windwalker wrote:Interesting development but not unexpected.
At this point if you were the president what would you do?
grzegorz wrote:windwalker wrote:Interesting development but not unexpected.
At this point if you were the president what would you do?
As opposed to what?
Showing Kim a movie and accomplishing nothing?
Watch "President Trump showed this video to Kim Jong Un" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/ABCStQokm4s
China eases economic pressure on North Korea, undercutting the Trump admin
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-kore ... in-n906166
grzegorz wrote:True, Trump is a symptom of something much worse happening in society.
"Speculation." "Unofficial information." "Political statements rather than assertions of pure fact."
Those are words federal judges have used to describe President Donald Trump’s tweets while guarding the secrecy of ongoing investigations that have shadowed his presidency.
And in an unusual twist, these rulings mark victories for Trump’s own Justice Department, which has argued repeatedly that the president’s comments on the probes are not always to be taken literally, or to be trusted.
In one tweet in March 2017, Trump claimed that the Obama administration tapped his phones as a candidate in Trump Tower. He insisted in May 2017 that he had the "absolute right" to meet with Russians in the Oval Office, even if critics worried he revealed state secrets. And he announced in June 2017 that he was under investigation for firing the FBI director.
Presidents don't tend to announce they are under investigation.
Trump's voluminous tweeting and other public statements offer regular insight into his thinking – and his disregard for the secrecy that traditionally surrounds national security issues.
But his administration has repeatedly, and successfully, urged federal judges to find that his comments are not reason enough to force the government to give up documents that would confirm whether what he is saying is true.
“Because the President’s tweet amounts to speculation, it does not” require agencies to acknowledge whether documents exist, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled in a case concerning whether Trump was under investigation.
"As already discussed, the President's statements may very well be based on media reports or his own personal knowledge, or could simply be viewed as political statements intended to counter media accounts about the Russia investigation, rather than assertions of pure fact," U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in a case seeking release of the government synopsis of a dossier of information about Trump.
Those conclusions – that the president’s statements on national security are not always to be taken literally, or to be trusted – are legal victories for his Justice Department, which has argued repeatedly that the president’s public comments are no reason to force the government to divulge its national security secrets.
Kim Warns Trump Talks at Risk Over Sanctions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests