Thread: Republicans Watch Their Step in a Slow Retreat From Trump

Republicans Watch Their Step in a Slow Retreat From Trump

By EMMARIE HUETTEMAN and NOAH WEILAND
MAY 21, 2017

WASHINGTON — Republicans on Sunday inched away from President Trump amid mounting evidence that he may have sought to interfere in the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In a sign of growing anxiety, several important Republicans expressed discomfort with Mr. Trump’s firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who had been leading the agency’s inquiry into whether Mr. Trump’s associates colluded with Russian officials. But the Republicans stopped short of explicitly criticizing Mr. Trump.

“If any president tries to impede an investigation — any president, no matter who it is — by interfering with the F.B.I., yes, that would be problematic,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It would be not just problematic. It would be, obviously, a potential obstruction of justice that people have to make a decision on.”

Mr. Rubio and other Republicans hewed to a line repeated often on Capitol Hill last week: that they need more information about Mr. Comey’s termination, particularly in light of a report by The New York Times that Mr. Trump told Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting that Mr. Comey was a “nut job” and that his firing had “taken off” the pressure on the president.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said he hoped the report was not true, adding that Mr. Trump should have instead expressed any frustration over Russian meddling to that country’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.

“You would like, I would think, the president to kind of beat him over the head with the fact that, if they actually did interfere in any way, shape or form, how wrong that is and how outraged America is on both sides of the aisle,” Mr. Chaffetz said on ABC’s “This Week.”

While calling such disclosures to reporters “disgraceful,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said he was at a loss for how to explain Mr. Trump’s remarks.

“I don’t know how to read it, except that I’m almost speechless because I don’t know why someone would say something like that,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Lawmakers have been grappling with a flood of revelations about Mr. Trump’s behavior regarding the Russia investigation, including a report by The Times that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to stop the bureau’s investigation of Michael T. Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, whose ties to Russia and Turkey are under scrutiny.

After the White House initially said that Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey on the recommendation of senior Justice Department officials, who cited his handling of the case into Hillary Clinton’s email server, Mr. Trump later contradicted that justification by saying that the Russia investigation had factored into his decision.

Mr. Trump’s remarks in the Oval Office on May 10 to Mr. Lavrov and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States — the day after Mr. Comey’s dismissal — may become central to the question of whether Mr. Trump tried to influence the Russia investigation. Some Democrats have accused the president of obstruction of justice.

Mr. McCain denounced the meeting with Mr. Lavrov, whom he called “the stooge of a thug and a murderer” — a reference to the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.

“He had no business in the Oval Office,” Mr. McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Trump administration officials on Sunday continued to struggle to offer a consistent defense of the meeting. Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, Mr. Flynn’s replacement as national security adviser, said that “the gist of the conversation was that the president feels as if he is hamstrung in his ability to work with Russia.”

The president mentioned Mr. Comey’s firing “in the context of explaining that he has been — feels as if he’s been unable to find areas of cooperation with Russia, even as he confronts them in key areas where they’re being disruptive,” General McMaster said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson took a different position, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that Mr. Trump had merely been trying to demonstrate to the Russian officials that he was “not going to be distracted by all these issues that are here at home.”

The president, Mr. Tillerson added, had wanted to show that the domestic turmoil would not “get in the way of the important work of engaging Russia to see what can be done to improve this relationship.”

Neither American official contested the account of Mr. Trump’s comments about Mr. Comey. General McMaster and Mr. Tillerson were present for the Oval Office meeting, and at a White House news briefing on Tuesday, Mr. McMaster told reporters that “none of us felt in any way that that conversation was inappropriate.”

Lawmakers have called for more information about the meeting, during which Mr. Trump also revealed classified information gathered by Israeli intelligence officials — a revelation first reported by The Washington Post. And several congressional committees last week requested documents, recordings and other materials regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump. On Friday, Mr. Comey agreed to testify at a later date before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, on Sunday released a subpoena he had drafted for documents related to the hiring and firing of Mr. Flynn. Mr. Cummings called on Mr. Chaffetz to sign it. Last month, White House officials declined to provide that information.

After a week of rapid-fire revelations related to the Russia investigation, Mr. Rubio, who challenged Mr. Trump during the Republican primary, said the president’s White House was not much different from the Trump campaign: full of drama.

“People got what they voted for,” Mr. Rubio said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/21/u...rom-trump.html

“If any president tries to impede an investigation — any president, no matter who it is — by interfering with the F.B.I., yes, that would be problematic,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It would be not just problematic. It would be, obviously, a potential obstruction of justice that people have to make a decision on.”

No it isn't. The FBI reports to the President just like every non-independent agency of our federal government. Yes, it's part of the Department of Justice, and the daily chain of command is FBI Director to Deputy Attorney General, to Attorney General to President, but the Department of Justice is not an independent agency either, it is an agency of the Executive Branch, and like an organizational chart, in any organization, especially the Executive Branch of the United States Government, reports to the President. He is their boss under our Constitution. He can hire, he can fire, he can walk into their offices and demand to see their files, he can look at their computers, he can interview and speak with anyone he wants about anything he wants, he can call them to a meeting in his office, to a lunch, to a dinner, to a gathering. These agencies of the Executive Branch are not independent agencies, they are agencies of the Executive Branch and both report to and are accountable to the President of the United States.

