knapplc Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 None of it will matter if a Republican congress refuses to act on it. So far, they haven't shown the inclination to act as a curb to Trump. Link to comment
Red Five Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 None of it will matter if a Republican congress refuses to act on it. So far, they haven't shown the inclination to act as a curb to Trump. I eagerly await the "Its concerning/troubling/disturbing" quotes for the R congressmen. And then total inaction after that. 4 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 They're busy using him as a distraction to slide whatever unpopular legislation they can muster by under the radar. Link to comment
teachercd Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hopefully they nail his ass to the wall if it is all true. If there can be prison time for it, all the better. Link to comment
QMany Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 First, Comey is describing here conduct that a society committed to the rule of law simply cannot accept in a president. We have spent a lot of time on this site over seven years now debating the marginal exertions of presidential power and their capacity for abuse. Should the president have the authority to detain people at Guantanamo? Incinerate suspected terrorists with flying robots? Use robust intelligence authorities directed at overseas non-citizens? These questions are all important, but this document is about a far more important question to the preservation of liberty in a society based on legal norms and rules: the abuse of the core functions of the presidency. It’s about whether we can trust the President—not the President in the abstract, but the particular embodiment of the presidency in the person of Donald J. Trump—to supervise the law enforcement apparatus of the United States in fashion consistent with his oath of office. I challenge anyone to read this document and come away with a confidently affirmative answer to that question. https://lawfareblog.com/initial-comments-james-comeys-written-testimony 2 Link to comment
Fru Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 None of it will matter if a Republican congress refuses to act on it. So far, they haven't shown the inclination to act as a curb to Trump. Wouldn't shock me if the GOP embraced it. "He had to collude with them, in order to stop Hillary/Dems. We should really be thanking the Russians." 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Comey messed up here. He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended. He knew what Trump was getting at, and what Trump's interpretation of "honest loyalty" was. I don't think he pressed the issue, like he should have, out of some sense of honor for the Presidency. Trunp would have let Comey know exactly what "that thing" was. Trump sounds like some two-bit gangster... Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Trump IS some two-bit gangster. The mob connections go way back. Comey could have baited him easily. "What did you have in mind?" when Trump asked him to let Flynn go would've been exemplary. If Trump suggested flatly he end the investigation, that's obstruction pure and simple, IMO. But he's too much of a Boy Scout to go out of his way to set that trap for Trump, though. Comey is by the book. It makes his behavior with the Clinton fiasco seem even more bizarre and out of character. Link to comment
whateveritis1224 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 But he's too much of a Boy Scout to go out of his way to set that trap for Trump, though. Comey is by the book. It makes his behavior with the Clinton fiasco seem even more bizarre and out of character. Read something today about how Comey didn't want to say that Trump wasn't being investigated for connections to Russia because he did not want to come back later and say that he was now being investigated for connections to Russia. If you say the first, you would then have a "Duty to Correct" if Trump came under investigation for the same thing at a later date. Early in the year the investigation was only beginning and they had no clue what would turn up. This is what happened with Clinton and the Comey note right before the election. Because Comey said in July that the email investigation with Clinton was done, he had a "Duty to Correct" that the investigation was reopened when more emails were found on Weiner's computer. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 The Republicans aren't going to do sh#t. "What prosecutor in their right mind would allow their star witness to go out before the Senate panel of 20 senators and get beat up if he really believed he had a case?" [Lindsey Graham] asked in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday. "This is the best evidence yet that in the mind of the special counsel, there is no obstruction of justice case to be made against President Trump. All in all, it's a pretty good day for President Trump." http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/lindsey-graham-james-comey-testimony/index.html Can anyone explain his logic? I don't know how this crap works. Is he saying if the Comey stuff mattered it would be saved for an impeachment trial? Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 The Republicans aren't going to do sh#t. "What prosecutor in their right mind would allow their star witness to go out before the Senate panel of 20 senators and get beat up if he really believed he had a case?" [Lindsey Graham] asked in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday. "This is the best evidence yet that in the mind of the special counsel, there is no obstruction of justice case to be made against President Trump. All in all, it's a pretty good day for President Trump." http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/lindsey-graham-james-comey-testimony/index.html Can anyone explain his logic? I don't know how this crap works. Is he saying if the Comey stuff mattered it would be saved for an impeachment trial? I think so. He's also alluding to the fact that unless there is anything more than Comey's memos and testimony this is no more than a case of he said she said. There's no hard evidence and even Comey's memos appear to be a little too vague to really pin Trump down. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Did I miss his testament? I know I was tired last night. But, did I sleep through a whole day? Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Lindsey Graham, now Chris Christie. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15759692/chris-christie-comey-normal-new-york-city-conversation Demanding pledges of loyalty at a one-on-one dinner? Asking the FBI director to drop an investigation into one of your associates? That’s just “normal New York City conversation” to President Trump, according to New Jersey governor and onetime member of Trump’s inner circle Chris Christie. Shortly after fired FBI Director James Comey’s prepared testimony was released Wednesday afternoon, Chris Christie appeared on MSNBC to offer a defense of Trump’s interactions with Comey, which Comey himself called “inappropriate.” Craven. 1 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Did I miss his testament? I know I was tired last night. But, did I sleep through a whole day? No, but he did release a pretty lengthy text of his opening statement, which allows the POTUS team to prepare (I disagree with that but whatever). Link to comment
NM11046 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Lots of American heroes coming out of this scandal. I introduce to you Mr. Angus King. My favorite guy from 6/7/17. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts