Trump threatens medical cannabis

vta said:

...
I might add...if Trump wanted the Russia Russia Russia thing to go away...why on earth would he create more controversy? Oh wait...I know...he's an idiot, he's stupid...he's a cheeto.

Click to expand...

not a bad point, it really doesn't seem like a rational decision
and Trump may not be guilty of whatever crimes
but people pushed into a corner will strike out even if it isn't a good plan
survival instinct 'trumps' reason sometimes
the information is going to come out, whatever it is

Trump changes positions like I change my underwear... Daily. My guess is that he's just paying lip service to his base. He has a strong tendency to grandstand. "Hey, look at me, I can Presidenting, Bigly!"

Sessions is the one to watch out for, though he is entangled in the Russia mess too, and if Trumpy goes down, you know he's taking Jeffy boy with him.

Hell, that whole administration might go down in flames, you never know.

I wouldn't read too much into it (the signing statement) right now. He's got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

vta said:

The investigation is still going on...Comey is not an investigator.

Click to expand...

he was the head of the FBI in which his task was to oversee the investigation. if he was replaced by someone who is friendly to trump, that person could put a damper on any investigation.

vta said:

Was there ever a 'good' time to fire him? Really. The truth is that every single action he does is going to get resistance. If Trump cured cancer the Dems would scream about the loss of jobs in the cancer field. He is in a no win situation.

Click to expand...

if would have def been better on him had he done it earlier in his presidency. he knew that there was going to be backlash on this. sessions supported the decision even after he had recused himself any and all things related to any russian investigation. they knew the blow back was coming. there are many conflicting reports as to why and to who this recommendation came from.

vta said:

Now Comey is a disgrace...both sides agree. Shit....he had to go back to Congress the other day to admit he made a false statement during recent testimony. Not to mention he stepped out of his duties and played cop, judge and jury as far as Hillary's corruption.

Click to expand...

the man is held in regards on both sides and disliked by people on both sides. the WH deputy press secretary said he had lost the faith of rank and file fbi agents. then you have the acting interim director saying its simply not true and the WH got it all wrong.

vta said:

I might add...if Trump wanted the Russia Russia Russia thing to go away...why on earth would he create more controversy? Oh wait...I know...he's an idiot, he's stupid...he's a cheeto.

Click to expand...

simply put hes not used to people questioning his actions. when your the owner of a company what you say goes and nobody questions it and it goes away.

Whoever Trump appoints to replace Comey will badger and threaten his/her subordinates to 'comply' with what he/she (and Trump) wants. Few people will risk their jobs (or worse) to fight it. Trump knows this.

vta said:

Was there ever a 'good' time to fire him?

Click to expand...

If somebody wanted to access records and computer files relating to the investigation,... a good time to fire Comey might have been when he was away from his office on the other side of the continent... like giving a talk in Los Angeles maybe? But I'm the paranoid type.

brown_thumb said:

Whoever Trump appoints to replace Comey will badger and threaten his/her subordinates to 'comply' with what he/she (and Trump) wants. Few people will risk their jobs (or worse) to fight it. Trump knows this.

Click to expand...

That's the plan I'm sure. However, the Senate and the House can appoint special investigators, or Prosecutors that are not beholden to Trump. And even though he is no longer with the FBI, Comey can still testify to what he already knows.

This all reminds me so much of Watergate, different, maybe ten times worse, but the same pattern. Now, though the data, the wiretaps, the documents are all backed up on a hundred different systems. It will all come out eventually.

WelderDan said:

And even though he is no longer with the FBI, Comey can still testify to what he already knows.

Click to expand...

I think Comey just testified to the Senate in a closed session.


Here's an interesting angle on Comey's freedom to speak openly;

Donald Trump may have forfeited executive privilege with James Comey with wording of firing letter

By Bill Palmer

Updated: 7:38 pm EDT Wed May 10, 2017


Now that Donald Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey, he seems to be banking the idea that Comey is too much of a law-and-order guy to dare violate executive privilege by blabbing about what all he really knows. But because Trump posted an amateur-hour letter firing Comey that didn’t appear to have been run past an attorney, the wording of his letter may have just cost him that executive privilege.


Donald Trump tried to use the letter to paint himself as innocent on the Russia scandal by inserting a rather bizarre claim in the middle of it, by asserting that Comey had “informed me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation” (link). The immediate trouble for Trump is that most people don’t believe that claim on its face, because Comey is indeed too much of a law-and-order guy to have made that kind of remark about an ongoing investigation.


But the bigger trouble is that, by disclosing a supposed private conversation with Comey about the Russia investigation, Trump may have unwittingly forfeited the executive privilege that he had with Comey. And if so, it means that Comey is now legally free to refute Trump’s claims and set the record straight. I’m not an attorney, but it’s been my suspicion that Trump did forfeit executive privilege with his letter, and on MSNBC Hardball today, guest Carole Lee raised the same sentiment.


