Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the plenty-of-dirty-laundry-to-go-around dept.

WikiLeaks announced Friday it is prepared to pay $100,000 for any tapes of conversations between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey. The message was sent out from its Twitter account just hours after Trump sent out his own tweet apparently warning Comey not to leak information to the media because of tapes he has of their meetings.

Update: U.S. lawmakers ask Trump to turn over any Comey tapes. Background on Comey's firing.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:38PM (5 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:38PM (#510774) Journal

    Yes, in several ways.

    1. These are, with only 2 exceptions that I know of, members of the minority party demanding the tapes. Until such time as republicans with integrity exist(try a cemetery?), they couldn't even pass a vote to act on these demands.
    2. Legal precedent regarding what the president has to turn over to congress as evidence and when is complicated, mostly created by Nixon over the course of watergate. The umbrella term for those complications is "executive privilege."
    3. To quote another disgraced president that Trump has eerie similarities to "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" There's no established process for raiding the fucking whitehouse for evidence. It would be a tremendous constitutional crisis if he refused, but it could still happen, and what enforcement body actually answers to congress?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday May 17 2017, @01:00AM (4 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday May 17 2017, @01:00AM (#510852)

    > It would be a tremendous constitutional crisis if he refused

    It would make more sense to accept, then to prevaricate and finally hand over an incomplete set, then to prevaricate some more and finally destroy any real evidence of anything.

    > what enforcement body actually answers to congress?

    Presumably it would go to the judiciary to enforce?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @02:31AM (#510888)

      No, the judiciary decides if a law should be enforced or not. It's the executive branch which does the enforcement and the President is at that top of that branch.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @10:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @10:24AM (#511624)

        So you say 'conflict of interest, the P is recused when involved' as happens /everywhere else in society/ maybe?!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @02:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @02:35AM (#510892)

      Judiciary does not enforce. Judiciary adjudicates. Stalin said "how many divisions does the Pope have?" Judiciary is like the Pope.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:24AM (#510967)

      You mean like Hillary, right?