Breaking now
Something is breaking all right! ::)
The Feebs' investigations must have been getting too close to Trump's inner circle. Time to appoint a stonewalling crony.
The Wall St. Journal editorial page (no friend of Trump) has been illustrating how Comey is incompetent since mid-way through the Obama administration.
Honestly, if they'd canned Comey in the first 10-15 days of the administration, no one would've batted an eye as it would've just been another Obama appointee being shown the door.
Nice to see Fox News entering the world of Alternative Facts
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18359087_10103131954784437_605686712334633_o.jpg?oh=867552e816dd1457d9a4db2edfff1d12&oe=59BBC041)
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/332671-dem-senator-sessions-recommendation-to-fire-comey-a-complete-betrayal
^Al Franken. ::)
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 07:10:16 AM
^Al Franken. ::)
So he's wrong?
Sessions said he'd recuse himself from any Russia investigations.
Sessions then supported the firing of the guy in charge of the Russia investigations.
That's supposed to be "recusing" himself?
Sessions didn't fire him.
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 07:10:16 AM
^Al Franken. ::)
Yeah. No offense to anyone from Minnesota, but WTF?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 07:10:16 AM
^Al Franken. ::)
So he's wrong?
Sessions said he'd recuse himself from any Russia investigations.
Sessions then supported the firing of the guy in charge of the Russia investigations.
That's supposed to be "recusing" himself?
Sessions didn't fire Comey.
Is Sessions otherwise involved in the Russia investigation?
And remember a few months back when the Dems were calling for Comey's head over the Hilly email investigation?
And Al Franken ::)
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 07:57:57 AMSessions didn't fire Comey.
No, but he did support the firing instead of just walking away and recusing himself
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 07:57:57 AMIs Sessions otherwise involved in the Russia investigation?
Supporting the firing of the guy conducting the investigation is (to me) enough
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 07:57:57 AMAnd remember a few months back when the Dems were calling for Comey's head over the Hilly email investigation?
And they should've gotten it then. There shouldn't've been
any controversy if Trump had fired Comey on 1 Feb, and was just cleaning house of Obama appointees. No one would've batted an eye.
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 07:57:57 AMAnd Al Franken ::)
So you don't like his politics. Fine. He says some things I'm not fond of, too.
But are you going to try to argue that he is ill-informed or somehow not up to the task of being a Senator? Really? Yes, he was a comedy writer, but was also a very sharp political commentator and author for 25+ years before he was elected. Is there are reason he can't be good at more than one thing?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 08:44:21 AM
So you don't like his politics. Fine. He says some things I'm not fond of, too.
But are you going to try to argue that he is ill-informed or somehow not up to the task of being a Senator? Really? Yes, he was a comedy writer, but was also a very sharp political commentator and author for 25+ years before he was elected. Is there are reason he can't be good at more than one thing?
I'd like to see him be good at one thing. Other than Stuart Smalley, I wasn't overly impressed by his comedic ability.
America has officially become a banana republic...
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 08:44:21 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 07:57:57 AMSessions didn't fire Comey.
No, but he did support the firing instead of just walking away and recusing himself
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 07:57:57 AMIs Sessions otherwise involved in the Russia investigation?
Supporting the firing of the guy conducting the investigation is (to me) enough
So Comey was single handedly conducting the Russia investigation? Firing him means that investigation by the Bureau completely stops? So this whole thing is just going away because Jeff Sessions supported firing Comey?
Comey was at the head of a vast machine. The machine will have to be stopped and recalibrated, if it is restarted at all. At the very, very least, this just looks terrible as far as outward appearances.
Quote from: Gusington on May 10, 2017, 09:00:51 AM
Comey was at the head of a vast machine. The machine will have to be stopped and recalibrated, if it is restarted at all. At the very, very least, this just looks terrible as far as outward appearances.
I think it was a stupid move by Trump. The optics look terrible and if there really is something to the Russia stuff, something criminal, firing Comey isn't going to stop that from coming to light.
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: Gusington on May 10, 2017, 09:00:51 AM
Comey was at the head of a vast machine. The machine will have to be stopped and recalibrated, if it is restarted at all. At the very, very least, this just looks terrible as far as outward appearances.
I think it was a stupid move by Trump. The optics look terrible and if there really is something to the Russia stuff, something criminal, firing Comey isn't going to stop that from coming to light.
I can't imagine he'll appoint someone who will not try to minimize or entirely stop the investigation. At the very least, that's going to be the public perception.
Quote from: smittyohio on May 10, 2017, 09:28:11 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: Gusington on May 10, 2017, 09:00:51 AM
Comey was at the head of a vast machine. The machine will have to be stopped and recalibrated, if it is restarted at all. At the very, very least, this just looks terrible as far as outward appearances.
I think it was a stupid move by Trump. The optics look terrible and if there really is something to the Russia stuff, something criminal, firing Comey isn't going to stop that from coming to light.
I can't imagine he'll appoint someone who will not try to minimize or entirely stop the investigation. At the very least, that's going to be the public perception.
If that's how he plays it, there'll be an independent investigator appointed. That may happen now anyway
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/trump-comey-fbi-senators.html
Firing Comey isn't going to end the Russia investigation. In fact, it may just make things worse for Trump because Republicans will look to distance themselves from him.
When word leaked out that Comey was fired, I Googled something like "FBI Director fired" and the first story that popped up was an editorial laying out reasons why the President should fire Comey. It was a compelling read....but the punch line is it was written before the election and the article was supporting why President Hillary should fire Comey. Notably a lot of the reasons presented were the same as the White House used yesterday. Personally I feel his actions during the election process warranted his termination by either President, but with the Russian election interference issue not yet settled, Trump should have held his nose and kept Comey for now. I really feel Comey being fired is justifiable, but politically it's a terrible move.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 10, 2017, 10:06:54 AM
When word leaked out that Comey was fired, I Googled something like "FBI Director fired" and the first story that popped up was an editorial laying out reasons why the President should fire Comey. It was a compelling read....but the punch line is it was written before the election and the article was supporting why President Hillary should fire Comey. Personally I feel his actions during the election process warranted his termination by either President, but with the Russian election interference issue not yet settled, Trump should have held his nose and kept Comey for now. I really feel Comey being fired is justifiable, but politically it's a terrible move.
Agreed. Well said.
At this point I think we do need an independent investigator. But good luck finding one.
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
At this point I think we do need an independent investigator. But good luck finding one.
+1
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
At this point I think we do need an independent investigator. But good luck finding one.
+2 Way too much smoke here, we need to know if there is a fire burning. And if there is, Trump may have just thrown gasoline on it.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 10, 2017, 10:38:45 AM
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
At this point I think we do need an independent investigator. But good luck finding one.
+2 Way too much smoke here, we need to know if there is a fire burning. And if there is, Trump may have just thrown gasoline on it.
It's going to happen now. Firing Comey backed Congressional Republicans into a corner. They have little choice now but to support an independent investigator. Trump may not care about how the Comey firing looks, but it matters to the Repubs.
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 10:51:59 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 10, 2017, 10:38:45 AM
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
At this point I think we do need an independent investigator. But good luck finding one.
+2 Way too much smoke here, we need to know if there is a fire burning. And if there is, Trump may have just thrown gasoline on it.
It's going to happen now. Firing Comey backed Congressional Republicans into a corner. They have little choice now but to support an independent investigator. Trump may not care about how the Comey firing looks, but it matters to the Repubs.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Mirth. Couldn't agree with you more.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 10, 2017, 10:54:43 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 10:51:59 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 10, 2017, 10:38:45 AM
Quote from: bbmike on May 10, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
At this point I think we do need an independent investigator. But good luck finding one.
+2 Way too much smoke here, we need to know if there is a fire burning. And if there is, Trump may have just thrown gasoline on it.
It's going to happen now. Firing Comey backed Congressional Republicans into a corner. They have little choice now but to support an independent investigator. Trump may not care about how the Comey firing looks, but it matters to the Repubs.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Mirth. Couldn't agree with you more.
I wish I could believe this, but the partisanship in Congress right now (both sides) doesn't encourage me. I fear they'll line up, shake their fists, bemoan how bad this looks, and they say "oh well, it was within his legal right".
I mean, do we really think the roles wouldn't be 100% reversed had Obama fired Comey last summer?
We'll see, but I don't see this thing going away and the pressure for an independent investigator is only going to increase, especially if Trump tries to appoint a questionable replacement for Comey.
Hell, if BBmike, Steelie, and I think it's time for an independent investigator, you know things have turned :P
'May you live in interesting times.'
Also, many Republicans in congress and fully behind Trump.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 10, 2017, 10:06:54 AMI really feel Comey being fired is justifiable, but politically it's a terrible move.
yep
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html
Comey was not in charge of the investigation into Russia. He had little to nothing directly to do with it. And a number of subpoenas went to the Grand Jury in this investigation this week. The investigation will not be shut down because Comey left.
Comey has made a bunch of miss-steps going back 5 years now. The Wall St. Journal has been ripping him at least monthly for years.
I don't like special prosecutors. They frequently launch fishing expeditions and go way off track. Set up a special congressional committee if necessary.
Other than Flynn who got fired, nothing has come out about a conflict of interest - much less if the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russians. I'm not seeing any actual facts come out about Trump-Russia. Lots of whining, but next to nothing concrete aside from Flynn and one low level campaign flunky who got canned by the Trump campaign months before the election. And Flynn was not about the campaign, but about being a paid consultant on various Russian ventures.
Another thing we do know is that the Obama Administration spied on the Trump Campaign and then unmasked a large number of names and spread that unmasked information widely throughout the US Government and to key allies. This has never been done before to my knowledge. And the only people the Obama Admin told the Trump admin was tainted was Flynn. But the number of US Citizens whose names were unmasked and widely spread was far greater than Flynn.
Until I see some actual facts, this seems to be sour grapes by the Dems once again. But a Grand Jury is in process about something and if there is something there it will come out in the end. But right now I see a lot of whining from Dems who have also gone public many times asking for Comey to get fired.
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:12:40 AM
We'll see, but I don't see this thing going away and the pressure for an independent investigator is only going to increase, especially if Trump tries to appoint a questionable replacement for Comey.
Apparently McConnell is saying that there's no need for a special prosecutor. Wanna bet he'd be singing a different tune if Hillary was in office?
I don't think there will a special prosecutor. It will more like be a committee, or something, formed by the Senate.
Quote from: airboy on May 10, 2017, 11:27:24 AMI don't like special prosecutors. They frequently launch fishing expeditions and go way off track.
Paging Ken Starr!
Quote from: airboy on May 10, 2017, 11:27:24 AMBut right now I see a lot of whining from Dems who have also gone public many times asking for Comey to get fired.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/10/democrats_can_despise_comey_and_be_outraged_at_his_firing.html
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:12:40 AM
We'll see, but I don't see this thing going away and the pressure for an independent investigator is only going to increase, especially if Trump tries to appoint a questionable replacement for Comey.
Apparently McConnell is saying that there's no need for a special prosecutor. Wanna bet he'd be singing a different tune if Hillary was in office?
He'll be singing a different tune if the public pressure mounts.
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
I don't think there will a special prosecutor. It will more like be a committee, or something, formed by the Senate.
Under the control of the same party that's in control of the White House, which
might find something, but it's pretty unlikely
Even if there's nothing there, you can't have a bunch of partisan hacks running the investigation
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:33:06 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:12:40 AM
We'll see, but I don't see this thing going away and the pressure for an independent investigator is only going to increase, especially if Trump tries to appoint a questionable replacement for Comey.
Apparently McConnell is saying that there's no need for a special prosecutor. Wanna bet he'd be singing a different tune if Hillary was in office?
He'll be singing a different tune if the public pressure mounts.
No he won't - he's got one of the safest seats in the Senate. He doesn't give 2 shits what anyone outside of Kentucky thinks of him, and everyone in Kentucky loves him.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:32:12 AM
Quote from: airboy on May 10, 2017, 11:27:24 AMI don't like special prosecutors. They frequently launch fishing expeditions and go way off track.
Paging Ken Starr!
::) Yeah, there was nothing to the Clinton investigation.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:34:02 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:33:06 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:12:40 AM
We'll see, but I don't see this thing going away and the pressure for an independent investigator is only going to increase, especially if Trump tries to appoint a questionable replacement for Comey.
Apparently McConnell is saying that there's no need for a special prosecutor. Wanna bet he'd be singing a different tune if Hillary was in office?
He'll be singing a different tune if the public pressure mounts.
No he won't - he's got one of the safest seats in the Senate. He doesn't give 2 shits what anyone outside of Kentucky thinks of him, and everyone in Kentucky loves him.
It's not just his ass on the line.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
I don't think there will a special prosecutor. It will more like be a committee, or something, formed by the Senate.
Under the control of the same party that's in control of the White House, which might find something, but it's pretty unlikely
Even if there's nothing there, you can't have a bunch of partisan hacks running the investigation
It's far more likely the Senate will investigate than Sessions appointing any kind of Special Prosecutor/Counsel. And anyone appointed by the AG is going to be every bit as questionable as a Senate investigation.
I think if it happens it will be due to public pressure on other members of the Senate and House who in turn pressure McConnell. McConnell plays the long game and always has. Others may not prove as stout. And keep in mind that most members of both the House and Senate do not owe their seat to Trump. They will be Trump supporters so long as that formula works for them.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi617.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt260%2Fmeghostryder%2Fcomey11.jpg&hash=be26a199ff9e6f6dc1e76a74b09fc4c2f96a3d35)
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:32:12 AM
Quote from: airboy on May 10, 2017, 11:27:24 AMI don't like special prosecutors. They frequently launch fishing expeditions and go way off track.
Paging Ken Starr!
::) Yeah, there was nothing to the Clinton investigation.
Launched a fishing expedition that went off track?
Starr was hired to investigate Whitewater and ended up prosecuting blowjobs. I'm not saying Clinton was innocent - you know I don't believe that - but that Starr went waaaaay beyond the original bounds of what he was supposed to investigate.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:32:12 AM
Quote from: airboy on May 10, 2017, 11:27:24 AMI don't like special prosecutors. They frequently launch fishing expeditions and go way off track.
Paging Ken Starr!
::) Yeah, there was nothing to the Clinton investigation.
Launched a fishing expedition that went off track?
Starr was hired to investigate Whitewater and ended up prosecuting blowjobs. I'm not saying Clinton was innocent - you know I don't believe that - but that Starr went waaaaay beyond the original bounds of what he was supposed to investigate.
The last couple of special prosecutors went off track. We had leaks on Valarie Plame from Colin Powell's deputy and a perjury conviction by someone who never leaked Plame's identity. And Ken Starr prosecuting Clinton for perjury for lying about having sex with an intern (which of course was not sexual harassment, or an inappropriate use of power, or anything else). I could go on, but the US special prosecutor procedure lacks any check or balance and is a very bad idea.
Ruth Marcus - a total leftist hack from the Washington Post said:
QuoteIf people aren't buying Trump's asserted rationale, it is because Trump made this bed of distrust. Nothing in his conduct offers comfort that he understands the importance of the independence of the Justice Department. Nothing suggests that he takes seriously the gravity of Russian intervention in the election or wants to get to the bottom of the mess.
