| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.
FBI Director James Comey had been leading an investigation into Donald Trump's campaign for President, and suspected collusion between elements of the campaign and foreign powers (i.e., Russia), up until President Trump fired him a few days ago. The Trump administration until today claimed that Comey was fired at the recommendation of the Department of Justice and specifically due to his investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails - nothing to do with Comey's investigation of the Trump campaign.
Today has brought a lot of different news from the President himself.
President Trump today said that he had committed to firing Comey no matter what the DOJ thought about it and that Comey's investigation of the Trump campaign formed part of the consideration for firing him.
Regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey.
Later,
In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story...'
Most recently of all, it has emerged that Trump had called Comey to a private meeting back in January to discuss whether Comey would pledge personal loyalty to him. Comey explained that the FBI Director is supposed to be independent and said that he could only pledge honesty, not loyalty, an answer that reportedly left the President dissatisfied.
In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only way Trump could look more guilty would be if he tweeted a kissy face thank you pic to Putin. If it were any other politician, I would say this is too blatant, too obvious to be incriminating. With Trump though, this seems like just another time that he confused stupidity for audacity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm gonna say it was for firing clinton. and no one will know i'm lying" Tweet and retweet.
~sighs~ Sadly this is not surprising. Sad, but not surprising. And the Republicans are just going to hand wave it away.
|
I think that Trump has installed an era of Terror within the Republican party with zealots scouring the ranks for disloyalty to the great leader
It reminds me of both the French Terror during the Revolution and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and its Red Guards
Some might protest a little but they will not risk openly opposing the great leader... yet
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question is, just how is this terror being instilled ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which begs answer to the question: why are people so afraid of him? I don't get it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
33% of Americans seem to believe literally everything he says as gospel truth and refuse to admit he's anything but the best thing to happen ever.
That 33% is about 66% of the base of the party in power of congress. People are worried about getting primaried or called out by their constituents even harder than they already are.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump calls James Comey "a blowhard" and "grandstander"
Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump calls James Comey "a blowhard" and "grandstander"
Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha.
The imax level projection is astounding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
33% of Americans seem to believe literally everything he says as gospel truth and refuse to admit he's anything but the best thing to happen ever.
That 33% is about 66% of the base of the party in power of congress. People are worried about getting primaried or called out by their constituents even harder than they already are.
Exactly. Trump has stated on multiple occasions he is willing to help primary out any GOP member of congress who goes against them. I don't think the senators and representatives have much of any respect for him, outside a few outliers, but he still is (somehow) adored by enough voters that they are not willing to go against him.
So far most of his actions as president don't really negatively affect his base, or are not far enough along to hurt them. Everything from Russia to the travel bans to the blatant nepotism they just shrug at, either not seeing it as a big deal or assuming Trump is continuing white house trends. I am not convinced that will change significantly in the next 4 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
33% of Americans seem to believe literally everything he says as gospel truth and refuse to admit he's anything but the best thing to happen ever.
That 33% is about 66% of the base of the party in power of congress. People are worried about getting primaried or called out by their constituents even harder than they already are.
Exactly. Trump has stated on multiple occasions he is willing to help primary out any GOP member of congress who goes against them. I don't think the senators and representatives have much of any respect for him, outside a few outliers, but he still is (somehow) adored by enough voters that they are not willing to go against him.
So far most of his actions as president don't really negatively affect his base, or are not far enough along to hurt them. Everything from Russia to the travel bans to the blatant nepotism they just shrug at, either not seeing it as a big deal or assuming Trump is continuing white house trends. I am not convinced that will change significantly in the next 4 years.
The only contrasting thing for this is that most of the senators and representatives have a higher approval rating than Trump in their district. If you want to appeal to a hardline base of anti-government types, nothing sells better than "The president hates me, the speaker of the house hates me, the senate majority leader hates me. I am an outsider and this proves it. I don't do what those washington types tell me, I do what's best for you!"
If more than a couple members of congress start to rebel, it's too much ground for Trump to cover. He won't be able to give nationally televised speeches where he can rattle off the list of names of republicans who aren't bending to his will. He'll hold up a piece of paper with the list, but isn't a gifted enough orator to remember it or give detailed information about specific people on the list.
This specific point only applies if someone in the WH is smart.... it's also an empty threat, because it's a huge gamble. If he tries to primary a dozen or so republicans and fails, he looks incredibly weak, because it shows he has no clout in the party. Even if he succeeds at half of them, it's a failure for him, because now those members have zero incentive to back him up AND he looks like he can't control the party. There's a reason presidents don't actively campaign against incumbents of their own party in a primary, the rewards of success are limited, but the cost of failure is huge. Instead you just use the party apparatus to quietly strangle their campaign.
Anyways, I think his threats of primarying republicans who step out of line is largely empty, like most of his threats.
All that said, he might try. If he does, I would suspect that the House Intelligence Committee has a renewed interest in investigating his campaign in 2019.
33% of Americans seem to believe literally everything he says as gospel truth and refuse to admit he's anything but the best thing to happen ever.
That 33% is about 66% of the base of the party in power of congress. People are worried about getting primaried or called out by their constituents even harder than they already are.
Exactly. Trump has stated on multiple occasions he is willing to help primary out any GOP member of congress who goes against them. I don't think the senators and representatives have much of any respect for him, outside a few outliers, but he still is (somehow) adored by enough voters that they are not willing to go against him.
So far most of his actions as president don't really negatively affect his base, or are not far enough along to hurt them. Everything from Russia to the travel bans to the blatant nepotism they just shrug at, either not seeing it as a big deal or assuming Trump is continuing white house trends. I am not convinced that will change significantly in the next 4 years.
The only contrasting thing for this is that most of the senators and representatives have a higher approval rating than Trump in their district. If you want to appeal to a hardline base of anti-government types, nothing sells better than "The president hates me, the speaker of the house hates me, the senate majority leader hates me. I am an outsider and this proves it. I don't do what those washington types tell me, I do what's best for you!"
If more than a couple members of congress start to rebel, it's too much ground for Trump to cover. He won't be able to give nationally televised speeches where he can rattle off the list of names of republicans who aren't bending to his will. He'll hold up a piece of paper with the list, but isn't a gifted enough orator to remember it or give detailed information about specific people on the list.
This specific point only applies if someone in the WH is smart.... it's also an empty threat,...
But the question is, for the those in the diehard red districts/states, how much of the people who give there local leaders high approval ratings also give Trump high approval ratings?
I am a bit confused on why folks in purple states/districts are not being more vocal. I guess when the fallout of the Healthcare stuff goes through, we will see how many republicans truly become anti trump
But the question is, for the those in the diehard red districts/states, how much of the people who give there local leaders high approval ratings also give Trump high approval ratings?
I am a bit confused on why folks in purple states/districts are not being more vocal. I guess when the fallout of the Healthcare stuff goes through, we will see how many republicans truly become anti trump
It varies a lot from district to district significantly, and if a district isn't very competitive, you're probably not going to find much data beyond voting totals from November.
In the countries "reddest" district, Texas' 13th, Trump received 79% of the vote, while the incumbent congressman got 84% of the vote.
Interestingly, Thornberry is on the record saying that the new FBI director should continue with investigations. Of course, he's also on record lying that the new House health care bill isn't going to raise premiums and people with pre-existing conditions will be fully covered without additional costs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Earlier this morning, President Trump wrote a tweet referencing his taping of high-level conversations in the White House. In light of this revelation, I would respectfully request that the White House Counsel provide the House Oversight Committee with all tapes of the President’s communications with former FBI Director James Comey, of President Trump’s meeting with Russian officials which was closed to American press but not their Russian counterparts, and of any conversations regarding the hiring or firing of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. These White House tapes could accelerate current investigations as previous tapes have aided past inquiries."
Is this the first instance of an elected official publicly threatening to blackmail someone.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I have all the tapes. I have the best tapes folks. There's stuff on there that's gonna be so much better than the Nixon tapes, you can believe that post..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I have all the tapes. I have the best tapes folks. There's stuff on there that's gonna be so much better than the Nixon tapes, you can believe that post..
Its like he doesn't understand how far down $^#& creek he is in.
The Democrats view him as an existential threat to Democracy and want him out. The republicans view him as an existential threat to their gravy train and want Pence in charge. The media views him as an existential threat to press freedom and want him out. The "Deep State" view him as a fool who is endangering national security and dragging them into partisan bull#&^#, and they want him out. Outside of his core base, a lot of people with power want him unceremoniously hurled out of office, preferably right into a jail cell.
