Post Comey and still no tweets

[VRAMdemon]

His tweet is basically the same as what his "lawyer" said; Trump didn't do anything wrong, and shame on Comey for telling everyone what Trump did wrong.

Heh, just wait until someone gets to ask Trump if Ryan is correct that he's too ignorant to understand how government works.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't know if there is any reason, just something to yell.

Whatever Trump may believe, EP must be invoked. It is not a default status of a President. Discussions between Comey and Trump would be considered government business from a professional perspective but Comey was fired. Trump has no hold or right of privacy claim on our former Director. So yeah you are right.

Just heard a easy to understand definition of Executive Privilege on the radio. Stuff involving Policy should be assumed to be EP anything else is not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just heard a easy to understand definition of Executive Privilege on the radio. Stuff involving Policy should be assumed to be EP anything else is not.

EP cannot be "assumed" it is required to be specifically declared. Somebody you heard is all wet.

Try this. WaPo source and it's on target.

The final line of defense was presented by Trump’s personal lawyer after the hearing ended: Comey was the villain of the story for leaking “privileged” conversations with the president. The premise here seems to be that executive privilege somehow forever silences a terminated federal employee. This is an extremely weird argument:

• Trump did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Comey from speaking to Congress, the usual place where executive privilege is asserted.
• Trump himself had spoken and tweeted about the conversation, which is usually taken to void executive privilege.
• Executive privilege has never before been thought to impose a lifetime obligation of silence upon former members of the executive branch.
• The Supreme Court case most directly on point, U.S. v. Nixon, established that executive privilege cannot be used to conceal evidence of crime, which is what Comey’s leak and subsequent sworn testimony, purportedly revealed.

 

[fskimospy]

Just heard a easy to understand definition of Executive Privilege on the radio. Stuff involving Policy should be assumed to be EP anything else is not.

Yeah it's hard to see any good outcome for Trump on the executive privilege front. First, his actions were arguably criminal and US v. Nixon established EP doesn't cover that. Second, as you said privilege only applies to policy matters, not casual conversation at dinner. If Trump is saying these conversations were policy matters that means he really WAS directing Comey to alter FBI policy and not investigate Flynn, which takes us back to obstruction of justice/criminal activity.

 

[Pens1566]

EP cannot be "assumed" it is required to be specifically declared. Somebody you heard is all wet.

Try this. WaPo source and it's on target.

The final line of defense was presented by Trump’s personal lawyer after the hearing ended: Comey was the villain of the story for leaking “privileged” conversations with the president. The premise here seems to be that executive privilege somehow forever silences a terminated federal employee. This is an extremely weird argument:

• Trump did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Comey from speaking to Congress, the usual place where executive privilege is asserted.
• Trump himself had spoken and tweeted about the conversation, which is usually taken to void executive privilege.
• Executive privilege has never before been thought to impose a lifetime obligation of silence upon former members of the executive branch.
• The Supreme Court case most directly on point, U.S. v. Nixon, established that executive privilege cannot be used to conceal evidence of crime, which is what Comey’s leak and subsequent sworn testimony, purportedly revealed.

Eh, I think you misunderstood his post.

He was just conveying that the only content of POTUS to exec branch staff communications that can likely, and legally, be covered under EP is policy type content. And I believe that to be correct. You can't make a claim that an Obama convo with SecDef about BBQ plans for the 4th of July is EP. Of course, it would still have to be under the criteria you listed (and I believe with a witness that is also unwilling to testify). In other words, you're both right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Eh, I think you misunderstood his post.

He was just conveying that the only content of POTUS to exec branch staff communications that can likely, and legally, be covered under EP is policy type content. And I believe that to be correct. You can't make a claim that an Obama convo with SecDef about BBQ plans for the 4th of July is EP. Of course, it would still have to be under the criteria you listed (and I believe with a witness that is also unwilling to testify). In other words, you're both right.

Gotcha. There is a difference between privileged information and Executive Privilege which is legally defined and provides a President a means to resist subpoenas and limited right to resist inquiries by other Branches. Since Comey is a private citizen, the right not invoked, and it was a voluntary testimony it would be inapplicable. On the other hand if Comey had been working for Trump while testifying there might be a basis for improper disclosure, but I don't know if that is legally enforcible. But neither is applicable so Comey didn't do anything improper or illegal. Likewise "leaking" is wholly wrong.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

EP cannot be "assumed" it is required to be specifically declared. Somebody you heard is all wet.