This places increased significance on the fact that James Comey is now scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday (link), even in spite of – or perhaps now because of – his firing. Comey is surely speaking to legal experts about the matter and will make his own determination as to whether Trump forfeited executive privilege, when it comes to deciding how much internal dirt he can now legally reveal.

Click to expand...

http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/privilege-trump-comey/2737/

Crusader Rabbit said:

I think Comey just testified to the Senate in a closed session.


Here's an interesting angle on Comey's freedom to speak openly;



http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/privilege-trump-comey/2737/

Click to expand...

i was mulling over about what legal doors might be opened by this
you answered that with a vengeance
Trump composed this letter without a legal review?
i'm trying to close my mouth now, but it just won't shut

trump on comey firing via wapo:


President Trump on Thursday said he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been leading the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Recounting his decision to dismiss Comey, Trump told NBC News, “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Trump’s account flatly contradicts the White House’s initial account of how the president arrived at his decision, undercutting public denials by his aides that the move was influenced in any way by his growing fury with the ongoing Russia probe.

Later in the same interview, Trump said he had no intention of trying to stop or hinder the FBI’s Russia probe, which is examining whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russians to influence the election. Trump also said he wants the probe “to be absolutely done properly.”

“I want that to be so strong and so good,” Trump told NBC anchor Lester Holt. He added, “I want to get to the bottom. If Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election, I want to know about it.”

Trump’s account of his decision to fire Comey — whom he denigrated as “a showboat” and “a grandstander” — exposes the explanations made over the previous 48 hours by White House officials, including Vice President Pence, as misleading and in some cases false.

Initially, Trump aides had said the president fired Comey simply at the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who wrote a memorandum detailing what he considered to be Comey’s flawed handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

In media appearances, administration officials repeatedly highlighted Rosenstein’s reputation of integrity and bipartisan appeal, effectively using his independence as a shield against criticism that Comey’s firing was politically motivated by the president.

Officials insisted that Trump’s decision was not shaped in any way by his growing fury with the Russia controversy. Trump has publicly called the ongoing probes by the FBI, as well as the Senate and House, “a total hoax” and “a taxpayer charade.”

But Trump made clear in Thursday’s interview that Russia indeed was on his mind. And he said Sessions and Rosenstein’s recommendations did not prompt his decision.

“I was going to fire Comey,” Trump told Holt. “Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.”

The White House on Thursday struggled to explain its evolving and contradictory accounts of Trump’s decisionmaking process.

“Nobody was left in the dark,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the principal deputy White House press secretary, insisted at Thursday’s press briefing. She added, “It was a quick-moving process. We took the information we had as best we had it, and got it out to the American people as quickly as we could.”

In interview, Trump also detailed three conversations he said he had with Comey about the Russia investigation. The president said the FBI director assured him in each discussion that he was not under investigation — once at a White House dinner when Comey was seeking to remain in his post and again in two phone calls. Trump said Comey initiated one of the calls.

“I said, ‘If it’s possible, would you let me know am I under investigation?’ He said, ‘You are not under investigation,’’’ Trump said.

In offering more details about an assertion he made when firing Comey on Tuesday—that Comey had repeatedly assured him he was not under investigation—the president raised new questions about his conduct toward the ongoing FBI probe into whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russia to meddle with last year’s presidential election.

Trump has repeatedly criticized that investigation, calling it a waste of taxpayer money, and denied he has any ties to Russia.

“There’s no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians,” Trump told Holt.

Democrats have called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the matter without the threat of political interference.

In the NBC interview, Trump said Comey came to eat dinner with him at the White House. “I think he asked for the dinner. . . . And he wanted to stay at the FBI, and I said I’ll, you know, consider and see what happens … But we had a very nice dinner, and at that time he told me, ‘You are not under investigation.’ ’’

The exchange as described by the president is remarkable since he said the FBI director was discussing an ongoing investigation with the president — something Justice Department policy generally prohibits — at the same time Comey was seeking assurances he would remain in his job.

Current and former officials said Trump’s description of statements by Comey is not accurate, but they declined to elaborate. Legal experts also expressed doubts about Trump’s account.

“I just can’t even begin to think about that comment being true,’’ said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland who has previously worked in the Justice Department. “It defies belief in general because of the practices of not commenting on investigations, and it would especially defy belief in the case of Comey who prides himself on strict observance of propriety.’’

Greenberger noted the implication of Trump’s statement is severe – that Comey may have offered that assurance to try to ingratiate himself with the president and remain in his job. “I just have a very hard time imagining that,’’ he said, though he added he also didn’t think Trump simply asking that question came close to a criminal act of trying to obstruct the investigation.

The federal law against obstruction of justice is broadly worded but in practice, prosecutors have a high bar for bringing charges that someone “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication’’ attempts to “influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.’’ Generally, such cases are only brought when prosecutors have clear evidence of the underlying motive behind a person’s actions.

