May 8, 2017

"Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel."

Tweeted Trump this morning.

309 comments:

1 – 200 of 309   Newer›   Newest»
Inga said...

Her testimony should be very interesting. For someone who exclaimed he loved Wikileaks, Trump comes across as hypocritical when it comes to leaked or hacked information.

readering said...

Actually the original tweet was Council. the man is an idiot.

Expat(ish) said...

I think FDR would have loved Twitter. Teddy too.

Nixon would have gone to the asylum over it.

-XC

eric said...

I love how Trump's twitter drives them nuts.

Still not tired of all the winning.

Lyle Smith said...

TJ would have loved twitter. Hated public speaking, but liked to write.

TosaGuy said...

"Actually the original tweet was Council. the man is an idiot."

People who do not capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence while communicating in an online environment are idiots.

Gahrie said...

Actually the original tweet was Council. the man is an idiot.

Did any corpsemen read it in Austrian in any of the 57 states?

robother said...

Doesn't Trump realize that with all this tweeting, he's driving the Democrats back into the arms of Hillary?

eric said...

Blogger Inga said...
Her testimony should be very interesting. For someone who exclaimed he loved Wikileaks, Trump comes across as hypocritical when it comes to leaked or hacked information.

5/8/17, 12:28 PM


There is absolutely zero difference between national security secrets kept on a private server that had terrible security and got itself hacked, vs national security secrets kept secure and housed on government servers but leaked by government employees to newspapers.

These things are 100% identical. And if you're for one and not the other, you're a hypocrite. Because logic.

Mike Sylwester said...

Sally Yates herself was the leaker, but she will commit perjury on live television by denying it.

As Acting Attorney General, Yates supervised the FBI, which is the agency that wiretaps the Russian Embassy in Washington DC.

The only reason why the FBI wiretapped the Ambassador's telephone conversations was so that Yates could catch someone on Trump's team discussing foreign policy with a foreign government before Trump was inaugurated.

Yates caught Michael Flynn, and she went to CIA Director John Brennan and DCI Director James Clapper, asking them to support her complaint that Flynn was subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL for violating THE LOGAN ACT. When they failed to support her nutty complaint, Yates leaked the information to journalists.

Michael McClain said...

Fair question.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Blogger robother said...
Doesn't Trump realize that with all this tweeting, he's driving the Democrats back into the arms of Hillary?

5/8/17, 12:50 PM

Exquisite.

TosaGuy said...

"Doesn't Trump realize that with all this tweeting, he's driving the Democrats back into the arms of Hillary?"

A question you should then ask is, why is he doing that? Because as someone who always wants Democrats to lose, this would be an awesome thing.

Read and Enjoy said...

Sally is a good old  girl. She may spill the beans.

Or she may try to become the next Dem Candidate for President.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
eric said...

Blogger TosaGuy said...
"Actually the original tweet was Council. the man is an idiot."

People who do not capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence while communicating in an online environment are idiots.

5/8/17, 12:49 PM


I'm sorry to inform you this can only be rated a 9 out of 10 on the internet funny scale. Bcuz we are talking about Twitter and bcuz Twitter rewards pithy, the proper 10 out of 10 response should have been "The"

eric said...

Blogger Inga said...
Eric, I hate to disavow you of your fantasy that Trump's tweets drive liberals nuts, it does no such thing. If only proves we are right about his unsuitability to be POTUS.

5/8/17, 12:54 PM


Gee whiz Inga, an unsuitable man as POTUS sure would drive me nuts.

Also, it's eric. Eric is another guy who comments here. The difference may be too subtle for you.

robother said...

Tosa Guy: Shhhh.

TosaGuy said...

Eric,

The new internet 10 out of 10 would be an emoji of a brick flying through a glass house.

Try to keep up ;)

Inga said...

Eric, I hate to disavow you of your fantasy that Trump's tweets drive liberals nuts, it does no such thing. It only proves we are right about his unsuitability to be POTUS. I love all the "winning" too, lol.

TosaGuy said...

Opps,

eric...sorry I Ingaed my previous comment.

Mike said...

Yeah do that.

Original Mike said...

Absolutely ask her. Get her on record.

Read and Enjoy said...

A Counsellor is a lawyer. But the Trump Family is all Real Estate Development and PR branding by trade, except for The Donald who likes to win at Political Persuasion Games. as a hobby.

My guess is Trump kept Kelly around a few weeks to test his loyalty and learn from his brain how the Spy v. Spy stuff works.

cubanbob said...

robother said...
Doesn't Trump realize that with all this tweeting, he's driving the Democrats back into the arms of Hillary?"

I would bet the ranch on yes. He has already beaten her so the odds favor him beating her again.

Inga keeps doubling down on stupid. Why yes Inga, this is all preparatory work needed to justify appointing special prosecutors. Just in time to have the Democrats anoint yet again a grifter, criminal and traitor as their nominee for the 2020 presidential run only to be the subject of a massive criminal investigation.

Inga said...

Eric, as far as I'm concerned, both of you sound identical. Try to distinguish yourself.

Original Mike said...

And then they should ask Susan Rice. I'm sure she'll be happy to cooperate...

readering said...

the man is still an idiot.

Ann Althouse said...

"Actually the original tweet was Council. the man is an idiot."

Homophone typos are incredibly easy to make. I see myself making them all the time on words I know how to spell. The fingers seem to feel the sound and have a "weigh" of the own.

I'll bet it happens to you too. If that's your test of idiocy, you're an idiot.

Inga said...

Clinton won't be the Democratic nominee, but I understand that this notion gives you folks some comfort. I wouldn't get too comfortable.

eric said...

Blogger TosaGuy said...
Eric,

The new internet 10 out of 10 would be an emoji of a brick flying through a glass house.

Try to keep up ;)


You are correct. I beg forgiveness.

eric said...

Blogger Inga said...
Eric, as far as I'm concerned, both of you sound identical. Try to distinguish yourself.

5/8/17, 1:04 PM


As I said, it's subtle.

Inga said...

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/the-president-is-threatening-a-witness-cnn-analyst-slams-trumps-disturbing-sally-yates-tweets/

"Appearing on CNN to talk about the president’s tweet — in which he said that someone should “ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council (sic)” — legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that Trump’s behavior crosses the line of what we consider to be normal behavior for a politician in the United States.

“It just shows how much the norms of behavior have changed,” Toobin said. “The idea of the President of the United States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before. We’ve never had presidents who did this kind of thing. The idea that the president — the guy who’s in charge of the Justice Department — is threatening a witness is really kind of disturbing.”"

readering said...

