Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4141
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:47 pm    Post subject: "Deep State trying to take Trump down": Kucinich Reply with quote

This is the righteous Democrat ... Dennis Kucinich ... coming out of the background to say what's on his mind.

Quote:
Kucinich: "Deep State" Trying To Take Down Trump, "Our Country Is Under Attack Within"
In an interview with Sean Hannity, former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said the "deep state" within the bureaucracy is trying to destroy Donald Trump's presidency.

"The political process of the United States of America being under attack by intelligence agencies and individuals in those agencies," said Wednesday night.

Kucinich said Americans must put party politics aside and acknowledge that the federal government is "under attack from within."

"You have politicization of agencies that is resulting in leaks from anonymous, unknown people and the intention is to take down a president," former Rep. Kucinich said. "Now, this is very dangerous to America. It's a threat to our republic, it constitutes a clear and present danger to our way of life. So we have to be asking, what is the motive of these people? Who's putting these leaks out? Why doesn't somebody come forward and make a charge and put their name and reputation behind it, instead of attacking through the media and not substantiating their position?"

"Our first allegiance is to our country," Kucinich said. "This isn't about one president, this is about the political process of the United States of America being under attack by intelligence agencies and individuals in those agencies, yes, as you said there might be good people in there, but there are certain individuals who are lifers who want to be able to direct the policy of the country. And if the president stands in their way whether it's a Democrat or Republican they'll just try to run that person out."

"Let me just repeat what you said, you're saying President Trump is under attack by the deep state intelligence community. Fair statement?" Hannity asked the former Congressman.

"I believe that," Kucinich responded. "Not only that, Sean, it has to be pointed out in October of 2016, that same deep state overrode the decision of President Obama and Secretary Kerry, to come to an agreement with Russia to a ceasefire in Syria. They overrode it and launched an attack against a Syrian military base. So, this is a problem in our country. We've got to protect our nation here. People have to be aware of what's going on. We've got to stand up for America, this isn't about Democrat, Republican. This is about getting what's going on in the moment and understanding that our country itself is under attack from within."
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....ithin.html


Dennis Kucinich was a Democrat Representative to the House from Ohio, and was twice in the primaries seeking the Democrat presidential nomination. He is unique to the degree that he is loyal to the New Deal type of Democratic Party. He served as the conscience of the party for awhile. So, when he makes this kind of statement, it should be taken seriously. This is a highly respected Democrat who has left politics.

Fundamentally, this is about the ability of the elected government to control the behaviour of their creations, in this instance, the intelligence community.

Canadians have to start thinking about these things, because as far as I can see, it's far from certain how this will play out. What if they succeed?

This is the video they are describing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDa831MOPT4
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4141
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks as if a major attack has been repulsed. Comey has tripped himself up in the Congressional session. He has admitted that there never was, at any point, any FBI investigation of Donald Trump! And that means that Comey was likely at the centre of the campaign to impeach Trump.

That campaign was orchestrated through a dance of the old media and insiders in the intelligence/law enforcement managers of the civil service. They kept the illusion going that the President was a tool of the Russians! This had been used to jam up his appointments and hold up his agenda.

Comey wrote his memo and then released it through a friend only days later. The law says this document was FBI property, and the conversation was privileged. That means Comey committed any of a number of crimes for releasing it. And he admitted it in the hearing. He justified himself because he wanted to get a special investigator put on the Russian thing, and he succeeded!

Further, the President can fire anyone in the executive branch at will. He doesn't need a reason. He could order the investigation shut down if he wanted to. He isn't taking those steps, which would certainly be a big deal.

I watched US PBS news -- Wrinkleface and Bullethead -- er, Shields and Brooks and the nice lady discuss the same hearings, and they were struck at the lies Trump was accused of telling. I have been looking for the lies. I watched an hour of it and didn't hear the accusations. I watched highlight videos of it. Nothing. I did find two of them spelt out ... one was when he said that the FBI was in "disarray". Comey called that a lie. The other was that Trump had told him he had confidence in him before he fired him. OK ... but he isn't going to get impeached for that!

It looks as if Trump has won this round ... but he doesn't really win until the fight is over policy, in Congress, rather than these diversions.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4141
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mueller adds muscle for Russia investigation

Jeff Chiu / AP
"The Worst Thing That Happened to Donald Trump this Week" — Paul Rosenzweig, on the Lawfare blog: Special counsel "Robert Mueller has hired Michael Dreeben, on a part-time basis, to help with his investigation. Dreeben, a deputy in the Office of the Solicitor General, has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. His specialty has, for the last 20 years, been criminal matters and he has an encyclopedic knowledge of criminal law."

Be smart: Mueller is amassing the talent arsenal you'd build to bring criminal charges.

* Why it matters: "[H]e is quite possibly the best criminal appellate lawyer in America (at least on the government's side). That Mueller has sought his assistance attests both to the seriousness of his effort and the depth of the intellectual bench he is building."
* National Law Journal: "The move signals that Mueller is seeking advice on the complexities that have arisen already in the investigations, including what constitutes obstruction of justice."
* Mueller's has had a spate of other high-octane hires, including Andrew Weissmann, chief of the fraud section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.
* Weissmann was director of Justice's Enron Task Force, where he oversaw the prosecutions of Jeffrey Skilling, Ken Lay, and Andrew Fastow. While at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, Weissmann helped prosecute high-ranking members of the Genovese, Colombo and Gambino crime families, and fought the infiltration of organized crime on Wall Street.

