The DON / redux

[Rich]

Rich, everything your are purporting is supposition. If you went as an attorney, into a courtroom with this the judge would laugh you out as fast as you came in.

Your approach is exactly what I last spoke of. You don't want justice across the board. You only want the people you dislike to be punished.

You are part of the problem.

Interestingly enough, the guy who broke the story on Comey's memo about Trump's attempt to derail the investigation is the same guy that broke the story of Clinton's email server. I guess it's only "fake news" when they are reporting on republicans. Do you really think this reporter, and the NYT, would risk their credibility reporting a false narrative when it is clear that Congress will subpoena the document and Comey's testimony? The facts will come out shortly, but given this reporter's track record I see no reason to disbelieve the story.

As for what I want ... I want a president with a minimum level of competence. One who doesn't endanger us, doesn't cozy up to our enemies, doesn't lie through his teeth to the American people, doesn't try to destroy the freedom of the press, doesn't try to use the office of the Presidency to enrich himself, and certainly one who doesn't obstruct the administration of Justice to protect himself and his friends from their own criminal acts.

I'm part of the problem? No. People who blindly put their party over their Country and stand behind someone like Trump, who at the very least is a criminal for obstructing Justice and at most is a traitor for colluding with the Russians, those people are quite clearly the "problem" as you put it. If the republicans had seen fit to appoint an independent special investigator, these facts would already be coming out. Because they have dragged their feet, hoping it would all go away, we are getting the facts drip by drip through the media. So be it. Until the republicans show that they are truly interested in getting to the truth, I'm going to take news reports from highly-credible journalists at face value. I'm NOT just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is hunky-dory.

 

[Rich]

I don't recall this topic in this thread... but if you want to bring it up to discount my agreement with you...
Obstruction of Justice: let's assume everything we have heard is accurate. '...can you let this go? ...the general is a good man....'. Is a question obstruction? Let's draw a comparison. During the election- while the FBI was investigating the email scandal - didn't Obama say they could end the investigation she did nothing wrong. This seems like the same thing. I would consider neither obstruction. A president can't give his opinion on an investigation? If Comey thought he was being obstructed why didn't he bring it forth back then? You would think so ...

Context matters, timm. Let's break it down. Trump had a meeting with Comey after specifically asking Sessions and others to leave. In this private meeting, he says "I hope you can let this go" in regards to the Russia/Flynn investigation. Comey demurs. At some point after that meeting, Comey requests additional funds for the Russia investigation. Within days of that request, Comey is fired out of the blue. The administration provides cover, insisting the firing had nothing to do with the investigation and that it was because of the memo from Sessions et al. recommending it. Then Trump, inexplicably, gets in an interview on national television and states that he intended to fire Comey all along, and then gives the Russia investigation as his only rationale: "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story." Then, the next day, Trump sends out a tweet basically threatening Comey about speaking with the press regarding their conversations.

These are just the highlights. I left out a lot of other details that add to the picture. But just these highlights paint a very clear picture of Obstruction of Justice. He asked Comey to drop it, and when Comey rejected him, he was quickly fired. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Trump could have legally fired Comey for any number of reasons. But what he absolutely could not do, legally, was fire him for not dropping the Russia probe. The evidence pretty overwhelmingly shows that the Russia probe is exactly why he fired him.

As for your attempted comparison with Obama, you are going to have to be more specific. I don't recall any story about Obama having a private meeting with Comey and asking or telling him to drop the investigation. And Obama certainly didn't fire him when he refused to do so. So your comparison holds no water.

 

[Rich]

I think this article from the extremely conservative National Review pretty clearly outlines where we are at in this moment in history: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447696/comey-memo-allegation-serious-and-there-no-good-outcome

TLDR: If the NYT article is true, Trump is toast. If it's false, our faith in the media is toast. Congress has the responsibility to get the facts on this immediately.

 

[timm]

I think this article from the extremely conservative National Review pretty clearly outlines where we are at in this moment in history: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447696/comey-memo-allegation-serious-and-there-no-good-outcome

TLDR: If the NYT article is true, Trump is toast. If it's false, our faith in the media is toast. Congress has the responsibility to get the facts on this immediately.

As you said. Popcorn etc... while nothing gets done. Well that is an assumption as we will just be eating popcorn...

