The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think these public hearings are pretty worthless when there's an investigation being conducted at the same time. Not sure what the point of it all is? Anything note worthy would not be repeated in a public setting at this time.

Mueller's investigation should be given precedence or a public hearing and I doubt he'd want any serious information being made public while it's ongoing.
 
iKnowNothing said:
This.

Unfortunately a lot of people have already bought into the hype. In the words of a certain caftard whom I shall not name/tag but only quote ;)
Click to expand...

My statement was true. The ratings for this will be enormous.

There's nothing preventing Comey from talking about his discussion with Trump and whether Trump gave him the impression he wanted to shut the investigation down. Its not classified or executive privilege.
 
Raoul said:
My statement was true. The ratings for this will be enormous.

There's nothing preventing Comey from talking about his discussion with Trump and whether Trump gave him the impression he wanted to shut the investigation down. Its not classified or executive privilege.
Click to expand...

If he did use his executive privilege, would it essentially be classified information and if am I right in thinking that Comey would not only have to keep his mouth quite on it he would also have to keep his mouth quiet on the existence of the executive order itself?
 
Pexbo said:
If he did use his executive privilege, would it essentially be classified information and if am I right in thinking that Comey would not only have to keep his mouth quite on it he would also have to keep his mouth quiet on the existence of the executive order itself?
Click to expand...

The classified stuff will all be revealed behind closed doors. The executive privilege bit has already been dealt with yesterday where Trump said (via his spokesman) that it wouldn't be invoked. Comey is therefore free to say anything he wants provided its within the parameters to what he and Muellers agreed to last week (as in, he won't say anything that might prejudice Mueller's investigation).
 
Boasting about his trip to Saudi Arabia, some of the shit he's saying. :lol:
 
So is there a legal basis? Can you just refuse to answer a question in such circumstance? I've had close to zero knowledge about the US legal system.

That video seems like four people desperately trying to avoid answering something without any argument for why they shouldn't have to
 
Dan said:
Boasting about his trip to Saudi Arabia, some of the shit he's saying. :lol:
Click to expand...
It's unbelievable. He's just lying, lying and lying, and the suckers he's lying to lick it up like kittens lick up milk. Fascism live.
 
Last edited:
donkeyfish said:
So is there a legal basis? Can you just refuse to answer a question in such circumstance? I've had close to zero knowledge about the US legal system.

That video seems like four people desperately trying to avoid answering something without any argument for why they shouldn't have to
Click to expand...
in a regular court they would have been held in contempt of court till they gave an answer. As far as I know they should have been held in contempt of Congress today, especially Coats who basically testified he had no reasons to answer other than the fact that he just didn't feel like it.
 
Pexbo said:
Four clever answers there. "Did anyone at the White House direct you on how to respond today or were there discussions on executive privilege".

Rodgers: "Have I asked the White House if it's their intent to invoke Executive Privileges, Yes? The answer I gave you today reflects my answer, no one elses".
Coats "Same for me"
Rosenstein: "I have not had any conversations about Executive privileges"
McCabe: "I have not had any conversations about Executive privileges either".



Interesting that none of them answer whether anyone at the White House directed them on how to respond. They blatantly did looking at the clever wording of their responses.
Click to expand...
Who the feck asked about executive privileges?
Like trying to bust the mafia, they've all been coached.
 
Donald Trump just sang Mitch McConnell's praises and then slammed the Democrats for being obstructionists all in the same sentence. I think I want to cry, there is nothing else left to do. We are living in parody, we must be.
 
langster said:
Donald Trump just sang Mitch McConnell's praises and then slammed the Democrats for being obstructionists all in the same sentence. I think I want to cry, there is nothing else left to do. We are living in parody, we must be.
Click to expand...

Standard stuff, read any of their statements from 2014 onwards.
 
ChaddyP said:
in a regular court they would have been held in contempt of court till they gave an answer. As far as I know they should have been held in contempt of Congress today, especially Coats who basically testified he had no reasons to answer other than the fact that he just didn't feel like it.
Click to expand...

That's what I would think (but didn't know). I'm watching the thick of it atm, and it reminded me a bit of that, slightly farcical.
 
Comey clearly felt pressured and uncomfortable to the point he repeated what had happened to others. Unfortunately it seems Trump did definitely break the law but it's down to a "he said, she said" scenario. Comey's word against Trump, but he clearly acts inappropriately towards Comey, and at one point asks him to make things go away regarding Flynn.
 
It was all quiet on this front (as ever, that's relative) and it looks like it's about to pick up again. Tomorrow could be fun.
 
So who thinks Trump recorded all those talks?
 
Raoul said:
Its not standard practice. Comey did this intentionally to flood the media space with this narrative prior to tomorrow's hearing.
Click to expand...
yup - handled like a true politician. Brilliant move.

Trump's new nominee for FBI Director is no longer a story...sorry bro :lol:
 
Raoul said:
Its the testimony of the (former) FBI Director. Doesn't get any more credible than that.
Click to expand...

It's a legislative thing not a judicial trial, but in a court if a conversation is reported by one of the participants with no corroboration, it is inadmissible AFAIK. And if there is a contested version of the conversation, the contest will be from the (not former) president, who probably trumps FBI director.
 
Neutral said:
yup - handled like a true politician. Brilliant move.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be more impactful to drop the bomb on live tv? Don't really get the move. I don't think he needs to tease anything in order to get attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.