In other words Trump is attempting to keep information from Congress - going against custom and his own promises.
And of course there have been lies about contacts with Russia. Remember the false statement about the Trump Tower meeting, for one ?
quote:
Oh and she accused him of having a "temper tantrum," to which he replied that he was purposely very calm and polite. How is it that they get to lie about him like that?
Disagreeing with Trump doesn’t prove that Pelosi was lying.
quote:
Day after day after day. Somehow they have the power to do this, to trash him and trash those who voted for him.
It’s called Freedom of Speech, Faith.
quote:
How do they get away with this? They are destroying the country and nobody can stop them.
Funny how it’s the people who refuse to submit to the lies and bigotry of the Right that are to blame.
Freedom of speech does not grant the right to lie and libel a person. She is lying. He was not angry. How does she get to use such derogatory terms as "temper tantrum" against him? And how do you get to blame the Right for the lies and unconstitutional actions of the Left? I don't see that the country can last much longer. It can't go on this way.
To me it's always funny when a YEC and also Trump supporter accuse other people of telling untruths...
To me the biggest example of telling untruths was Trump going on about not covering things up without being willing to release his tax returns. That's covering things up, baby Trump.
The irony; it hurts.
As an aside I watched the news conference where Pelosi appeared later. Does Nancy have a medical problem I'm not aware of? She seemed to be very drunk.
quote:
Freedom of speech does not grant the right to lie and libel a person.
That’s funny coming from you. However defamation law is there - but I hardly think that this qualifies. Free speech does permit people to criticise Trump and to disagree with Trump - even if you assume that the criticisms are false.
quote:
She is lying. He was not angry. How does she get to use such derogatory terms as "temper tantrum" against him?
Ending a meeting after five minutes with a refusal to consider talks unless the investigations are dropped doesn’t sound calm and considered. Nor does it sound like the action of someone with nothing to hide.
As for the rest it’s just Trump’s word against Pelosi’s. Not exactly a sound basis to conclude that Pelosi lied, even without the above facts.
quote:
And how do you get to blame the Right for the lies and unconstitutional actions of the ****?
I don’t. I see that the lies and unconstitutional actions come mostly from the Right.
quote:
I don't see that the country can last much longer. It can't go on this way.
You’d be all for treating a Democratic President in the same way - or worse - even without the evidence that justifies the criticism and investigations of Trump. Whining that you need a totalitarian dictatorship to “save” the country from people saying things you don’t like is hardly a good look. But there you are.
quote:The FISA application relied heavily on unverified research in British ex-spy Christopher Steele's dossier on President Trump's ties to Russia, which was compiled through his employment with opposition research firm Fusion GPS with funding from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm.
I don't know what the Examiner is hoping to accomplish. Any person investigating the truth of their statement will very quickly discover that there is nothing from the Steele dossier in the original warrant. The warrant says nothing more than that Steele gathered information from sub-sources, and it never says what that information was. This is readily apparent from a reading of this Searchable Carter Page FISA Warrant.
Here are excerpts from the warrant that the FISA judge likely found sufficiently compelling to approve the warrant:
quote:In or about March 2016, George Papadopoulos2 and Carter Page (the target of this application) were publicly identi?ed by Candidate #1 as part of his/her foreign policy team. [redacted] the FBI believes that the Russian Government's efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1's campaign [redacted]
As discussed below, Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers, [redacted]
[redacted] from approximately 2004 2007, Page lived in Russia [redacted] During this time, Page began business dealings with Gazprom [redacted]
According to open source information, in July 2016, Page traveled to Russia and delivered the commencement address at the New Economic School?7 In addition to giving this address, the FBI has learned that Page met with at least two Russian offcials during this trip. First, according to information provided by an FBI confidential human source (Source #1) [redacted] reported that Page had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, who is the President of Rosneft [a Russian energy company] and a close associate to Russian President Putin. [redacted] reported that, during the meeting, Page and Sechin discussed future bilateral energy cooperation and the prospects for an associated move to lift Ukraine-related Western actions against Russia. [redacted] ... ...according to Source #1 [redacted] Divyekin [who is assessed to be Igor Nikolayevich Divyekin] [redacted] had met secretly with Page and that their agenda for the meeting included Divyekin raising a dossier or "kompromat"12 that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 and the possibility of it being released to Candidate #1's campaign. [redacted]
[redacted]
12Kompromat is a Russian term for compromising material about a politician or political figure, which' is typically used to create negative publicity or blackmail. ... On or about September 23, 2016, an identified news organization published an article (September 23rd News Article), which was Written by the news organization's Chief Investigative Correspondent, alleging that US. intelligence officials are investigating Page with respect to suspected efforts by the Russian Government to in?uence the US. Presidential election. According to the September 23rd News Article, US. officials received intelligence reports that when Page was in Moscow in July 2016 to deliver the above-noted commencement address at the New Economic School, he met with two senior Russian officials. The September 23rd News Article stated that a "well-placed Western intelligence source" told the news organization that Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft. At their alleged meeting, Sechin raised the issue of the lifting of sanctions with Page. According to the September 23rd News Article, the Western intelligence source also reported that U.S. intelligence agencies received reports that Page met with another top Putin aide - Igor Divyekiri, a former Russian security official who now serves as deputy chief for internal policy and is believed by US. officials to have responsibility for intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the US. election.18
According to the September 23rd News Article, certain members of Congress were "taken aback" after being briefed on the alleged meetings and viewed the meetings as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut foreign policy. The September 23rd News Article also stated that, following the briefing, the Senate Minority Leader wrote to the FBI Director, and citing the reports of meetings between an advisor to Candidate #1 [the advisor was unnamed in the letter, but the article indicated that the advisor is Page] and "high ranking sanctioned individuals" [in context, likely a reference to Sechin] in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between Candidate #1's campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the FBI.
Based on statements in the September 23rd News Article, as well as in other recent articles published by identified news organizations, Candidate #l's campaign repeatedly has made public statements in an attempt to create the appearance of distance between Page and Candidate #1's campaign. For example, the September 23rd News Article noted that Page's precise role in Candidate #1's campaign is unclear. According to the article, a spokesperson for Candidate #l's campaign called Page an "informal foreign adviser" who "does not speak for [Candidate #1] or the-campaign." In addition, another spokesperson for Candidate #1?s campaign said that Page "has no role" and added are not aware of any of his activities, past or present. However, the article stated that the campaign spokesperson did not respond when asked why Candidate #1 had previously described Page as an advisor. In addition, on or about September 25, 2016, an identified news organization published an article that was based primarily on an interview with Candidate #1's current campaign manager (the September 25th News Article). During the interview, the campaign manager stated, "[Page is] not part of the campaign I'm running." The campaign manager added that Page is not part of Candidate #1's national security or foreign policy briefings since he/ she became campaign manager. In response to a question from the interviewer regarding reports that Page has been meeting with Russian officials to essentially attempt to conduct diplomatic negotiations with the Russian Government, the campaign manager responded, "If [Page is] doing that, he's certainly not doing it with the permission or knowledge of the campaign. . . ."
On or about September 25, 2016, Page sent a letter to the FBI Director. In this letter, Page made reference to the accusations in the September 23rd News Article and denied them. Page stated that the source of the accusations is nothing more than completely false media reports and that he did not meet this year with any sanctioned official in Russia. Page also stated that he would be willing to discuss any "final" questions the FBI may have.19
Additionally, on or about September 26,. 2016, an identified news organization published an article that was based on an interview with Page (September 26th News Article). In the September 26th News Article, Page stated that all of the accusations are complete "garbage" and that he did not meet with Sechin or Divyekin. Page also stated that he would be taking a leave of absence from his work with Candidate #1's campaign because the accusations are a "distraction." [redaction]
[5 pages of redactions]
Conclusion.
As discussed above, the FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian Government, [redacted]. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the FBI Submits that there is probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities) for or on behalf of such foreign power, or knowingly conspires with other persons to engage in such activities and, therefore, is an agent of a foreign power as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(2)(E).
[redacted] the FBI submits that there is probable cause to believe that such activities involve or are about to involve violations of the criminal statutes of the United States, [redacted]
There is almost no information from Steele, and none from the Steele dossier. Look at the allegations from the Steele dossier. None of those allegations appear in the FISA warrant. There is nothing in the warrant about Manafort, Cohen or Obama, nothing about Trump bribes, nothing about kickbacks, nothing about sex parties or pee tapes, just nothing at all from the Steele dossier. The Examiner is lying again.
There *are* large redacted portions whose content cannot be known at this time.
There's plenty of evidence for a cover up. But further investigation will tell, after the courts all strike down his attempts to avoid Constitutional Congressional oversight.
Trump’s obviously pre-planned tantrum was the action of a four-year-old. Most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Clinton continued to carry out the duties of the office during his impeachment. Obviously Trump is incapable of that.
Trump is trying to destroy separation of powers. He's made it clear he thinks he is in charge of all of government. For example his attempt to force the Judiciary to disallow national Injunctions as they have for over two hundred years. And, of course, his blatant illegal refusal to comply with valid Congressional subpoenas.
I think it's obvious what they are doing. Desperately trying to keep the lie alive and reinforce the sheep's fantasy world. Works like a charm on Faith and her ilk.
As an aside I watched the news conference where Pelosi appeared later. Does Nancy have a medical problem I'm not aware of? She seemed to be very drunk.
Don't see it myself - is there some particular part of her comments you're thinking of? I did see mention in a news report that she was up until 3 AM:
that's not for Trump to decide, it's the job of the courts, so far they've sided with congress.
And there is no legitimate reason to demand his tax returns
the courts disagree
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Obama courts. Another sign the nation is going to hell in a handbasket when even the courts are political and couldn't care less about the cause of justice..
Two judges so far disagree with you. The validity of Congressional subpoenas over a wide variety of subjects is well established in law, as well as the principle that neither the Judiciary not the Executive should tell Congress what is or is not valid except in the most extreme situation. .
The subpoenas are valid.
There are legitimate reasons for demanding his tax returns.
To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest
To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies
To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent
To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary
To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president
To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders
And there is the extremely clear law, 26 USC Section 6103(f)(1):
quote:Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
Since all those potential problems have not one shred of reality but exist only in the minds of Trump's enemies there is NO justification for subpoenaing his tax returns.
And again, ask for Pelosi's tax returns. She's a multimillionaire and in line for the Presidency so potential financial shenanigans on her part should also be investigated if Trump's should.
And there is NOTHING "clear" about the law you quote.
That incantation only works if you dance naked widdershins at midnight around a pentagram and sacrifice a chicken.
Seriously, judges often show independence of whichever President picked them.. The idea that Bush judge or a Clinton judge or an Obama judge or a Trump judge will robotically carry out a particular agenda is largely bullshit. Oh, it does happen, and there's serious concern about what will happen in the Supreme Court, but assuming bias is unjustified based only on the appointing President is unjustified.
This administration is setting records for losing court cases decided by judges appointed by any recent President. Not because the judges are biased but because the administration is setting records for blatantly illegal policies and ignoring statutory requirements for review.
In this case the law is entirely clear and the reasons for the subpoena are well within Congress' preview.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
