• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say

exoplanet said:
I will go with Rosenstein on this one since the source is anonymous, but why would he admit to such a thing?

No, he specifically said the DOJ did not tell him to stop.
Click to expand...
Check again, I think that he stated that no one told him to stop and that it would be a big deal to do so for political purposes.
Which felony is this?
Click to expand...
Comey is obligated to report any attempted obstruction. He has not. Should there be any, he would have failed in his obligation which is a felony for him in the role of Director FBI.
I don't think you listened to what he actually did say. The only open question at this point is whether the sources where actually endangered.
Click to expand...
The president can declassify anything he wishes to. The only endangerment of the source is the what the newspaper published.
What a nice, comfortable little bubble you've made for yourself.
Click to expand...

Factually based and no bubble here.
 
eohrnberger said:
Check again, I think that he stated that no one told him to stop and that it would be a big deal to do so for political purposes.
Click to expand...
Here are the questions put to him: "So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?... Has it ever happened?"

eohrnberger said:
Comey is obligated to report any attempted obstruction. He has not. Should there be any, he would have failed in his obligation which is a felony for him in the role of Director FBI.
Click to expand...
Well, here is where things get tricky. Unless it is a clear quid pro quo "stop this investigation if you want to keep you job", then he wouldn't know for sure... unless he get's fired soon afterwards. It may not have been clear, that it was obstruction until he lost his job. And let's not gloss over the fact that the people he would be reporting it to also work for the President. He would need to have a rock solid case to come forward.

eohrnberger said:
The president can declassify anything he wishes to. The only endangerment of the source is the what the newspaper published.
Click to expand...
How do you know that he declassified it?
 
exoplanet said:
Here are the questions put to him: "So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?... Has it ever happened?"
Click to expand...

To which he testified before congress that it had not happened. Come on now.

Well, here is where things get tricky. Unless it is a clear quid pro quo "stop this investigation if you want to keep you job", then he wouldn't know for sure... unless he get's fired soon afterwards. It may not have been clear, that it was obstruction until he lost his job. And let's not gloss over the fact that the people he would be reporting it to also work for the President. He would need to have a rock solid case to come forward.
Click to expand...

He would report it to the Deputy AG, his boss, who is a career AG, and not a political appointment.

How do you know that he declassified it?
Click to expand...

Once Trump shared it with the Russians, it's pretty much declassified. Doing so was within his authority.
 
Cardinal said:
Full, unabridged headline: First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say

Jesus Christ, there's been a year's worth of news today.



Russian officials bragged they could use Michael Flynn to influence Donald Trump, sources say - CNNPolitics.com

While considering this, keep in mind that both Obama and Representative Elija Cummings, ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, had warned Trump and the Trump transition team extensively of Flynn, and Trump and Pence ignored those warnings. Pence, in addition, lied about not knowing about Flynn afterwards.

The letter from Cummings to Pence, dated November 18 of last year, can be found here:

https://democrats-oversight.house.g...ting-to-michael-flynn-s-apparent-conflicts-of
Click to expand...

You didn't post how these conversations were heard and who heard them.

Do you have that information?
 
Cardinal said:
I predict they'll attack the sources rather than remember that they are Americans and should be concerned that our President has clearly sold out our interests to a hostile foreign power.
Click to expand...

Flynn was fired after about a week and a half.
 
eohrnberger said:
To which he testified before congress that it had not happened. Come on now.
Click to expand...
So long as you know what "it" means, then you actually know what he said.

eohrnberger said:
He would report it to the Deputy AG, his boss, who is a career AG, and not a political appointment.
Click to expand...
So do you acknowledge that some forms of verbal intimidation could be dismissed without actions, yet be damning once combined with actions (i.e. firing the AG).


eohrnberger said:
Once Trump shared it with the Russians, it's pretty much declassified. Doing so was within his authority.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it wasn't in his authority, but sharing it with the Russians did not make it public. Sensitive information can be shared without being declassified. Or perhaps you mean that he changed the level of classification?
 
exoplanet said:
Here are the questions put to him: "So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?... Has it ever happened?"

