The most important thing that happened this past weekend in the US is this. Will people finally act?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
So the DOJ will present some classified information to Nunes so he can go running to the White House? How many times will people fall for his bullshit?

It is not that they are falling for some trick. They don't really have a choice. They are legally bound to give him this information, especially with the President telling them to. Nunes would have held him in contempt of Congress. It would have given Trump a legitimate reason to fire Rosenstein.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
It is not that they are falling for some trick. They don't really have a choice. They are legally bound to give him this information, especially with the President telling them to. Nunes would have held him in contempt of Congress. It would have given Trump a legitimate reason to fire Rosenstein.

The DOJ has every legal right to not surrender findings in an ongoing investigation, especially as members making such an improper request are materially vested in the outcome. The Legislative Branch has no legal basis for the DOJ to surrender anything. Nunes can attempt to hold him in contempt, invoking the SCOTUS which has not sided against the DOJ in the past to my knowledge. That the DOJ caved once does not automatically mean it must again. If you have law that says that the DOJ must surrender then I'd love to see it, but I find nothing which supports that and much that says they should not.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
It is not that they are falling for some trick. They don't really have a choice. They are legally bound to give him this information, especially with the President telling them to. Nunes would have held him in contempt of Congress. It would have given Trump a legitimate trump-reason to fire Rosenstein and edge away with it.
I think ...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
If only the Democrats could win back the trust of the people they represent, then maybe they wouldnt lose elections?

Just a thought.
They can't do that until they stop being liberals, because liberals are worse than child molesters. Even if they don't do anything wrong, idiots like you will believe that they did because they are liberals so they have to be worse than conservatives. Just look at your hatred for Hillary based 100% on lies. Lies you still believe despite zero evidence to back them up. Doesn't matter. You need to believe because if liberals aren't worse than conservatives then won't you look like a fool for still being a conservative. Your momma didn't raise no fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
They can't do that until they stop being liberals, because liberals are worse than child molesters. Even if they don't do anything wrong, idiots like you will believe that they did because they are liberals so they have to be worse than conservatives. Just look at your hatred for Hillary based 100% on lies. Lies you still believe despite zero evidence to back them up. Doesn't matter. You need to believe because if liberals aren't worse than conservatives then won't you look like a fool for still being a conservative. Your momma didn't raise no fool.
If you got rid of fox and sinclairs monopoly on peoples minds I bet it would happen automatically over time. If a mind is fed only one thing...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
They can't do that until they stop being liberals, because liberals are worse than child molesters. Even if they don't do anything wrong, idiots like you will believe that they did because they are liberals so they have to be worse than conservatives. Just look at your hatred for Hillary based 100% on lies. Lies you still believe despite zero evidence to back them up. Doesn't matter. You need to believe because if liberals aren't worse than conservatives then won't you look like a fool for still being a conservative. Your momma didn't raise no fool.

Considering you don't think the Democrats should bother to do anything to save the nation you lost any credibility in being critical of him. Irate about trivial Hillary and utterly dismissive of a Constitutional crisis which has, not might, occur.

But do cry for Hillary. That will turn out the vote.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
The DOJ has every legal right to not surrender findings in an ongoing investigation, especially as members making such an improper request are materially vested in the outcome. The Legislative Branch has no legal basis for the DOJ to surrender anything. Nunes can attempt to hold him in contempt, invoking the SCOTUS which has not sided against the DOJ in the past to my knowledge. That the DOJ caved once does not automatically mean it must again. If you have law that says that the DOJ must surrender then I'd love to see it, but I find nothing which supports that and much that says they should not.

The DOJ is bound to follow the instructions of the President. It is only tradition that says that the President should not issue an order about an ongoing investigation where he has some vested interest, legally he is allowed to do so and the DOJ is legally required to comply.

The same is true for a congressional subpoena. There is no law that says that Congress is not allowed to subpoena information on an ongoing case, even if that case is about them. I doubt this SCOTUS would find otherwise. SCOTUS interprets the law, and the law here is clear. The President leads and the DOJ follows. Congress has no limits on it's subpoena power.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
If only the Democrats could win back the trust of the people they represent, then maybe they wouldnt lose elections?

Just a thought.

