FBI is Investigating a Sitting President

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Aurora, Mar 20, 2017.

  1. Dinner

    Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    27,661
    Location:
    Land of fruit & nuts.
    Ratings:
    +14,078
    That is pretty much my take. Trump will have a slow drip of scandalish news for a year or two but nothing meaningful will happen certainly not until 2019 and only then if Dems take over Congress. They have a shot at the Senate but the house is gerrymandered to hell and back.
  2. Aurora

    Aurora Vincerò!

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    26,620
    Location:
    Storage B
    Ratings:
    +8,263
    'course Pence won't go down with Trump. But it would pose an interesting constitutional problem if he did.

    On the one hand there's a clear line of succession down to Kiefer Sutherland the Secretary of Outhouses.

    On the other hand, dethroning both of them at once could be interpreted as a clear case of the people having the right to vote again even thought it's not a constitutional right but a moral one.
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 2
  3. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    37,174
    Ratings:
    +21,753
    There is only a line of succession for the President. This is not difficult to understand. In the event we lose both positions a new President will choose a new Vice-President.

    No it wouldn't.

    There is no right to vote again.

    Not only would sacking them both probably lead to bloodshed but if you think even the ones who want Trump gone are going to stand by and do a re-vote and possible get Hillary you're naively stupid.

    The country would go to the brink of Civil War.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Mobius 01

    Mobius 01 破碎的天空

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,110
    Location:
    Chiner
    Ratings:
    +6,382
    Meh. I'll get my hopes up when he's actually impeached.

    It is ironic, though. I remember an article published by Newt Gingrich, partisan toolbox, just before the election. It argued that a Clinton administration would be rendered inert by endless scandals and investigations. He argued this while completely ignoring that it was even more likely of his own preferred candidate.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  5. Aurora

    Aurora Vincerò!

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    26,620
    Location:
    Storage B
    Ratings:
    +8,263
    Yes? I know how the line of succession works :shrug:

    And as I said, constitutional vs moral obligation.
  6. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    37,174
    Ratings:
    +21,753
    There is no moral obligation. Only constitutional ones.

    There would never be a re-vote. Ever.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  7. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    38,972
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +17,253
    No "moral obligation" has legal or constitutional authority.

    If the country is going to this extent to replace President Trump then we might as well go "full parliamentary".

    Have the U.S. Senate nominate some candidates and the U.S. House choose one for president and the runner up for Vice.
  8. Coloratura

    Coloratura Snuggle Princess

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Messages:
    17,026
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +18,236
    And more likely of himself as well.
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    38,972
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +17,253
    You do know that from a constitutional standpoint, conspiring with the Russians and stealing the 2016 election would NOT be an impeachable offense.

    If for no other reason that it happened before he was president.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Sean the Puritan

    Sean the Puritan 21st Century Puritan

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    24,984
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +14,201
    Only wishful thinking.
  11. Ebeneezer Goode

    Ebeneezer Goode Gobshite

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    18,200
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Ratings:
    +6,517
    You missed the wiggle room - most. Obviously Kellyanne and the rest of Stockholm Syndromers will point at that.
    • Winner Winner x 4
  12. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    21,731
    Ratings:
    +18,774
    Nailed it. Kudos.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. Ebeneezer Goode

    Ebeneezer Goode Gobshite

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    18,200
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Ratings:
    +6,517
    I can't help but think if there is enough evidence then it'll never see a court.

    It's one thing for it to be publically known that Russia stuck a pawn in the White House, quite another for it to be officially recognised.

    The various powers that be would find an alternative method of removal. Conspiracy theories are more politically palatable, and deniable, than historical fact.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Mobius 01

    Mobius 01 破碎的天空

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,110
    Location:
    Chiner
    Ratings:
    +6,382
    I don't see why Congress can't remove anyone they want for any reason, as long as they have the votes.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    38,972
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +17,253
    To remove Trump would require dozens of Republican members of Congress to agree to do so from states and districts that President Trump won overwhelmingly.

    And remember due to the vagarities of the electoral college there are far, far more members of Congress from pro Trump districts and states than from anti Trump areas.

    From a practical matter it just won't happen.
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  16. Mobius 01

    Mobius 01 破碎的天空

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,110
    Location:
    Chiner
    Ratings:
    +6,382
    How "pro-Trump" do you think they'll all be if the FBI finds decisive evidence of collusion with the Russians?

    @Dayton3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    74,507
    Ratings:
    +34,765
    This. Trump has more lives than Jason Vorhees.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    74,507
    Ratings:
    +34,765
    He was dipping his wick in secretaries while waving his finger over the Lewinsky scandal, so he has no fucking credibility at all.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  19. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    37,174
    Ratings:
    +21,753
    Evidence?

    You guys do realize this bullshit has been going on since before the election right?

    If there was any real evidence it would have been leaked long ago.