My test of idiocy is being President of the United States and using Twitter to make serious allegations against the former acting head of the Justice Department just before she testifies but not even having some mechanism to proofread, so that as published the tweet makes no sense. Which even he realized enough to delete it. Of course people easily make typos in casual writing on the internet. Hardly the pointe.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think it is pointless to ask questions that she'll lie about and not be punished for lying about, as we've seen happen with Holder and many, many others.

Jupiter said...

Inga, I still want to know about that hat. Is it supposed to be a cat? Is that why it has those two little bumps? But then why is it pink? Or is it supposed to represent your vulva? Certainly, your vulva deserves representation fully as much as anyone else's, but then why does it have those two bumps? And in either case, why is it hairless? Have you got a Mexican hairless vulva? Or what?

And I think you meant "disabuse", not "disavow". Close enough, right Inga? Details, details.

Matthew Sablan said...

“It just shows how much the norms of behavior have changed,” Toobin said. “The idea of the President of the United States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before. We’ve never had presidents who did this kind of thing. The idea that the president — the guy who’s in charge of the Justice Department — is threatening a witness is really kind of disturbing.”"

-- We literally JUST had a President who insisted "The police acted stupidly" and routinely weighed in on on-going investigations.

JohnAnnArbor said...

readering: "Actually the original tweet was Council. the man is an idiot."

Althouse: Homophone typos are incredibly easy to make. I see myself making them all the time on words I know how to spell. The fingers seem to feel the sound and have a "weigh" of the own.

I'll bet it happens to you too. If that's your test of idiocy, you're an idiot.


Maybe readering is a homophonephobe.

Matthew Sablan said...

We literally had a Democratic Senator imply that Romney had not paid taxes for years, accusing him of a crime, just a few years ago.

Obama literally released the DoJ into cities to investigate to find racial bias that he said in public speeches he knew was there, and that he would find it.

Did Toobin wake up completely ignorant of everything that happened the last 8 years or so?

Matthew Sablan said...

(Mind you, I think Trump's tweet is intemperate. But... it is perfectly in line with the sorts of things Obama did.)

Inga said...

"Have you got a Mexican hairless vulva? Or what?"

Jupiter, go ask your grandmother.

Unknown said...

After 40 years as a unix programmer, my fingers will automatically type complete unix commands. Unfortunately if I'm not thinking about it at the time, it will not be the commands to do what I want. It's really kind of scary, like I'm a bourne shell ouija board..

readering said...

. . . . Actually, more homophonic.

David Begley said...

CNN says the tweet is "mindblowing" and too much for the President of the United States.

Original Mike said...

Jeffery Freaking Toobin, Inga? Really?

David Begley said...

Also "inappropriate" and "witness tampering."

CNN in full outrage mode.

Original Mike said...

I figured the bumps were to cover her horns.

Swede said...

I hope it's the very first question she gets asked.

I'm pretty sure they already have the answer.

I'm sure she knows that, too.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tcrosse said...

Clinton won't be the Democratic nominee, but I understand that this notion gives you folks some comfort. I wouldn't get too comfortable.

Don't be too sure. The Economic Royalists are still behind her, and really, who else is there ?

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Does anybody expect that such a question -- even a line of questions on that subject, by a member of the committee who was a skilled trial lawyer -- would yield anything? Let's imagine that exchange...

Q. Ms. Yates, do you know how classified information relating to General Flynn got into the newspapers after you explained it to White House Counsel Don McGahn?

A. No, Senator, I don't.

Q. Ms. Yates, I remind you, you are under oath.

A. Yes, Senator, I understand. I am a third-generation attorney,
a magna cum laude graduate of my law school class, and executive editor of my school's law review, a career prosecutor and a former United States Attorney.

Q. So isn't it a remarkable coincidence, that information about concerns related to General Flynn was leaked to the news media right after you discussed it with Mr. McGhann?

A. Senator, it is a coincidence that, as a prosecutor, might lead me away from suspecting anyone within the Department of Justice. Because it could have just as easily have been a source in the Executive Branch, or the intelligence services, who leaked it after I discussed it with Mr. McGahnn. You might wish to ask Mr. McGahnn who he talked to about this subject, after my conversation with him.

In any event, Senator, I affirmatively deny that I leaked anything, or that I know of anyone who leaked anything illegally.

Moreover, as you know, there is an ongoing FBI investigation of this. You might wish to speak to Director Comey. I have. And I can't comment on investigative matters from when I was the acting AG. Just as Mr. Comey can't comment on active investigations.

As a now-private citizen in private practice, I have some concerns about the number and the variety and the seriousness of leaks coming out of the White House. That too might be a subject for future congressional oversight.

Thanks for having me. Have a nice day.

Q. So you're saying you don't know how the information was leaked to the press?

A. Yes, I think that is what I pretty clearly said. I don't know. You can tell the President for me, and maybe that will answer his Tweet. Whatever.

eric said...

It's fauxcohantas turn next.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Does anybody expect that such a question -- even a line of questions on that subject, by a member of the committee who was a skilled trial lawyer -- would yield anything? Let's imagine that exchange...


Shorter Chuck,

"I can't imagine it, therefore it's not possible."

Matthew Sablan said...

I think most people who want the question ask believe she is the leaker, and want her caught perjuring under oath.

I think it is pointless; people have lied under oath and nothing happened. It's a waste of time.

tcrosse said...

It's fauxcohantas turn next.

Hillary's sense of personal entitlement has not yet expired. It's not her fault she lost the election ( which she didn't really lose ). It's all so ...unfair.

Original Mike said...

I'm listening to the hearing and am struck, yet again, how unashamed the Democrats are to put on display their inabilty to securely use email. You'd think they would want to move on.

Ann Althouse said...

"The idea of the President of the United States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before. We’ve never had presidents who did this kind of thing. The idea that the president — the guy who’s in charge of the Justice Department — is threatening a witness is really kind of disturbing."

The word "basically" is doing a lot of work there.

It never crossed my mind that the message was threatening. I guess you have to believe Yates is guilty to feel the threat. He's saying this is a question we need to know the answer to. What's wrong with that? How is saying this is a question that should be asked a threat?

Inga said...

He is suggesting that she leaked the information. He was doing more than simply asking a question. This could be seen as intimidation, IMO.

JohnAnnArbor said...

I'm listening to the hearing and am struck, yet again, how unashamed the Democrats are to put on display their inabilty to securely use email. You'd think they would want to move on.

Trying to relate to "common folks" somehow?

"Common folks" assume that people discussing things of more importance than cat pictures put a little thought into securing their e-mail. I mean, really, Podesta: the oldest phishing gambit ever?

brylun said...

Chuck, is there any way to phrase a question a Senator could pose to Ms. Yates about her personally being the source of the leak that, if answered falsely, would subject her to perjury?

Fernandinande said...

David Begley said...
CNN says the tweet is "mindblowing" and too much for the President of the United States.


I just read somewhere that about 50% of CNN reporters' DNA is the same as human DNA.

Ann Althouse said...

What's the threat? If X, then Y.

What is X and Y?

I guess there's an implied: If you admit you committed a crime... then you will be subject to the ordinary processes of the law that apply when there is evidence that a crime has been committed.

Is there any other X and Y?

Is it true that we've never had presidents who openly say what questions they'd like to hear asked at a congressional hearing? Could somebody less hot-headed and Trump-hating explain why it's wrong for a president to do that?

FullMoon said...

Trump wants Yates to have the opportunity to publicly clear her name, and put to rest the rumors obliquely perpetuated by Cnn,and other MSM who continue to bring it up.
A perfect gentleman, in my opinion

Ann Althouse said...

"He is suggesting that she leaked the information. He was doing more than simply asking a question. This could be seen as intimidation, IMO."

So not "basically accusing" but suggesting.

It's only intimidating if she is in fact guilty of a crime and she's testifying under oath, which makes lying an additional crime. That's intimidating, but I don't think that's what's meant by intimidating a witness!

Todd said...

Inga said... [hush]​[hide comment]
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/the-president-is-threatening-a-witness-cnn-analyst-slams-trumps-disturbing-sally-yates-tweets/

"Appearing on CNN to talk about the president’s tweet — in which he said that someone should “ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council (sic)” — legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that Trump’s behavior crosses the line of what we consider to be normal behavior for a politician in the United States.

“It just shows how much the norms of behavior have changed,” Toobin said. “The idea of the President of the United States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before. We’ve never had presidents who did this kind of thing. The idea that the president — the guy who’s in charge of the Justice Department — is threatening a witness is really kind of disturbing.”"

5/8/17, 1:16 PM


LOL! It is not like "he acted stupidly" or something, right?

Sure, this is the absolute FIRST and ONLY time a POTUS injected himself into judicial events! Yep. You can sure bet that Obama NEVER did anything even remotely like that! LOL!

Professional lady said...

Good question.

stever said...

FWIW Trump is a very wealthy man AND POTUS, calling him an idiot just doesn't make sense. This coming, very likely, from some one who voted for Hillary so its funny/sad. He's in your head and you asked for it. Let it go, its spring.

Nonapod said...

None of this will make a bit of difference to anything. Trump will continue to be Trump, tweeting whatever thing he wants, with loads of grammar errors, driving the left ever more bonkers. Yates will lie under oath. The Democrats will continue their futile effort to draw nefarious connections between Trump and Putin in increasingly desperate ways. And at the end of it all most voters won't shift whatever opinions they hold about all of it one iota.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's a legal definition of what intimidating a witness means:

"Intimidating or tampering with a witness involves trying to get a witness to lie, say certain things under oath, alter or destroy evidence, or not testify or cooperate with authorities at all. Examples include:

"asking a witness to testify in a certain way, to lie, to not testify, to not report a crime or to not cooperate with police

"offering a witness a bribe (money, material goods, or some other benefit)

"threatening a witness with physical violence or property damage

"threatening the witness’s family members or loved ones, and

"preventing a witness from attending a legal proceeding, such as a court hearing or deposition."

How could expressing a hope that a witness be asked directly about a fact in issue fit this term of art?

Chuck said...

brylun said...
Chuck, is there any way to phrase a question a Senator could pose to Ms. Yates about her personally being the source of the leak that, if answered falsely, would subject her to perjury?


You could phrase it just as Trump did. And if the witness lies, and is later proven to have lied under oath, it could support a perjury charge.

Such prosecutions are exceedingly rare, when the original forum is a congressional hearing. And all prosecutions stemming from leak investigations are exceedingly rare. They are so rare, because prosecutors almost never get the journalists/newspapers to supply the source(s) of leaks. Judy Miller went to jail, rather than testify about Scooter Libby, who wasn't even the source of the Valerie Plame leak.

I am amazed, truly, at all of the commenters here who presume that Sally Yates was absolutely, positively the source of a leak about Flynn. The evidence for that is... what, exactly?

And all for what? Does anybody now think that Flynn would be a good guy to have serving as National Security Advisor?

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Democrats/leftists/"lifelong republicans" take time out from directly accusing the President of the United States of being a traitor to lament the Presidents desire to have a question asked under oath of the former acting AG.

LOL

Ann Althouse said...

Trump didn't say I think she leaked the info. He said he'd like her to be asked if she knows how the info came to be leaked.

I don't see the big deal here. Toobin is providing newsertainment.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I am amazed, truly, at all of the commenters here who presume that Sally Yates was absolutely, positively the source of a leak about Flynn. The evidence for that is... what, exactly?"

Oh, I don't know. Maybe there is some nonsensical and hilariously false russian "dossier" that indicates she is. It would be ridiculous, of course, but we've already seen many others including some on this blog, completely suckered in that scenario.

LOL

Drago said...

Althouse: "I don't see the big deal here. Toobin is providing newsertainment"

Toobin is another of those "straight down the middle", "unbiased" types of whom Chuck is so enamored.

readering said...

By tweeting Trump limits himself to 140 characters. He focuses his fire on one question. But he obviously hopes to influence her testimony more generally. Too bad she doesn't have an elderly relative in Sicily who can be invited to attend the hearing.

brylun said...

Thanks Chuck. I agree with what you have written. The only evidence presented against Yates is circumstantial based upon timing. But personally I would like her to be asked the question just to get her answer on the record.

Drago said...

The hearings are already hilarious.

Drago said...

Graham doing a good job getting right to it.

Drago said...

Yates is already dancing.

Mr. Fabulous said...

(World Famous Lurker says...)
Inga, just curious - are you an attorney? I ask because even though I have brothers, sisters and parents who are attorneys, I would be very - VERY - hesitant to publicly argue with a retied law professor about basic legal definitions. Even the life-long Republican election lawyer who posts here knows better than that.