Try this. WaPo source and it's on target.

The final line of defense was presented by Trump’s personal lawyer after the hearing ended: Comey was the villain of the story for leaking “privileged” conversations with the president. The premise here seems to be that executive privilege somehow forever silences a terminated federal employee. This is an extremely weird argument:

• Trump did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Comey from speaking to Congress, the usual place where executive privilege is asserted.
• Trump himself had spoken and tweeted about the conversation, which is usually taken to void executive privilege.
• Executive privilege has never before been thought to impose a lifetime obligation of silence upon former members of the executive branch.
• The Supreme Court case most directly on point, U.S. v. Nixon, established that executive privilege cannot be used to conceal evidence of crime, which is what Comey’s leak and subsequent sworn testimony, purportedly revealed.

Whoa calm down captain just me typing short at a red light

Have a good weekend kid

 

[K1052]

He's retweeting Dershowitz on Fox News saying there is no viable obstruction case. Clearly he has moved on and is looking forward to the conclusion of Infrastructure Week.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whoa calm down captain just me typing short at a red light

Have a good weekend kid

It's all good, not yelling at you but you know how others act like children, with the "but you didn't say absolutely not" games. Sometimes I try to head them off like the parent I am

 

[echo4747]

President Trump to hold a presser at 2:45 eastern today. with regard to the Comey hearing

 

[cytg111]

Is this on purpose?

From Fox :
"TRUMP '100 PERCENT' WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH: President says Comey lied, is coy on tapes"

going to the actual article it says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mey-lied-under-oath-remains-coy-on-tapes.html

"Trump says Comey lied under oath, remains coy on 'tapes'"

Reading the first headline I might get the impression that Comey is coy on the recordings rather than Trump being coy on the tapes existence...

Is that a reading fail on my part, if not, is this standard fox practise?

 

[Meghan54]

Reading fail on your part. If it was written to read as you thought it read, it'd be written "President says Comey lied and coy about tapes."

But the use of the comma and the implied continuation of the subject (the President) gives you the abbreviated sentence "President says Comey lied, is coy about tapes."

Is this on purpose?

From Fox :
"TRUMP '100 PERCENT' WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH: President says Comey lied, is coy on tapes"

going to the actual article it says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mey-lied-under-oath-remains-coy-on-tapes.html

"Trump says Comey lied under oath, remains coy on 'tapes'"

Reading the first headline I might get the impression that Comey is coy on the recordings rather than Trump being coy on the tapes existence...

Is that a reading fail on my part, if not, is this standard fox practise?

 

[Jhhnn]

.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is this on purpose?

From Fox :
"TRUMP '100 PERCENT' WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH: President says Comey lied, is coy on tapes"

going to the actual article it says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mey-lied-under-oath-remains-coy-on-tapes.html

"Trump says Comey lied under oath, remains coy on 'tapes'"

Reading the first headline I might get the impression that Comey is coy on the recordings rather than Trump being coy on the tapes existence...

Is that a reading fail on my part, if not, is this standard fox practise?

It's Fox. They wrote it that way so that it says whatever you want it to say.

 

[cytg111]

Reading fail on your part. If it was written to read as you thought it read, it'd be written "President says Comey lied and coy about tapes."
But the use of the comma and the implied continuation of the subject (the President) gives you the abbreviated sentence "President says Comey lied, is coy about tapes."

It's Fox. They wrote it that way so that it says whatever you want it to say.

Ok thanks, I figured the comma and continuation as correct grammar(comma rules though, be changing) I just still got the impression that it could be read both ways and that it plays, like jhhnn suggests, into whatever preconception you might have.

Another thing, what is going on here?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-bets-theres-no-smoking-gun-in-comey-case/index.html

Asked about recordings he goes back to campaigning and democrats loosing and that *something* being an excuse by the democrats... What is *something*? I cant follow the train of thought here yet it looks somewhat scripted. Is the play here to just talk gibberish until reporters gives up on having any form of meaningful dialog?