Well, here is where things get tricky. Unless it is a clear quid pro quo "stop this investigation if you want to keep you job", then he wouldn't know for sure... unless he get's fired soon afterwards. It may not have been clear, that it was obstruction until he lost his job. And let's not gloss over the fact that the people he would be reporting it to also work for the President. He would need to have a rock solid case to come forward.

How do you know that he declassified it?
Click to expand...

1. The FBI is an agency within the Justice Department. It's director reports to the attorney general, who in turn reports to the president. It is not an independent entity. As such, the attorney general or president can absolutely direct a criminal probe to stop. The problem is of course the abuse of power angle which can exist.
But as Comey repeatedly said, the investigation was not a criminal investigation. So there would be no obstruction of justice existing with such a shutdown.

2. Which is why a special prosecutor was appointed. Was there abuse of power by the president?
 
Athanasius68 said:
1. The FBI is an agency within the Justice Department. It's director reports to the attorney general, who in turn reports to the president. It is not an independent entity. As such, the attorney general or president can absolutely direct a criminal probe to stop. The problem is of course the abuse of power angle which can exist.
But as Comey repeatedly said, the investigation was not a criminal investigation. So there would be no obstruction of justice existing with such a shutdown.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not convinced,yet. Since they also intended to assess whether crimes were committed, wouldn't there be some gray area there?
 
exoplanet said:
So long as you know what "it" means, then you actually know what he said.
Click to expand...

This sounds too much like 'what the definition of 'is' is'.

Clearly, the 'it' Comey was referring to was obstruction of justice by anyone.

So do you acknowledge that some forms of verbal intimidation could be dismissed without actions, yet be damning once combined with actions (i.e. firing the AG).
Click to expand...

You are playing word games, and I'm really not up for it right now. Try again later sometime, or better yet, quit playing silly word games.

I'm not saying it wasn't in his authority, but sharing it with the Russians did not make it public. Sensitive information can be shared without being declassified. Or perhaps you mean that he changed the level of classification?
Click to expand...
 
exoplanet said:
I guess I'm not convinced,yet. Since they also intended to assess whether crimes were committed, wouldn't there be some gray area there?
Click to expand...

No. The FBI would not, could not, have gone to a FISAA court for a criminal investigation.
 
eohrnberger said:
This sounds too much like 'what the definition of 'is' is'.

Clearly, the 'it' Comey was referring to was obstruction of justice by anyone.
Click to expand...
Even though he wasn't asked about "anyone" nor used the word "anyone" in his reply. Ok...

eohrnberger said:
You are playing word games, and I'm really not up for it right now. Try again later sometime, or better yet, quit playing silly word games.
Click to expand...
That's not a word game. Hopefully we will get some clarity when Comey testifies again.
 
Athanasius68 said:
No. The FBI would not, could not, have gone to a FISAA court for a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you mean they couldn't within the purview of this investigation. I'm also guessing you mean the FISA court? I don't see why they would have to go there if US laws have been broken.
 
Russia meeting revelation could trigger obstruction investigation

President Donald Trump’s Oval Office boast to Russian officials will almost certainly prompt a more immediate legal development.

"The new special counsel investigation into possible collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia is just getting started — and it could take years to resolve.But Trump’s Oval Office boast to Russian officials May 10 about why he fired FBI Director James Comey will almost certainly trigger a more immediate, and potentially perilous, legal development: an obstruction of justice investigation into whether the president intentionally engaged in a cover-up that warrants the filing of criminal charges, current and former Justice Department officials say.

Trump summarily terminated Comey one day earlier, just as it appeared that his FBI investigators were ramping up their investigation into the president’s associates — and possibly Trump himself.

A day later, the president told Russian’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.”“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off. … I’m not under investigation,” Trump added, according to an official White House document summarizing the meeting, as reported Friday by the New York Times.

Russia meeting revelation could trigger obstruction investigation - POLITICO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom