Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
marylandblue
marylandblue's Journal
marylandblue's Journal
December 17, 2017
..."Career GSA staff, working with Mr. Loewentritt and at the direction of the FBI, immediately produced all the materials requested by the Special Counsel’s Office – without notifying TFA or filtering or redacting privileged material," Langhofer writes.
In a phone interview with BuzzFeed News on Saturday night, Loewentritt — whose LinkedIn represents that he has been at the agency since 1972 — disputed the claims made in the letter sent by the Trump campaign.
"Beckler never made that commitment," he said of the claim that any requests for transition records would be routed to the Trump campaign's counsel.
Specifically, Loewentritt said, "in using our devices," transition team members were informed that materials "would not be held back in any law enforcement" actions.
Loewentritt read to BuzzFeed News a series of agreements that anyone had to agree to when using GSA materials during the transition, including that there could be monitoring and auditing of devices and that, "Therefore, no expectation of privacy can be assumed."...
Buzzfeed: GSA Attorney says Mueller obtained Trump emails legally
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-trump-campaign-claims-a-federal-office-illegally-turned?utm_term=.bdqMJJLnOy#.sbldYYW4j2..."Career GSA staff, working with Mr. Loewentritt and at the direction of the FBI, immediately produced all the materials requested by the Special Counsel’s Office – without notifying TFA or filtering or redacting privileged material," Langhofer writes.
In a phone interview with BuzzFeed News on Saturday night, Loewentritt — whose LinkedIn represents that he has been at the agency since 1972 — disputed the claims made in the letter sent by the Trump campaign.
"Beckler never made that commitment," he said of the claim that any requests for transition records would be routed to the Trump campaign's counsel.
Specifically, Loewentritt said, "in using our devices," transition team members were informed that materials "would not be held back in any law enforcement" actions.
Loewentritt read to BuzzFeed News a series of agreements that anyone had to agree to when using GSA materials during the transition, including that there could be monitoring and auditing of devices and that, "Therefore, no expectation of privacy can be assumed."...
December 13, 2017
Prediction Market says 90% chance of Jones winning :)
December 12, 2017
For tonight's Debbie Downers - 5 Reasons why Jones could win tomorrow
1) Democrats have been outperforming all year, especially this past November. Some very red districts that haven't gone Democratic for decades have flipped blue, including in places like Georgia and Oklahoma. But (I think) no seat flipped red.
2) Jones is well within the margin of error of the polling average. That's fantastic for a democrat in Alabama.
3) Moore got only 51% of the vote in his previous election and that was all before his child molesting came out.
4) A Fox News poll last month showed Trump with only 49% approval in Alabama. Obama scored 52%.
5) Prediction Markets give Jones a 35% chance of victory. That's double the odds they gave Trump and we all know what happened there.
December 8, 2017
The principal argument in favor of presidential immunity is that the president, as chief executive, is the officer ultimately responsible to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, for the government to pursue a criminal indictment of the president would be like the president prosecuting himself.
The argument is misguided. In England, it used to be said that “the king can do no wrong.” Indeed, when the Colonies declared independence, English prosecutions were in the name of the king — Rex v. Smith, for example. But the Founders rejected the tradition of royal supremacy. In writing the Constitution, they created a limited immunity for members of Congress protecting them against — but only against — prosecution for “speeches or debates” during congressional proceedings. By contrast, the Constitution is silent on any comparable immunity for the president.
In fact, in the Nixon tapes case, the Supreme Court rejected essentially the same point that Trump supporters are making. There Nixon argued that, as chief executive overseeing enforcement of the federal laws, he was not subject to demands by the special prosecutor that the president produce evidence sought by the prosecutor. The court unanimously upheld the fundamental constitutional principle that no person is above the law, and even the president is subject to the ordinary obligations and prohibitions of federal law applicable to everyone else. The caption of the case says it all: United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-a-president-can-be-indicted-the-nixon-tapes-case-proves-it/2017/12/07/26339e32-db4d-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.e9a527e59fed
Former Watergate Counsel Argues Trump Can Be Indicted
The principal argument in favor of presidential immunity is that the president, as chief executive, is the officer ultimately responsible to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, for the government to pursue a criminal indictment of the president would be like the president prosecuting himself.
The argument is misguided. In England, it used to be said that “the king can do no wrong.” Indeed, when the Colonies declared independence, English prosecutions were in the name of the king — Rex v. Smith, for example. But the Founders rejected the tradition of royal supremacy. In writing the Constitution, they created a limited immunity for members of Congress protecting them against — but only against — prosecution for “speeches or debates” during congressional proceedings. By contrast, the Constitution is silent on any comparable immunity for the president.
In fact, in the Nixon tapes case, the Supreme Court rejected essentially the same point that Trump supporters are making. There Nixon argued that, as chief executive overseeing enforcement of the federal laws, he was not subject to demands by the special prosecutor that the president produce evidence sought by the prosecutor. The court unanimously upheld the fundamental constitutional principle that no person is above the law, and even the president is subject to the ordinary obligations and prohibitions of federal law applicable to everyone else. The caption of the case says it all: United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-a-president-can-be-indicted-the-nixon-tapes-case-proves-it/2017/12/07/26339e32-db4d-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.e9a527e59fed
December 7, 2017
Why do you think a belief without evidence
Is the same as a belief with evidence? Or is there no difference between believing in unicorns and believing in elephants?
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Nov 8, 2016, 03:02 PMNumber of posts: 12,344