That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that sometimes, yes. Privileges that allow you to keep someone else from voluntarily testifying are rare, but they exist. The Attorney-Client privilege is the clearest example. If I hire an attorney and tell them my sundry misdeeds to get legal advice, that lawyer can't turn around and tell investigators. I can affirmatively block that (even if I have fired my attorney, with regards to things I tell them before I fire them).RunningMn9 wrote:I always believed that Executive Privilege was something that was used to give cover for people that didn't want to testify before Congress. Can it be used to prevent someone that wants to testify before Congress?
Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.Smoove_B wrote:How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?
"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."
"Don't tell me what to do!"
FTFBOYEl Guapo wrote:Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.Smoove_B wrote:How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?
"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."
"Don't tell me what to do!"
"That'll be $450"
I take your point, but I wouldn't dismiss the "won't listen" part. Any reputable firm that takes on Trump and Russia will take an immediate reputational hit with many of their clients and lawyers (good luck staffing a matter like that). On top of that you would have an issue with god knows what you and your lawyers will learn, which may create ethical issues and (more problematic for the firm) may well lead one or more lawyers to leak to the press, for which Trump could try to come down hard on the firm itself (and, you know, refuse to pay).Paingod wrote:FTFBOYEl Guapo wrote:Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.Smoove_B wrote:How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?
"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."
"Don't tell me what to do!"
"That'll be $450"
It's actually so that the President can solicit honest opinions without the opiner having to worry about being sued/slandered/having them end up in the public record.RunningMn9 wrote:I always believed that Executive Privilege was something that was used to give cover for people that didn't want to testify before Congress. Can it be used to prevent someone that wants to testify before Congress?
Another part of it, per that Isikoff article making the rounds, is that firms' other clients have already been touched by the investigation.El Guapo wrote:Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.Smoove_B wrote:How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?
"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."
"Don't tell me what to do!"
This is more confirmation that things are not limited to collusion around the election but have extended to include Trump and his associates' long-term financial dealings.Others mentioned potential conflicts with clients of their firms, such as financial institutions that have already received subpoenas relating to potential money-laundering issues that are part of the investigation.
Financial crimes charges seem like the most plausible indictments. Treason and the like, even if one assumes the worst, seems like it would be incredibly difficult to prove. Whereas Trump's circle has been dealing with shady characters for awhile now, and the odds that they were scrupulously following the law in their dealings seems remote.Holman wrote:Another part of it, per that Isikoff article making the rounds, is that firms' other clients have already been touched by the investigation.El Guapo wrote:Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.Smoove_B wrote:How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?
"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."
"Don't tell me what to do!"
This is more confirmation that things are not limited to collusion around the election but have extended to include Trump and his associates' long-term financial dealings.Others mentioned potential conflicts with clients of their firms, such as financial institutions that have already received subpoenas relating to potential money-laundering issues that are part of the investigation.
I tend to agree here. I haven't really delved into it, but on its surface this seems like a perfectly cromulent pick. I do also share concerns about what Wray might have agreed to with Trump. My hope is that with Trump's reasonable choices dwindling, Wray was able to avoid having to pledge personal loyalty and convince Trump of the lunacy of killing the Russia investigation at this point. That doesn't sound very Trump, though.El Guapo wrote:Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.
My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.
Trump at this point will consider anyone who agrees to take the job (being qualified for the job is a bonus but not required). We should start taking bets on when Wray is either fired or resigns.El Guapo wrote:Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.
My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.
The best case scenario here is that Trump fucked up. I don't want to count on that, but it's possible, especially since Trump tends to do that.ImLawBoy wrote:I tend to agree here. I haven't really delved into it, but on its surface this seems like a perfectly cromulent pick. I do also share concerns about what Wray might have agreed to with Trump. My hope is that with Trump's reasonable choices dwindling, Wray was able to avoid having to pledge personal loyalty and convince Trump of the lunacy of killing the Russia investigation at this point. That doesn't sound very Trump, though.El Guapo wrote:Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.
My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.