Which I agree with and is the underlying problem with firing Comey.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 10, 2017, 11:32:12 AM
Quote from: airboy on May 10, 2017, 11:27:24 AMI don't like special prosecutors. They frequently launch fishing expeditions and go way off track.
Paging Ken Starr!
::) Yeah, there was nothing to the Clinton investigation.
Launched a fishing expedition that went off track?
Starr was hired to investigate Whitewater and ended up prosecuting blowjobs. I'm not saying Clinton was innocent - you know I don't believe that - but that Starr went waaaaay beyond the original bounds of what he was supposed to investigate.
Investigating blowjobs...perjury is a felony you know? You'd have a lot more credibility without the leftie tropes.
The perjury was wrong and he should've been impeached and removed from office for it (side note, how does 2000 go down if Bush II is running against a sitting president instead of a vice-president?)
But the only reason the perjury even came into play was b/c the original investigation was sooooooo far out of scope that it should've been terminated
Tt's funny that the IT guy (cough*Mirth*cough) who abhors scope creep is the one defending it based on a preferential outcome for his political biases ;)
The perjury ocurred because of the Paula Jones lawsuit. I'm not even sure Starr had been apppinted when Willy perjured himself. And it certainly didn't occur because Starr was fishing for it. It was a separate lawsuit.
But hey, it was 'all about blowjobs'. Next you'll be telling us about the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. ::)
Quote from: mirth on May 10, 2017, 04:44:52 PM
But hey, it was 'all about blowjobs'. Next you'll be telling us about the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. ::)
Would you pass me the sign-up form when you're finished with it? On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be part of a conspiracy that would allow me to join ^-^
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/10/rod-rosenstein-the-mystery-man-behind-comey-firing/
QuoteUntil Tuesday night, Rod Rosenstein was one of the least known, but most powerful men in Washington. The deputy attorney general was catapulted out of obscurity when President Donald Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey and said he had relied on Rosenstein's judgement to do it.
Former Justice Department officials are now puzzling over how a man they describe as a consummate professional appears to have allowed himself to be used by the Trump White House to oust the FBI director. In interviews with Foreign Policy on Wednesday, Rosenstein's former colleagues — all of whom insisted on anonymity — wondered why a man they admired for his integrity would become a hatchet man for Trump.
"Rod is not an idiot. He's an experienced, intelligent, and savvy guy. He must understand that it is insane to fire a sitting FBI director while he is investigating Russia and collusion," said one former Justice Department lawyer who worked for Rosenstein when he was the top federal prosecutor in Maryland.
In a scorching three-page memo, Rosenstein said Comey's handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system had compromised public trust in the FBI by announcing in a July 2016 press conference that the FBI would be recommending against prosecution of the then-putative Democratic nominee for president. Going public with his recommendation, Rosenstein argued, usurped the authority of Justice Department superiors.
Even though Trump cited Rosenstein's memo in firing Comey, the deputy attorney general stopped just short of suggesting that Comey be removed. "Rod is smart enough to know that the fact that he doesn't technically call for Jim Comey's firing is meaningless," the former Justice Department lawyer said.
With Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused from the FBI's probe of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and possible collusion between Trump associates and the Kremlin, Rosenstein has responsibility for overseeing an explosive investigation. On Tuesday, CNN reported that a grand jury issued subpoenas for business associates of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who was fired less than a month into his job, allegedly for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about the extent of his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the United States.
When Rosenstein was announced as the Trump administration's choice for deputy attorney general, many in the law enforcement community breathed a sigh of relief. A career Justice Department official who was appointed by President George W. Bush to be the U.S. Attorney for Maryland, Rosenstein was widely credited with turning around an office that had been in disarray. As the only U.S. attorney appointed under Bush who stayed in his job during the Obama years, Rosenstein was widely viewed as a steady hand who might temper some of the worst excesses of the Trump administration.
His role in providing the justification for Comey's firing has led some Justice Department veterans to question that assessment, however. "I'm incredibly troubled and disappointed that Rosenstein would be party to this," said one former national security official at the Justice Department. "I always thought his integrity was incredibly high."
Facing intense backlash, the White House's explanations for firing Comey have markedly shifted in the 24 hours since the initial announcement. First, Trump lieutenants claimed that the president acted on the Justice Department's recommendation in dismissing Comey, but multiple media reports claim that Trump made up his mind to fire the FBI chief and then tasked the Justice Department to justify his decision.
By Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had been considering firing Comey since he was inaugurated, further undermining the Trump administration's first set of talking points. Nonetheless, she said, Trump had acted at the urging of Justice Department officials, who had pushed the president to respond to "atrocities" committed by Comey.
Rosenstein's scathing memo describing those so-called atrocities was likely heartfelt, according to his former colleagues. A veteran of numerous public corruption prosecutions, Rosenstein was meticulous in his adherence to Justice Department guidelines to avoid influencing elections and to keep investigations confidential — rules that he believes Comey flouted in his July press conference and his October letter announcing that he had reopened the Clinton investigation.
"There's a legitimate argument that Comey screwed up, that he screwed up big time, and that he screwed up big enough to pressure him to resign," said one former prosecutor who worked under Rosenstein. "The mystery is why he thinks that a memo that calls for everything but an explicit firing is ok."
Said another veteran of the Maryland prosecutor's office: "I don't understand how Rod could be used as a pawn so easily."
Rosenstein now faces intense political criticism from congressional Democrats, who are calling for an independent investigator to be appointed to oversee the probe into Russian meddling and ties to the Trump campaign. They insist that Rosenstein cannot select the investigator.
"That special prosecutor ought be appointed by someone who was a senior career official at Justice Department — not another one of these political appointees," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is running a parallel investigation of the Russian hacking and its links to Trump. On Wednesday, his panel subpoenaed Flynn for documents related to that investigation.
Reached by phone in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of Rosenstein's former law professors at Harvard, Philip Heymann, who himself served as deputy attorney general during the Bill Clinton administration, had some advice for his former student. "If I were talking to Rod," he said, "I would tell him to hire a special counsel or an independent prosecutor because he can't establish the credibility that he said was the purpose of firing Comey."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html
QuoteEvery time FBI Director James B. Comey appeared in public, an ever-watchful President Trump grew increasingly agitated that the topic was the one that he was most desperate to avoid: Russia.
Trump had long questioned Comey's loyalty and judgment, and was infuriated by what he viewed as the director's lack of action in recent weeks on leaks from within the federal government. By last weekend, he had made up his mind: Comey had to go.
At his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., Trump groused over Comey's latest congressional testimony, which he thought was "strange," and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.
Back at work Monday morning in Washington, Trump told Vice President Pence and several senior aides — Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon and Donald McGahn, among others — that he was ready to move on Comey. First, though, he wanted to talk with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his trusted confidant, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey reported directly. Trump summoned the two of them to the White House for a meeting, according to a person close to the White House.
The president already had decided to fire Comey, according to this person. But in the meeting, several White House officials said Trump gave Sessions and Rosenstein a directive: to explain in writing the case against Comey.
The pair quickly fulfilled the boss's orders, and the next day Trump fired Comey — a breathtaking move that thrust a White House already accustomed to chaos into a new level of tumult, one that has legal as well as political consequences.
Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
Justice Department officials declined to comment.
The stated rationale for Comey's firing delivered Wednesday by principal deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was that he had committed "atrocities" in overseeing the FBI's probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, hurting morale in the bureau and compromising public trust.
"He wasn't doing a good job," Trump told reporters Wednesday. "Very simple. He wasn't doing a good job."