Coming attractions ... Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was going to be pummeled with Russia questions during what was supposed to be a budget hearing before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday, switched yesterday and will appear Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
https://www.axios.com/mueller-adds-muscle-for-russia-investigation-2439721714.html


This says to me that they are going on a fishing mission to get the goods on the Trump administration, no matter what the facts are.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 587
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

Further, the President can fire anyone in the executive branch at will. He doesn't need a reason.

Not so fast.

Tthe Constitution is silent on whether he can fire anyone anytime. (see Humphrey’s Executor v. United States )

FDR tried , and Nixon tried and we know how that turned out.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4141
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FDR blackmailed the whole Supreme Court, so why is he some exemplar of Constitutional purity. Truman fired MacArthur, which is more the parallel case. Nixon fired Archibald Cox, but that isn't the reason he was ousted. It only cost him politically.

He resigned to avoid impeachment, over a few issues, not just Watergate. One of them was in attempting to get his appointee at the IRS to let him have one of his enemies audited, and his appointee refused. Obama had the IRS actually harass and refuse accreditation to hundreds of Tea Party groups, and nobody raised an eyebrow.

The executive branch works for the President. It's that simple. Even Comey concedes that Trump doesn't have to explain why he fires somebody.

We shouldn't be surprised. TC is the guy who thinks Mike Duffy should have gone to trial, and Michael Bryant shouldn't. You figure it out.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 587
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

The executive branch works for the President. It's that simple.
Pretty much.

But he cannot just fire anyone anytime. Im guessing you didnt read the legal precedent.
Quote:


We shouldn't be surprised. TC is the guy who thinks Mike Duffy should have gone to trial, and Michael Bryant shouldn't. You figure it out.

Do us all a favour will ya. Stop being so thin skinned. When corrected , move on. No need to be a little beoch about things.

Not to mention irrelevant and waaaaaay off topic.
:roll:
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4141
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meuller and Comey are good friends. Meuller was a mentor to Comey when he was director of the FBI and Comey worked for Ashcroft at the DoJ. They have worked together on issues over the decades, and have a personal relationship as well as a professional one.

Quote:
Byron York: Is Robert Mueller conflicted in Trump probe?
by Byron York | Jun 11, 2017, 11:09 PM

Fired FBI Director James Comey has emerged as the main figure in what some Democrats believe will be an obstruction of justice case against President Trump in the Trump-Russia matter. Comey's stories of conversations with the president, plus the fact that he was fired, ostensibly as a result of the Russia probe, make him potentially the star witness in the case.

Which brings up an intriguing legal question. Comey is a good friend of special counsel Robert Mueller — such a good friend, for about 15 years now, that the two men have been described as "brothers in arms." Their work together during the controversies over Bush-era terrorist surveillance has been characterized as "deepening a friendship forged in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks," after which the men became "close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead."

Now Mueller is investigating the Trump-Russia affair, in which, if the increasing buzz in the case is correct, allegations of obstruction against the president will be central. And central to those allegations — the key witness — will be the prosecutor's good friend, the now-aggrieved former FBI director.

Is that a conflict? Should a prosecutor pursue a case in which the star witness is a close friend? And when the friend is not only a witness but also arguably a victim — of firing — by the target of the investigation? And when the prosecutor might also be called on to investigate some of his friend's actions? The case would be difficult enough even without the complicating friendship.

This is by no means a definitive answer, but I put that question to five Washington lawyers Sunday — lawyers in private practice, on Capitol Hill, in think tanks, some of them veterans of the Justice Department. The verdict came back mixed. But the answers made clear this is a question that will have to be answered in the course of the Mueller investigation.

"This is very odd," said one big-firm lawyer and Justice Department veteran Sunday:

Quote:
An ordinary prosecutor would turn this over to someone uninvolved, and there would be lots of candidates. That is particularly so here where Comey is not just the star witness but a potential target. That said, I doubt anyone outside can or should do anything here. Mueller should resign, but if he chooses not to — either on the theory he can handle the conflict, or on the theory it is such a mess he should just persevere — the attorney general should not fire him. As to how Mueller might handle, he could announce that the Comey part of the case will be handled by someone else within his office, but that is complex and not very satisfactory.


On the other hand, from another big-firm lawyer and Justice Department veteran:

Quote:
I don't see any problem with a prosecutor being a friend of a potential witness. It's hard to imagine a scenario, for example, where information acquired as part of a friendship would impair the prosecutor's ability to do his or her job or, alternatively, improperly influence the witness' testimony. I expect, in any event, that any interview of Comey would be very much a group effort on the part of Mueller's team, so that his personal relationship with Comey would hardly be an issue.


From a Capitol Hill veteran now in private practice:

Quote:
They [Comey and Mueller] have a mutual admiration society. Mueller should hire another prosecutor to deal with Comey. But Comey is central to their case, so it infects the whole prosecution. Could [a close colleague] investigate me? No, he would recuse. But Mueller's stature is great, and he may be able to overcome it.

From another Justice Department veteran:

Quote:
I think it raises a serious conflict of interest that would normally require the prosecutor to recuse himself from the case.


And finally, from another Hill lawyer:

Quote:
It's somewhat ironic, no? I mean, the whole purpose of the special counsel is to have a prosecutor from outside the government and outside of the normal chain of command because inherent conflicts render the Justice Department incapable of handling it. So, now the special counsel is a close friend (mentor/mentee relationship) with the star witness, who by his own admission leaked the memos at least in part to engineer the appointment of a special counsel. Only in Washington. You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.washingtonexaminer......=hootsuite
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


"Deep State trying to take Trump down": Kucinich

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB