Liberal Forum

Misty » 09 May 2017 9:57 pm » wrote: Can you read jackass?
It says right in my post that Comey was investigating his CAMPAIGN.

Misty » 09 May 2017 10:12 am » wrote: So you admit that he encouraged them to leak STOLEN documents.
And this makes him look better how?

Misty » 09 May 2017 5:13 pm » wrote:FBI Director James Comey Is Fired By Trump

Firing the man who was leading the investigation into his campaign.
Shades of Richard Nixon.

Misty » 08 May 2017 3:23 pm » wrote:Clem, the White House lap dog doing his job.

Sally Yates testified like 'Alice in Wonderland' at congressional hearing
Jonathan Turley,....

There has been considerable speculation on why Yates would engineer such a confrontation, but what is more important is her justification for ordering an entire federal department to stand down and not to assist a sitting president. Yates’ prior explanation fell considerably short of the expected basis for such a radical step. She dismissed the review of the OLC by insisting that those career lawyers only look at the face of the order and did not consider Trump’s campaign statements and his real motivations. Of course, many question the use of campaign rhetoric as a basis for reviewing an order written months later by an administration. Most notably, Yates did not conclude that the order was unconstitutional (in contradiction with her own OLC). Rather, she said that she was not convinced that the order was “wise or just” or was “lawful.” She does not explain the latter reference but then added that she was acting on her duty to “always seek justice and stand for what is right.” That is a rather ambiguous standard to support this type of obstruction of a sitting president.


It got far more “curiouser” when Yates appeared at the hearing. Senator Ted Cruz raised 8 U.S.C. Section 1182, which expressly allows a president to bar the entry of “any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.” Yates responded by saying that there is also a provision enacted later that says that there can be no discrimination based on race, nationality and other criteria. However, that provision, 8 U.S.C. Section 1152 (a) (1) (A), would not impact much of the executive order since it does not on its face apply to refugees or nonimmigrant visas. Moreover, the law was later amended to exclude changes in “procedures” even for those seeking immigrant visas. Yet, Yates relied on Section 1152 and said “that's been part of the discussion with the courts, with respect to the INA.” However, that argument was rejected by some judges and was treated as limited even by those granting partial injunctions.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 101465522/

Misty » 08 May 2017 8:01 pm » wrote:I guess legal expert Clem doesn't know that the Attorney General of the United States swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not an oath of loyalty to the president.

Misty » 08 May 2017 8:01 pm » wrote: I guess legal expert Clem ......

BOMBSHELL! Rand Paul Says 2 Reporters Told Him Obama Admin Spied on Several Presidential Candidates

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) told FOX and Friends this morning that two different reporters told him he was being spied on during the 2016 election. Paul has asked the government for more information on these allegations.


Paul also said several Republican candidates were being spied on.


Rand Paul: We’ve had two reporters call us who’ve said they have sources. I have not seen the sources so I cannot say one way or the other. But when I have two different reporters calling me saying they have multiple sources saying the Obama administration was either unmasking or querying presidential candidates my ears do perk up.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05 ... andidates/

Termin8tor » 10 May 2017 7:45 am » wrote:When Trump and officials are wrong, I fully concede it.

Misty » 10 May 2017 1:20 pm » wrote: Copy: your **** paste: somewhere the **** else.

Huey » 10 May 2017 4:02 am » wrote: Just dropping these off in the cesspool where they belong.

indago » 10 May 2017 4:50 am » wrote:You two should get a room...

Termin8tor » 10 May 2017 7:15 am » wrote:Where did Sally Yates get her information about Flynn?

Misty » 10 May 2017 2:37 pm » wrote: I don't know.
Why don't you ask her?

Good, good, let the obsession flow through you.

Termin8tor » 10 May 2017 1:50 pm » wrote:Go **** yourself, psycho.
I think the evidence of Trump-Russia collusion is below that pile of dirty socks in your laundry room.
Wackjob.

Termin8tor » 10 May 2017 2:43 pm » wrote:Speaking of obsessions, how's that Trump-Russia-collaboration-conspiracy-thing-ey going, psycho?
I heard that the evidence proving it was buried in the Marianna Trench by Trump's military.

Comey Had Asked for More Money for FBI’s Russia Investigation

A senior congressional official with direct knowledge told NBC News that James Comey briefed Congress in recent days that he had requested more staff and money for the Russia investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The New York Times first reported Wednesday that Comey, who was fired as FBI director Tuesday, had asked Rosenstein for additional resources for the probe.

According to the Times, four congressional sources, including Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said Comey asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources during a meeting with Rosenstein.

The Department of Justice denies that Comey asked Rosenstein for more resources.

Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores told NBC News the report was "entirely false," and "there was absolutely no request" from Comey for more agents or resources for the investigation.

Court Filing Indicates FBI Has Active Investigation Pertaining to Donald Trump’s Call for Russian Hacking and Espionage

President Trump’s May 9, 2017 letter firing now-former FBI Director James Comey in part reads, “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation[.]”

However, a recent court filing by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FBI in an ongoing FOIA lawsuit plainly indicates the FBI has an active investigation pertaining to Donald Trump’s actions related to actual or potential election-related hacking and espionage by Russia.

The lawsuit is filed by Ryan Shapiro, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) PhD candidate/Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University research affiliate, and Jason Leopold, Senior Investigative Journalist at BuzzFeed News.

On August 18, 2016, Shapiro and Leopold submitted a FOIA request to the FBI seeking “disclosure of any and all records, including investigative records, mentioning or referring to Donald J. Trump’s statement on 27 July, 2016 [regarding Secretary Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails], ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,’ and ‘I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.’”

When the FBI did not respond in a timely manner to the FOIA request, Shapiro and Leopold sued.

During the lawsuit, the FBI initially asserted that it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of documents responsive to this FOIA request.

However, the FBI subsequently withdrew this position and agreed to search for the requested documents.

Again, the documents requested by Shapiro and Leopold are records, including investigative records, mentioning or referring to a public statement made
personally by Donald J. Trump, not his advisors, surrogates, or campaign staff.

In a court filing in this case on April 6, 2017, a Justice Department attorney representing the FBI informed the Court that there is an “active, ongoing investigation” pertaining to this matter and claimed that disclosing the “records that are responsive to the Russia Request” could reasonably be expected to interfere with “enforcement proceedings.”

(As noted elsewhere in the DOJ/FBI’s new filing, the term “Russia Request” refers explicitly to Shapiro and Leopold’s FOIA request quoted above.)

The DOJ/FBI’s new court filing acknowledges the existence of records responsive to Shapiro and Leopold’s “Russia Request”, and claimed that all, or virtually all, of these documents cannot be released because of the potential to interfere with active law enforcement proceedings.

Misty » 10 May 2017 2:31 pm » wrote:

Huey » 10 May 2017 3:39 pm » wrote:She just won't quit.

LMMFAO!

Misty » 10 May 2017 3:58 pm » wrote: I won't quit? LOL
When you said that you were just dropping those posts off in the 'cesspool' (your word) where they belong, what was that?
Is that how trolls like you quit?


This is my '**** cesspool' (your words) and I'll post whatever I want.
If you choose to swim in this '**** cesspool' (your words) then expect to get dirty.
Or should I say dirtier than you already are.