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president's brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia's effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.
The known actions that led to Comey's dismissal raise as many questions as answers. Why was Sessions involved in discussions about the fate of the man leading the FBI's Russia investigation, after having recused himself from the probe because he had falsely denied under oath his own past communications with the Russian ambassador?
Why had Trump discussed the Russia probe with the FBI director three times, as he claimed in his letter dismissing Comey, which could have been a violation of Justice Department policies that ongoing investigations generally are not to be discussed with White House officials?
And how much was the timing of Trump's decision shaped by events spiraling out of his control — such as Monday's testimony about Russian interference by former acting attorney general Sally Yates, or the fact that Comey last week requested more resources from the Justice Department to expand the FBI's Russia probe?
In the weeks leading up to Comey's firing, Trump administration officials had repeatedly urged the FBI to more aggressively pursue leak investigations, according to people familiar with the discussions. Administration officials sometimes sought to push the FBI to prioritize leak probes over the Russia interference case, and at other times urged the bureau to investigate disclosures of information that was not classified or highly sensitive and therefore did not constitute crimes, these people said.
Over time, administration officials grew increasingly dissatisfied with the FBI's actions on that front. Comey's appearances at congressional hearings caused even more tension between the White House and FBI, as Trump administration officials were angered that the director's statements increased, rather than diminished, public attention on the Russia probe, officials said.
In his Tuesday letter dismissing Comey, Trump wrote: "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation." People familiar with the matter said that statement is not accurate, although they would not say how it was inaccurate. FBI officials declined to comment on the statement, and a White House official refused to discuss conversations between Trump and Comey.
'Essentially declared war'
Within the Justice Department and the FBI, the firing of Comey has left raw anger, and some fear, according to multiple officials. Thomas O'Connor, the president of the FBI Agents Association, called Comey's firing "a gut punch. We didn't see it coming, and we don't think Director Comey did anything that would lead to this.''
Many employees said they were furious about the firing, saying the circumstances of his dismissal did more damage to the FBI's independence than anything Comey did in his three-plus years in the job.
One intelligence official who works on Russian espionage matters said they were more determined than ever to pursue such cases. Another said Comey's firing and the subsequent comments from the White House are attacks that won't soon be forgotten. Trump had "essentially declared war on a lot of people at the FBI," one official said. "I think there will be a concerted effort to respond over time in kind."
While Trump and his aides sought to justify Comey's firing, the now-canned FBI director, back from a work trip to Los Angeles, kept a low profile. He was observed puttering in his yard at his home in Northern Virginia on Wednesday.
In a message to FBI staff late Wednesday, Comey wrote: "I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all. I'm not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed. I hope you won't either. It is done, and I will be fine, although I will miss you and the mission deeply."
He added that "in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence."
Sam Nunberg, a former political adviser to Trump, said the FBI director misunderstood the president: "James Comey made the mistake of thinking that just because he announced the FBI was investigating possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, he had unfettered job security. In my opinion, the president should have fired Comey the day he was sworn in."
George Lombardi, a friend of the president and a frequent guest at his Mar-a-Lago Club, said: "This was a long time coming. There had been a lot of arguments back and forth in the White House and during the campaign, a lot of talk about what side of the fence [Comey] was on or if he was above political dirty tricks."
Dating to the campaign, several men personally close to Trump deeply distrusted Comey and helped feed the candidate-turned-president's suspicions of the FBI director, who declined to recommend charges against Clinton for what they all agreed was a criminal offense, according to several people familiar with the dynamic.
The men influencing Trump include Roger J. Stone, a self-proclaimed dirty trickster and longtime Trump confidant who himself has been linked to the FBI's Russia investigation; former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Comey critic who has been known to kibbitz about the ousted FBI director with like-minded law enforcement figures; and Keith Schiller, a former New York police officer who functioned as Trump's chief bodyguard and works in the West Wing as director of Oval Office operations.
"What Comey did to Hillary was disgraceful," Stone said. "I'm glad Trump fired him over it."
In fact, it was Schiller whom Trump tasked with hand-delivering a manila envelope containing the president's termination letter to Comey's office at FBI headquarters Tuesday afternoon. Trump's aides did not appear to know that Comey would be out of the office, traveling on a recruiting trip in California, according to a White House official.
A chaotic response
Within the West Wing, there was little apparent dissent over the president's decision to fire Comey, according to the accounts of several White House officials. McGahn, the White House counsel, and Priebus, the chief of staff, walked Trump through how the dismissal would work, with McGahn's legal team taking the lead and coordinating with the Justice Department.
Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter, and her husband, Jared Kushner — both of whom work in the White House — have frequently tried to blunt Trump's riskier impulses but did not intervene to try to persuade him against firing Comey, according to two senior officials.
Trump kept a close hold on the process. White House press secretary Sean Spicer and communications director Michael Dubke were brought into the Oval Office and informed of the Comey decision just an hour before the news was announced. Other staffers in the West Wing found out about the FBI director's firing when their cellphones buzzed with news alerts beginning around 5:40 p.m.
The media explosion was immediate and the political backlash was swift, with criticism pouring in not only from Democrats, but also from some Republicans. Trump and some of his advisers did not fully anticipate the ferocious reaction — in fact, some wrongly assumed many Democrats would support the move because they had been critical of Comey in the past — and were unprepared to contain the fallout.
When asked Tuesday night for an update on the unfolding situation, one top White House aide simply texted a reporter two fireworks emoji.
"I think the surprise of a great many in the White House was that as soon as this became a Trump decision, all of the Democrats who had long been calling for Comey's ouster decided that this was now an awful decision," Dubke said. "So there was a surprise at the politicization of Democrats on this so immediately and so universally."
Trump's team did not have a full-fledged communications strategy for how to announce and then explain the decision. As Trump, who had retired to the residence to eat dinner, sat in front of a television watching cable news coverage of Comey's firing, he noticed another flaw: Nobody was defending him.
The president was irate, according to White House officials. Trump pinned much of the blame on Spicer and Dubke's communications operation, wondering how there could be so many press staffers yet such negative coverage on cable news — although he, Priebus and others had afforded them almost no time to prepare.
"This is probably the most egregious example of press and communications incompetence since we've been here," one West Wing official said. "It was an absolute disaster. And the president watched it unfold firsthand. He could see it."
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said Trump bears some responsibility for the turmoil because he kept the decision secret from some key aides.
"You can't be the quarterback of the team if the rest of the team is not in the huddle," Gingrich said. "The president has to learn to go a couple steps slower so that everyone can organize around him. When you don't loop people in, you deprive yourself of all of the opportunities available to a president of the United States."
For more than two hours after the news broke, Trump had no official spokesman, as his army of communications aides scrambled to craft a plan. By nightfall, Trump had ordered his talkers to talk; one adviser said the president wanted "his people" on the airwaves.
Counselor Kellyanne Conway ventured into what White House aides call "the lions' den," appearing on CNN both Tuesday night and Wednesday morning for combative interviews. "Especially on your network, you always want to talk about Russia, Russia, Russia," Conway told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Wednesday.
Sanders went Tuesday night to the friendly confines of Fox News Channel, but Wednesday parried questions from the more adversarial hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Spicer, meanwhile, threw together an impromptu news conference with reporters in the White House driveway, a few minutes before he taped a series of short television interviews inside the West Wing, where the lighting was better for the cameras. The press secretary stood alongside tall hedges in near darkness and agreed to answer questions with the cameras shuttered.
"Just turn the lights off," Spicer ordered. "Turn the lights off. We'll take care of this."
Truest words about the Comey firing were spoken by Vladimir Putin on CBS this morning (through a translator): "President Trump is acting in accordance with his competence."
yes it's Slate
yes, the conclusions might not be what you agree with
yes, the facts that are informing the speculative conclusions are still accurate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/05/the_white_house_story_on_comey_s_firing_is_falling_apart.html
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 11, 2017, 07:06:46 AM
yes it's Slate
yes, the conclusions might not be what you agree with
yes, the facts that are informing the speculative conclusions are still accurate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/05/the_white_house_story_on_comey_s_firing_is_falling_apart.html
Yes, I'm not going to bother with it.
It's a pretty spot on article.
I mean, it's transparent that the administration is lying about the reason for coneys firing.
I said before hat the over/under for trump is one year. I stand by that.
The Wall St. Journal has a very different take on all of this which fits all of the facts and takes into account something the Politico story and the Washington Post story ignores.
Trump did not talk to his communication people before firing Comey. There was an entire story on this in today's WSJ. There was very sloppy message handling. This has occurred frequently with the Trump Admin. The BS "Obstruction of Justice" is the normal confusion and lack of briefing in the Trump WH. You also don't have "Obstruction of Justice" unless you are preventing the investigation of a crime, withholding evidence of a crime, etc...... Which makes the Politico story even more BS since Trump has the legal authority to fire Comey if he wishes.
Rosenstein thought Comey made bad decisions. He had a meeting where he expressed those views to Trump. Trump asked for a memo. Rosenstein wrote a blistering three page memo on Comey's failings. Unless you think Rosenstein had the memo dictated to him, then it is his opinion. I think the foreign policy article Brant posted makes the assumption that Rosenstein wrote something he did not believe at Trump's or someone else's direction. They present this with no evidence.
According to the WSJ and Washington Post, the FBI people generally supported Comey. Having lots of stories about people being upset about the firing from the FBI or Justice Dept. is largely irrelevant.
Trump had been looking for a reason to fire Comey and did so.
According to what very little is known about the Russian investigation we do know the following:
1] Flynn is a focus
2] Subpoenas have been issued from the Grand Jury
There is speculation that there are investigations into Trump associates who have business ties to Russia, but nothing other than unnamed sources have stated this.
Right.
But what stinks is this: According the the Washington Post, Trump had made the decision to fire Comey before he met with Rosenstein. He decided "it's time to move on Comey" and directed Rosenstein to write up a memo for reasons Trump could fire Comey. Rosenstein did so and then Trump fired Comey. When Trump's organization tried to pin the reason on firing Comey to Rosenstein's memo, as if it was Rosenstein's idea, Rosenstein threatened to resign.
The reporting from numerous sources probably suggests something close to the truth: Trump didn't like Comey and was looking for an excuse to fire him for a while. The reasons are varied, but it is an easy step to make a connection that the timing of the firing, coming as it does on the heels of the FBI issuing subpoenas and requesting additional resources into the Russia-Trump connection, was such that Trump specifically did it in order to undermine the investigation.
Perhaps it was just ill-timed. It feels like there is a motive behind it that is troubling and it's so blindingly obvious that I can only hope that it isn't the motive because it's such an easy conclusion to reach.
If you read the Slate article, the discuss the extraordinary rapidity with which the firing took place. Again, one can only conclude that it was an impulsive decision made by Trump....it had to be right now...that happens to coincide with the investigation into his ties with Russia "getting down to brass tacks" according to an FBI agent, or it was done with an ulterior motive.
He could have fired him 3 months ago, or 3 months from now, and it likely would have barely been a blip. But to do it at this particular moment, in this manner, frankly stinks.
I agree the timing is ultra-suspicious, and that one way or another there's something we don't know about going on in the background to trigger the timing now.
Had Trump done it earlier, though, I suspect it would have been regarded as a sacrificial move to deflect from Trump's campaign promise to prosecute Hillary and see her in jail -- a promise he immediately (and perhaps wisely) reneged on. In that case it would have been read as Comey blundering the case against Clinton, forcing Trump to go back on his promise by rendering further investigation unfeasible due to the well having been poisoned (or whatever).
I would even have wondered if that was the case now, the idea being that Trump decided he couldn't do it during his sensitive first hundred days; but there doesn't seem to be any strong connection of justification by the administration to that rationale. Subsumed under a vaguely general charge of incompetency, perhaps, but that wouldn't serve the rhetorical purpose.
Or perhaps the reason is close after all: Trump wanted Comey to act as his attack dog against the DNC for their election practices, including revisiting the email security scandal, and Comey refused to play along with a plate of flank steak already being chewed on -- a plate Trump, on the other hand, wanted to be trashed. (...not entirely sure that analogy is coherent, but it sounded good in my head before I typed it... :hide: )
I wonder why Trump even has a communications team.
I dunno, but having one of them named "Sarah" "Huckabee" "Sanders" distracts me constantly -- I keep thinking that's how I'd start a SNL skit.
Jason,
Trump could have fired Comey when he took office under the auspices of appointing people of his own choosing to replace Obama appointments, and it would have been seen as business as usual.
Slate, Washington Post, and I think the Christian Science Monitor all repeat the same reporting of anonymous sources describing Trump's increasing displeasure with Comey because he wouldn't play ball. But, again, why right now? The timing is terrible. Either it's driven by a motive to somehow derail the Russian investigation, or it's another case of Trump being Trump; impulse control isn't his strong suit.
Michael Hayden weighs in... he's hardly a Clinton fan
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/332696-michael-hayden-when-trumps-washington-starts-to
I typically only check the comments sections to solidify my contempt for humanity, but for that article, they actually do a pretty good case of laying out both sides of the controversy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEGVi59V.jpg&hash=da7382c486b319faf572e22a68567ac1d5eaac20)
^HAHAHAHA!!! Good one!
Quote from: Toonces on May 11, 2017, 05:48:34 PM
I typically only check the comments sections to solidify my contempt for humanity
Man, that's sig worthy, Toonces. And as a rule, comments sections typically make me fear for humanity.
How the FBI will get revenge for Trumps firing of Comey.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-the-fbi-might-wage-%E2%80%9Cwar%E2%80%9D-on-trump-%E2%80%94-and-how-they-would-actually-do-it/ar-BBB1Wgo?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
^That's just what the country needs. More infighting. I'm gonna go see if I can get the FAA mad at the Library of Congress.
Quote from: bbmike on May 12, 2017, 07:12:14 AM
^That's just what the country needs. More infighting. I'm gonna go see if I can get the FAA mad at the Library of Congress.
I work for the DoD. Don't get us mad, or we'll take the infighting to a whole new level. Maybe we'll send some Tomahawks to those upstarts at the Census Bureau. They're always causing trouble.
Quote from: Toonces on May 11, 2017, 05:04:05 PM
Jason,
Trump could have fired Comey when he took office under the auspices of appointing people of his own choosing to replace Obama appointments, and it would have been seen as business as usual.
...you've, uh, you've seen American politics recently, right? ::)
I feel pretty safe saying that most things done by Trump since before the start of his office which touch on his opponents somehow, have
NOT been seen as just business as usual. The level of oppositional rhetoric has been extremely high (which Trump hasn't detoxed either).
Quote from: trailrunner on May 12, 2017, 08:20:21 AM
Quote from: bbmike on May 12, 2017, 07:12:14 AM
^That's just what the country needs. More infighting. I'm gonna go see if I can get the FAA mad at the Library of Congress.
I work for the DoD. Don't get us mad, or we'll take the infighting to a whole new level. Maybe we'll send some Tomahawks to those upstarts at the Census Bureau. They're always causing trouble.
Can you send some the way of the DoE, you know, spread the wealth.