In terms of corruption, there's no comparison between the Democrats and Trump and his. That said the apologies made by partisans suggest that perhaps the descendants of Rosa Parks might still be riding the back of the bus for all they seem to care about action other than complaining about everyone else.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The DOJ has every legal right to not surrender findings in an ongoing investigation, especially as members making such an improper request are materially vested in the outcome. The Legislative Branch has no legal basis for the DOJ to surrender anything. Nunes can attempt to hold him in contempt, invoking the SCOTUS which has not sided against the DOJ in the past to my knowledge. That the DOJ caved once does not automatically mean it must again. If you have law that says that the DOJ must surrender then I'd love to see it, but I find nothing which supports that and much that says they should not.

I think Rosenstein knows more about the law than you do. Just a hunch...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
Considering you don't think the Democrats should bother to do anything to save the nation you lost any credibility in being critical of him. Irate about trivial Hillary and utterly dismissive of a Constitutional crisis which has, not might, occur.

But do cry for Hillary. That will turn out the vote.
God helps those that help themselves.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The DOJ is bound to follow the instructions of the President. It is only tradition that says that the President should not issue an order about an ongoing investigation where he has some vested interest, legally he is allowed to do so and the DOJ is legally required to comply.

The DOJ guidelines, the same ones that have as much weight as criminally indicting a sitting President for criminal activities say that the DOJ will strive to protect the identity of the CI. It does not promise, but it must try and there's no evidence. If that's the case then any impression Mueller or Rudy claims to exist regarding such criminal indictments are on equally sandy soil.

The same is true for a congressional subpoena. There is no law that says that Congress is not allowed to subpoena information on an ongoing case, even if that case is about them. I doubt this SCOTUS would find otherwise. SCOTUS interprets the law, and the law here is clear. The President leads and the DOJ follows. Congress has no limits on it's subpoena power.

Congress can subpoena anything it wishes. That does not mean that anything it does is Constitutional. I submit that they can subpoena and the DOJ as a separate entity is legally bound by the separation of powers to act as it sees fit in such matters. Otherwise Congress can subpoena the DOJ and demand they investigate you for you unamerican attitudes. We did that once.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
God helps those that help themselves.

The world screws those in the butt who make those quips. You already have adopted a position in life that you don't care and I'm taking you at your word. Whatever you say you really are just talking out loud with no conviction. This is you.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Considering that Rosenstein understands he is on his own, that no one will stand behind him in any substantial sense (and I do not mean interfering in the investigation itself), he had no chance. Trump would have fired him and the Dems would have yelled at clouds. In no way are the Dems are as corrupt, but they are proving themselves cowards in a time of need.

Where the hell would we be if FDR, JFK, and MLK were such people as we are saddled with. They didn't just point fingers and say how bad their opposition was. Their opposition wasn't important, but the evil that existed and standing against it.

The best lack all conviction. They merely circle and point.

Uh, I just found this :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...y-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ea0985559743

It explains everything ;).
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
This is an investigative body, a legal entity which exists and known as the Department of Justice. If there is wrongdoing shown then it is fitting they investigate. There has been no evidence shown, but a "demand" by a President with no legal justification interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation in which he has an interest.

This is not politics as usual.

No it is not, but besides voting, calling your elected officials, donating to groups that will sue the gov, what can you do? I wish the women would hold another march just to put more pressure on his hideousness.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,081
21,202
136
No it is not, but besides voting, calling your elected officials, donating to groups that will sue the gov, what can you do? I wish the women would hold another march just to put more pressure on his hideousness.

We need marches. Like the ones I marched in against the Iraq war that wound right by MSG where the republicans were holding their convention. I marched and I'd march again. This country can't take 2.5 more years of this.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
What authorizes the intelligence community to recruit informants that they then plant in political campaigns? What makes that legal? Should be a simple one for you to answer because you behave like you're fully informed.

If they are working on a case and trying to get information our constitution.

Next
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
And I see yourself and a lot of others that get pumped full of the bullshit your news sources feed you to the point that you get all hysterical when you don't even understand what's going on. What's really bad is that you parade your ignorance around for everybody to see. But different strokes for different folks, eh? Hope it makes you feel better.