Drago said...

Clapper is already full speed hands off "don't look at me" mode.

Limited blogger said...

Just let her read her prepared statement. That should be satisfactory.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's the federal statute: 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.

I think that's all about interfering with witnesses communicating to the authorities about what they know about a crime, not saying that investigators should ask particular questions about crimes.

It seems to me that all Toobin is saying is that the question posed by Trump is going to cause Yates to feel intimidated because it will be hard for her to answer. That's not "intimidating a witness"!

I Callahan said...

the man is still an idiot.

Actually, no, he's not. No one can win the presidency of the United States and be an idiot. No one. But continue to call him an idiot if it makes you feel superior.

Ann Althouse said...

The question is a good question because it boxes her in, unless she genuinely doesn't know anything.

If she feels "intimidated" it's not by Trump but by her own knowledge and the condition of being under oath.

Drago said...

Can anyone blame Clapper for running full speed away from this?

Drago said...

Ms Yates, did you at any time during the last 6 months utilize a rest room of some sort?

I'm sorry Mr Chairman, I cannot answer that question since it would reveal classified information.

readering said...

That's what's so fascinating. Being There comes true.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Democrats/leftists/"lifelong republicans" take time out from directly accusing the President of the United States of being a traitor...


Exactly where, and when, did I do that?

... to lament the Presidents desire to have a question asked under oath of the former acting AG.


Oh, shit. Really? You think that the best way for the President to communicate a question that he'd would like asked of a congressional hearing witness -- something substantive and of public interest -- is to put out a Tweet?

Trump is posturing with this. Please don't insult my intelligence -- not any more than your unending string of idiotic bullshit attacks on me in the past have -- by proposing that Trump just wants to get to the bottom of things. With a few pithy substantive questions. He's got an Attorney General, in charge of the Department of Justice, to do that. Woops; wait. Trump's Attorney General, a good man whom I have largely supported, going back to when he was nominated as a U.S. District Judge (and treated horribly by a Democrat-majority Senate), has had to recuse himself from the matter due to the laughably incompetent Keystone Kops routine that the Trump Administration has demonstrated on almost everything related to Russia and Russian election.

I Callahan said...

My test of idiocy is being President of the United States and using Twitter to make serious allegations against the former acting head of the Justice Department just before she testifies
but not even having some mechanism to proofread, so that as published the tweet makes no sense. Which even he realized enough to delete it. Of course people easily make typos in casual writing on the internet. Hardly the pointe.


I had no problem understanding it whatsoever. I don't even have to agree with it. Yet I understand it. And i'm not an idiot.

Care to try again?

PackerBronco said...

Comey: Well it may be technical illegal to lie to congress, but we would never bring charges, so skip it ...

I Callahan said...

You think that the best way for the President to communicate a question that he'd would like asked of a congressional hearing witness -- something substantive and of public interest -- is to put out a Tweet?

Best, or only way, Chuck? The fact is that it gets out there - bluntly - with no filter at all. You may not LIKE the method, but that's an entirely different point altogether.

Inga said...

Mr. Fabulous, you are assuming I'm arguing with Althouse. That simply is not the truth. I repeated what Jeffrey Toobin stated in hopes that Althouse would elaborate her point, which she did.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "You think that the best way for the President to communicate a question that he'd would like asked of a congressional hearing witness -- something substantive and of public interest -- is to put out a Tweet?"

The "best way" could be argued to be the most effective way. It was very effective in getting that question out into the media.

Perhaps that's why you have your panties in a wad about it. You remain astonishingly butt hurt about being so wrong about the election. It appears to be a permanent condition.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Please don't insult my intelligence"

LOL

To paraphrase Kramer from "Seinfeld", "Your posts are my case".

readering said...

"I'm not an idiot." If only we could get Trump to say that and then put it on a trucker's cap.

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said...
The question is a good question because it boxes her in, unless she genuinely doesn't know anything.


The inevitable answers are A) "I don't know;" or, B) "It is a matter of an active investigation, about which I can't discuss publicly;" or, C) "It is classified, and I cannot discuss it at all, or at least not in this forum."

Honest to God, what the hell would anyone expect from that question? And actually, I think that there are lots of good questions to ask Sally Yates. Highly technical ones about dates and times and the exact nature of communications. Most of which would never reveal anything so dramatic as to lead to criminal charges against anyone or an impeachment, but which would make Sean Spicer and past White House communications look ridiculous.

Drago said...

readering: ""I'm not an idiot." If only we could get Trump to say that and then put it on a trucker's cap."

If only wishes were reality, things would be different.

I Callahan said...

If only we could get Trump to say that and then put it on a trucker's cap.

Pithy. But pointless. Again.

I Callahan said...

Honest to God, what the hell would anyone expect from that question?

You'd expect an honest answer, but you'll get one of the choices you listed. Those would be viewed as not honest answers, and the original question will stand. Making the entire play effective. But being the apparent wonk that you are, you want highly technical questions about dates, times and exact nature of communications. Like most people in this country, Trump voters or not, really want to sit through that mess.

Once again - you don't like the forum, but Trump planted a seed with that tweet that was way more effective in getting a reaction, than anything wonky or "smart" that you'd do. Ironically, you're proof of that, since you bent backwards to address the tweet yourself...

Sorry Drago - he keeps giving the game away, but I don't think there is much danger of Chuck having enough self awareness to see that...

Chuck said...

So Drago it looks like we are in uncharacteristic agreement. Trump is not posing a serious question so much as communicating in an oblique way that somebody who has something bad to say about his administration is a liar.

And yeah you can be assured that that is one of the great many things I find so despicable about Donald Trump. He has an ugly habit of saying accusatory stuff in a really bitchy, passive-aggressive way.

Althouse has commented a few times on Trump's feminine qualities. I share some of those impressions. Trump can be one of the cattiest and whiniest bitches in all of American public life. I mean that in the worst and most sexist way possible. We've got a lot of professional women -- attorneys in many cases -- who are such stand-up guys, compared to Trump.

Drago said...

I Callahan: "Sorry Drago - he keeps giving the game away, but I don't think there is much danger of Chuck having enough self awareness to see that..."

Indeed.

brylun said...

Sen. Grassley is asking the direct questions.

Chuck said...

ICallahan:

If you presume that "I don't know" is an answer that denotes dishonesty equating to perjury, then you will never make it in litigation.

Drago said...