Why, oh #*&$ing why, would he be handing out ammunition like this. If he just shut the hell up and stopped his goons from going out and blatantly lying, this would probably blow over. Instead, he is admitting that he fired someone in part because they were investigating him for collusion with foreign interests, and to boot he is then threatening that person for not staying completely silent.
This man is genuinely a moron.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That has been claimed before. I don't see it. If he survives this, there isn't much he can't do. Plus, he gets to see who all his enemies are, which is valuable information. If you truly loathe someone, the worst thing you can do is underestimate him. What you have to do is understand him, and work effectively against him, otherwise he will eat you alive.
...I don't know if it goes as far as "High Crimes", but I'm pretty sure publicly threatening a probable witness is at least a "Misdemeanor" for an elected official...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we need a more specific definition of "drain the swamp" at this point. The way Trump praised Comey, I never conceived of Comey as a swamp-dweller. I mean, I was pretty sure Trump would fire Comey eventually, I just thought using Clinton's name as an excuse would,like, feel too obvious; oh well, live and learn . . .
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comey was the Director of the FBI, he was not in charge of the Investigation of Russian Email hack and election intervention.
The current acting Director of the FBI was in charge of the Investigation
in conjunction with Deputy Director in charge of the Counter Intelligence Division. They both reported to Comey but The FBI Director does not oversee Investigations he testifies before congress and manages the Deputy Directors.
The current acting Director should not have been in charge of the investigation in the first place. His wife was given $500000 in campaign donations by Terry Mc Califf the Governor of Virginia while her husband
was investigating HRC's criminal use of the EMail server. This would be like getting a half a million dollars from Sammy the Bull while he was investigating The Teflon Don.
The Deputy AG was just confirmed within the past 2 weeks and he is the person in the Justice Department who oversees the FBI. Trump most likely had made the decision to Fire Comey and just waited for the Asst. AG to review Comey's actions and right a memo saying he needed to be removed for his past action in the Hilliary Email investigation.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. Still with the "But her emails!" bullsh!t.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suspicion is that Trump is going to play this off the same way he has virtually everything else, and with the same consequences - more love from his supporters, more hate from his critics. In fact, I think this is textbook Trumpishness.
Basically, he is doing something slightly bad - firing the FBI director. His critics are getting furious, because of questions about a investigation that has yet to produce a smoking gun. His critics are going to get all worked up, and make all kinds of extreme statements, and dire pronouncements, but there is not going to be any kind of clear evidence of wrongdoing. Meanwhile Trump can point at the reaction against him as justification for various real failings.
Once again, he comes off great to his base, who never really cared for Comey, and don't care about Russia. Meanwhile, his critics look like they are over-reacting hypocrites, because they REALLY didn't like Comey!
I think the Democrats and many of Trumps critics are pushing this Russia stuff harder then they should. Until there is some substantial evidence of wrongdoing, they are treading dangerously close to Glen Beck, Alex Jones type conspiracy peddling, and taking a tremendous risk with their credibility. Just imagine what will come of all this if no real evidence emerges? "Benghazi!" and "Emails!" might work to get republican voters fired up, but I don't think it is going to function the same way when used by establishment democrats. I would like to think the 'Left' relies a little more on critical thinking, but things do change.
NOTE: Just to be clear, I'm not against investigating, and even keeping it in the news, but we all know how betting on a seeming obvious outcome can let you down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and this whole thing is a great distraction from Trumps trade deal with China.
Under the deal, China will also lift its ban on US beef imports and accept US shipments of liquefied natural gas.
In return, Chinese cooked chicken will be allowed into the US market and Chinese banks can enter the US market.
So, everyone happy about eating chicken from China? How about the FDIC ensuring deposits in Chinese banks? Natural gas and beef prices going up? I think that is the kind of stuff that would make most voters furious, but I haven't heard a peep about it because of all this Comey pro-wrestling drama.
The White House just said none of the President's surrogates are to be trusted from here on out. This is how you want the government to run?
Whether or not it is what someone wants, it is legal and there is no way to stop it.
If you lie under oath, it might be perjury, if someone wants to prosecute you (if they don't, then you get away with the lies). But none of Trumps surrogates are under oath when they speak to the public or the press.