    They've leaked all sorts of stuff so why would those holding this evidence not already leak it?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    38,948
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +37,129
    We'll see what the FBI produces, but my guess is not much.

    Did Russia prefer Trump over Clinton? Yes. Did Russia attempt to exert influence in that direction? Probably. Was this influence decisive? Probably not. Was there any criminal involvement with Trump's campaign? Doubtful.

    But we'll see.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  21. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,634
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    There already was criminal involvement by Flynn when he lied about not having spoken to the Russian ambassador. He fell on his sword.

    It was a little more than a one sided bromance (Trump thought Putin liked him, but he didn't call Trump "brilliant" just "colorful"). The Russians hacked the DNC's email creating a constant stream of noise. They sponsored websites to publish propaganda. Was this influence decisive? It may have been. I think Comey's last minute Weiner exhibition was more disruptive.

    What really won Trump the election was 8 years of black folks in the White House. Archie Bunker voted.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  22. Paladin

    Paladin Gunner Joe

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    38,948
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +37,129
    It's unclear if Flynn broke any law, but, in any event, he isn't Trump.
    Archie Bunker apparently includes lots of people who voted for those black folks before...
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    37,174
    Ratings:
    +21,753
    He broke no law. Again the people who leaked that the call took place also have the transcript. If there was a shred of evidence why hasn't that transcript been leaked yet?

    The real FBI investigation is looking into why his name wasn't redacted like it was supposed to be and who leaked it.

    They were apparently watching the Russian Ambassador and are required to redact the names of Americans unless an obvious crime is taking place.

    Flynn was stupid in that he misled Pence but he broke no laws.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. mburtonk

    mburtonk mburtonkulous

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,779
    Location:
    Minnesnowta
    Ratings:
    +4,908
    I figured he'd quit before two years. Is there a pool going?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,634
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    I'll let you play the Bill Clinton perjury card if you'll let me play the Flynn card.

    Why should his name have been redacted from the leak? It was a leak, not an official press release.

    The topic came up again after Mr. Trump and his team moved into the White House. At his first full briefing on Jan. 23, Mr. Spicer said that Mr. Flynn’s conversation had touched on only four subjects, none of them sanctions. That caught the attention of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department.

    Sally Q. Yates, an Obama appointee held over as acting attorney general until Mr. Trump’s choice was confirmed, concluded that the disparity between what was said on the call and what Mr. Flynn had evidently told the vice president and others about it might make the new national security adviser vulnerable to blackmail. When foreign governments hold information that could prove embarrassing, it is considered a potential leverage point.

    Soon after the Jan. 23 briefing, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, sent agents to interview Mr. Flynn. If he told the agents what he said publicly for more than a week after that interview — that his conversations with the ambassador had been innocuous and did not involve sanctions — then he could face legal trouble. If the authorities concluded that he knowingly lied to the F.B.I., it could expose him to a felony charge.

    NY Times source
    Would they have made the charge stick? Probably not. Flynn had already demonstrated his mental feebleness making the "I forgot" plea plausible.
  26. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    37,174
    Ratings:
    +21,753
    His name should be redacted by the team listening in on the Russian Ambassador.

    It wasn't or it was. The question is now what was it? If it wasn't redacted than why? If it was redacted than who ordered it to be unmasked and spread among intelligence services where someone leaked it to the media?
  27. Christopher

    Christopher There aren't enough redheads. Administrator Faceless Mook Writer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Messages:
    14,086
    Ratings:
    +11,610
    No :bailey:
  28. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,634
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    mmm I blame Reagan (Flynn was in the Dominican Republic at the time of the intercept):

    Executive Order 12333 contains no such protections for U.S. persons if the collection occurs outside U.S. borders. Issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 to authorize foreign intelligence investigations, 12333 is not a statute and has never been subject to meaningful oversight from Congress or any court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has said that the committee has not been able to “sufficiently” oversee activities conducted under 12333.

    Unlike Section 215, the executive order authorizes collection of the content of communications, not just metadata, even for U.S. persons. Such persons cannot be individually targeted under 12333 without a court order. However, if the contents of a U.S. person’s communications are “incidentally” collected (an NSA term of art) in the course of a lawful overseas foreign intelligence investigation, then Section 2.3(c) of the executive order explicitly authorizes their retention. It does not require that the affected U.S. persons be suspected of wrongdoing and places no limits on the volume of communications by U.S. persons that may be collected and retained.

    WAPO
  29. Mrs. Albert

    Mrs. Albert demented estrogen monster

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,624
    Ratings:
    +8,943
    I got $20 on Halloween.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    38,972
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +17,253
    I thought the CIA was legally free to conduct electronic surveillance of foreign embassies, consulates, and any other foreign diplomatic grounds on U.S. soil because legally those are foreign territory not American territory.