Cummings blasts White House for failing to comply with security clearance probe

Shelia Jackson Lee was just insisting a cabinet member, HHS Secretary Nielsen, giver her the details of her private conversations with the President and what she advised him about the emergency, the most obvious executive privilege. MSNBC was trying to spin it that she was refusing to give the committee the same "information" when in fact she was giving them the "information" the data. If was just the private advise she said she could not discuss.

 

And trump denied helping Jared get clearance. Yet now he won’t turn over docs?

 

Conjecture and supposition.

 

How did they get their security clearances, then. Are they really undercover super spies?

 

Hmm.

Doesn't pass the smell test. Nosirree.

 

Did you read your opening post? Do you even understand your own position?

 

If only there was a way to verify the claims...

 

The president still has the plenary power.

 

We would have solved this mystery Fred, if not for our meddling president..

Rats right, raggy...

 

there isn't...hence why they fall flat. The Dems have been saying since Sunday, that they really aren't interested in verifying anything at this point....it's all about endless investigations and accusations in order to undermine the 2016 election. At least they are finally being honest.

 

Great. Then get Trump to admit that he and Ivanka lied about Trump's involvement and just say that he decided to override the FBI recommendations.

 

You're right....you could verify your claims had the President actually did the things you all accuse him of...since he didn't...you can't....i guess you can call that meddling.

 

You mean he lies often to the American people.

 

All we know is a guy denied clearance got it anyway. Let trump show congress why. It’s within their oversight authority.

 

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.

Are you suggesting that there should be a fixed number of crimes that may be investigated, with the rest ignored?

There are several agencies that are investigating - the House, Mueller, and a couple states. Should someone (??) tell the states that they must ignore crimes in their state on the grounds that the number of allowed investigations is over the limit.

Maybe I'm missing your point -

 

No, producing the documents requested isn't going to slow down the executive branch.

That's just nonsense.

 

In what way did Trump's family members benefit?

 

When I step away from PF and have conversations with Reps IRL, I go in prepared for battle...as you have to do here. But I am quickly reminded that the level of discussion about Trump outside this echo chamber is a wee bit more sensible. There is no defending him, right or wrong - and certainly no deflections or whataboutisms. So fear not - 2020 likely won't be a repeat of 2016.

 

Moi is suggesting that parking tickets or other personal crimes
should not be fodder for investigation during a presidency.

Crimes that effect the nation such as Watergate, yes.
But that was a defined investigation with limits
not a fishing expedition.

PLEASE counter balance the damage to the presidency of
these nitty knat investigation.
There was a criminal foundation for the Watergate investigation.
Lying about one's sex life under oath is just not the same.
Clinton's, get even, impeachment was a joke.
At some point we need to separate lying under oath about one's sex life
and Watergate to balance the damage to the President's authority to
observed by would be enemies.

A presidency under attack is less able to command the respect of would be enemies.

After retirement from the Presidency, then go after those parking tickets, lying
under oath about sex life or tax fraud.

Not suggesting anything.
Most definitive statements above.
Please reply to where you see it diff with Moi's words of no "suggesting".


Moi

​

 

LOL! This is WELL within the purview of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

The House Intelligence Committee is chartered with oversight of intelligence decisions made within the executive branch.

Obviously.

 

Well, that should be obvious.

But, the first order of business is that individuals who were refused clearance were given clearances anyway - which is legal, but has almost never (or never?) actually been done before.

And, top executive branch officials appointed by the president were ADAMANTLY opposed to those individuals getting such clearances.

===> Any intelligence oversight would be a joke if it didn't include finding why these top Trump officials were so strongly opposed to giving out this level of access to US intelligence to those individuals.

 

So there's no cause for complaint?

Otherwise people would complain if it was illegal and legal. So it would be a case of just complaining regardless. If it's not illegal, then why the waste of energy?

 

The banking and insurance fraud are federal crimes, as is the coverup concerning campaign finance law crimes.

The involvement with Russia and the campaign are clearly gigantic issues that have ongoing implications. For example Trump's concessions to North Korea came at the advice of Russia, who had an official with Trump in Vietnam. For example, Trump has a record of protecting Russia from US sanctions. For example, Trump has worked to defeat the investigation of Russian's participation in our election. For example, Trump's campaign managers and various others related are in or are going to jail over crimes that are directly adjacent to Trump, raising serious questions of Trump's involvement. For example, Trump has met with Putin without any other US representation, even taking the notes of the meeting and swearing the note taker to secrecy, while Russian officials have access to what was said - a totally unprecedented act deeply in favor of Russia. For example, Trump blocked efforts to progress on election protections after the election - even though it was clear that upcoming elections were vulnerable. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Trump demanded that individuals get security clearances when standard investigation denied those clearances. These clearances were adamantly opposed by top executive branch officials who Trump appointed. No intelligence oversight could possibly be considered adequate if events such as that are ignored.

So, I guess I'd like to know what cases you think should be dropped on the grounds of being too inconsequential.

 

Hardly great experience for leader of the free world.

Most Presidents were senior Senators or state Governors. I'm not saying Obama was plucked from the checkout at Blockbuster Video, just that he was less experienced than most who take office.

Bush Jr. had been Governor of Texas, the state equivalent of President.

Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas.

Bush Sr. was Vice President and Director of the CIA.

Reagan was Governor of California.

Carter was Governor of Georgia.

Ford was Vice President.

Nixon was Governor of California.

Etc, etc.