacking the actual issue. It speaks volumes about them.

I think plenty of people have attacked the issues.

[MoValley John]

Also, it is interesting that most people on here choose to attack me personally even going so far as to look at how much I post rather than attacking the actual issue. It speaks volumes about them.

I don't see you getting attacked much. I don't think I've attacked you personally. I've challenged statements and opinions, but that's far from a personal attack. If I have, I'm sorry.

[SB Shock]

Yes, and holder was held in contempt

Actually he wasn't. The house tried to hold in contempt for not turning over un-privilege documents, but the judge refused.

[shockmonster]

Yes, and holder was held in contempt

Then there is a solution. I didn't hear any of the democrats call him out on i it (saying what you said) but they did a lot of posturing for cameras.

[pinstripers]

It also states more about how many scandals there have been regarding trump

Do you even consider this collusion thing a scandal? FBI has been on it for months without uncovering anything, while we know that Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie.

[pinstripers]

Lol it is taking time because there is so much to go through. Obviously they got flynn if he is asking for a deal.

the Flynn thing has nothing to do with collusion to effect the election.

[pinstripers]

Really it's not near reason enough

[pinstripers]

zero evidence, though you are trying to convince yourself

[pinstripers]

I guess Trump and Sessions should have done something back when the Russians were trying to hack

[shockmonster]

The most clear cut factor in implying collusion is the Trump administration's silence regarding this attack. There is a consensus in the US's intelligence community. There is a consensus in the U.S. Congress. There's information pouring in from foreign intelligence services implying the existence of a large scale project on behalf of the Russians to undermine liberal democracies around the world. To NOT address this in both rhetoric and language is unthinkably irresponsible. There is no possible conclusion that one could draw from this dumbfounding silence aside from an endorsement of these actions at best, and at worst - full on complicity.

There has not been definitive evidence presented to imply that the Trump campaign was directly involved in the manipulation of the last presidential election, though there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to believe that to be the case.

Actually, if you listen to your representatives, recently Democratic attacks have changed from collusion because of a lack of real evidence (vs. contrived circumstantial evidence) to obstruction of justice centering in on the Comey firing. Nothing will come of obstruction of justice either imo.