Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mistertim]

I'm betting that if Cohen gets subpoenaed he will refuse it, just like Flynn. I think that will be the Trump team's game...they will bank on any consequences for ignoring subpoenas being caught up and stonewalled by Republicans in the House and Senate. It's too bad that subpoenas issued by Congress don't seem to have the same legal bite as those issued by LE. In order to have real consequences it has to go right back through the political grinder as opposed to "Ok, you're ignoring this subpoena? Here's your orange jumpsuit. Enjoy your vacation."

[Jumbo]

the whole "the russia probe is just the dems  trying to explain their historic loss" is such transparent deadbrain nonsense, but being that's who they think their audience is, and they should know, they'll stick with it..now if they said "this whole Russia probe is just an example of how much the dems are against the gop and absolutely HATE trump and want to find any excuse to get rid of him" I'd buy the latter part of that claim....of course that doesn't lead to  "there's nothing there"

 

there's a lot of there there...i am looking forward to future exchanges here when this finally gets sorted (and it will)

[Burgold]

I guess the ultimate question will be is there any line after which the Republican majority in the House or Senate will get so fed up with being disrespected by all these refusals, etc that they put some teeth into their inquiry. Right now, their mostly happy to bite like a puppy and go through the motions of an inquiry, but will they eventually feel so embarrassed and insulted by Flynn et al making them look like impotent blowhards that they decide to actually get serious?

[killerbee99]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I guess the ultimate question will be is there any line after which the Republican majority in the House or Senate will get so fed up with being disrespected by all these refusals, etc that they put some teeth into their inquiry. Right now, their mostly happy to bite like a puppy and go through the motions of an inquiry, but will they eventually feel so embarrassed and insulted by Flynn et al making them look like impotent blowhards that they decide to actually get serious?

Ha... that is so never happening these are Republicans who love the power they have now..... Why blow it up when you can push trickle down economics rewarding your donors and such

[mistertim]

10 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I guess the ultimate question will be is there any line after which the Republican majority in the House or Senate will get so fed up with being disrespected by all these refusals, etc that they put some teeth into their inquiry. Right now, their mostly happy to bite like a puppy and go through the motions of an inquiry, but will they eventually feel so embarrassed and insulted by Flynn et al making them look like impotent blowhards that they decide to actually get serious?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there's almost no line for them. They would have some sort of plausible deniability. "Hey, we issued a subpoena...we were doing oversight. It isn't our fault that people refused to cooperate. That has to go through a process to be enforced. I also have no clue what you mean when you say that we are dragging our feet when it comes to enforcing the subpoenas."

 

In the meantime while that is bogged down they get to keep pushing through their Ayn Rand fantasy budgets and masturbating to the fact that they get to tell as many poor and old people "**** you, **** your healthcare, and **** your kid's healthcare. stop being a lazy moocher" as possible.

Edited May 30, 2017 by mistertim

[Burgold]

Sadly, I probably agree with both of you. The country will likely suffer for it. Hopefully, the damage is not insurmountable. 

[RedskinsFan44]

This is a pretty nice summary of the administrations position: The leaks are fake, but it's of vital national security interest that we find the leakers.

 

 

[twa]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Talking about his Turkey lobbying. That is no longer conjecture correct? I can probably find you a link you like if you tell me what source you respect/accept not named Fox or Sputnik. I know thats hard for you people lol

 

But seriously you know what im talking about dont be a TWA about this. 

 

 

 

You must have read a different rundown on his lobbying than I have, even assuming the worst it would not have been selling out his country.

I'm sure he broke some rules and regulations though.

[RedskinsFan44]

So we have Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner and Cohen under investigation.  Pretty substantial list. Page, Flynn, and Cohen all stonewalling, correct?

 

add: And Sessions lied (omitted) on his clearance paperwork.

Edited May 30, 2017 by RedskinsFan44

[mistertim]

35 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

So we have Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner and Cohen under investigation.  Pretty substantial list. Page, Flynn, and Cohen all stonewalling, correct?

 

add: And Sessions lied (omitted) on his clearance paperwork.

 

Add to that that Sessions apparently had a role in the decision to fire Comey, which Trump stated was because of the Russia investigation, which Sessions was supposed to have completely recused himself from.

Edited May 30, 2017 by mistertim

[techboy]

4 hours ago, Dan T. said:

One person who doesn't is Michael Flynn's former boss:

 

I get it... it's important to defend core constitutional principles and the rule of law.

 

Unless someone we don't like did it first, then it's okay to turn it back on them.

 

Because that totally doesn't undermine the ideals for everyone.

 

Yes, I'm touchy about this issue. If we don't defend our core principles with regards to people we don't like, it's too easy to let them slip.

 

There's a reason the ACLU defends the right of the KKK to march, 

 

 

Or, if you prefer a selfish reason, every unworthy or over the top attack on Trump and his minions makes it easier for them to portray themselves as the victims to an already shaky populace.

