Comey admitted single Trump leak, but were there others?

JasperL · Jun 15, 2017

bubbabgone said:
Because the condition that would limit it is thus far unrealized.

That condition is what? And on what authority are you basing that opinion?

How thorough was your search for legal opinion about the authority granted to a President that would be relevant here?

You'll have to make a point before I can answer your question. I've cited my work, there are others out there I haven't cited who agree, at least one of the experts wrote a book on EP, others are well known attorneys, many of them serving in the WH for various Presidents - they all say the same thing. You appear to be questioning the authority I've cited when you're still at the ZERO evidence of any kind stage. So not sure what else to say.

bubbabgone · Jun 16, 2017

JasperL said:
.....

That condition is what?

I thought you knew ... you said you did ... in over-sized font, even.

And on what authority are you basing that opinion?

Your own sources.

You'll have to make a point before I can answer your question. I've cited my work, there are others out there I haven't cited who agree, at least one of the experts wrote a book on EP, others are well known attorneys, many of them serving in the WH for various Presidents - they all say the same thing. You appear to be questioning the authority I've cited when you're still at the ZERO evidence of any kind stage. So not sure what else to say.

I asked you about the authority a POTUS has in matters relevant to this. Not only EP.
Like, for instance, can a President be said to obstruct justice by exercising an authority that he is known to have?

JasperL · Jun 16, 2017

bubbabgone said:
I thought you knew ... you said you did ... in over-sized font, even.

I've cited several limits on EP. I can't read your mind about which one is applicable or hasn't happened yet.

It also seems clear to me that if the POTUS without objection allows Comey to testify on issues that the entire world knew would be covered in that testimony, he can't, after the fact, assert EP on testimony that has already taken place.

Your own sources.

Cite them, then - provide a quote. So far you're still stuck on ZERO for citing experts, authority, the law, etc.

I asked you about the authority a POTUS has in matters relevant to this. Not only EP.
Like, for instance, can a President be said to obstruct justice by exercising an authority that he is known to have?

You're moving the goal posts on me. I'll stick with the original ones, thanks.

bubbabgone · Jun 16, 2017

JasperL said:
I've cited several limits on EP. I can't read your mind about which one is applicable or hasn't happened yet.

It also seems clear to me that if the POTUS without objection allows Comey to testify on issues that the entire world knew would be covered in that testimony, he can't, after the fact, assert EP on testimony that has already taken place.

Cite them, then - provide a quote. So far you're still stuck on ZERO for citing experts, authority, the law, etc.

You're moving the goal posts on me. I'll stick with the original ones, thanks.

I already acknowledged there are limits to EP but that none of them apply at this time.
No he can't assert EP ex post facto.
But that was with Comey and his shoulder chip.

However ...
The Democratics freaked when Rogers, Coats, and Sessions wouldn't say Trump asserted EP when they were asked for details of their private conversations because ...

1) they had the sense to realize that the Democratics intended to make something out of whatever they answered and it might piss off Trump if they had said anything at all. After all, they were

private conversations about Government business but none of the Democratics. Frankly, I think if each of them wore these

It would have saved unnecessary talking, been a nice touch, and was well deserved by those pompous partisan jackassum

and
2) the Democratic jackassum would also make a major scene if Trump had asserted EP.
3) Trump could still assert EP if he wanted to. It's still in play. Why do you think he hasn't? And he could have a presser and wear the glasses for the media.

Letting the bastards squirm and feign high dudgeon at the hearings was nice to watch, wasn't it?