“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” Mr. Trump said in an interview in the Oval Office, declining repeated requests for evidence for his allegations or the names of other Obama administration officials. “It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”
He declined to say if he had personally reviewed new intelligence to bolster his claim but pledged to explain himself “at the right time.”
When asked if Ms. Rice, who has denied leaking the names of Trump associates under surveillance by United States intelligence agencies, had committed a crime, the president said, “Do I think? Yes, I think.”
April 5, 2017
"Trump Says Susan Rice May Have Committed a Crime."
The NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
246 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246Here's the AP report....
Trump on Wednesday disagreed. When the Times asked him if Rice broke the law, he said, “Do I think? Yes, I think.” The president did not specify what law he thinks Rice may have broken.
"Do I think? Yes, I think." Sounds robotic. Trump has never commented here, perhaps because he is a robot?
I presume that virtually all of the many Trump supporters here would like to see a successful prosecution of Susan Rice. Trump is actively hurting that cause with comments like these.
Yes but aware as we are that these people NEVER have paid for their malfeasance and are highly unlikely to now, we appreciate Trump injecting the suggestion of Rice's guilt into the MSM blackout bubble that was surrounding Rice.
Hoodlum I see that I am going to have to make this even easier for you.
1. It would have been wrong, and by definition illegal, if Barack Obama wire tapped Donald Trump without legal justification.
2. I would not "justify" that surveillance, if the law didn't justify it. And we are presuming that the law doesn't justify it in this case.
3. Criminal prosecution and criminal punishment may flow, from the commission of a crime.
4. Forgiveness is a personal concept, not a legal one.
5. You forgive people, for their wrongs.
6. Forgiveness of a wrong does not confer immunity from prosecution. Forgiveness doesn't mean a legal pardon. Forgiveness doesn't commute a sentence.
7. Again, as I said from the outset: I might forgive Obama in our silly little Obama-surveilled-Trump hypothetical, because I think that Trump was such a hateful prick, and I'd personally love it, if Trump's darkest secrets were all exposed by Wikileaks. I LOVE WIKILEAKS!
"No, what the US intelligence community did was assist with the procurement of weapons from Eastern Bloc countries and from France. And the US did directly provide some arms but only a small minority of Iraq's total weapons. "
I question the significance, amounting to triviality, of this US effort vis a vis the overwhelming magnitude of Soviet and third-party support of Saddam Hussein. Recall what I said about disinformation.
Is life-long republican Max Boot?
At some point, Chuck is going to need professional help to get over being spurned by Donald Trump.
I saw Max Boot!
Do you guys know Max Boot? He's one of the brightest stars in the Conservative Commentariat firmament.
Two years ago, you would have totally adored Max Boot for his many columns in the WSJ, NRO, Weekly Standard, Reason and Commentary.
But he's got a worse case of NeverTrump than me. I think.
@Buwaya:
I question the significance, amounting to triviality, of this US effort vis a vis the overwhelming magnitude of Soviet and third-party support of Saddam Hussein.
Working to ensure arms supplies to the Iraqis was not trivial, and there were numerous other forms of assistance, including financial and intelligence, which the intelligence community thought were necessary to tip the balance in the war in favor of Iraq, and this all occurred while it was known that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. Part of US assistance also included making sure no significant actions were taken to punish Iraq.
So to the two questions you originally asked me:
Did the US do that? Or was it "fake news" avant la lettre?
The answers are yes we did, and no it wasn't.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
Given that legality was likely manipulated by Obama (Administration) how do you hang your hat on the law, you ignorant slut? The whole purpose of this operation was to maintain a veneer of legality, fopdoodle Chuck.
Further, I forgive nothing. Those sons of bitches meant to subvert our Republic. They meant to weaponize the foreign intelligence surveillance programs against Americans.
Everyone of a hitch in the Obama Administration can kindly go to hell. All of them and fopdoodles too.
Chuck, I never said those were your actual words. I just posted a hypothetical.
