Has the Supreme Court stepped in behind the scenes? (Twitter link)

[rainbow4321]

Last edited Sat May 13, 2017, 04:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I know how some of you feel about information gotten from Twitter..but for the rest of you...there is this. Found it by following various twitters accounts that lead to another and another.... Didn't drumf threaten Comey with "tapes" on Thursday and then I vaguely remember seeing him asked on Friday about those tapes and his response was he wasn't going to talk about the tapes? Could there have been a letter delivered from SCOTUS and he is now trying to back track his threats?
Edited to include the tweet about Trump's FOX interview where he says he "can't talk about the tapes"

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[oasis]

1. "High treason"? That's likely to get Cheetolini to pay attention.

[CottonBear]

2. The courts are our only hope at this point.

The Republican congress members are fucking traitors.
There's not a Howard Baker among them.

[CentralMass]

33. +100000

[L. Coyote]

40. The moment we need to approve a new vice-president nomination, we become a bi-partisan nation.

Read the Constitution. A simple majority cannot determine that one.

The scenario Dems will approve is Clinton becomes V-P and the President then resigns.

[FBaggins]

43. You must have a different Constitution

Approving a new VP is, in fact, a simple majority determination (by both houses of Congress... not by "we&quot .

Nor is there a requirement that there be a new VP. Even if Dems say "we won't vote for any nominee other than Clinton!"... and even if some Republicans decide to say that same thing (note how far from reality we're drifting here)... the new President can still just keep nominating whoever he chooses. If he believes that nobody else would get approved by Congress and if he would rather have "nobody" than VP Clinton... then we get nobody.

[tblue37]

3. I doubt he knows what "high treason" means. He has to ask an aide what a

Gold Star family was after he was advised not to keep insulting the parents of a soldier killed in action.

He obviously has no idea about how the Saturday Night Massacre worked out for Nixon--in fact he probably didn't know anything about it at all.

[Blue_Roses]

4. Wow!!

Okay, so now the Supreme Court is supposively involved because of Trump appearing to try an obstruct justice, so they laid down the gauntlet on him to stay out of it or get arrested? Is that what I just read?

I hope I read that right.

[rainbow4321]

7. I'm thinking it's not a coinkydink

Last edited Sat May 13, 2017, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

He then tried to cover it up in the next sentence by changing "can't" to "won't".

Timeline **may** be off a little and I ONLY say that because the tape tweet went out Friday at, what, 0830 EST. Yet by the time he does the FOX interview sometime later Friday he "can't" talk about them?
Was communication sent Thursday or Friday...his change of verbage sure indicates something rattled him enough to backtrack.
Will probably be a good thing to see if he and Spicer try to dodge future tape questions in the upcoming days and then ask them to explain about can't vs won't. Hell, ask them outright if the courts (ahem...the mother of all courts!) have been in contact with him about the appearance of obstruction and the consequences...

[SergeStorms]

5. Why would the CIA be involved.........

with briefing Roberts and Kagan? International money laundering? I thought this was the FBI's baby right now?

[Blue_Roses]

13. If foreign intel

is involved ( which, evidently there is) then that would explain CIA role.

[Demit]

6. "Recusal" is something done voluntarily. Roberts couldn't have recused Gorsuch.

It's something you do all by your lonesome. You "refuse."

I don't know who Puesto Loco is, but just his misuse of the term makes me discount his other supposed inside information.

[Kber]

22. Yeah - that jumped out at me too.

[SledDriver]

27. leaks are coming out...

this is BIG... if it's as big as what's speculated, even Roberts knows this is beyond party affiliations. I wouldn't be surprised if he told gorsuch to BTFO...

[Volaris]

48. It wouldn't surprise me, either.

I don't like Roberts as a jurist, necessarily (I think he's a Corprotist before he's anything else), but I'll give him credit where it's due: when it comes to his understanding the Courts role in History, hes no slouch...and he will be damned if that court ends up on the way wrong side of History on his watch.

It's why we got ACA. It's why we got Marrige Equality. He may not personally agree with these things, but he isn't gonna wreck our concept of The Court just for a political issue. Good on him for that, I say.

[onenote]

8. This is such bullshit

The Supreme Court has no role in the summoning or activities of a federal grand jury. The idea that an individual member of the Court, or the Court as a whole, would be sending "secret" letters is ludicrous to anyone who knows anything about the Court.

[OldRedneck]

10. Thanks for clarifying the situation

SCOTUS does not issue subpoenas, warrants for arrest, or the like.

[Lee-Lee]

9. At this point so many people are just making stuff up

For attention and web traffic. This is a classic example.

That's not how the Supreme Court and Federal grand juries work. The CIA doesn't brief anyone at all on anything regarding domestic law enforcement and if something they find is of note on a domestic matter they let the FBI have the info.