Chuck: "So Drago it looks like we are in uncharacteristic agreement. Trump is not posing a serious question so much as communicating in an oblique way that somebody who has something bad to say about his administration is a liar."

You are mistaken. Again.

Unexpectedly.

I would recommend that in the future you simply continuing channeling democrat thought and talking points as you are clearly not up to the task of representing conservative thoughts accurately.

Drago said...

brylun: "Sen. Grassley is asking the direct questions."

Yep. And "lifelong republican" Chuck is not going to like that one bit.

Michael K said...

CNN says the tweet is "mindblowing" and too much for the President of the United States.

CNN's mind is easily blown.

Can anyone blame Clapper for running full speed away from this?

The fact that he is invisible the last few months is the best sign of intelligence (IQ type) he has demonstrated.

brylun said...

Great questions by Sen. Grassley.

hombre said...

Now there is the $64 question!

Inga said...

Trump was casting a shadow on her, none of us know how this may ot may not be affecting her testimony today. What sort of President does such a thing? This is un-Presidential. Trump has been known to do this in the past. His comment about a "Mexican Judge" comes to mind.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Trump was casting a shadow on her, none of us know how this may ot may not be affecting her testimony today. What sort of President does such a thing?

-- Barack Obama's presidency did the same regarding multiple high-level investigations.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Trump has been known to do this in the past. His comment about a "Mexican Judge" comes to mind."

-- Obama literally scolded the Supreme Court during a State of the Union/address to Congress/the nation to tell them to get on the right side of history.

Matthew Sablan said...

Like, I get it. I'm not a fan of this tweet either. But it is the natural evolution of the Obama doctrine when it comes to politics (which is the standard left, the politics is personal, and the Alinsky-ite "freeze/personalize" rules.)

Drago said...

The dems strategy and the "facts" are now coming into clear relief.

There is no evidence of collusion, therefore the entire democrat focus will remain the Flynn's internal communications within the Trump staff as well as inferences of something "wrong" with Flynn's phone call with the Russian ambassador and the "possibility" of Russian leverage because of Flynn's comments publicly vs to VP Pence.

Thats it. That is really all there is.

And this nothingburger comes after 18 months or more of the entire US intelligence apparatus and foreign intelligence services spying and listening in!

Trump's team is clearly the most vetted administration in history!

Time to revisit Feinstein:

WOLF BLITZER: I know that you and some of your colleagues from the Senate Intelligence Committee drove over to Langley, Virginia, yesterday to CIA headquarters and you were briefed. Here's the question. And you don't have to provide us with any classified information, Senator. But do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Not at this time.

BLITZER: That's a pretty precise answer. I know the investigation is continuing.

brylun said...

Sen. Cornyn notes that Susan Rice has declined to testify before this committee.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

brylun: "Sen. Cornyn notes that Susan Rice has declined to testify before this committee."

Yes, Rice has declined to testify before this committee, but, in the words of the actor playing the New York delegate in the musical "1776", she declined "courteously".

Inga said...

Drago continues to ignore the fact that they are not allowed to speak about classified information. None of us knows what incriminating evidence is still classified. You at not convincing anyone.

Drago said...

Cornyn calling out Yates for her legally ridiculous refusal to enforce and support Trumps EO.

Chuckie is not going to like that one bit. Not one bit.

brylun said...

Great questions by Sen. Cornyn to Ms. Yates regarding her decision not to defend the President's executive order on immigration.

Drago said...

Inga: "Drago continues to ignore the fact that they are not allowed to speak about classified information"

LOL

Yeah, all that "classified" information that has been splashed across the pages and screens of the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN!

JohnAnnArbor said...

"None of us knows what incriminating evidence is still classified."

We should check Hillary's e-mail.

hombre said...

Inga bleated: "... legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that Trump’s behavior crosses the line of what we consider to be normal behavior for a politician in the United States."

Toobin, with whom I have dealt personally, is a shill for the lefty template. Moreover, this assertion by him is asinine.

It's abnormal for politicians to imply that other political figures have engaged in or have knowledge of criminal behavior? Really? It's abnormal for politicians to suggest that other political figures should have to answer officially for same? Really?

What, for example, is the Trump/Russia meme all about? What's the impeachment talk by idiots like Pelosi and Waters about? If lefty/Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Drago said...

Inga: " You at not convincing anyone."

It is not for me to convince anyone of anything. In case you've forgotten, its your side that continues to assert something for which there is zero, nada, zilch evidence.

Yet you and your lefty pals have no problems at all labeling Trump and his staff traitors!

You have to, otherwise the focus will go where you don't want it to go. Unfortunately for you, very unfortunately, it appears the Republicans, even the normal squishes, are not going to fall for the BS dem/"lifelong republican" demand for a fake "independent" investigation which would allow you to bottle up the facts until long into the future.

No, I'm afraid a number of republicans in the House and Senate are going to pursue this obambi domestic spying fully.

So its going to be fun. ]

Very fun.

Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and others all publicly saying they'll show up and testify under oath at any time.

Susan Rice? Declines.

LOL

eric said...

Blogger Inga said...
Drago continues to ignore the fact that they are not allowed to speak about classified information. None of us knows what incriminating evidence is still classified. You at not convincing anyone.

5/8/17, 2:51 PM


If only their were pure hearted government officials who had access to this data and would put their career and freedoms on the line to leak this heroic information to our unbiased press.

MadisonMan said...

How is saying this is a question that should be asked a threat?

Because Trump. Obviously. Trump is a Republican President. Therefore everything he tweets is a threat (to democrats and their press allies).

Drago said...

MadisonMan: "Because Trump. Obviously. Trump is a Republican President. Therefore everything he tweets is a threat (to democrats and their press allies)."

Tsk tsk. You should have included "lifelong republicans" as well.

I'll overlook the oversight.

This time.

robother said...

And, of course if Yates feels intimidated by the question for the reasons Ann sets forth, she can always plead the Fifth, in refusing to answer, which is another reason why its absurd to call this witness tampering.

Drago said...

Cruz dismantling Yates.

Again, Chuck won't like that.

Gahrie said...

you are clearly not up to the task of representing conservative thoughts accurately.

This is actually the one thing that makes me believe that Chuckles might actually be part of the Republican Establishment.

Matthew Sablan said...

So the argument is they believed Flynn was compromised by the Russians... these are the same people who thought Trump, too, was compromised due to the golden dossier, right?

Mike said...

Right, Inga. Adam "tons of evidence" Schiff has now shuffled offstage after seeing that empty file you allude to. You continue to cling to the hope there's a there there. There ain't. Fools rush in as they say. And the more foolish pussyhatted ones keep rushing in circles hoping for a deus ex machina that ain't coming.

Inga said...

"Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) is asking whether Donald Trump committed a federal crime by engaging in witness intimidation with a tweet about Sally Yates. If Trump was convicted of witness intimidation, he could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison."

"Ted Lieu @tedlieu
Did @POTUS violate 18 USC 1512, which prevents "intimidation" of a witness to "influence" testimony in "official proceeding"? #SallyYates"

Jason said...

Ann,

In the UCMJ, there's a concept called "unlawful command influence," or "undue command influence," where military leadership - potentially including the POTUS and SECDEF, is unfairly pushing for a prosecution or conviction by influencing or contaminating the jury pool, etc. It's been used successfully as a defense before.

Is there a similar concept in the civilian world? I can see how a politician could possibly poison a jury pool to force a change of venue, but what if the influence is national?

Mike said...

We all knew Ted was as dumb as you Inga. You didn't have to quote him.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Ted Lieu @tedlieu
Did @POTUS violate 18 USC 1512, which prevents "intimidation" of a witness to "influence" testimony in "official proceeding"? #SallyYates"

-- No more than any of the people who prepped her for the testimony did.

My God. Is this *really* the hill that the intellectual left wants to die on?

Inga said...

Ted is much smarter than you Mike.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Inga said..."Drago continues to ignore the fact that they are not allowed to speak about classified information. None of us knows what incriminating evidence is still classified. You at not convincing anyone."

I went and watched Blitzer's question to Feinstein. Your characterization of it, that there's classified information she's not talking about, is ridiculous.

Drago said...

Klobuchar's questioning nails it down completely.

The dems are going to use the Flynn/Pence private/public communications as a basis to say that Flynn was "possibly" compromised in the period between the election and inauguration and that will be used as a justification for all the obambi domestic spying going back to 2015.

LOL

Now we're on to shell corporations!

Drago said...

Inga: "Ted is much smarter than you Mike."

Well, then Trump is guilty and should be charged under US Code Lieu 100.12, Section pertaining to Ted Lieu being smart and posting something on Twitter.

Matthew Sablan said...

Shouldn't Obama's government have caught these problems and maybe, I don't know, WARNED Trump about these problems they were having instead of letting Trump clean up their mess, if Flynn's been compromised as long as Yates claims?

Drago said...

Mathew Sablan: "My God. Is this *really* the hill that the intellectual left wants to die on?"

Mathew, the rabid democrat base wants blood and no democrat has the courage to stand up and tell them to calm down.

Witness the Gorsuch filibuster.

Plus the rabid dem base baying for blood is kicking alot of cash to the dems in their frenzied search for the "Real Reasons Hillary Lost!!".

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "Shouldn't Obama's government have caught these problems and maybe, I don't know, WARNED Trump about these problems they were having instead of letting Trump clean up their mess, if Flynn's been compromised as long as Yates claims?"

No lefty/dem/"lifelong republican" claim/assertion/charge survives first order logical analysis regarding collusion/Russia.

There's nothing rational about the left right now. It's just thrashing about.

Matthew Sablan said...

I mean, the argument is, Yates did warn Trump in late January...but why didn't Obama DO something before then?

If it was such a not-problem that it could sit for a month or so, I don't see much problem with Trump sitting on it for a few weeks to decide/figure out what to do.

If it was such a problem that Flynn needed to be gone the moment Yates said something... well...

Drago said...

It's very clear now why Mike Rogers went to visit Trump in late November after the election.

Matthew Sablan said...

You know, sadly, what this shows?

Every political appointee/hiree/director/etc. needs to simply be canned the moment that the Presidency switches parties.

Yates was a disloyal employee from the start, and I can understand why Trump may not have had full faith in her. Her goal from the start was to be part of the #TheResistance, and in doing so, if Flynn actually is/was compromised, allowed her desire to hurt the presidency/#Resist get in the way of serving the country.

Yates is proof enough for me. Any Republican president from here on in who doesn't summarily fire every political appointee on Day One is setting themselves up for Yates-ian sabotage.

Matthew Sablan said...

Think about it! Yates believes Flynn is compromised. She waits until the 26th to say anything, not even doing anything while Obama, the guy who trusts her, is in power.

Why not?

The only reason that I can see is to deliberately set up Trump for failure. She left someone she believed to be a Russian agent alone, solely to, after a good long time, to bring it up to Trump.

If Flynn HAD been compromised, think of the damage he could have done while Yates was playing politics and #Resisting.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "I mean, the argument is, Yates did warn Trump in late January...but why didn't Obama DO something before then?"

I would love to know what White House Counsel Don McGahn would say he found when he investigated the "underlying" "evidence" that Yates claim she went to him with over concerns about Flynn.

All those meetings were after the fact CYA activities (including Comey's insistence in January to have the fake russian "dossier" included in the official Presidential briefing which was immediately leaked to CNN which made sure to link to Buzzfeeds posting of the entire pile of oppo research crap).

Drago said...

Mathew Sablan: "Every political appointee/hiree/director/etc. needs to simply be canned the moment that the Presidency switches parties."

Even more importantly, after an election we have to revisit the Presidents authority to shove partisans into positions throughout the intelligence services as well as change the degree to which raw intel is shared AS WELL AS altering the chain of succession in the Dept of Justice at the last moment (which would have ensured that a democrat obama/holder ally would have had the power to appoint an independent prosecutor once Jeff Sessions recused himself).

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Cornyn calling out Yates for her legally ridiculous refusal to enforce and support Trumps EO.

Chuckie is not going to like that one bit. Not one bit.


That all played out, blandly, in the inevitable, correct, unsurprising way.

She declined to support an order that she thought was legally suspect.

And Trump removed her.

So what? It was a great big nothing, policy-wise. By its own terms, it was to be a temporary order. And by any serious calculation, it was nothing but a lame attempt to try to enact something like the "Muslim ban" that was so popular within the Teump base during the campaign.

Drago said...

Coons continues along the only line of attack the dems have: Flynn's non-criminal, non-collusion communications with the Vice President.

johns said...

Was it improper for the President to use Twitter to suggest a question for Sally Yates?
Currently (4:30PM EST) the NYT website front page covers the story of today's hearings with the heading "Yates said Flynn could be blackmail target" and "Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn".
But because of Trump's twitter question, many Twitter followers, plus CNN viewers and visitors to Althouse, are reminded of the criminality and political motivation of the leak.
Sounds effective to me.