What method do you propose to get the current government to run any differently?
|
The White House just said none of the President's surrogates are to be trusted from here on out. This is how you want the government to run?Whether or not it is what someone wants, it is legal and there is no way to stop it.
If you lie under oath, it might be perjury, if someone wants to prosecute you (if they don't, then you get away with the lies). But none of Trumps surrogates are under oath when they speak to the public or the press.
What method do you propose to get the current government to run any differently?
Legally require honesty from elected officials when they communicate in certain forums? Such as press releases, official documents, campaign speeches... so on so forth. As if they were under oath.
Not that this would work, mind you. But it is sort of a nice dream to think of being able to trust the words that come out of the mouths of those who lead the country.|
|
If you lie under oath, it might be perjury, if someone wants to prosecute you (if they don't, then you get away with the lies). But none of Trumps surrogates are under oath when they speak to the public or the press.
Given all the conflicting statements and multiple active investigations it is entirely likely that many of them soon will be answering questions under oath.
At that point they are going to have to choose between lying to investigators and admitting that they have been constantly lying to everyone else... and I'm not sure Trump is capable of making such an admission.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. And another, fairly ineffectual, slap at the intelligence community, who are going to be even more motivated to take him down.
It's pretty scary when the fabric of civil society relies on rogue (or rouge if you prefer) bureaucrats thwarting elected officials.
My suspicion is that Trump is going to play this off the same way he has virtually everything else, and with the same consequences - more love from his supporters, more hate from his critics. In fact, I think this is textbook Trumpishness.
Basically, he is doing something slightly bad - firing the FBI director. His critics are getting furious, because of questions about a investigation that has yet to produce a smoking gun. His critics are going to get all worked up, and make all kinds of extreme statements, and dire pronouncements, but there is not going to be any kind of clear evidence of wrongdoing. Meanwhile Trump can point at the reaction against him as justification for various real failings.
Once again, he comes off great to his base, who never really cared for Comey, and don't care about Russia. Meanwhile, his critics look like they are over-reacting hypocrites, because they REALLY didn't like Comey!
I think the Democrats and many of Trumps critics are pushing this Russia stuff harder then they should. Until there is some substantial evidence of wrongdoing, they are treading dangerously close to Glen Beck, Alex Jones type conspiracy peddling, and taking a tremendous risk with their credibility. Just imagine what will come of all this if no real evidence emerges? "Benghazi!" and "Emails!" might work to get republican voters fired up, but I don't think it is going to function the same way when used by establishment democrats. I would like to think the 'Left' relies a little more on critical thinking, but things do change.
NOTE: Just to be clear, I'm not against investigating, and even keeping it in the news, but we all know how betting on a seeming obvious outcome can let you down.
I don't think you're completely wrong.
At the same time this is a significant event and will be part of the overall story of his presidency afterwards.
He's never going to resign, or at least not until given no other choice. Republicans won't force him out until they absolutely have to, which might be never.
there's an ancient symbol that I think summarizes what's going on, which I've updated for the current administration.
Republicans won't force him out until they absolutely have to, which might be never
This.
He's willing to sign just about every bill they want to pass. Why would they want to remove him?
"Shame" is not an emotion they have any concept of. And this week's Gallup polls show Trump's approval rating rising. Why would they try to get rid of him?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you think it's the kind of stuff that would make voters furious. It's really the kind of thing that makes voters yawn. Trump would just have to talk up how he made "a yuge deal, great deal" and they'd eat it up. More exports, great. Cheaper imports, great.
I mean, I suspect it's a lousy deal, but it's not something that would inflame the average voter.
Yeah, you may be right, and furious is probably too strong a word.
On the other hand, everyone I have asked about chicken, would not want to eat chicken from China. When further informed that the government recently changed the "country of origin" rules on meat, so they would not have the right to know where meat came from, there were less happy still.
I still maintain that trade de-regulation is deeply unpopular.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most people don't care one way or the other until the moment it starts affecting the price they pay for the goods *they* want.
Then they're in favor of the policy that gets them the lowest price. So if chicken from China means they pay less for their KFC, or for their backyard BBQ, then they will be in favor of it
Even my snobby food friends don't usually ask "Is this locally sourced?". Of course I get snobby food points if I announce that it came from the farmer's market or my CSA. But for the most part, no one cares
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |