We can't answer this thread without revealing classified information. Trumpery trumped.

[PerkingFaintly]

New thread, and here's the link to yesterday's hearing again.

Full transcript: Sally Yates and James Clapper testify on Russian election interference
www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.8b4eaf12c960

Ginger

'Fear is not in the habit of speaking truth; when perfect sincerity is expected, perfect freedom must be allowed; nor has anyone who is apt to be angry when he hears the truth any cause to wonder that he does not hear it.'

Hasn't he got a country to run rather than tweeting?

He should let it run its course and focus on what he was elected to do - run the country.

He doesn't really give two hoots about 'the country'.

If those conversations with Comey were classified, won't their mention by Trump make them unclassified?
Which would mean Comey could legitimately report their content?

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 3m3 minutes ago
More
China just agreed that the U.S. will be allowed to sell beef, and other major products, into China once again. This is REAL news!

If Comey can't confirm or deny what Trump says, what does that mean?

I suspect that the concept of 'legitimate disclosure' is exercising a good many minds right now. Especially in the context of 'overriding' issues.

I just wish someone would say

"Fuck it - yes Trump and his team are under investigation. This is what Flynn said. We picked it up during surveillance!"

I seem to recall a long article about the changes to Chinese coal import sources in recent months. Guess I dreamed it all - or 45 would surely have mentioned it in a Tweet?

Christ, he's really lost it hasn't he? It's almost comical and then you remember that he could start a war and it's not funny anymore. Has he got any rallies coming up?

What did He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named say? 'Not fit to serve'?

Michael S. Schmidt‏Verified account @nytmike 13h13 hours ago
More
Trump asked Comey 2xs in Jan. dinner at White House to pledge loyalty. Comey refused. Here's how meal went down.

www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0

If only there were tapes...

"The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head of the F.B.I., according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner."

"As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him."

"Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense."

"The White House says this account is not correct. And Mr. Trump, in an interview on Thursday with NBC, described a far different dinner conversation with Mr. Comey in which the director asked to have the meeting and the question of loyalty never came up. It was not clear whether he was talking about the same meal, but they are believed to have had only one dinner together."

"F.B.I. directors are not supposed to be political loyalists, which is why Congress in the 1970s passed a law giving them 10-year terms to make them independent of the president."

But, they are still dependent because they can be sacked. Surely there should be more reliable mechanisms to guarantee independence.

Hmmm.

I thought that loyalty was to the Constitution. Not to the President.

The US is not like a Monarchy.

I suspect, Lweji, that you can only sack them for 'cause'. (I haven't read the legislation, I fear.) Maybe, 45's letter represented a spurious attempt to fit in with that?

Nick Gourevitch‏
@nickgourevitch

Follow
More
Underrated polling story is the erosion in the intensity of Trump's job approval among Republicans. Shown here across two polls:

Keith Olbermann‏Verified account @KeithOlbermann 6m6 minutes ago
More
Keith Olbermann Retweeted Nick Gourevitch
One day @GOP support for this madman @realDonaldTrump will hit an erosion tipping point and people will think it happened "overnight"

Those figures are quite startling.

lweji

Laurence Tribe‏Verified account
@tribelaw

Following
More
By saying Comey had told him 3x that FBI wasn't investigating his campaign's links to Russia, T waived executive privilege wrt T/C xchanges

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
The courts have recognized that presidents have a privilege to keep secret the communications with persons regarding information & advice.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
The idea is that a president needs to be able to get honest advice, without the person giving it having to fear it will become public.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
This is called "executive privilege." During Watergate the Supreme Court ruled that the privilege does not apply to criminal investigations.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
Any legal privilege not to disclose information can be lost (waived) if the holder of the privilege discloses the information to others.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
For example if a client blabs about confidential converations he had with his attorney, the attorney-client privilege is lost.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
If the privilege is lost, the information must be disclosed if a party to the communication is called as a witness, like any other evidence.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
So any executive privilege Trump might have had regarding his conversations with Comey may have been lost when he talked about them publicly

Charlotte Smith‏ @rCharlotteSmith 15h
More
ANY privilege? Or just privilege over this specific piece of (true or false) information?

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 15h
More
The extent of waiver is fact-specific. Could be as narrow as just one conversation or as broad as all communications on that general subject

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 14h
More
Courts look at whether the disclosure was inadvertent, whether the disclosure was for an improper purpose, etc.

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 14h
More
There's not a whole lot of law specifically about executive privilege, because it doesn't come before the courts very often.

Patricia R Muller‏ @pattirmuller 12h
More
Thank you so much! I have one more ?: the last part 'wrt T/C xchanges' ? What does that mean?

Leslie Mitchell‏ @Lesmitch529 12h
More
I think that's short for, "with regard to Trump/Comey exchanges."

Some interesting questions for the next briefing.

Basically - WTF are this morning's tweets about?

What does 'better hope' mean?

Are there 'tapes'?

Did Trump ask Comey to pledge loyalty to him?

Can we believe what you are telling us?

Ouch.

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

Tim Ireland‏*@bloggerheads*
This is so amazingly Freudian. See if you can guess what the President is DEFINITELY NOT THINKING ABOUT. It involves tapes and leaking.

More to the point: starts leaking what. Apparently there was no investigation going on, according to Trump.

Also threatening someone who might testify you is an offence.

Nixon's first indictment was his firing of the special prosecutors.

IF (and I still think its a big IF) Trump is impeached, that rap sheet gets longer by the tweet.

I can only imagine the pressure Pence is under right now. Gladdens my heart.

Trump still going to Brussels?

Surely the only thing Comey can leak is the topic of the conversation.

Either he says that there is no investigation (and Trump wouldn't mind that leak) or he says that he can't confirm either way - and the tapes would back that up.

So what good are the tapes?

ABC News‏Verified account @ABC 59s60 seconds ago
More
North Korean parliamentary committee sends rare letter of protest to US House of Representatives over new sanctions abcn.ws/2q97ohh