He made a complete and utter tit of himself. If that was deliberate then I just don’t know any more.
Trump with his tweeting (and his ranting in general) is probably a lot like a person failing at sticking to a diet. Experts tell him it’s harmful, and sometimes he’s willing to sort-of accept it, but mostly the urge to do it is too strong to overcome.
This is silly, IMO.
There was also the line of questioning that seemed to be setting up the idea that, yes, Trump tried to obstruct the FBI, but since he did so in such a way that had no chance of actually being effective, that it doesn’t count. So, legally speaking, can a plan to obstruct not be illegal merely because it is stupid?
The RNC and White House thanks you for your service. Keep those talking points close!
He is an ex officio (non-voting) member of the Intelligence Committee, not a “special guest.”
An absolutely true statement. She is, in fact, capable of saying that.
My memory might be off. I thought there was a specific question about the Steele dossier, along with an invitation to deny its validity or relevance, and a “can’t answer that question” reply.
Sure, but in a city like Washington, as “leaky” as it is, if one is not loyal to the president they are gonna get shitcanned, or they should, that’s just the way it is. This is not news.
I think it’s along the lines of “Trump could not have committed obstruction of justice, because he’s too stupid to understand how government works.”
You guys just don’t see it. Comey is playing 12 d chess! He took out Clinton, now he’s got Trump in his sites, and he’s laying the groundwork on Pence and Sessions (just for fun!). Comey 2020, get the memo!
Cool; I see that Tzigone already found Happy’s post.
Hey buddy, I’m still looking for your response to the following:
We need to look at a few things in Comey’s prepared statement that are worrysome. Taken in totality, they really do lead to a single conclusion: That Trump was pressuring Comey to drop the investigation into his buddy Flynn:
January 27 Dinner
-
“The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job …”
-
“A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.”
-
(In a subsequent Feb 14 meeting) "The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
These three comments by Trump establish that he was pressuring Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. This was a violation of the law, in my opinion. And also in the opinion of law-talking people in decent positions. So I don’t think I’m completely off base here.
And this was followed by an explanation from Mr. Trump himself about WHY he fired Comey:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt: “And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said ‘you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won’.”
That was a wisecrack he made, and a pretty good one actually. He wasn’t suggesting that anything be “hacked” by foreigners, as posited by the usual suspects feigning the vapors. Recall by this time Clinton was no longer at the state department, none of her homebrew servers were connected to the internet. It was merely a wry commentary on how FUBAR everything had become in already bizarro-land city.
I, for one, recognize the difference between someone who works against the President’s agenda and no longer has the President’s confidence, and the President seeking to place himself on equal (or perhaps superior) footing as the Constitution in terms of requiring allegiance.
Smart move. The answer may be too nuanced (in addition to being classified) for a general audience. Because, let’s be honest, the public has no understanding of nuance…even Senators don’t, like when someone’s boss’ boss says to one “I ‘hope’ that thing gets taken care of”.
Trump can fire the FBI Director for any reason. That person serves at the pleasure of the President. Comey mentioned that several times.
Maybe those executive powers should be changed to make that position totally independent.
Right now, our President acted legally.
The hill you’re choosing to die on is eroding.
Comey does not come off well here and his actions very troubling. Let’s take one of his statements from today:
Trump asks everyone to leave and Comey thinks, and I quote here, “something big is about to happen”. And his reaction is to do… nothing. Were his legs broken? Did the Secret Service restrain him? No? Then stand up and say “Sir, it is not appropriate for us to meet alone” and walk out the door.
It looks really, really, really bad for him to allow what he considered to be an inappropriate meeting to occur and then immediately write down what transpired. That appears an awful lot like Comey deliberately creating a weapon to use against Trump later.
Very possible. But since Comey was, as a matter of policy, refusing to answer any questions about the substance of the investigation, then this particular response doesn’t have any meaning beyond that.
[As a practical matter, you can’t refuse to answer all questions that have positive answers but answer the ones that have negative ones. Because that means that you’re answering them all. So if you have such a policy, then you need to refuse them all.]
I agree with your conclusion but I don’t think it was done on purpose. McCain has been addled for years. I believe that he is genuinely confused about the things he appears to be confused about. Perhaps “the GOP” planted the confusion in his mind, but that seems like a stretch. It seems far more believable that an old man who hasn’t been making much sense for many years is simply confused.