Is it okay for the Trump opponents to break laws in order to remove Trump?

For my part, I say heck no. Thumbs down and all that. Leakers constantly break laws. Soon Trump will give some the boot. Judicial watch is on top of this problem. Tom Fitton reports here on many things. Such as the leakers, the Seth Richards matter and a lot more.

It is great Judicial watch has supporters. And I think it supports America.

 

Unless they reveal security information...leaking isn't against the law

 

Simple answer is NO...

 

I stipulated the leaking is illegal.

 

Of course not. But if proven guilty of obstruction of justice, would you support the impeachment of Trump?

 

Definitely. You no doubt supported impeaching Obama for that very reason. Notice I did not allege Trump has not, nor do I expect you to reply Obama never did.

 

I believe there should be less secrets and more leakers. Regardless of whether their purpose is to remove Trump.

Of course, leaking secrets that would put operatives at risk (as Cheney did), or that would interfere with an ongoing investigation should be prosecuted (as Cheney should have)... as well as some military operations or other confidential information that would put us at a disadvantage in the International arena. But everything else should not even be secret, and it's those who keep it secret who should be prosecuted.

 

You tube

What have I told you about you tube???

No accountability for any degree of honesty ergo there is less truth than a used car saleman's convention or put another way less truth than a Trump Tweet Storm

 

WOW, I am supposed to put more trust in some female from Australia that I personally know next to nothing about. But she wants me to not look at youtube's were I can check out the speakers quite easily. Gee thanks.

 

What's this clutter over Cheney all about? Plame in essence worked for Cheney. Yet he never turned her out. Richard Armitage did though he did not know who specifically she was.

Scooter once again practices law. I am happy for him. He got the shaft.

I appreciate secrets since my time spent in the Army showed me why they exist. Judicial watch is our eyes. They work hard for an open government.

 

All from Dick Cheney's office. He should have been prosecuted. As a matter of fact, he himself probably expected to be prosecuted. Pelosi dropped the ball on this one. For the sake of bipartisanship. Which didn't do them any good anyway.

I understand military secrets, as I said. But the President should not be allowed to meet in the White House with anybody (almost) without a TV Crew present. This guy won't even respond to questions in a press conference.

 

Obama is not under investigation and if he is and convicted he should do the time.

 

Agree 100%. Thank goodness for Judicial Watch. The work they do on behalf of the American public is very important.

Ah, so you understand that people who are found to have SAP documents on an unsecured server should be locked up? You understand that a person with zero security clearance who has classified information on his computer should be locked up? As should the person(s) who supplied those documents to him? I'm so glad.

The President of the United States should be allowed to meet with whomever he wants to meet with, in the White House or anywhere else. And his private conversations are just that: private conversations. This idea that he shouldn't be surprised at finding transcripts of private phone conversations is ludicrous.

As to having a president who thinks it a waste of time to provide answers to press questions, only to see his answers twisted into unrecognizable forms by a completely hostile press? Seems understandable to me. Why waste the time? The press seems to feel it reasonable to paint President Trump in a negative light, no matter what he says or does. Freedom of the press does not imply freedom of media access to the president. Sorry, but if there's zero fairness, there should be zero easy access. These press bozos are free to submit written questions and receive written answers, thereby keeping answers perfectly clear.

 

Not necessarily.

You didn't read my post.

Under certain circumstances. If it puts people's life at risk, for example. As Dick Cheney did.

The concept of "Security Classification" has slowly degraded in this country for many years. We have reached a point where by default, almost everything is secret. This administration has taken that decay into new lows. Where the people of the United States are not allowed to know anything about how their country is being managed. That is (and if it's not, it should be) criminal.

Yes. But he is not allowed to keep them secret unless... well, I wrote in the message you didn't read the limited types of information that I believe should be secret. Basically very few cases which include: information that would put government operatives at risk of losing their life, information that would put us at an international disadvantage, certain military information. A very very limited list... Everything else should be made public immediately.

Only if you are talking about conversations in the bedroom, or something like that. Other than that... I don't believe there should be such thing as "private conversations" for a President.

Is it?

Completely irrelevant what the President thinks. Communicating with the American People is part of his job. Whether he likes it or not.

Hostile press... even better. Because they ask the tough questions. I don't remember Obama ever shying away from appearing before hostile press or a hostile audience to answer questions. President should be required to do that... and more....

Nobody paints President Trump in a more negative light than President Trump. The press just reports it.

Funny you should say that, because that's exactly what it implies.

You make the same mistake Trump makes: failing to understand that the President works for us. If he's not up to the job (and Trump obviously isn't), then a resignation is in order. Otherwise, impeachment for dereliction of duty should be applied.

 

Of course you did sweetie!

Unfortunately, "stipulation" is a two way street and all involved parties have to agree to a "stipulation" for it to take effect.

 

You sure he isn't? There is the matter of hacking Donald Trump.

 

What was Judicial Watch saying about the Plame outing?

Oh yea..they were calling her a desk jockey

 

I assume you're inaccurately referring to Trump's idiotic claim that his "wires wee tapped".

That wouldn't be "hacking" even if it were true...which of course it's not

 

Depends on if it is leaking information or anonymously reporting information about possible crimes being committed in the White House. Obstruction of Justice is a crime.

 

We generally speak as if the telephone is the sole means of electronic information sharing, yet you use your computer to post. Trump knows he got hacked.

I closely listened to Comey testify to congress. He stated he was not investigating Trump. He claimed he would know about phone taps, but never mentioned data collection aka hacking. Congress should have asked him about that.

 

Plame really was a desk jockey in the vicinity of Washington DC. Anyway, Armitage admits he outed her. Once outed, one cant be outed again for the same thing. Robert Novak published a report that he obtained his data from Richard Armitage and not Scooter Libby nor Cheney.

 

At the risk of sounding strange, which I assure you this is not strange, have you yet studied the duties of the president of the USA? Respectfully, don't you know his actual authority and over what?

 

Judicial Watch is on top of it! Hilarious!

 

Quit playing games. Everyone in the Vice President's office was calling every reporter they knew trying to find someone, anyone who would carry Karl Rove's water and print the Plame smear. Novak went first. But a lot of other reporters in DC had already recieved that call. Fortunately, the rest of them had the integrity to understand the revealing the name of an undercover agent is a Federal crime, even if the White House is complicent in trying to get them to do it.

Libby went to jail for obstruction of justice (four counts). Karl Rove only escaped indictement because he kept changing his story (four different times, no less). The judge in the case remarked afterwards that Cheney should have been the one on trial.

 

They intervened on her behalf and against Cheney.

Perhaps that is what you really mean.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Lib-by-Amicus-Brief.pdf