The Acting Director of the FBI directly contradicted White House claims that Comey had lost the backing of the rank and file and that the investigation of Russian interference in the election was insignificant in scope:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/live-briefing-james-comey-andrew-mccabe.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/live-briefing-james-comey-andrew-mccabe.html)
There are also reports that Trump requested Comey pledge personal loyalty to him, something Comey declined to do:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333062-report-trump-demanded-comeys-loyalty-at-dinner-in-january
It seems to me the firing of Comey is one of two things, the most charitable being we are witnessing the missteps of a politically tone deaf, neophyte administration whose lack of political experience is showing before a national audience....or....where there is smoke there is fire and the situation with Russia may be as bad as some fear. A third factor is certainly the thin-skin of Trump and his obvious desire to surround himself with sycophants (a problem Obama shared), a club that Comey declined to join.
Whatever the truth, in his first quarter as President Trump has managed to turn both the US intelligence community and the strongly independent FBI against him. Couple that with a hostile press and Trump may soon have reason to regret firing Comey.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473)
Quote from: mirth on May 12, 2017, 09:24:18 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473)
Gee, that certainly won't draw any comparisons to a certain paranoid President ....coughNixoncough......
:hide: :hide: :hide:
yeah, that ought to settle things down ::)
This is the most bizarre Presidency in our history. I'm not sure Trump can do anything right, he may screw up taking a pee. At this point I will consider Trump a successful President if he doesn't start WWIII and doesn't run again.
It is surreal.
Quote from: trailrunner on May 11, 2017, 07:57:29 PM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEGVi59V.jpg&hash=da7382c486b319faf572e22a68567ac1d5eaac20)
This was awesome!
A remarkably even-handed account of how even "just-the-facts" news can show an inherent bias
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/10/15615654/comey-firing-revealed-real-news-propaganda
Quote from: Marty Ward on May 12, 2017, 11:06:41 AM
This is the most bizarre Presidency in our history. I'm not sure Trump can do anything right, he may screw up taking a pee. At this point I will consider Trump a successful President if he doesn't start WWIII and doesn't run again.
I do not disagree with any clause in this quote. :buck2:
I'm switching back and forth between Fox and MSNBC with Chuck Todd. I genuinely think what we're watching is the real time self-destruction of a presidency.
As I watch and read today, there is a sense of unreality that this is actually going on.
Without overly-derailing the thread, my personal belief is that Trump doesn't get the distinction between a private Enterprise where he can do whatever he wants, and a government where power is intentionally designed to be shared. He thinks he was elected King, not President, and doesn't really get the difference
^I agree with that.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 12, 2017, 04:47:34 PM
Without overly-derailing the thread, my personal belief is that Trump doesn't get the distinction between a private Enterprise where he can do whatever he wants, and a government where power is intentionally designed to be shared. He thinks he was elected King, not President, and doesn't really get the difference
There was some speculation that Trump would have a difficult time making the adjustment from a CEO/Owner (with little accountability) to the Presidency. While the President is often referred to as being the most powerful man alive, he still has limitations on that power that aren't always evident to someone outside of politics. I think we are seeing that learning curve in action. The question remains if Trump can actually learn from it or will he keep repeating the same mistakes.
That being said, I don't think hyperbole adds to an argument in a productive way. It's easy to call Trump a King or a Fascist or a Nazi but it doesn't bolster anyone's argument. Personally, I believe Trump is a fundamentally dishonest man who has never been told no in his life, has no one around him to tell him no, wouldn't listen if he did, and lives in the same insulated world he was born into only on an even larger scale right now. At some point, if the Republicans want to hold onto power past 2020 and Trump continues in this fashion, they are either going to have to bitch slap Trump into some sense of reality, score some major victories of their own making, or impeach him.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 12, 2017, 04:47:34 PM
Without overly-derailing the thread, my personal belief is that Trump doesn't get the distinction between a private Enterprise where he can do whatever he wants, and a government where power is intentionally designed to be shared. He thinks he was elected King, not President, and doesn't really get the difference
It is worse. In most private businesses you keep dealing with the same employees and customer base. But Trump has primarily been in large scale real estate development. In this business you seldom have repeat business with the same clientele. In business-to-business sales you deal with intelligent people with capital. If you mislead or nail people on a deal, they won't do business with you again and you will develop a very bad reputation in your industry. This eventually kills you. But if you do a lot of one-off real estate projects in different markets you keep messing with different people. I've talked about this quite a bit with a couple of my real estate buddies and they at least see the merits of this point of view. Because of his industry, Trump is not an average business CEO. Tillerson - yes he has the normal behaviors and attributes. Trump, not so much.
Civics does not seem to be our new Presidents strong point.
Although to be honest no Congress in the last 20-25 years has ever really stood up to any President, and took back their inherent rights.
It is all party now. At least years ago Congress would not allow their prerogatives to be stamped on.
Joe Scarborourgh has started referring to Trump as a "day trader", which I think frankly has some merit.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/10/scarborough_president_trump_is_a_day_trader_on_political_crack.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/10/scarborough_president_trump_is_a_day_trader_on_political_crack.html)
Quote from: magnus on May 12, 2017, 06:06:01 PMAlthough to be honest no Congress in the last 20-25 years has ever really stood up to any President, and took back their inherent rights.
94-98 was pretty antagonistic btw Congress and Clinton
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 12, 2017, 07:54:47 PM
Joe Scarborourgh has started referring to Trump as a "day trader", which I think frankly has some merit.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/10/scarborough_president_trump_is_a_day_trader_on_political_crack.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/10/scarborough_president_trump_is_a_day_trader_on_political_crack.html)
That was a good simile. Thanks for pointing it out.
Today's WSJ front page headline was "Trump Rethinking Communications Strategy" which I translated in my mind to "the Idiot will stop using twitter." But then I remembered my mind is rational. All of these thoughts took less than a second. :pullhair:
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 12, 2017, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: magnus on May 12, 2017, 06:06:01 PMAlthough to be honest no Congress in the last 20-25 years has ever really stood up to any President, and took back their inherent rights.
94-98 was pretty antagonistic btw Congress and Clinton
Scary that 98 is now almost 20 years ago. ;)
Kind of agree with "day trader" simile, as someone who has himself done a fair bit of day trading. :P
The real-estate businessman parallel makes some sense, too. Dementia makes some sense, but I think his attitude would still be the same even if he was clearly functioning on all cylinders.
No thread yet on 'Trump Leaks Classified Info to the Russians' from the Washington Post...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/index.html
Quote from: Gusington on May 15, 2017, 07:21:06 PM
No thread yet on 'Trump Leaks Classified Info to the Russians' from the Washington Post...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/index.html
He admits he did it ! (once again contradicting his staff)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/05/16/trump-tweets-russia-meeting-lavrov-white-house?via=desktop&source=copyurl
As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....
...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
I though I heard that someone on Team Trump (maybe even Trump himself) tried to make the case that Trump didn't actually 'leak' any of the info he told the Russians because a POTUS can unclassify any US intelligence and sources anytime he wants right on the spot. ::)
Quote from: Staggerwing on May 16, 2017, 07:00:10 AM
I though I heard that someone on Team Trump (maybe even Trump himself) tried to make the case that Trump didn't actually 'leak' any of the info he told the Russians because a POTUS can unclassify any US intelligence and sources anytime he wants right on the spot. ::)
I'm sure his and the GOP lawmakers opinions would be different if it were Hillary as President doing the same thing. The impeachment hearings would already be scheduled for tomorrow morning. I'm so sick of our government at this point. There can never be a win-win between the two parties... always has to be a win-lose. We need a strong 3rd party that would force compromise.
If this turns out to be true, it could turn a lot of people against Trump and force an independent investigator.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-memo-says-trump-asked-him-to-end-flynn-investigation/ar-BBBdmgu?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Quote from: OJsDad on May 16, 2017, 08:30:39 PM
If this turns out to be true, it could turn a lot of people against Trump and force an independent investigator.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-memo-says-trump-asked-him-to-end-flynn-investigation/ar-BBBdmgu?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
This jumped out at me:
"Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president's improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent's contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations."
For all of his missteps during the campaign, I have yet to see anything that makes me think Comey is less than an honorable man who has devoted his life to justice. In terms of credibility, a memo of this sort from a man such as Comey could be damning.
If Comey's assertion is true, then he should have done what the law requires. He should have reported this crime immediately to the AG or congress. Waiting until after he was fired makes this look like 'Revenge of the Comey' to me. With a very willing NYT happy to help-out in an anything-to-hurt-Trump way.
In his wisdom Trump said months ago what to do next >:D
https://youtu.be/EU3VpwV4-nk?t=5m13s
Since Andy got sacked, it's all Barney.
Quote from: Sir Slash on May 16, 2017, 10:10:50 PM
If Comey's assertion is true, then he should have done what the law requires. He should have reported this crime immediately to the AG or congress. Waiting until after he was fired makes this look like 'Revenge of the Comey' to me. With a very willing NYT happy to help-out in an anything-to-hurt-Trump way.
Bingo. If there was obstruction by Trump, Comey should have reported it immediately. His handling of things, from the Clinton emails to this, has been questionable to say the least.
Sen Kane was on TV this morning sayimg Comey didnt need report that to congress until after he got fired.
Comey's handling of many things has been questionable, but I disagree that he should have left the White House and immediately got on the phones or that he was somehow obligated to make an immediate disclosure while an investigation may have been ongoing. As pointed out in the article, his creation of memos is evidential in nature and has been upheld in court. And seriously, if you are going up against the President of the United States, you probably want as much ammo as possible, not to mention how future conversations with Trump may have gone.
Painting Comey as a disgruntled, fired employee is just weak, sorry. That's the first stone every business throws, regardless of the circumstances. I said at the start of this thread there was enough to warrant firing Comey and I stand by that, however comparing Comey's record of integrity to Trumps documented lack of the same lends weight to Comey's version of the facts, IMHO.
^Maybe, but it makes it look like even Comey himself didn't think he was being ordered to stop investigating right then and there. He may have thought that it could be headed that way and he needed to start documenting everything.
And it may be just that. I think Comey was smart to document his meetings with Trump. Determining whether this constitutes a criminal act or rises to impeachment level is not Comey's call, but the memos will be a part of this story regardless of the outcome.
Quote from: OJsDad on May 17, 2017, 09:02:20 AM
Sen Kane was on TV this morning sayimg Comey didnt need report that to congress until after he got fired.
So it's not possible obstruction unless he got fired? :uglystupid2:
A couple of thoughts;
1. We haven't seen the memo, we just know about it because it was leaked by someone that has seen it. We don't know if Trump demanded that the investigation into Flynn ended then or if he was expressing his opinion that since Flynn was fired/resigned that the investigation wasn't needed any longer.
2. Trump did not fire Comey right away after that meeting. It was 2 months later.
Quote from: OJsDad on May 17, 2017, 09:31:03 AM
A couple of thoughts;
1. We haven't seen the memo, we just know about it because it was leaked by someone that has seen it. We don't know if Trump demanded that the investigation into Flynn ended then or if he was expressing his opinion that since Flynn was fired/resigned that the investigation wasn't needed any longer.
2. Trump did not fire Comey right away after that meeting. It was 2 months later.
Yeah. I don't really trust much of what is being reported by the MSM. They definitely want to pile on Trump at every opportunity.
Still, Trump better hope the Republicans hold on to the House and Senate. If he makes it to the mid-terms and the Dems take over in Congress, impeachment proceedings are guaranteed.
And you have to wonder how long the Repubs will shield him. He's making it almost impossible to move the Republican legislative agenda and they are burning a lot of political capital on defending his behavior.
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 09:36:39 AM
And you have to wonder how long the Repubs will shield him. He's making it almost impossible to move the Republican legislative agenda and they are burning a lot of political capital on defending his behavior.
I imagine most Republicans don't have a lot of loyalty towards Trump, considering they didn't ride his coattails into office and he certainly didn't win them their seats. Trump represents an opportunity for them to advance their agenda and powerbase but is arguably a liability at the same time. If things reach critical mass or if a Democratic wave starts to form in Congress, a President Pence would certainly be preferable to them over a President (insert random Democrat here).
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/864840873313533952
The memo doesn't matter. Remember, Comey himself created a new requirement for prosecution in the Clinton E-Mail Scandal. It's not the act, it's the 'intent' that now matters. Unless he threatened directly to fire Comey if he didn't let Kelly off, then it was just poor choice of wording, like, "There are NO classified E-Mails on my personal server" or maybe, "I turned-over ALL of my work-related E-mails". Unless of course intent only counts for Democrats. :-"
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 16, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on May 16, 2017, 08:30:39 PM
If this turns out to be true, it could turn a lot of people against Trump and force an independent investigator.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-memo-says-trump-asked-him-to-end-flynn-investigation/ar-BBBdmgu?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
This jumped out at me:
"Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president's improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent's contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations."
For all of his missteps during the campaign, I have yet to see anything that makes me think Comey is less than an honorable man who has devoted his life to justice. In terms of credibility, a memo of this sort from a man such as Comey could be damning.
If Flynn had resigned before Trump asked if they could focus on leaks more than Flynn (which is how I read Trumps statement), why is that a problem? Or am I missing something where Trump said the end the investigation into Flynn?
Quote from: Sir Slash on May 17, 2017, 10:18:48 AM
The memo doesn't matter. Remember, Comey himself created a new requirement for prosecution in the Clinton E-Mail Scandal. It's not the act, it's the 'intent' that now matters. Unless he threatened directly to fire Comey if he didn't let Kelly off, then it was just poor choice of wording, like, "There are NO classified E-Mails on my personal server" or maybe, "I turned-over ALL of my work-related E-mails". Unless of course intent only counts for Democrats. :-"
Seriously? Of course the memo matters....as was pointed out in the article, such memos have been admissible in criminal court and Comey has long been known to be a meticulous memo-taker. As for "intent" Trump asking the VP and the Attorney General to leave the Oval Office so he could speak privately with Comey and certainly doesn't reflect well on Trump's version. I won't even go into comparing Trumps character and record with truthfulness to Comey's....or practically anyone else I know. I'm not saying it's a smoking gun or evidence which should lead to impeachment, I'm saying that it's not something to be casually dismissed as "fake news". In a week, we've had a questionable firing of the FBI director with several different (and conflicting) stories as to the timeline involved in the firing, news that Trump released Israeli given intelligence to the Russians which may compromise an Israeli source, and now the Comey memo. Did I miss anything?
Quote from: Marty Ward on May 17, 2017, 10:49:13 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 16, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on May 16, 2017, 08:30:39 PM
If this turns out to be true, it could turn a lot of people against Trump and force an independent investigator.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-memo-says-trump-asked-him-to-end-flynn-investigation/ar-BBBdmgu?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
This jumped out at me:
"Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president's improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent's contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations."
For all of his missteps during the campaign, I have yet to see anything that makes me think Comey is less than an honorable man who has devoted his life to justice. In terms of credibility, a memo of this sort from a man such as Comey could be damning.