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

I get it... it's important to defend core constitutional principles and the rule of law.

 

Unless someone we don't like did it first, then it's okay to turn it back on them.

 

Because that totally doesn't undermine the ideals for everyone.

 

Yes, I'm touchy about this issue. If we don't defend our core principles with regards to people we don't like, it's too easy to let them slip.

 

There's a reason the ACLU defends the right of the KKK to march, 

 

 

Or, if you prefer a selfish reason, every unworthy or over the top attack on Trump and his minions makes it easier for them to portray themselves as the victims to an already shaky populace.

There is a qualitative difference here from what I understand. Lots of people have claimed the fifth when it comes to questioning or giving testimony. It's pretty rare and questionable whether it's even permissible to claim the fifth in terms of turning over potential evidence.

[techboy]

Just now, Burgold said:

There is a qualitative difference here from what I understand. 

 

Well, first, most of the comments in here have been in relation to his request for immunity before he'll testify, which is at the core of the 5th ammendment,

 

But if Congress doesn't like him not turning over the documents, they can hold him in contempt. And there is actually a process they can use to enforce that, even if it's rarely used.

 

And I'm sure that the FBI will have no problem getting search warrants should it become appropriate to do so.

 

Until then, I think we should guard against relaxing our ideals because we're upset at a transient administration.

 

And yes, as much damage as they might cause, they are transient.

[Burgold]

30 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

 

Until then, I think we should guard against relaxing our ideals because we're upset at a transient administration.

 

And yes, as much damage as they might cause, they are transient.

I don't disagree and yet I also posit that the burden of guilt in the court of public opinion has always been much lower than that in the actual court (which is a good thing). That said, I don't really find it troubling that people can look at a ton of behaviors, firings, and "leaked evidence" that has been corroborated by the White House, FBI, CIA, etc. and adding it all up say... "Something stinks!"

 

We better investigate and get to the bottom of this! Which, for the most part, is what most everyone is saying except those who say... the investigation is a waste of time! Stop it!

[techboy]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

That said, I don't really find it troubling that people can look at a ton of behaviors, firings, and "leaked evidence" that has been corroborated by the White House, FBI, CIA, etc. and adding it all up say... "Something stinks!"

 

I don't either, which is why I began with the comment that I suspect that Flynn is guilty of something, or perhaps many things.

 

What I object to is people including the fact that he doesn't want to testify without immunity, and invoked his 5th amendment rights to that end, as one of those evidences.

 

I find that to be troubling and dangerous, because it adds to an atmosphere which is chilling towards the ability of anyone else to use that core constitutional right.

 

And yes, I know that a lot of people speculate that way. That's even more reason to be vigilant against it. It's already bad enough.

 

But I think I've expressed this opinion clearly enough, and people are going to people, so I'll get off my soap box now.

[visionary]

 

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

I don't either, which is why I began with the comment that I suspect that Flynn is guilty of something, or perhaps many things.

 

What I object to is people including the fact that he doesn't want to testify without immunity, and invoked his 5th amendment rights to that end, as one of those evidences.

 

I find that to be troubling and dangerous, because it adds to an atmosphere which is chilling towards the ability of anyone else to use that core constitutional right.

 

And yes, I know that a lot of people speculate that way. That's even more reason to be vigilant against it. It's already bad enough.

 

But I think I've expressed this opinion clearly enough, and people are going to people, so I'll get off my soap box now.

 

I still totally agree with you fwiw. There needs to be people like you as you will always have people like me. 

 

And stand on ya soap box playa it's a good one and you make a good point rather I'm on the same page or not 

[mistertim]

Provide "some" documents? So he gets to pick and choose which documents he hands over?

[twa]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

Provide "some" documents? So he gets to pick and choose which documents he hands over?

 

Pretend he is Hillary and it is all good. 

[spjunkies]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Pretend he is Hillary and it is all good. 

 

Does everything need to twist back to Hillary? Enough!

[DogofWar1]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Pretend he is Hillary and it is all good. 

 

 

But in all seriousness, that's not how subpoena's work.  You provide all the docs, or we motion to compel your anus.

Edited May 31, 2017 by DogofWar1

[twa]

1 hour ago, spjunkies said:

 

Does everything need to twist back to Hillary? Enough!

 

It ain't over yet. 

 

fwiw Flynn released business records...which are not covered under the fifth .

 

[LD0506]

[Stadium-Armory]

5 hours ago, Burgold said:

I guess the ultimate question will be is there any line after which the Republican majority in the House or Senate will get so fed up with being disrespected by all these refusals, etc that they put some teeth into their inquiry. Right now, their mostly happy to bite like a puppy and go through the motions of an inquiry, but will they eventually feel so embarrassed and insulted by Flynn et al making them look like impotent blowhards that they decide to actually get serious?

 

A line will be drawn when Republicans start losing seats in Congress. And that doesn't appear to happening any time soon, if the special elections are any indication. Nothing will change until they think their seats are in jeopardy.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Stadium-Armory