Don't think so. It's not against the law for a journalist to accept information from a leak. The person potentially breaking the law is the leaker, not the person who receives the information.

If, however, a court or Congress demands that the identity of the leaker be made public, a journalist can end up in some trouble. Judy Miller was one such high profile case.

The law on that score is very interesting and sensitive.
 
"If you resign now, I'll give you a pardon." This is similar to letting a dictator go live in France or somewhere in exchange for leaving peacefully. What a terrible analogy.

Actually I think it is a very good one.
I agree it's a good analogy. But it's also a terrible thing that that would happen in a democratic country. And that's how I interpreted Beerina's statement, but I'll let him explain his original meaning.
 
By now, I expect that about the only thing that would be good for Trump is for him to declare that he has such serious health problems of one sort or another that he has to resign the presidency almost immediately.

I don't think Trump could admit to even that. He cannot admit to any weakness or even a failure such as losing tiddly winks to Barron.

If he were to leave voluntarily, the only way I see it is Trump blaming everyone else saying that the Republicans are unfair, the Democrats are unfair, the press is unfair, etc., etc. He would hold on to his version of reality by stating he can do much better on his own working from outside the system and say his X (months/years) was the best time for the US ever and he can do even better on his own. His rule is never never admit losing, never admit being wrong, and repeat lies etc. as often as possible.

Unfortunately, the Republicans will take no solid action until their reelection is threatened by Trump's behavior.
 
That quote seems reasonable to me. I'm not a big fan of Graham by a long shot, but he's no Trump supporter and I think that what he said above is suitably neutral.

Oh he has made a lot of anti trump statements. He hasn't done anything with his office to do any anti trump actions. The goal is to create a record of not supporting trump while not breaking with the republican party. Like McCain on torture during bush.
 
I've worked for one boss that could be quite creative when it came to not-remembering or mis-remembering what happened or was decided in meetings. I took to the habit of always taking notes and as soon as possible after the meeting would send those notes to my boss - it's called "covering my arse". Surprised that isn't more common in the USA civil service.
My mom (who worked as a secretary in the 1950s and 1960s) said she always followed up a phone conversation with a letter with a summary of what had been discussed. I occasionally follow up that advice when I feel a business contact is not going to end well.
 
My mom (who worked as a secretary in the 1950s and 1960s) said she always followed up a phone conversation with a letter with a summary of what had been discussed. I occasionally follow up that advice when I feel a business contact is not going to end well.

I do that with particularily difficult clients or coworkers just to cover my ass.
 
Definitely not!

If you actually read the Constitution (as you claim to have done), then you would already know the answer to that question.

And yet a judge can hold them indefinitely in jail for refusal to testify before a grand jury. I'm asking if there is any other way for the FBI to force the issue.
 
Last edited:
"If you resign now, I'll give you a pardon." This is similar to letting a dictator go live in France or somewhere in exchange for leaving peacefully. What a terrible analogy.

I agree it's a good analogy. But it's also a terrible thing that that would happen in a democratic country. And that's how I interpreted Beerina's statement, but I'll let him explain his original meaning.
No, I understood what she meant. Let's just say her analogy was 'apt'.
 
And yet a judge can hold them indefinitely in jail for refusal to testify before a grand jury. I'm asking if there is any other way for the FBI to force the issue.

Publishing information you know to be classified is illegal regardless of the source. But there are conditions which it wouldn't be viewed as illegal. The problem is the law USC 798 is kind of in contradiction with the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Paul Ryan has weighed in. Short answer: Comey's the bad guy

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/864846378358509568

Paul Ryan pivots to blaming Comey, asks why he did not resign immediately after Trump asked him to interfere in Flynn probe.

Comey should have quit when the President tried to interfere with investigation. I'm sure it was because of what he was wearing, or something, that made it his fault.

Then again, Paul Ryan seems to be admitting that Trump tried to interfere.
 
And yet a judge can hold them indefinitely in jail for refusal to testify before a grand jury. I'm asking if there is any other way for the FBI to force the issue.

Well, ...

If and when you can ever figure out just what your question is, then please let us know.

But in in the meantime, there is a difference between holding someone in contempt of court and someone publishing leaked information (which is what you originally asked about).

And, I cannot figure out what you are asking when you refer to 'the FBI forcing the issue' since you have not made this issue apparent.
 
Paul Ryan is an idiot.

Agree. He really is, but I have to admit, I'm surprised at the degree to which he's hitched his wagon to Trump. I though he'd been in the Graham group trying to create space while still advancing their own agenda through Trump.

Not that the effort is convincing, but Ryan is all in.
 
Agree. He really is, but I have to admit, I'm surprised at the degree to which he's hitched his wagon to Trump. I though he'd been in the Graham group trying to create space while still advancing their own agenda through Trump.

Not that the effort is convincing, but Ryan is all in.

Maybe he's complicit in Russia shenanigans too.
 
Maybe he's complicit in Russia shenanigans too.

Oh ****, you just reminded of an interesting article I read:

Why the Russian government might care about these unglamorous House races is a source of bafflement for some of the lawmakers who were targeted. But if the goal of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, was to make American democracy a less attractive model to his own citizens and to Russia’s neighbors, then entangling congressional races in accusations of leaks and subterfuge was a step in the right direction.

The intrusions in House races in states including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina can be traced to tens of thousands of pages of documents taken from the D.C.C.C., which shares a Capitol Hill office building with the Democratic National Committee.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html

The hackers were going after Congressional races. That would definitely explain a bit about Congress's reluctance to aggressively dig in.
 
From the BBCs live feed:

Republican: 'This should be above partisanship'
Posted at
16:21
"I believe that Republicans are just as committed as Democrats to getting to the truth," says Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins.

She continues: "This should be above partisanship. It really matters to our country and our democracy."

A billion laughing dogs wouldn't properly convey my feelings about this.

Of course it's a partisan :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom