Leroy42 wrote: » I don't see where it allows transition teams a get out. Per the constitution POTUS remains in office till a certain point, and then the next one comes in. Trump, being the latest case, is a normal citizen until the time that he takes the oath of office. Only then does he gain any powers. During the transition everyone knows that the old guy is leaving so they either rush to get things done before he leaves or simply wait it out until he is gone. Nowhere does it state that the incoming POTUS has any executive powers.
server down wrote: » The idea that transition administrations do nothing and talk to nobody is clearly false though. It’s historically what’s always happened. We just heard about the Logan act this year.
Noel82 wrote: » Because it's Trump and people will disregard logic and morals and exaggerate everything as long as it's damaging to him, even if totally unjust and unfair. Nobody in 218 years has ever been prosecuted under the logan act. It was cast into law in 1799 and has never convicted anyone. Jimmy Carter practically ran NK foreign Policy while Clinton was in office, Teddy Kennedy tried to work with the USSR to affect the 1984 election. Obama was conducting calls with other members of foreign government long before he took office in 2009. The same people foaming at the mount for Flynn for lying to the FBI are the same ones who ignored how people like Heather Mills and Heather Samuelson were granted immunity and were allowed to have their laptops destroyed during last years FBI's investigation. Not surprising, the person who interviewed General Flynn with no legal aid present in informal terms was Peter Strzok, who has been fired by Mueller for sending anti Trump and pro Hillary text messages. Strzok is the same person who changed James Comey’s early draft language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her private email server from grossly negligent to extremely careless as careless isn't legal jargon for prosecution. He was deeply involved in the Russia probe against Trump along with the FBI vice director Andrew McCabe, who's wife during the campaign and during the Clinton investigation received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Clinton allies that made up something like 40% of her entire campaign donations.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-special-counsel-needs-to-investigate-the-fbi-and-justice-department-now/2017/12/04/5ca1234c-d916-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.917307e1905dhttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html "CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia. But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation."
Leroy42 wrote: » Conyers has resigned with immediate effect from the Senate. Whilst Pelosi make a bags of it at the start it is clear that he came under sustained pressure to resign form the DNC. Check this against the RNC which has just reentered the race for Alabama Senator by backing Moore and POTUS giving him his full support. One hopes that after the females of America failure to state their disagreement with Trump at the last election they will now use this clear difference in the standing of each party to send out a message
server down wrote: » So will the assumption be that if Trump got any money from Russia prove that Putin controls him, since Putin owns all the money in Russia. I am sure they will find some shennaghins, like undeclared foreign earnings etc.
Water John wrote: » Listening to Trump's friend on CNN. Laughable, saying Mueller going beyond his remit. 'What had Manafort, and DT's Bank transactions have to do with supposed Russian collusion?'
C14N wrote: » Why? It's not like Roy Moore is really substantially worse than Trump overall. I can't imagine there's a huge group of people who are fine with sexual assault against adults, but for whom sexual assault against teenagers is too much.
server down wrote: » Sure, but not sure if that is impeachable ( although it is indictable when he leaves office). A lot of business people in the US wouldn't survive a probe by the FBI. Probably the average worker wouldn't. There are thousands of laws, you are in violation of some of them.
Tell me how wrote: » I know the investigation is largely focusing on whether or not there was contact between the incoming administration and the Russians. We all are fairly confident that there was and the rest of the work is regarding the legality of this and possible culpability of key players. I am curious as to why the Russians did this and what they have going on behind the scenes now to avail of "their man in Washington". It damn sure wouldn't have been a case of let's see what happens. I'm sure they had a 4 year plan with objectives and milestones which overlap the presidency term of Donald. The end result could be sanctions for Russia which could impact on the wealth of their oligarchs so it probably wasn't something embarked on lightly. So what is going on that we will read about in 5 or 10 years and realise, "Oh that's what they were at"? I recognize this is probably a question for a different thread but if anyone has any immediate answers, I'd be interested in hearing them
Itssoeasy wrote: » CNN are reporting that Donald trump has told the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Mahmoud Abbas that the US Embassy in Israel will move to Jerusalem. This is according to a spokesman for Mr Abbas. That's going to cause problems is it not ? By moving its embassy to Jerusalem aren't the US in effect saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ?
C14N wrote: » Yes, but as the article notes:
The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and it has been used as a textbook in the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military.
aloyisious wrote: » It's a peculiar thing that that network has been reporting that Don is declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel but he's only saying he's thinking of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Govt of Israel has it as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. An embassy move could be seen as an official recognition of Israel's claim.
recedite wrote: » RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region
recedite wrote: RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region I remember when reporters used to simply report the news, instead of issuing their own wild speculation and interpretation of it. Of course RTE has been doing its best to attack The Donald for a long time now.
recedite wrote: » RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region I remember when reporters used to simply report the news, instead of issuing their own wild speculation and interpretation of it. Of course RTE has been doing its best to attack The Donald for a long time now.
Leroy42 wrote: Any ideas?
Leroy42 wrote: » What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is. Any ideas?
Leroy42 wrote: » Any ideas?
Leroy42 wrote: All those reasons are pretty depressing from one reason or another.
Leroy42 wrote: » If you had any understanding of the region you would understand that there are many things that could provoke violence. It is a powder keg over there and people spend a lot of time walking on eggshells to avoid setting something off unintentionally.