Let's say Trump comes out and says "Obama gave a Los Angeles Class submarine to North Korea! Treason!" And then you'd attack him mercilessly. A few days later, Trump releases a picture of a US sub tied to the dock in North Korea. Your response? "That's an Ohio class sub, loaded with ICBM's! It's not a Los Angeles! Trump's a liar, a fraud, and should resign or be impeached for saying Obama gave a Los Angeles class sub to North Korea! Liar! Apologize! Impeach him!"
You wouldn't care one bit that Obama in fact gave a fully functional US nuclear missile sub to North Korea with enough firepower to destroy America. You'd just be hitting Trump for "lying about Obama!" Who cares that Obama committed treason as long as you can attack Trump, right? What's more important, after all?
--Vance
No, I've been convinced Max Boot is a complete idiot for about 10 years.
"But he's got a worse case of NeverTrump than me"
I think he is worse and may even be clinically insane. Of course, he is a neocon of the first water and they are being excluded.
Bill Kristol is the model saying he prefers "The Deep State." I almost threw up when I saw him on Fox News Sunday.
Every son of a hitch in the Obama Administration can kindly go to hell. All of them and fopdoodles too.
You can all go to hell.
Max Boot is bought.
Cheap.
@J Farmer, oh shit.
I was looking at someone's response to you. I'm really upset at myself.
Please accept an apology from a guy who doesn't like to apologize.
@Big Mike:
Please accept an apology from a guy who doesn't like to apologize.
Accepted unreservedly. It happens.
Son of a bitch
If J.Farmer and Robert Cook had a baby, it would disappear in a vortex of America hatred.
@Birkel:
If J.Farmer and Robert Cook had a baby, it would disappear in a vortex of America hatred.
So how do you square that with the fact that I'm an admitted ethno-nationalist who supported and voted for Trump. How do you get hating America from not wanting to see your country's resources and fellow citizens pissed away over stupid military adventurism?
Let me try to give a very simple metaphor:
I love my father more than any other human being on this planet; I can go on for an hour over his flaws and the mistakes he made in his life.
I think most rational people would not see those two statements as at all conflicting. Do you?
Touching.
Meanwhile, before you hijacked the thread, there was a discussion about Susan rice and her weaponization of the intelligence and surveillance programs.
Grab your carry on.
@Birkel:
Meanwhile, before you hijacked the thread, there was a discussion about Susan rice and her weaponization of the intelligence and surveillance programs.
Hijacked? I had no idea I had that kind of power. I thought everyone here was participating voluntarily.
The fact that you have no answer to my question should show you how pathetic your position is.
p.s. There are plenty of other commenters focusing on that. You're more than welcome to engage with them and to ignore me.
My position is nothing.
The post by Althouse was about Trump's claim and Susan Rice's actions.
Grab your carry on.
@Birkel:
My position is nothing.
Then you really have no reason to be typing my name. Unless your strings are really that easily pulled.
J.Farmer
Grab your carry on.
@Birkel:
Dance puppet.
If The Obama Administration weaponized the intelligence agencies, all Americans should be fearful of the implications. What checks or balances exist to check that power.
Leviathan must be neutered.
Chuck said...I might forgive Obama in our silly little Obama-surveilled-Trump hypothetical, because I think that Trump was such a hateful prick
...which is exactly what I said. "Trump's being a huge hateful prick justifies Obama's actions in this silly little hypothetical."
You used the word "because," Chuck. You would/might forgive Obama BECAUSE Trump is so terrible. Trump's terribleness is the reason you'd agree that Obama would deserve forgiveness in that case.
Substitute your own word. Not "justified," maybe validated? Explained? Vindicated? Prompted? Caused?
If Trump weren't such a prick, you wouldn't excuse Obama in that scenario. SINCE Trump is such a prick, you'd forgive Obama if he in fact abused power in that way. Trump is so bad he's lost any right for consideration as a person/citizen where Obama's concerned, so you'd forgive Obama for abusing power just to "get" Trump.