Let the game continue. From recounts to verify the legitimacy of the vote and restore voter confidence (I guess vote tampering was taken seriously at one point ), to Russian hacking, to trumps collusion with the Russians, to obstruction of justice, to news agencies running with anything with a liberal slant. I'm sure they will 'get him' on something ... the guy isn't a politician. They know it and will just continue. As Gordon said - the Dems have no power. This is what people do to try and gain it.

 

[Brad225]

Interestingly enough, the guy who broke the story on Comey's memo about Trump's attempt to derail the investigation is the same guy that broke the story of Clinton's email server. I guess it's only "fake news" when they are reporting on republicans. Do you really think this reporter, and the NYT, would risk their credibility reporting a false narrative when it is clear that Congress will subpoena the document and Comey's testimony? The facts will come out shortly, but given this reporter's track record I see no reason to disbelieve the story.

As for what I want ... I want a president with a minimum level of competence. One who doesn't endanger us, doesn't cozy up to our enemies, doesn't lie through his teeth to the American people, doesn't try to destroy the freedom of the press, doesn't try to use the office of the Presidency to enrich himself, and certainly one who doesn't obstruct the administration of Justice to protect himself and his friends from their own criminal acts.

I'm part of the problem? No. People who blindly put their party over their Country and stand behind someone like Trump, who at the very least is a criminal for obstructing Justice and at most is a traitor for colluding with the Russians, those people are quite clearly the "problem" as you put it. If the republicans had seen fit to appoint an independent special investigator, these facts would already be coming out. Because they have dragged their feet, hoping it would all go away, we are getting the facts drip by drip through the media. So be it. Until the republicans show that they are truly interested in getting to the truth, I'm going to take news reports from highly-credible journalists at face value. I'm NOT just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is hunky-dory.

The reporter that broke the story about Trump and the classified information relating to who and where the intel came from is the same reporter that broke the story when Obama publicly named one of our undercover agents feeding intel. Where was the outrage with the media and others then?

Minimum level of competence? You sure set your standards low. Well you certainly would have gotten that with Hillary.

Part of the problem is just what you are saying. People that choose party over Country. You don't have a problem with Obama and Clinton but you do with Trump. I have a problem with all 3 when they break the law.

Everything you are saying applies to the Democrats as well and I don't think you can see it that way.

 

[Rich]

You're right, Brad. I honestly don't think anything Obama or Clinton did during their entire terms as President and Secretary of State comes anywhere close to the level of criminality and treason that Trump and his aides have managed to accomplish only a little more than 100 days in. You can call me biased all you want, but I am hearing more calls from republicans and conservative outlets calling for investigations and even raising the specter of impeachment regarding Trump, and I think that pretty well speaks for itself. What about you? Do you think there is enough information right now to warrant a special prosecutor / independent investigation to determine how serious this is? Or do you trust the republican congress to do an adequate job?

 

[timm]

You're right, Brad. I honestly don't think anything Obama or Clinton did during their entire terms as President and Secretary of State comes anywhere close to the level of criminality and treason that Trump and his aides have managed to accomplish only a little more than 100 days in. You can call me biased all you want, but I am hearing more calls from republicans and conservative outlets calling for investigations and even raising the specter of impeachment regarding Trump, and I think that pretty well speaks for itself. What about you? Do you think there is enough information right now to warrant a special prosecutor / independent investigation to determine how serious this is? Or do you trust the republican congress to do an adequate job?

I'll answer. I don't trust anybody. Everyone has an agenda. I hate the people in our government. I don't hate you guys. .

 

[Brad225]

You're right, Brad. I honestly don't think anything Obama or Clinton did during their entire terms as President and Secretary of State comes anywhere close to the level of criminality and treason that Trump and his aides have managed to accomplish only a little more than 100 days in. You can call me biased all you want, but I am hearing more calls from republicans and conservative outlets calling for investigations and even raising the specter of impeachment regarding Trump, and I think that pretty well speaks for itself. What about you? Do you think there is enough information right now to warrant a special prosecutor / independent investigation to determine how serious this is? Or do you trust the republican congress to do an adequate job?

Your hearing more Republicans asking for it because Conservatives are more honest than Democrats will ever be with regards to their own party. That is not bias, just the truth.