It's kind of disappointing after 8 years of rational behavior that to see so many on our side start act like Glenn Beck or even Alex Jones just taking tiny slivers that may be accurate and weaving intricate webs of made up conjecture to make outlandish stories from then that they know are not true. And then so many will defend then when 95% was wrong by sticking to the tiny sliver they got right and saying "see this was right".

This isn't not the only example out there, by far. It's a disturbing trend and I halfway think some of it is intentional to discredit real damaging info.

[Ligyron]

11. yup

[Blue_Roses]

12. If alot of intel

came from foreign intelligence, then CIA could do this.

We are in uncharted waters with this stuff and we're likely to see many things that don't make sense.

[FBaggins]

15. Nope

The CIA can't do that... Nor would the Supreme Court be able to do anything with it.

[Blue_Roses]

18. First of all, let me be clear

I didn't just say this off the top of my head. While I seriously have no idea what the "inner workings" are at this time, there are people who do. One is a friend of mine who has worked military intelligence for years and was the first person I called on 911 to find out what the fuck was going on.

That being said, once again, I recently asked a few questions (although knowing they wouldn't divulge much) about what is going on and as usual, no specific details but generalities. Because yes, we are in uncharted waters.

So, before we all get puffed up about my-info-is-more-true-than-yours, let's just step back and see how this pans out.

Unlike Trump, I am always ready to apologize if I am being rude or found to be wrong.

[Lee-Lee]

19. Well your "friend"

Must have fed you crappy info just like the moron sending these tweets is.

Seems to be the trend as of late.

[Blue_Roses]

21. Um, okay

whatever you need to tell yourself...

[Demit]

26. C'mon, you can't very well come on a board where you are anonymous,

say "Well, I have a friend in high places and they told me..." and expect people to respond with "Oh! Okay then, if you say so!" That's not being very realistic.

[Lee-Lee]

29. This of course is real by brothers uncles cousins hairdresser

has a client who used to work in the Pentagon in the 1980's and he confirmed it all!

[Blue_Roses]

30. That is not what I said

I never said they told me this specific info. I said I asked questions and they spoke in generalities. Said we were in unchartered waters (which we are). My point was that with all the various intel coming from different agencies, yes, it wouldn't be surprising to see this happen. ( re: briefing the justices)

And btw, I've been on this "board" for several years now. Your welcome to look back over my posts. I've always tried to be an honest, respectful, realistic "person".

...but there's always this...




.

[Demit]

35. You're trying to argue from authority. Worse than that, anonymous authority.

Worse still, anonymous authority speaking in generalities. Lol, it doesn't take a person in the know to say we are in uncharted waters. People were saying that the minute Donald Trump was elected.

I am not impugning your honesty & I have no interest in going back over your posts. I was reacting to your apparent belief that saying you know someone who worked in military intelligence is proof that your "info" about the CIA is more credible than the poster you were responding to.

[Blue_Roses]

38. I'm not trying to "argue" at all

I simply defended my words. We just need to agree to disagree on how we see this.

[Demit]

39. "Argument" as in presenting a series of statements meant to lead to a logical conclusion.

If you honestly didn't know what I meant, you should look up logical fallacies.

[FBaggins]

32. Did this "friend of yours" ever pass a HS civics class?

"Uncharted waters" doesn't change the fact that the CIA is part of the Executive Branch. There's no mechanism for them to brief the Supreme Court apart from the President wanting it to happen... and regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court receives a briefing on something... they have no Constitutional authority to "step in behind the scenes".

Daydreamers need to understand some simple facts:

Trump isn't leaving office until he:
* Dies
* Quits
* Gets voted out at the next election
* Gets impeached and removed by the US Senate.

And no... the "25th Amendment" option is a ridiculous fantasy... since it still requires Congress to remove him and the vote threshold is higher.

[Blue_Roses]

34. Damn

You're good

[Lee-Lee]

17. No, they wouldn't

The waters for when there is a cross between what the CIA learns and domestic law enforcement issues are not unchartered at all. There is a reason that there are FBI agents in every US embassy and there are CIA people working with every domestic anti terror task force so they can pass this info to the right people.

The CIA is not a law enforcement agency at all, and as such has no role in enforcement of any laws or the process involved.

The CIA would never be taking the lead in briefing anyone on matters relating to any domestic law enforcement issues. And anything relating to a Federal grand jury is exactly that. They would be passing the information to the FBI to handle and take the lead in briefing.

[Blue_Roses]

20. Okay

See post 18

[Blue_Roses]

23. I am not talking about

the CIA taking the lead in the investigation. I am talking about intel that they and other foreign intelligence agencies have gathered.

[Lee-Lee]

28. And your still wrong

They wouldn't be doing that.

This whole thread is full of absurd notions and utter falsehoods.

SCOTUS does not run grand juries.

SCOTUS doesn't have any powers to order an arrest and wouldn't be sending a warning with a threat of arrest to the White House since they have no power to back that up and that isn't in their lane or what they do.

One Justice can't force another to be recused, that must be done voluntarily.

The CIA doesn't brief any kind of judicial panel or body on intel for domestic cases. They wouldn't be briefing a grand jury if it existed and certainly wouldn't be briefing all or any members of the Supreme Court because there is no function of the court that would in any way require or need that. The CIA would brief either the executive branch, the FBI or maybe the US Attorney running an investigation if they had intelligence that was relevant and gathered in a way making it eligible for use in a domestic case. Then the US Attorney would take whatever was relevant to the grand jury.

Even a regular grand jury doesn't get direct briefings from an intel agency, they get given information that the US Attorney brings to them and presents to them. This mythical SCOTUS grand jury doesn't exist because there is no level status for it to exist and even if it did it still wouldn't be getting briefings from the CIA.

Seriously, there is nothing in this nonsense at all that has any credibility.

[Blue_Roses]

31. Okay,

Whatever...

[DefenseLawyer]

14. These are just idiots throwing around words they heard on "Law and Order"

Unfortunately its obvious from the context they don't know what any of them mean.

[Foamfollower]

16. I see no reson to believe any ofthose tweets about SCOTUS are legitimate.

First of all, they are wrong about SCOTUS holding GJ jurisdiction here.

So right off the bat, they are fucking lying.

[sharedvalues]

24. Does SCOTUS have FISA appellate authority?

If so some justices might know something about what is going on - if a FISA case or motion was appealed to them.

[onenote]

25. FISA Appeals

If the FISA court denies a warrant, then an appeal can be taken to a FISA appeals court. And if that court was to sustain the denial of an appeal, then recourse would be to seek SCOTUS review.SCOTUS can decide to hear the case or can simply refuse to hear it and let the lower court decisions stand.

Keep in mind that these are one-sided proceedings. There is no one on the other side arguing that a FISA warrant should not be issued. So denials and appeals are rare. I don't know if there ever has been an appeal of a denial taken all the way to the SCOTUS. I'd be surprised if such a thing had happened simply because it would be easier to reframe the request and go back to the lower court with a new, modified application.

Again -- the tweets cited in the OP are chock full of bullshit.

[Mr. Ected]

36. When in history did the CIA ever brief the SCOTUS on anything?

I follow Mensch and Taylor and Schindler and the like, but their information most of the time comports with reality, at least with respect to the interaction of different departments, agencies and courts.

This sounds like a very bad spy novel interpretation of what might be taking place in super secret private clandestine middle of the night encounters.

Back to the drawing board.

[Lee-Lee]

37. Never, but some here refuse to believe anything that conflicts

With what they wish to be true.

Somebody could tweet that zombie Ted Kennedy had risen from the grave and was bringing information gathered by spirits that would result in Trumps impeachment to a secret world court were Noam Chomsky was the prosecutor and some people would defend it saying "well is possible" and "my friends cousin is a well placed paranormal investigator who says this is going down" and similar nonsense.

Sometimes I wonder if the people spreading and defending this obvious bullshit are not working to spread the info just to discredit the left.

[L. Coyote]

41. They have been there all along. They are the final arbiters of the secret FISA court.

[FBaggins]

42. Sorry... that's nonsense.

All the FISA court does is approve warrants for surveillance (etc.). They don't have anything to do with the results of that surveillance. Just as importantly, there is no other side to a FISA decision. The only way they get appealed (and thus the SCOTUS couple play a role) is if they reject a warrant (which hardly ever happens) and the Executive branch appeals the decision (insisting that the warrant be issued).

So in this nutty scenario (where the SCOTUS' FISA role applies), there would have to be a rejection of a warrant to surveil the President... and the president appeals the FISA decision... insisting that the warrant should be issued?

[L. Coyote]

44. So, who do you think picks the FISA Court?

[FBaggins]

46. What's interesting is that you think that matters

The president appoints supreme court justices... Does that mean that he retains some authority to review what they get?

Of course... None of that matters because FISA doesn't have any power other than approving warrants... And it's the executive branch who requests then. An executive branch currently headed by Trump

[LaydeeBug]

45. some of these tweets seem "off" to me...Can Roberts recuse another justice?

I am not sure he can.

Just about all of them smack of something "off".

[FBaggins]

47. Of course he can't

And why would it be Roberts and Kagan?

(Thus completely ignoring the fact that the court has no power to do anything even if they did receive information)