Original Mike said...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we still don't know what, if anything, Flynn did (other than lie to Pence).

Matthew Sablan said...

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we still don't know what, if anything, Flynn did (other than lie to Pence)."

-- He got his clearance renewed without revealing things he should have. If I recall, though, that was under Obama's watch.

It sounds like, with Obama and Yates warning Trump not to do the thing they did, that this entire thing with Flynn was a deliberate landmine deployed that Trump then set off in the least damaging way possible, as opposed to just avoiding it.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "it was nothing but a lame attempt to try to enact something like the "Muslim ban" that was so popular within the Teump base during the campaign."

See?

You are very good at parroting non-sensical leftist talking points.

LOL

I Callahan is right. You don't even realize you are doing it!

I Callahan: "Sorry Drago - he keeps giving the game away, but I don't think there is much danger of Chuck having enough self awareness to see that.."

Drago said...

Original Mike: "Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we still don't know what, if anything, Flynn did (other than lie to Pence)"

Nothing.

And that is something the Ingas/"lifelong republican" Chucks are never going to be able to accept.

Kevin said...

"The word "basically" is doing a lot of work there."

Hasn't "Trump is basically Hitler" been their dominant mode of thinking for at least 18 months?

Hammer. Nail.

Kevin said...

Next up: Trump's healthcare plan is basically killing everyone in the US.

Mike Sylwester said...

Inga at 1:16 PM

“It just shows how much the norms of behavior have changed,” Toobin said. “The idea of the President of the United States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking

Toobin himself must assume that the leaker was Yates.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, looking at this, it looks like Trump simply didn't trust Yates or Obama in their warnings. Once he independently verified things, he thought it over and gave Flynn the boot.

This is a bigger note about how poorly Obama managed the opposition party that he couldn't even convince people to trust him when national security was at stake.

Drago said...

Leahy "hard hitting" question: Do you think you betrayed the Justice Dept?

Next up: Is it true that Butter Pecan Ice Cream is the best?

Drago said...

Tough Leahy follow-up question: Thanks for sticking to your principles!

Drago said...

Valerie Plame!

Drago said...

Whoa! Now we hear Leahy trying to get Rod Rosenstein, Deputy AG, to recuse himself!!

The dems aren't even trying to hide what they are doing.

Original Mike said...

So the Dems (including Yates) keep talking about Flynn's vulnerability to blackmail, but I don't see it if he did nothing wrong.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mike Sylwester said...

Toobin himself must assume that the leaker was Yates.

Toobin works for CNN, one of the media outlets on the receiving end of the leaks.

Maybe he's not making an assumption...

Drago said...

Original Mike: "So the Dems (including Yates) keep talking about Flynn's vulnerability to blackmail, but I don't see it if he did nothing wrong."

All they have is the Flynn phone call communications/disconnect with Pence and they are hanging their hat on that, thats why the dems aren't even asking about collusion, which was the entire point of this hearing....supposedly.

Original Mike said...

Stuart Smalley wasn't even listening to Clapper on the "17 agencies".

Kevin said...

In the UCMJ, there's a concept called "unlawful command influence," or "undue command influence," where military leadership - potentially including the POTUS and SECDEF, is unfairly pushing for a prosecution or conviction by influencing or contaminating the jury pool, etc. It's been used successfully as a defense before.

Is there a similar concept in the civilian world? I can see how a politician could possibly poison a jury pool to force a change of venue, but what if the influence is national?


You mean like if a President constantly goes on TV to infer that white cops can't wait to gun down helpless black citizens? Stuff like that?

Original Mike said...

This is such bullshit.

Drago said...

Franken is now talking about Russia Today: "RT".

That would be the same RT that pays the Washington Post to include a weekly insert into it's paper.

So do the Chinese.

LOL

Original Mike said...

Franken thinks Hillary's security clearance should have been revoked (taking what he's saying to its logical conclusion.

Drago said...

Even Franken has given up on Collusion.

But you know who hasn't?

Inga and Chuck.

Drago said...

Franken is in full blown conspiracy mode.

LOL

Now we are simply listening to Franken wildly speculate all over the place. So much for evidence-based investigation.

The jig is completely up now.

Pillage Idiot said...

Toobin is supposedly a razor sharp legal analyst. How on earth is a witness harmed by being made aware of a question prior to her testimony?

If I am ever put under oath in a criminal proceeding, I sincerely hope that the prosecutor will inform me of the questions to be asked the day before my testimony.

[Uncle Remus is apparently more intelligent than Toobin, "Oh no Brer Fox, don't throw me into that briar patch.]

dreams said...

Sally Yates is one sorry piece of work, a sorry-ass excuse for an American.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Even Franken has given up on Collusion.

But you know who hasn't?

Inga and Chuck.


I have never once written about any strong suspicion of "collusion" between Trump and the Russians. I'd like to know what it is that the Russians have on Trump. But as for you, and this baseless allegation -- another one of your stupid and hysterical pronouncements about things I've never written -- you can't find a writing from me on the subject of "collusion." What I have written, is that neither I nor anyone else seems to have any good basis whatsoever to assume that the Russians changed the result of the 2016 presidential election.

You pathetic, worthless, lying assclown.

Gospace said...

I Callahan said...
the man is still an idiot.

Actually, no, he's not. No one can win the presidency of the United States and be an idiot. No one. But continue to call him an idiot if it makes you feel superior.


One of my standard responses to people calling the second President Bush an idiot was "So, when did you qualify to fly fighter jets?" The answer was usually some sort of sputtering followed by nonsense. I never heard anyone who ever actually flew fighter jets call him an idiot.

Original Mike said...

"Franken is in full blown conspiracy mode."

Trump didn't fire Flynn (soon enough to suit Franken) because they're all in cahoots with the Russians. That's Inga territory.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I have never once written about any strong suspicion of "collusion" between Trump and the Russians. I'd like to know what it is that the Russians have on Trump."

LOL

Just read those 2 sentences again and see if you don't laugh as well.

Drago said...

Senator Bluementhal, whose despicable "Stolen Valor" antics were vigorously defended by "lifelong republican" Chuck, is tripling-down on the getting the fake "independent prosecutor" installed so this "collusion" lie can be buried long and deep and allow the dems to continue their "lifelong republican" approved campaign of innuendo.

Unexpectedly.

John said...