We have 3 separate branches of government for a reason. We have a Judiciary, a Legislative and an Executive Branch. The Legislative passes and/or repeals laws. The Judiciary interprets the laws when there are disputes. The Executive Branch enforces the laws. The FBI is a law enforcement agency, part of the Justice Department, part of the Executive Branch and responsible to the President, who is in turn responsible to the people of the United States to ensure our laws are enforced, our rights protected, our money spent wisely, and our nation defended.

If the FBI isn't doing its job, the President has every right to investigate why that is and fix it. If the FBI is over-stepping its job and over-reaching into political matters that don't involve any laws, the President not only has the authority, the President has the obligation to shut it down, change leadership and set new directives that prevent such illegal activities and ensure the FBI operates within the law, the Constitution, and its role as a law enforcement agency, not a tax-payer funded political opposition agency for the Democrats or any other political party or politician.

When a President is doing his job, correcting bad behavior, correcting over-reach, correcting conspiracies, fishing expeditions, witch hunts, illegal surveillance, illegal unmasking, illegal leaks, he is upholding the Constitution to protect our citizens. When a President exercises his authority under the Constitution to fire the head of the FBI who is "leading" these improper and highly illegal investigations, or for any reason he deems fit, or no reason at all, he is not "obstructing justice", he is ensuring justice under the law.

When a President believes that an FBI Director is refusing to investigate and charge people who have actually broken the law like Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, NSA, CIA and the FBI, then he has every right, duty and unquestioned authority to correct the problem causing that including firing the person who made the decision not to recommend charges.

When the FBI is expanding its role far beyond its authority such as investigating whether or not the Russians interfered or influenced the 2016 election, which short of changing votes in a computer, has no law barring such activity, if it occurred, then the "probe" has extended far beyond any legal law-based justification. When it exploits that over-reach to then turn the investigation on Americans looking for "collusion" in a non-crime, it is operating outside the law, and when the motive for that illegal investigation of a non-crime is to try to over-turn an election that didn't go the way it wanted, it is breaking the law and violating the Constitutional rights of the individuals they are investigating, abusing the powers entrusted to it, wasting the monies appropriated to it, and leaving real crimes its powers and monies were to be used to solve unattended to.

When all of the above results in the FBI impacting, endangering and compromising foreign policy, it has in effect turned a simple domestic federal law enforcement agency into a global manipulator that affects our national security at its core. When the Director of the FBI expresses a personal opinion in a publicized Congressional Hearing calling Russia our greatest threat because of its "intentions and capabilities", in relation to his self-appointed role of "leading" an investigation into the non-crime of whether Russia interfered with our 2016 election, then the relationship with Russia is damaged, undermined, usurped, and endangered. When a relationship with Russia is damaged, undermined, usurped and endangered by statements and activities of the FBI, then our national security has been compromised by the FBI and important changes are required.

McCain, Rubio, and Chaffetz all hated Trump before the Comey firing and there is no "backing away" for them. They were already enemies.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

McCain, Rubio, and Chaffetz all hated Trump before the Comey firing and there is no "backing away" for them. They were already enemies.

W

... and Cruz.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

... and Cruz.

Still not understanding your extreme obsession with Sen. Cruz. As I've already explained to you in the past, Ted Cruz endorsed, voted for, and has supported almost everything Trump has tried to do up to this point. Time to let the hate go because it's no longer a choice between Cruz or Trump. Trump won and Cruz supports him, so let's move on.

Personally, I'm glad President Trump has Sen. Cruz in the U.S. Senate.

Originally Posted by MW

Still not understanding your extreme obsession with Sen. Cruz. As I've already explained to you in the past, Ted Cruz endorsed, voted for, and has supported almost everything Trump has tried to do up to this point. Time to let the hate go because it's no longer a choice between Cruz or Trump. Trump won and Cruz supports him, so let's move on.

Personally, I'm glad President Trump has Sen. Cruz in the U.S. Senate.

Let's not. If you insist on responding to my posts about Ted Cruz, that's your business. But I am not interested in your opinion on the subject or your advice or admonishments.

The article is from the New York Times, owned by Carlos Slim, which has historically printed lies and BS since Trump announced. I wouldn't even believe it's classified section.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Let's not. If you insist on responding to my posts about Ted Cruz, that's your business. But I am not interested in your opinion on the subject or your advice or admonishments.

Anytime someone shoves out misinformation, I'll do my best to correct the record if possible. Trump and Cruz did show dislike for one another during the campaign. That's pretty typical for political campaign opponents. However, those times are past and things have changed considerably. Cruz is now solidly in Trump's camp. If you'll remember the campaign, both Trump and Cruz campaigned in support of many of the same things, especially on immigration and border security. So it makes sense that Cruz would now support most, if not all, of Trump's agenda.