At any rate, the issue is the standard you apply to a given situation/within a given argument. You've made clear you think Trump is so awful you'd forgive Obama (and presumably his Admin) if he/they abused the power of the State to try and hurt Trump (although, as you insist, you'd still call for legal action to punish the very behavior you readily forgive!). I think that tells us a lot about your POV, and I factor that in when deciding what weight to give your comments on this particular story. Others are free to do the same, or not.
I think this Hugh Hewitt interview of Andy McCarthy should be read by everyone.
This is a huge scandal and may affect the security of the US. Maybe Democrats think they can slow walk this or cover it up with the aid of the Media but I doubt it.
So Andrew McCarthy, you’ve been making this point, but I want to know when they started making it their job. I want to go back to the beginning and find out, and especially, you know, the presence of Ben Rhodes, given what he told the New York Times Magazine, should set off every alarm bell in the city and in the country.
AM: Yeah, the question, Hugh, is for example, why did the NSC around the beginning of the Obama administration have, you know, a few dozen people, and now they have a staff of 400? Why do you need 400 people at the NSC? Why did they become so intrusive, and not just on this, but on many of the functions of the executive branch? And we’ll be discussing more of that. But the one thing I would add to what Haass said, which I agree with, is that you know, you have to remember that it’s not just the privacy of Americans they’re concerned with. They’re concerned with the preservation of the ability to do their own jobs. Part of the reason that these guys don’t violate the rules is they know that, for example, at the end of this year, these powers are coming up again for review.
That is news to me. 400 people ?
DanTheMan said...
"Trump should announce that if Rice walks, he will be doing the same sort of monitoring of his political opponents in 2019. Since it's not illegal. Or even wrong, apparently."
Good idea.
Blogger Birkel said..."Son of a bitch."
I kind of liked "son of a hitch".
@ Michael K
I am not surprised at that number. This is a threat to the Republic. It was always intended as such.
And the authorization should be in doubt, now. Surveillance beyond control cannot stand.
Let me state this clearly:
Leviathan wishes to diminish freedom and exercise dominion.
The worst part of this threat to privacy is that Congress may, now that there is no trust of government, cut off more than it should.
These people, who thought they would never get caught, should be strung up from lamp posts.
We are seeing only the first glimpse. A cloud no bigger than a man's hand.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
"p.s. There are plenty of other commenters focusing on that. You're more than welcome to engage with them and to ignore me."
Eh, Birkel does this to everyone he loves...
Birkel says Leviathan gonna get you.
Michael K said...
That is news to me. 400 people ?
They can pull up every call and text off the network. It is all archived. Every single call is recorded. Every Text is saved. We could request them all going back months. The process was to bring up the information and go through their communications and make a map of their contacts.
The only thing that slowed us down was interpreters. 400 is a big number and they don't need terps.
"lifelong republican" and Archetype Chuck: "Do you guys know Max Boot? He's one of the brightest stars in the Conservative Commentariat firmament"
"..Brightest stars.."
LOL
"Leviathan wishes to diminish freedom and exercise dominion"
Yup. Sometimes you have to put lipstick on it like that to be precise. Like a whore.
That is news to me. 400 people ?
This is most likely part of a trend wherein constitutionally provisioned offices, requiring approval by Congress, are being slowly leached of actual power in favor of various "council" and "staff" jobs which have actual authority. It seems to be accelerating as time goes on, particularly in the foreign policy arena.
>>Good idea.
It would be fun to watch the D's explain why Susan Rice did nothing wrong, and at the same time, explain why if Trump does the same thing he must be impeached, arrested, and jailed.
C'mon Chuck and Inga: Square that circle! I know you can!
Aside from revealing the incidental parties to the surveillance, why did she ask for the incidental parties to be unmasked? She's was not an investigator. She was a senior policy executive. It's up to the intelligence officers on the line to determine if there is a security issue that needs to be investigated.
And much of the unmasking happened after the election so the argument that meddling in elections was a legitimate line of inquiry doesn't hold much weight after the fact.
It was an entirely political act.
- Krumhorn
I agree with DanTheMan and Meade.
Things will get interesting when we find out that Bernie, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and the rest of the gang were also surveilled.
Post a Comment