I think there are the commentators on the Left who are confusing the Bayrock entitywhich indeed has the former Soviet connection and has a funny history, a suspicious history, with the Blackstone private equityhouse and financial group.
It seems to me the confusion and some degree of the non literacy in the financial institutions, leading to a kind of conspiracy theorizing that is not very credible becuase it is confused.
The Bayrock entity, it had the documented ties to the Trump operations and it has also the real documented issues around not very clear and very suspicious activity.
Since he links to some message / answer platform of no screening, it tells you the credibility of the combination although the background of the Trump organization with the Bayrock is a genuine area of the cloudy behavior.
He’d better specify that he stand behind Plexiglas, is my advice. The alt-right will be feverish in its portrayal of him as the Hideous Enemy in the days leading up to that testimony.
If I’m honest, to some extent that only feeds into the theory that he was fired because he enjoys being provocative and staying in the limelight.
I would prefer that he exercise the same discretion that he would be expected to hold if he was still the Director of the FBI. He should debrief in private to a person or group that he trusts to do the right thing (e.g., the Senate Intelligence Committee) and if, at their recommendation, they want him to make that same information known publicly, only then should he do so.
Unless he’s able to reveal something that amounts to more than putting Trump in his place, i.e. revealing information that should be public knowledge but that the Republican party can’t afford to let into the open, then I don’t think there’s any strong benefit to a public appearance. It will only help to further insert the wedge between the backers of each party.
Going back to the OP’s question, and many commenters’ suggestions that a special prosecutor is needed, here’s a counterpoint from Frum - David Frum:
Frum makes some interesting points: the likely penny-ante nature of any crimes that can be proven by a prosecutor. And how likely such investigation is to spend months or years working silently, emerging miles off-course with a small fish or two in its mouth. (Twain: “Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.”)
(And yes, Frum’s probably on the right side of center politically, but this isn’t some kind of briar patch argument, I don’t think.)
Every big, direction changing report that I’ve seen Wikipedia pages devoted to (e.g., the Church Report) came from a committee. Whereas, for example, the only case that I can think of where an investigation was a one-man show was Ken Starr, and I’m pretty sure that was a boondoggle. Even the Republicans weren’t excited by the results.
It’s possible that the Democrats are simply going with the most drastic demand that they can, so that they have room to negotiate.
Frum has been very much on the record in opposition to Trump, before and after the election.
While it’s possible that was some sort of long-game tactic, such a thing seems unlikely, given that Trump isn’t known for being patient with people who criticize him as strongly as Frum has done. (And I doubt that Trump would understand ‘Frum has been saying incredibly insulting things about you for months as part of a plot to get his advice about special prosecutors/select committees a better hearing, sometime in the future when that becomes an issue’—too complex.)
In any case, the points he makes seem valid. A genuinely bipartisan and independent commission makes a lot of sense in our present circumstances.
After he said that he’s going to ban Muslims, then sends lawyers into court to argue that he didn’t really mean it?
After he said that he’s going to heal the divides in this country?
After he said that he’s going to have a health care plan that covers everyone, only to later endorse a healthcare plan that cuts 25 million from coverage?
After he said that his inauguration crowds were the biggest in history?
After he said that millions of illegal aliens accounted for Clinton’s margin in the popular vote?
Seriously, it goes on and on. Words are totally disposable to this President. Repeating what he says as an indicator of what he thinks this moment, what he may think tomorrow, or even God forbid what he will do is probably the worst possible evidence of anything that can be presented on this message board.
Unless and until you have evidence that he was either mistaken or lying in his comments, disregarding what he said and assuming the contrary is jumping to conclusions without evidence. Now, as I pointed out, the value of the statements by the President is variable, depending upon who you are (I did say YMMV).
I think I was pretty clear when I wrote that words are totally disposable to this President. That means not assuming the opposite of his words to be the truth. His use of the English language is mainly to bring attention to himself, not to communicate ideas.
Honestly, I am perfectly happy to see Comey canned, for the reason mentioned. In fact, I even agree with T that he is a showboat. But he was also investigating T and gets a few points for that. Interesting to see how long before T gets his AG to fire Mueller.