If Flynn had resigned before Trump asked if they could focus on leaks more than Flynn (which is how I read Trumps statement), why is that a problem? Or am I missing something where Trump said the end the investigation into Flynn?
If a person commits a criminal act (say stealing from an employer) and then resigns, it does not mitigate the crime. If the FBI was investigating Flynn for a criminal act, his no longer being NSA is irrelevant. As for what Trump may have said or not said, he contradicts himself so often as to strain credibility when it's his word against anyone else.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 17, 2017, 11:19:25 AM
Quote from: Marty Ward on May 17, 2017, 10:49:13 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 16, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on May 16, 2017, 08:30:39 PM
If this turns out to be true, it could turn a lot of people against Trump and force an independent investigator.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-memo-says-trump-asked-him-to-end-flynn-investigation/ar-BBBdmgu?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
This jumped out at me:
"Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president's improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent's contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations."
For all of his missteps during the campaign, I have yet to see anything that makes me think Comey is less than an honorable man who has devoted his life to justice. In terms of credibility, a memo of this sort from a man such as Comey could be damning.
If Flynn had resigned before Trump asked if they could focus on leaks more than Flynn (which is how I read Trumps statement), why is that a problem? Or am I missing something where Trump said the end the investigation into Flynn?
If a person commits a criminal act (say stealing from an employer) and then resigns, it does not mitigate the crime. If the FBI was investigating Flynn for a criminal act, his no longer being NSA is irrelevant. As for what Trump may have said or not said, he contradicts himself so often as to strain credibility when it's his word against anyone else.
I understand that but from what I read Trump didn't ask the investigation be ended only that leak be given a higher priority. Would that be a crime?
Of course I could have this all wrong and with Trump what is said one day is contradicted the next.
It's all pretty much speculation at this point.
QuoteMr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. "He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
Comey needs to release the entirety of the memo.
Quote from: Marty Ward on May 17, 2017, 11:32:01 AM
I understand that but from what I read Trump didn't ask the investigation be ended only that leak be given a higher priority. Would that be a crime?
Of course I could have this all wrong and with Trump what is said one day is contradicted the next.
What I have read is that Trump tells Comey "I hope you can let this go", regarding the Flynn investigation. Supposedly that is what Comey wrote in his memo. I have no inkling if that would be an actual crime or not and I would lean towards not. But it adds more to the burning trainwreck that the Trump administration has become out of the gate. And notably the impeachment standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is very much open to interpretation by Congress and was meant to be so. Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical that events are to that point yet, but Trump is giving Republicans plenty of rope to hang him with and less and less reason to not do so.
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:42:12 AM
It's all pretty much speculation at this point.
Comey needs to release the entirety of the memo.
Bingo
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:42:12 AM
It's all pretty much speculation at this point.
QuoteMr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. "He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
Comey needs to release the entirety of the memo.
My understanding is that the memo(s) are not actually in Comey's hands but rather secured within the FBI. Either way I'm pretty sure it's a matter of time, and short time at that.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 17, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
My understanding is that the memo(s) are not actually in Comey's hands but rather secured within the FBI. Either way I'm pretty sure it's a matter of time, and short time at that.
The Times article didn't mention that part. If so, I wonder who is leaking it.
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 17, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
My understanding is that the memo(s) are not actually in Comey's hands but rather secured within the FBI. Either way I'm pretty sure it's a matter of time, and short time at that.
The Times article didn't mention that part. If so, I wonder who is leaking it.
Honestly I follow so many news sources I know I heard it but couldn't quote you where, so take that for what it's worth. If Comey was intending these memos to potentially be part of an investigation, I would imagine keeping them in a secured FBI facility was the correct thing to do. As an aside, Morning Joe reported last week that Comey's firing was so abrupt there was initial discussion over whether he would be allowed to fly the FBI jet back to D.C. from his speaking engagement in LA and that he wasn't allowed to enter the FBI building to clear out his desk.
Well if the memo is in the hands of the Bureau and they are allowing evidence in a possible criminal case to be leaked to the press, it's not great optics for them.
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:56:48 AM
Well if the memo is in the hands of the Bureau and they are allowing evidence in a possible criminal case to be leaked to the press, it's not great optics for them.
Meh, the Bureau has long been known as a leak factory when someone gets on their bad side. And if there is an ongoing criminal case, it could be argued that releasing information piecemeal isn't the way to go. Federal prosecutors generally like to utilize "shock and awe" tactics. I really wonder what else they might be holding close to the vest.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 17, 2017, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:56:48 AM
Well if the memo is in the hands of the Bureau and they are allowing evidence in a possible criminal case to be leaked to the press, it's not great optics for them.
Meh, the Bureau has long been known as a leak factory when someone gets on their bad side. And if there is an ongoing criminal case, it could be argued that releasing information piecemeal isn't the way to go. Federal prosecutors generally like to utilize "shock and awe" tactics. I really wonder what else they might be holding close to the vest.
I'm beginning to think they have very little of substance.
Either way.....(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aarcentral.com%2Fpics%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=0b70105ec2ba21a5c07ec592bbb8b611d42b9ed7)
Markets arent liking all of these issues with Trump. Dow is down over 320 today.
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:42:12 AM
It's all pretty much speculation at this point.
QuoteMr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. "He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
Comey needs to release the entirety of the memo.
He's not done writing it yet.
Quote from: bbmike on May 17, 2017, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:42:12 AM
It's all pretty much speculation at this point.
QuoteMr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. "He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
Comey needs to release the entirety of the memo.
He's not done writing it yet.
ha!
DNC is helping him edot them. There will have to be indictment to know whats in it.
Special counsel has been named
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/special-counsel-named-to-probe-trump-russia-ties/ar-BBBfrcv?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Pass the popcorn
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 17, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
My understanding is that the memo(s) are not actually in Comey's hands but rather secured within the FBI. Either way I'm pretty sure it's a matter of time, and short time at that.
The Times article didn't mention that part. If so, I wonder who is leaking it.
I believe the leaks are from the recollections of Comey's FBI acquaintances. Possibly some were cc'ed on the original memos.
Accordimg to the Times, someone read parts of the memo to their reporter. That suggests more than just recollection.
This whole thing stinks, from both sides. And if I hear fucking Chuck Schumer talk about ethics one more time, I'm going to totally lose my mind.
But Chuckie is SOOOOOOO ethical!
I need Vomit Guy
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aarcentral.com%2Fpics%2Fvomit.gif&hash=f8c0cec79f834c3558ced52ccf681c80fdf7c2e4)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aarcentral.com%2Fpics%2Fpopcorn.gif&hash=0b70105ec2ba21a5c07ec592bbb8b611d42b9ed7)
Much better!
To be fair, Schumer sounds exactly like Ryan did about Hillary. Same crap, different aisle. They are all liars and hypocrites. Had Hillary done everything Trump has done with this Congress, the pitchforks would already be out. Do any of you really doubt that?
Schumer has a long history of being a scumbag. Of course, no one wants to remember that now with Trump in office.
"STFU mirth."
-Chuck Schumer
When did Schumer grow a pair?
Quote from: mirth on May 17, 2017, 08:12:33 PM
When did Schumer grow a pair?
Maybe Hillary lent him a couple from her collection.
Could be. She has hers and Bill's. :timeout:
Yesterday we hear that Trump bragged to the Russians about firing Comey, whom Trump called a 'Nut job' ::), to take the investigative pressure off. Now we find that the Russians have been bragging to each other that they were able to use Flynn to influence the Trump admin.
When will this massive train wreck finally hit the bottom of the gorge?
I'm patiently waiting. Any day now.
I once had a woman call me, "Superman"-- didn't mean I could fly though.