What authorizes the intelligence community to recruit informants that they then plant in political campaigns? What makes that legal? Should be a simple one for you to answer because you behave like you're fully informed.

As far as calling for material action. Here? You can't be even remotely serious. Grow a fucking pair and get out into the damned streets! Hiding behind a keyboard isn't going to accomplish anything. Get some skin in the game. Hit the streets, march, tear up some shit if you have to. You know where that bastard that you hate with every fiber of your being, every waking hour of every single day lives. Get out there and let him know you're not going to take his shit any longer.

I've been saying it for months. Nothing is going to come from any of this. Except that now it appears that maybe some of the 0bama regime could end up behind bars. Their intensive ministrations to put Hillary in the White House are having light shed on them. A lot of light and that light is getting brighter and brighter. Your hope is getting you nowhere. Your hope is getting you angry and agitated day after day. The people you get your news from know where all your buttons are and they push and push and push while you ask for more.
.

One day you'll be
images2.jpg

enjoy it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
No it is not, but besides voting, calling your elected officials, donating to groups that will sue the gov, what can you do? I wish the women would hold another march just to put more pressure on his hideousness.

You are on point, precisely. We can't directly do anything, but we can put pressure on our representatives, or we can blame everyone else and let them off the hook. Oh, that's for Dems because we all know the Reps have a vested interest supporting Trump.

I marched and I'd march again. This country can't take 2.5 more years of this.

You marched? Congratulations! I protested as well. You and I got out there with the possibility of injury. Here's my peeve. While we and others took action, what happened after Bush left once others took power? Not a blessed thing.

Considering the disregard shown for the hundreds of thousands harmed, and tens of thousands of US troops and families, why should we trust partisans and leaders now? Why should we give them an advance pass and not hold them to the higher standard they supposedly represent? People died and were harmed. Others engaged in peaceful resistance. Justice was not done and no closure offered.

Do you understand why I take the position I do?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The DOJ guidelines, the same ones that have as much weight as criminally indicting a sitting President for criminal activities say that the DOJ will strive to protect the identity of the CI. It does not promise, but it must try and there's no evidence. If that's the case then any impression Mueller or Rudy claims to exist regarding such criminal indictments are on equally sandy soil.



Congress can subpoena anything it wishes. That does not mean that anything it does is Constitutional. I submit that they can subpoena and the DOJ as a separate entity is legally bound by the separation of powers to act as it sees fit in such matters. Otherwise Congress can subpoena the DOJ and demand they investigate you for you unamerican attitudes. We did that once.

Not quite. When the President orders members of the DoJ to turn over materials to Congress they can comply, resign, or be fired. If the President is acting improperly it's on him, not them. If,after that, Congressmen privy to the information do not protect the identity of the CI it's on them, not on the DoJ. They all swore the same oath.

Your concerns have been duly noted, however- for what they are, which is trolling.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You are on point, precisely. We can't directly do anything, but we can put pressure on our representatives, or we can blame everyone else and let them off the hook. Oh, that's for Dems because we all know the Reps have a vested interest supporting Trump.



You marched? Congratulations! I protested as well. You and I got out there with the possibility of injury. Here's my peeve. While we and others took action, what happened after Bush left once others took power? Not a blessed thing.

Considering the disregard shown for the hundreds of thousands harmed, and tens of thousands of US troops and families, why should we trust partisans and leaders now? Why should we give them an advance pass and not hold them to the higher standard they supposedly represent? People died and were harmed. Others engaged in peaceful resistance. Justice was not done and no closure offered.

Do you understand why I take the position I do?

And reduced to derailing your own thread. How utterly predictable.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Not quite. When the President orders members of the DoJ to turn over materials to Congress they can comply, resign, or be fired. If the President is acting improperly it's on him, not them. If,after that, Congressmen privy to the information do not protect the identity of the CI it's on them, not on the DoJ. They all swore the same oath.

Your concerns have been duly noted, however- for what they are, which is trolling.

Sorry but Rosa Parks no longer rides the back of the bus, for which apologists would have done their duty for Party if it were otherwise.

In protecting Trump and his to protect your own you failed to note Nunes and his subpoena. But that might make your tin gods seem a bit corroded and warped.