White House spokeswoman Sanders would not provide further details about the conversations between Trump and Comey, such as when they occurred and whether all three were after the president’s Jan. 20 inauguration. She said commentary by legal experts on cable news showed there had been no conflict of interest with Trump asking the FBI director whether he was the subject of the Russia probe.

Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in national security and constitutional issues, said that even assuming Trump’s account is accurate, “legally speaking, I don’t think that crosses any lines.’’

At base it is more a political issue than legal, he said. Offering a more extreme hypothetical—that Trump began firing anyone involved in the investigation—that could come closer to obstruction of justice. But then it would be a matter for Congress to act. “Our system is designed so that impeachment is the remedy,’’ he said. “But the fact pattern you’d need is something more Nixonian.”

FBI directors are appointed for 10-year terms, and Comey had been on the job less than four years. A president may fire an FBI director at any time for any reason, but it is very rare to do so because of the potential political blowback if the White House is perceived to be interfering with federal law enforcement work.

Comey’s temporary replacement, Andrew McCabe, told senators at a hearing Thursday morning that no White House officials had tried to interfere with the Russia probe.

In the interview, Trump said he fired Comey because he had mismanaged the FBI and was an attention-seeker.

“Look, he’s a showboat, he’s a grandstander,” the president said. “The FBI has been in turmoil. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil, less than a year ago. It hasn’t recovered from that.”

brown_thumb said:

Whoever Trump appoints to replace Comey will badger and threaten his/her subordinates to 'comply' with what he/she (and Trump) wants. Few people will risk their jobs (or worse) to fight it. Trump knows this.

Click to expand...

The names I've heard tossed around to replace Comey are certainly sure to please quite a few. Trey Gowdy, Rudy Giuliani. and Chris Christie. Hell of a line up there,,,just listed 3 of them. Can't remember the others.

resinryder said:

The names I've heard tossed around to replace Comey are certainly sure to please quite a few. Trey Gowdy, Rudy Giuliani. and Chris Christie. Hell of a line up there,,,just listed 3 of them. Can't remember the others.

Click to expand...

add ray kelley and merrick garland to that list

It seems like a good place

It seems like a good place

For somebody like Sarah Palin to step in with some real world experience and focus on what's important.

WelderDan said:

...I wouldn't read too much into it (the signing statement) right now. He's got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Click to expand...

For the most part I agree. But why? Why the statement? It’s clearly not in line with states’ rights - which he claimed to favor, not only in a general sense; but also specific to medical marijuana. What is the endgame with its issuing? I especially wonder why for a bill that will expire in five months...

Maybe it will serve as a cornerstone for a new enforcement policy.

Or is it just an empty gesture?

resinryder said:

I don't care who protected whom. I would just like to see an independent investigation of all of them to see what's what and let the indictments fall where they may. What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

I honestly haven't looked into the Russia connections with Trump. I too believe in justice and equality.

But, considering our problems with other countries it would be nice if the other superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons was an ally.
They are not communist or aggressive towards the US anymore, the cold war ended a long time ago.

toxic hippie said:

he was the head of the FBI in which his task was to oversee the investigation. if he was replaced by someone who is friendly to trump, that person could put a damper on any investigation.

Click to expand...

That is very true. However....anybody that he wants to replace Comey is going to have to be confirmed by the Senate. And that is why you are not going to see Fat Boy Christie or Giuliani nominated...Bridgegate and FBI leaks..respectively. Anyone other than Garland {never gonna happen} would tie up confirmation...and with all the vacations WE pay Congress, this might get pushed out a few months.

Not to mention that the active FBI Director McCabe is a liberal. And I think that is great ! After all...I am all for fairness and bipartisan evaluation. Of course we are gonna hear the Right cry about his wife's ties to 'ol Terry the Clinton's Fluffer...but whatever...the point is.....

The FBI is the highest respected, best equipped and the very best law enforcement agency on the planet...Comey{a political appointment} proved to be a hack...not able to uphold the limits of his position...confidence has been diminished...a change is good.


Mark Levin...like him or not..makes great points...

oh...it would be best if easily TRIGGERED individuals ignore...it doesn't fit the narrative.

[YOUTUBEIF]6kBiyiKSgEI[/YOUTUBEIF]

Itsmychoice said:

For somebody like Sarah Palin to step in with some real world experience and focus on what's important.

Click to expand...

Trump would dig Palins crib, "she can see Russia from her house.

This popped up on CNN web about 5 minutes ago. One step forward and two steps back:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-charging-memo/index.html?adkey=bn

starke said:

This popped up on CNN web about 5 minutes ago. One step forward and two steps back:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-charging-memo/index.html?adkey=bn

Click to expand...

the quick version for those not wanting to clink on links
the new Sessions guide lines for prosecution of federal cases

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a new directive for federal prosecutors across the country: charge suspects with the most serious offence you can prove.

this is rolling back the Halder policy of not prosecuting federal drug cases at the maximum unless there were aggravating circumstances(guns, violence, etc)

welcome to your new world and enjoy