Comey is going back before the House Judiciary Committee.
I note that doesn’t match what the chairman said:
As though the Republicans had a desire for transparency. Just do the shit in public then, you fucking liars.
Yeah. “24 hours” for the release of the transcript, says Comey’s attorney, versus “as soon as possible” from Bob Goodlatte. Presumably Goodlatte’s idea on “as soon as possible” is ‘as many days after as we can get away with, so that we can own the news cycle for as long as we can.’
As for what spin the Trump-enablers in the House hope to achieve in the period between Comey speaking and the transcript coming out: I have trouble coming up with plausible guesses. ‘Comey admitted he worked with Obama and Hillary to destroy Trump’, maybe, as means of keeping the base fired-up and interested…?
Or just general discrediting of Comey, to preemptively de-fang any Comey testimony that might be used to put a Trump in jeopardy? 'Comey admitted he is a long-time pedophile and drowner of puppies’ or some such…?
If I’m Comey, I bring a certified court recorder as my ‘counsel’ and release my own fucking transcript about 5 minutes after I walk out the door. Then the AmericaHatingFuckPubs will have to release theirs or Comey owns the news cycle.
What Happens If …
No matter how bad the Mueller findings are…
And, no, asahi didn’t write this. It’s Charles Blow of the New York Times.
Well, the nice thing about this is that it doesn’t really matter if Trump admits any of it. Nixon was still saying he did nothing illegal years later.
The horrible thing about it is that it does matter if the Republicans in the senate take it seriously. Since they’re generally as ruthless as the day is long, I don’t necessarily have high hopes, but Charlie’s not really addressing what’s important about the situation. His declaration that this is a test of our republic without comparison kind of makes me wonder about his history education. Unless he’s just stating that this is a LOT milder than 1861-1865, it just makes him look silly. He’s also carping and whining about something that none of us have seen yet, so I’m inclined to take this editorial about as seriously as the average ashai post.
This was my general thinking when I asked above if the conspiracy is too big to fail. Nomatter how blatant the conspiracy, if the Republicans stick together then can ride it out. Even to the point of just refusing to leave office. What can you do when more than a third of the country want it that way? They can either admit they are wrong or burn the whole country down instead.
Don’t worry, there’s no massive cataclysmic conspiracy by Republicans that would burn the country down, but we’ll just have to let them get away with it. This kind of doomsday thinking exists only in hyper-partisan minds.
“What if Hillary was running a pedophile sex ring out of a pizza shop? Would Democrats circle the wagons because admitting to it would simply be too destructive to our political scene, and our body politic at large?”
…Good grief.
One thing I remember from my first ever customer service job was this:
Always specify a time or time frame. If you just give a vague future, like “I’ll send it tomorrow,” it’s easier to forget or miss the event. If you give a time or time frame, like “I’ll fax it before I leave at 5,” it rings in both parties’ heads as a concrete deadline, making it more likely to be completed.
I distinctly remember the leader of the Republican party recommending second amendment solutions to legislative problems.
Cite?
It was actually a suggestion that the only way to stop President Hillary Clinton from appointing bad judges was “you 2nd amendment folks”.
I was using the word “legislative” to generally mean “issues that have been traditionally handled within government without shooting”.
Not sure what your point is here.
I believe it’s a quibble about what “leader of the Republican Party” means.
Really? That’s controversial? Well, then instead of the irrelevant wiki link about the head of the RNC, he probably should have meandered over to their page on “Party Leader”, where it states the sentence:
“The President, currently Donald Trump, becomes the de facto leader of the party they represent once elected, and the Vice President, currently Mike Pence, likewise holds a leadership role as both the second-highest executive officer as well as being the President of the Senate.”
Likely, because, the president is obviously the leader of his party.
We are not that far away from the time when the GOP will be:
“Trump? Who? Oh that guy. He was really not all that important, and certainly we REAL Republicans did not pay him much heed. He certainly did not lead the party. He mainly tweeted and went out for cofeve and muffins and stuff.”
Well, that’s the only way I can see that link making any sense as a response to the quote, but I really should just let Sage Rat elucidate, as I’m only speculating.