Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
Thanks Tree41Thanks

Thread: FBI and CIA Independence

  1. #31
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    19,013
    Thanks
    2981

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    Maybe they should have more independence. But, you better be careful with that and not grant them TOO MUCH of it, to the point that the secret agencies become a state within the state, above the law and unaccountable to anyone, and perhaps even holding control, eventually, over the government itself. That's Putin's Russia, essentially. You do not want that, believe me...
    I'd argue they probably have too much...

    But even then there's the 5 eyes program.

    With friends like these, who needs Cointelpro.
    Thanks from The Man

  2. #32
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    34,878
    Thanks
    29617

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    Yeah. The spooks should have their own independent isolated power structure.

    What could go wrong....??
    Independent from politics is not independent from oversight.

  3. #33
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,055
    Thanks
    35606

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. Rasselas,

    It isn't now.
    Really? I think one focus of the Mueller investigation is efforts by the people who control the FBI to act on behalf of people the FBI is investigating. I wonder if the reason the FBI won't give Nunes the materials he's asked for is that they believe he will immediately turn over anything important to Trump, whose organizations are being investigated. There's certainly evidence to support this surmise.

  4. #34
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,300
    Thanks
    3017

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Really? I think one focus of the Mueller investigation is efforts by the people who control the FBI to act on behalf of people the FBI is investigating. I wonder if the reason the FBI won't give Nunes the materials he's asked for is that they believe he will immediately turn over anything important to Trump, whose organizations are being investigated. There's certainly evidence to support this surmise.
    Mr. Rasselas,

    I think you are wrong. You should check your facts.

    The fact is President Trump doesn't need an intermediary to get the information. He is the FBI's boss. He can demand anything he wants.

  5. #35
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,300
    Thanks
    3017

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Not yet.
    Mr. swimmer,

    or ever.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,055
    Thanks
    35606

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. Rasselas,

    I think you are wrong. You should check your facts.

    The fact is President Trump doesn't need an intermediary to get the information. He is the FBI's boss. He can demand anything he wants.
    No, he can't. That's just incorrect. If he insisted on such a thing, it would be a constitutional crisis. The FBI runs differently than other agencies in the executive branch, particularly when it is investigating the president or those close to him. And he can't fire Mueller, just as Nixon couldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor. He had to go through intermediaries to do it and ended up firing two people before he got to a Bork who would do it for him. And yet all those people serve "at the pleasure of the president."

    No one is above the law. No one can judge his own case. Interfering with an FBI investigation for a self-serving purpose is obstruction of justice, even for the president. See Article 1 of the articles of impeachment served on Nixon.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 12th April 2018 at 09:41 AM.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,055
    Thanks
    35606

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. swimmer,

    or ever.
    Now you have a crystal ball? You're clever, but predicting the future is a claim too far.

  8. #38
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    Thanks
    495

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    No, he can't. That's just incorrect. If he insisted on such a thing, it would be a constitutional crisis. The FBI runs differently than other agencies in the executive branch, particularly when it is investigating the president or those close to him. And he can't fire Mueller, just as Nixon couldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor. He had to go through intermediaries to do it and ended up firing two people before he got to a Bork who would do it for him. And yet all those people serve "at the pleasure of the president."

    No one is above the law. No one can judge his own case. Interfering with an FBI investigation for a self-serving purpose is obstruction of justice, even for the president. See Article 1 of the articles of impeachment served on Nixon.
    Trump has the power to revoke the executive branch rule that would request him use an intermediary, then fire Mueller.

  9. #39
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,055
    Thanks
    35606

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Trump has the power to revoke the executive branch rule that would request him use an intermediary, then fire Mueller.
    Theoretically, I suppose. But it would still be obstruction of justice. The president isn't a monarch. And Richard Nixon was a far more learned and clever attorney than is Trump, so I'm wondering why Nixon didn't do as you suggest?

  10. #40
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    Thanks
    495

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Theoretically, I suppose. But it would still be obstruction of justice. The president isn't a monarch. And Richard Nixon was a far more learned and clever attorney than is Trump, so I'm wondering why Nixon didn't do as you suggest?
    An obstruction of justice claim will not stick for exercising Article II powers.

    Any type of criminal charge will tied up for violating Article II.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed