Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Final Senate IC report
Comments
-
Good thread. No one will read itSFGbob said: -
Love how guys like the Dazzler criticized "right-wing wackos" pushing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories while they continue to promote the completely baseless Trump/Russia collusion story and completely ignore the fact that the Dossier has been totally debunked and was most likely Russian disinformation paid for by Hillary and the DNC.RaceBannon said:
Good thread. No one will read itSFGbob said:
Collusion with the Russians that they can't prove and have no evidence of is bad, bad, bad. But collusion with the Russians that's an established fact and staring them right in the face is completely ignored. -
We are busy now with an obscure GOP congress candidate in Florida. She is a conspiracy nut!!!
-
It’s a good thing she didn’t fight against de-segregating schools because she didn’t want her kids growing in a “racial jungle” with the black kids. That would be terrible!RaceBannon said:We are busy now with an obscure GOP congress candidate in Florida. She is a conspiracy nut!!!
-
The Committee anticipated that it could face executive privilege claims from Obama
Administration officials who testified about actions they took as part of the National Security
Council or conversations they had with President Obama about Russian interference. In practice,
though, Obama Administration officials freely shared their conversations with then-President
Obama· and each other related to the Russia threat. The. Committee heard testimony about
Principal's Committees (PCs) and Deputy's Committees (DCs) from Susan Rice, Denis
McDonough, Michael Daniel, Celeste Wallander, Jeh Johnson, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power,
Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and Lisa Monaco, among others. This testimony provided useful
insights into the history of interactions between the Obama Administration and the Russian
government, which informed the Committee's report.
The Committee did not anticipate, however, the multitude of novel and
unprecedented potential executive privilege claims from the WHCO on behalf of members of
President-elect Trump's Transition Team and the Transition itself, for communications before
Trump took office. The Committee was surprised by these assertions because they were made
inconsistently and because they have no basis in law. The Committee's experience demonstrated
the potential for abuse of executive privilege, particularly as it relates, to impeding a
Congressional inquiry. . . . The argument was
particularly suspect as applied to an apparent foreign policy operation run by Transition officials
who can claim no Constitutional authority to be conducting American diplomacy. To date, the
only court to address the existence of a Transition privilege has rejected it.
White House intervention significantly hampered and
prolonged the Committee's investigative effort. Most importantly, some witnesses were directed
by the White House not to tum over potentially privileged information-so they refused to
produce materials without first handing them over to the White House for a privilege review, or
refused to answer questions concerning the Transition without first consulting with the White
House. As a result, the White House had a chance to review and control the information
responsive to· Committee requests before the Committee did, even though the Committee was
seeking information from private citizens who could not themselves assert the privilege, and who
were free to disregard the White House's directive.
Although there is no formal requirement for Congress to honor the attorney-client
privilege, the Committee respected all legitimate and properly-supported invocations ofthe
privilege during its investigation as a matter of congressional discretion. Proper assertions of the
privilege did not prove to be obstacles to the Committee's work. However, the Committee
encountered dubious objections to its requests and questioning based on an undocumented and
unproven 'joint defense agreement."
From the documents produced by Cohen, the Committee became concerned that
multiple witnesses and/or their counsel could have been involved in or aware of Cohen's attempt
to mislead the Committee. Indeed, at least two witnesses (Donald Trump Jr. and Felix Sater)
could have known that Cohen's statement falsely represented material facts about negotiations
over a. deal for a Trump Tower Moscow. Further, Cohen told the Committee that following his
initial testimony, he received a phone call from Sekulow, who told him that Trump "heard that
you did great, and don't worry, everything's going to be fine. He loves ya." Cohen also
testified that after his initial interview, Sekulow mentioned "pardons" or "pre-pardons" for
Cohen.
The Committee questioned several witnesses and counsel to identify the nature of
the JDA. No showing to substantiate its existence was made by any proponent of the privilege.
All agreed that there was nothing written to document the JDA or any of its key features, such as
when it began, who was included, and the JDA'.s purpose. Even if the JDA were a verbal
agreement (valid under some case law), that would not excuse the participants from satisfying
their obligation to prove its existence.
And to think how much some of the gals here complain about corruption. -
Tl,dr
-
Dazzler goes with "the city's insurance company settled with Mike Brown's family" angle in order to make his case. And to think some fool actually pays you money for your legal assistance.
-
I like, "I pity his clients" although they do have to be fools to actually pay the dazzler for anything.
-
Trump “could have known.” Oh no!! Lock him up. I “could know” Lionel defrauds people in nursing homes. That means he’s guilty.
@HHusky loves his “may haves” and “could haves” as he treats them as facts.
Embarrassing all around that any time was spent on that toilet paper report. -
From the documents produced by Cohen, the Committee became concerned that
multiple witnesses and/or their counsel could have been involved in or aware of Cohen's attempt
to mislead the Committee. Indeed, at least two witnesses (Donald Trump Jr. and Felix Sater)
could have known that Cohen's statement falsely represented material facts about negotiations
over a. deal for a Trump Tower Moscow.
The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.