 

[Rich]

Since I've been rightfully accused of speculating in this thread, I may as well go all in. Here are my ideas on how the Comey thing is going to play out. Comey is known to be an independent straight shooter, and a meticulous FBI agent. He likely has copious notes of every meeting and telephone call with Trump. He also likely had some idea early on that he was going to end up right where he is, so was probably extra-meticulous in documenting these particular conversations.

Now at this point, Comey has to be mad. He's mad that the Russians interfered in our elections and ended up getting what they wanted. He's mad that his handling of the Clinton email controversy helped them accomplish that. He's mad at how he perceives Trump is handling his job. He's mad at the way Trump tried to influence him to drop the Flynn investigation. He's got to be seething at the fact that he was fired and especially the way Trump went about it. And the later boisterous threat from Trump, well that was probably the icing on the cake. So yeah, he's angry. And he's probably decided at this point that it is up to him to set the record straight, even if (maybe especially if) that means taking down the President.

So how does a former FBI chief go about that? First, you have to get everyone's attention. Something juicy enough that Congress can't ignore it and you will get called to testify at congressional hearings once it's out there. So you arrange for this juicy nugget of information to get leaked to the press, to a very credible reporter. But the thing is, you don't want to blow your whole wad in the opening salvo. You just want to get everyone's attention. You hold back the most damaging stuff for later. Then, when you get called to testify, you slowly roast the President that fired you with everything you've got on them. If you are going that route, you better have enough dirt to make impeachment a foregone conclusion.

All this to say, I expect the tidbit about Trump asking Comey to drop the investigation is probably the tip of the iceberg of what will be revealed when he testifies, and I doubt the Trump presidency will survive it. All of this is complete speculation on my part. I have no inside information or anonymous sources. This is just my take on what's happened and what's still to come. One way or the other, we are watching an important moment in history as it unfolds.

 

[timm]

LOL Rich. I can see it happening that way. Could you please give a speech to convince people to stop selling their stocks?? That would be appreciated.

 

[Rich]

LOL Rich. I can see it happening that way. Could you please give a speech to convince people to stop selling their stocks?? That would be appreciated.

Yeah, I took a beating today too. But it's alright. We've been due for a little pullback for awhile now. Hopefully that's all this is.

On the Trump front, looks like we have an interesting wrinkle thrown into the mix. The DOJ has appointed a special counsel (and a credible one, at that) to investigate all of this. If there is anything dirty going on, the likes of which I have already alluded to, I expect they will uncover it. Will take some time, though, for it all to come out.

More interesting, to me, is this little jewel: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...mccarthy-ryan-trump-putin-20170517-story.html

Pay close attention to the details in this article, including the info on Paul Manafort and on Putin's tactics in Ukraine. It's rather startling. Majority Leader McCarthy asserts he suspects Putin is paying Trump. Paul Ryan interjects, shuts the conversation down, and swears everyone to secrecy. Spokesmen for Ryan and McCarthy say it didn't happen, and that they would never say such a thing. Then, when they are told there is a recording, they change their tune and try to pass it off as a joke. Obvious attempts at deception. Note, the fact that this conversation occurred is not speculation. There is a tape of it and the conversation has been confirmed by Evan McMullin, who was a participant.

This story puts Ryan and all Congressional republican leadership in a very bad light. They have anchored themselves to Trump despite having suspicions of Russian collusion well before he was elected, and they could very well get taken down with the ship. The democrat rallying cry for the midterms will be "what's said in the family, stays in the family."

 

[timm]

So here is a question .... WHERE'S COMEY??? Kind of like where's Waldo.
Find it odd nobody is knocking down his door. He is either hiding or wants no part in this circus.

 

[timm]

Since we are all interested here is the timeline. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/15/527773206/what-just-happened-the-james-comey-saga-in-timeline-form

Note on may 3rd Comey makes 'mildly nauseous' comment. And the only thing after that is he is fired. I still think there is a relation here as there is nothing on this timeline in between the statement and the firing. I am sure any president would not take too kindly to a comment such as this. Especially one named Trump.

 

[Rich]

So here is a question .... WHERE'S COMEY??? Kind of like where's Waldo.
Find it odd nobody is knocking down his door. He is either hiding or wants no part in this circus.

Are you kidding? Nobody is going to see or hear from Comey until the day he testifies. The man is not stupid.

Here's another little tidbit (they're coming so fast and furious now, it's hard to keep up): http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ew-flynn-was-under-investigation-weeks-before

So basically, Trump's campaign knew Flynn was under investigation for illegally lobbying for Turkey while a member of the campaign. Despite this knowledge, Trump still appointed him as his National Security Advisor. I think this just speaks to Trump's incompetence more than anything else. What was he thinking? He can whine all he wants about being treated unfairly by the media, but most of his problems seem to be brought on by his own incompetence and hubris.

 

[timm]

One other thing on the timeline for perspective. Supposed 'let it go' statement was on Feb 15 after Flynn was let go. May 3 ...'nauseous'... may 9...Comey fired.

So trump is being accused of obstruction even after Comey was on the job after the supposed obstructionist statement for 3 months? Comey makes a disrespectful comment and is fired. Hmm.

 

[Rich]

Since we are all interested here is the timeline. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/15/527773206/what-just-happened-the-james-comey-saga-in-timeline-form

Note on may 3rd Comey makes 'mildly nauseous' comment. And the only thing after that is he is fired. I still think there is a relation here as there is nothing on this timeline in between the statement and the firing. I am sure any president would not take too kindly to a comment such as this. Especially one named Trump.

Sorry, timm, but this timeline is incomplete. Days before his firing, Comey is said to have requested additional resources for the Russia probe. Perhaps this isn't included in the timeline because it is from an anonymous congressional source.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-replacement-idUSKBN1861HK

If true (speculation), this would provide ample reason for Trump to go ahead and fire him. Let's speculate for a moment and hypothetically consider all the anonymously sourced stuff as true. This is the picture you get:
Trump denies/minimizes the idea of any Russian influence in our election, from the beginning. Trump asks for a loyalty oath from Comey, and is rejected. Trump continues to deny/minimize Russian influence in election even after U.S. Intelligence Agencies come to the conclusion that it happened. Trump later asks Comey to drop the Flynn/Russian probe, and is rejected. Comey asks his superiors and/or Congress for more funding/staffing for the Russian probe. Days later, out of the blue, Trump fires him. Trump's staffers cite Comey's mishandling of the Hillary investigation and the Sessions/Rosenstein memo as the reason for the firing. Then Trump gets on TV and says he was going to fire him all along, citing the "fake" Russia probe.

All of this circumstantial evidence, if true, paints a pretty clear picture of obstruction of justice. Plus it opens up a lot of questions about what is going on behind the scenes that Trump is trying to prevent from being discovered. Whatever it is, I suspect Mueller will get to the bottom of it.

 

[timm]

I missed the request for more resources. That is big. But that is being claimed to be completely false. I'm sure there would be memos on that.
Let's suppose it is false for a moment. Is this pin the tail on the donkey??

 

[Rich]

I missed the request for more resources. That is big. But that is being claimed to be completely false. I'm sure there would be memos on that.
Let's suppose it is false for a moment. Is this pin the tail on the donkey??

That may be an apt analogy. We should know soon enough what is real and what is false. Comey's testimony should clear all of that up. At this point, though, I'm not sure I trust Rosenstein's denial. The memo he signed onto with Sessions (who had supposedly recused himself) seemed a little too conveniently fabricated to provide cover for Trump's decision to fire Comey. (Trump himself said he had already decided to fire Comey). Very suspicious to come out with such a forceful statement after only a few weeks on the job, and publicize it only after the press starts asking the inevitable questions. I'm just not sure he's trustworthy.

Edit: but then again, Rosenstein is the one who appointed the special counsel, so what the heck do I know? Maybe he is above-board.

Edit 2: Ok, the rumor on the memo backstory that I am reading is that Trump asked Rosenstein to write a memo summarizing Comey's missteps without telling him what it was for. Then he used it as his reason for firing Comey. Rosenstein was pi$$ed off about being manipulated in such a manner, and threatened to resign, but instead appointed a Special Counsel. I have no idea if any of this is true.

 

[Scumurculum]

Quick question, is Mueller generally well regarded as an objective investigator?

 

[Rich]

Quick question, is Mueller generally well regarded as an objective investigator?

Quick answer: yes. He has served under both republican and democratic presidencies and is well-regarded on both sides of the aisle. He is also extremely competent and objective.