Inga,

Since you mentioned the Mexican judge, do you know whether he is still a Mexican citizen or not?

We know he was born a Mexican citizen by virtue of his parents and a US citizen by virtue of being born in Ohio.

Did he ever renounce his Mexican citizenship?

John Henry

Drago said...

Senator Blumenthal enters a New York Times report containing classified information that Inga claims the democrats hold so dear into the record!

Drago said...

Clapper now being asked to read Trump mind regarding Tweets!

LOL

Serious questioning indeed!

Don't the lefties know that only "lifelong republican" Chuck can read Trumps mind?

harrogate said...

18 USC 1512.

Classic intimidation. Also interesting that he tried to take the thing down almost immediately.

Sad!

Drago said...

harrogate: "Classic intimidation."

Any port in a storm, eh harrogate?

LOL

Drago said...

Graham asking real questions again. Thank goodness.

Drago said...

Sheldon Whitehouse just turned into Rachel Maddow.

Which Chuck will love, naturally.

John said...

Flynn's lawyer Robert Kelner said in a statement, "We respectfully disagree with Representative Cummings’ characterization of the April 7, 2017 letter from DIA to the Committee. DIA’s letter actually confirms, in a terse section that is partly redacted, that General Flynn provided information and documents on a thumb drive to the Department of Defense concerning the RT speaking event in Moscow, including documents reflecting that he was using a speakers’ bureau for the event.”

"General Flynn provided two briefings to the Department -- one before and one after the event. The Department was fully aware of the trip. We urge DIA and the Committee to release the full, unredacted letter, along with the documents that General Flynn provided to DIA during the briefings and details concerning the in-person briefings provided by General Flynn to DIA.”


Emph added-JRH

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-adviser-mike-flynn-dod-investigation-warned-foreign/story?id=47054714

H/T www.noagendashow.com

Doug said...

"The idea that the president — the guy who’s in charge of the Justice Department — is threatening a witness is really kind of disturbing"
THREATENING!? Jeffrey Toobin is the Snowflake King!

harrogate said...

Drago,

I don't know what you mean. I don't expect anyone to do anything about it or even recognize that it happened. Just noted what he's doing. That's hardly a "port in a storm."

Kirk Parker said...

Ok, I suppose it's literally possible for attorney and lifelong-Republican "Chuch" to have never heard of a perjury trap.

But then why is he commenting on public affairs? Anyone who's ever heard of the matters regarding Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart knows all about this.



"Does anybody now think that Flynn would be a good guy to have serving as National Security Advisor?"

Absolutely! Yes. Sure.

Mind you, he's far from the best person that Trump could have appointed, but so many heads and shoulders about Obama's last NSA (Susan Rice, who served literally 60 times as long as Flynn) that she looks like a grease spot on the floor compared to him.


Chuck,

"Please don't insult my intelligence"

We don't give one flying fig about that. It's your ethics and most particularly your wisdom that you call into question every day here.





I'd like to see Rice kept in solitary until she agrees to testify. Good grief, grant her immunity if it helps, she *obviously* was not originating all the decisions about all the questionable things she was involved in.

Drago said...

harrogate: "Drago, I don't know what you mean. I don't expect anyone to do anything about it or even recognize that it happened. Just noted what he's doing. That's hardly a "port in a storm."

Everyone noticed the tweet, the left quite predictably moved rapidly to the "Trump did something criminally wrong" mode because they need to latch onto some new dream of an impeachment basis since it's obvious that the collusion thing is not working out for the dems and "lifelong republicans".

Chuck said...

John said...
Inga,

Since you mentioned the Mexican judge, do you know whether he is still a Mexican citizen or not?

We know he was born a Mexican citizen by virtue of his parents and a US citizen by virtue of being born in Ohio.

Did he ever renounce his Mexican citizenship?

John Henry

I am always surprised that Professor Althouse seems so sanguine about the presence of posts like this on her blog.

Let's review. The original dumbass statement was (of course) Trump's, calling U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel a "Mexican judge." It was a stupid statement. An insulting statement. An inexcusable statement. From a guy who soon paid $25m in a civil fraud settlement.

Curiel was born in the U.S. A natural-born U.S. citizen. At the time of his birth, both of his Mexican-heritage parents had taken U.S. citizenship. Renouncing their Mexican citizenship.

I don't how stupid you are, or what feverish level is your support for Trump; the "Mexican judge" comment was asinine, and if it were my blog (it assuredly isn't) your views would get the ridicule that they deserve.

There isn't a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g which justifies the "Mexican judge" comment.


Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I don't how stupid you are, or what feverish level is your support for Trump; the "Mexican judge" comment was asinine, and if it were my blog (it assuredly isn't) your views would get the ridicule that they deserve."

LOL

Well, here we see clearly why Chuck seems so readily inclined to side with the left.

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "There isn't a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g which justifies the "Mexican judge" comment."

Except his support of La Raza, amongst other things.

But you know what really can't be justified? Senator Blumenthals despicable Stolen Valor comments made multiple times over several years.

Yet "lifelong republican" Chuck had no difficulty defending that. Which is strange, given that Chuck courageously ALMOST signed up for military duty but did not because there was no draft.

Chuck said...

Kirk Parker said...
Ok, I suppose it's literally possible for attorney and lifelong-Republican "Chuch" to have never heard of a perjury trap.

But then why is he commenting on public affairs? Anyone who's ever heard of the matters regarding Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart knows all about this.

I know a good bit about perjury traps. I followed the Libby case very closely. I thought that the prosecution was a terrible injustice. I thought that the verdict was inexplicable. I hoped that Bush would give Libby a full pardon.

I thought Martha Stewart's prosecution was strange and hyper-technical, although I didn't follow it as closely as the Libby prosecution.

And what your point might be, in connection with former acting Attorney General Sally Yates' testimony to Congress, I do not understand.

As long as we are on the subject of criminal prosecution non-sequitirs, I might as well add that I think that justice was done, in a wise decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (8-0) in vacating the conviction of Republican former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
...
...
Except his support of La Raza, amongst other things.


Are you still spooning up that old discredited bullshit from the Trump Fever Swamps?

Judge Curiel was for a time a member of La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which has no policy connection with the political activist group, the National Association of La Raza.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/?utm_term=.3205b409ab6c

Fuck off, Drago.

Matthew Sablan said...

Eh. After today, it is clear Clapper and Yates leaked like a sieve to undermine Trump. Whether they leaked classified information, we'll never know most likely.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 309   Newer› Newest»