Also, absent some specific shadiness (and I haven't read Smoove's link yet), I'm not worried about the mega-firm from which Wray comes having offices and business in Russia.
If they don't give the answers you want there has to be something amiss?malchior wrote:I'm watching the Coats/Rogers hearing and there are some hints from their very terse and crafted responses that there is a lot going on. Unfortunately it looks like we aka the subjects of Emperor Trump aren't going to get any answers via this process.
“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” Rogers told Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate panel.
“Did the president … ask you in any way, shape or form to back off or downplay the Russia investigation?” Warner asked.
Rogers said that he would not discuss specifics of conversations he had with Trump, but added: “I stand by the comment I just made, sir.”
“In my time of service … I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure, to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats testified Wednesday.
No I take that from them saying they wouldn't answer unclassified questions about an unclassified matter without going private. That negates that it is about keeping private conversation with the President confidential. The direct question asked was whether the President directed them to intervene on the Russia investigations. Would that be de facto not illegal? And thus make their statements about illegal orders accurate? Maybe but it sure is a political and potentially legal problem for the President himself.Rip wrote:If they don't give the answers you want there has to be something amiss?
Like Jeff Sessions did?Ralph-Wiggum wrote:I would hope (but I doubt) that anyone Trump appointed to head the FBI would recuse themselves from any decisions about the Russia investigation. Seems like there's an inherent conflict of interest there.
None of those guys are trump appointees right? It seems most likely that those conversations are now involved in the myriad criminal investigation of the broad nebulous abyss that is the campaign, administration, and individual persons associated with the former, that may or may not be overlapping and coordinating with the special investigation.malchior wrote:That exchange was very painful but I'm glad it happened. They better have a very good reason or it appears they may be acting in a lawless fashion.
WTH?Captain Caveman wrote:Comey's opening statement tomorrow has it all. link
Basically, all the reports from before about Trump pressuring Comey to back off the investigation are accurate (though more details are provided here) but so too is Trump's claim that Comey told him that he personally wasn't the target of the investigation. At least Trump will have that to console him, but the obstruction of justice here is just so damning.
He's insane.On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He
described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act
on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been
involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded
when in Russia.
It's not made explicit, but "that thing" is almost certainly about Clinton. He seems to be acknowledging that Comey's actions aided him in the election. It's Trump's mob boss-like way of saying, "We're in this together", and notably when he fired Comey just a short time later, he used the Clinton stuff against him as a rationale for the firing.He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.”
That really sums up the mafia syndicate nature of the DJT administration in whole, doesn't it?He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.
That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.
I assume the hooker thing is a reference to the allegations in the Steele dossier, among them of course the allegation that Trump had watched hookers pee on each other in Russia (or something like that), and that because of that and other things Putin might have blackmail on Trump. So it's a little less random than something like that would normally be.noxiousdog wrote:WTH?Captain Caveman wrote:Comey's opening statement tomorrow has it all. link
Basically, all the reports from before about Trump pressuring Comey to back off the investigation are accurate (though more details are provided here) but so too is Trump's claim that Comey told him that he personally wasn't the target of the investigation. At least Trump will have that to console him, but the obstruction of justice here is just so damning.
He's insane.On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He
described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act
on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been
involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded
when in Russia.
In my head I can hear Donald "Thumbs" Trump saying all that in a Italian mobster's voice.LordMortis wrote:That really sums up the mafia syndicate nature of the DJT administration in whole, doesn't it?He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.
That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.
Makes me wonder if Trump thought that Comey sent the letter leading up to the election with the explicit intention of helping elect Trump, and that because of that he assumed that Comey was on his side. Wouldn't be the craziest conclusion.Captain Caveman wrote:The ominous ending of the opening statement:It's not made explicit, but "that thing" is almost certainly about Clinton. He seems to be acknowledging that Comey's actions aided him in the election. It's Trump's mob boss-like way of saying, "We're in this together", and notably when he fired Comey just a short time later, he used the Clinton stuff against him as a rationale for the firing.He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.”