Pages

Friday, June 9, 2017

Not so fast...

So one of the major talking points on the right was James Comey's testimony regarding the Hillary Clinton Email investigation and his obvious dissatisfaction with the way that Loretta Lynch handled that case.  Some are even suggesting that special counsel or some sort of congressional inquiry should be appointed so the whole matter could be investigated.

Under oath, Comey suggested that Lynn was not objective, that she should have recused herself, and that she probably should have appointed special counsel. He suggested that she may have misused her authority by demanding he not refer to the Clinton probe as an "investigation", but rather as a "matter".

Now, there has been much criticism of how Lynn handled the investigation and many questions as to whether she was being loyal to Justice or loyal to Clinton and her Party. I have made those criticisms myself. But to a large degree those criticisms are, like it or not, largely political. Loretta Lynch had the authority (for the most part) to make the judgement calls she made, even if they are seen by many as blatantly political in nature.

I believe there is a real danger in trying to turn poor decisions (or even blatantly political decisions) into something criminal.  At what point should we judge someone exercising their authority as a criminal act? Where would you draw that line? How obvious are the slippery slope problems here? Our government has become increasingly partisan. I would not want to see our criminal justice become equally partisan, with possible criminal charges against political appointees being determined by the outcome of an election.

To me, this is a matter of consistency as well. I will make the same argument in defense of Loretta Lynch as I do in defense of Donald Trump. You may not like Trump's decision to provide his personal opinion about General Flynn's legal situation to the FBI director. But it's well within his authority to do so. Not only is the FBI director a subordinate to the President, but specifically the President always has the right to end legal jeopardy for any individual with a Presidential pardon... just as the Attorney General has that authority by offering criminal immunity.

Both of those examples offer the opportunity for people to question it as "obstructing justice". A pardon or immunity might be given to someone we would personally like to see behind bars. But by nature, those decisions have to be made by those who have the authority. Turning the second guessing of those decisions into criminal probes would be extremely harmful to our system. We need to be mindful of the larger picture, and not let our current emotional state drive our logic.

171 comments:

James said...

It's really strange that you keep harping on a President's right to pardon someone. We all know that is a power of the President that can be abused; thank goodness, we have had few Presidents who have abused it. Ford probably thought it was right for him to pardon Nixon. Regardless, he paid a political price.

Apparently you think that at some point Trump will be forced to take that step in order to save or try to save his own behind.

(Maybe he can try to pardon himself?)

Loretta said...

Good food for thought, CH.

Boswell will start spamming this thread in 3, 2, 1.....

C.H. Truth said...

James - did you read the post? You obviously didn't get the point.

Of course politicians can be "seen" to be abusing their authority. As I explained, many people (including myself) felt that Lynn abused her authority in the Clinton email investigation for a wide variety of reasons.

But an "opinion" as to whether or not someone is abusing an authority that they are bestowed in their job is not grounds for criminal investigations and criminal charges.

To advocate for such criminal investigations and criminal charges over people in the Government exercising their constitutional authorities will eventually lead to the results of the next election ultimately determining whether a work related action is considered "legal" or "abuse".

James said...

Did Comey advocate that Lynch be criminally investigated and charged?

C.H. Truth said...

James...

Get back to me when you figure out the point.

Loretta said...

Good Lord.

James said...

YOU said:
Under oath, Comey suggested that Lynn was not objective, that she should have recused herself, and that she probably should have appointed special counsel. He suggested that she may have misused her authority by demanding he not refer to the Clinton probe as an "investigation", but rather as a "matter".

I SAY he then went on to say that even though he used that language, against his better judgment, the press immediately reported it differently.

Where is there, in any of this, a suggestion that she should be criminally investigated and charged?

Get back to me when you can explain that.

wphamilton said...

CH's point is that Lynch should NOT be charged, because her direction to Comey was, on the face of it, within her authority. Trump's direction to Comey was, on the face of it, within his authority. You cannot take either of these two incidents, and in isolation create a crime.

The problem is, neither of these events happened in isolation. Were details of the investigation leaked to target? Was the target allowed to coordinate responses having inside knowledge? Were procedures altered for the target? Was the investigation manipulated in any material way? Depending on these questions, and I'm sure a lot more that I've overlooked, Lynch's direction could have been one part of a criminal conspiracy.

For Trump, different questions but the same general idea. These conversations, unethical or corrupt as they may be, don't PROVE by themselves that Lynch or Trump committed any crime. But neither does their authority absolve them from crimes, if crimes were committed.

I think that the partisan default position is, we may not like it but it's all politics and there are no possible charges for either of them. My non-partisan view is, for the sake of Democracy, go after both of them and if any case can be made, prosecute with all vigor.

Commonsense said...

For there to be obstruction, I think you have to go back to the question as to whether a crime was committed in the first place.

1. The Hillary e-mail case had definitive evidence that a crime existed (violation of the espionage act).

2. In the case of the Trump/Russian
"collusion" no one can say that there is even a crime to pursue.

If there is no crime there is no obstruction.

Roger Amick said...

https://youtu.be/09TcGuZI6xg
The Republicans would be the happiest people on Earth with Trump instead of Nixon in this video

Roger Amick said...

https://youtu.be/09TcGuZI6xg

C.H. Truth said...

I think that the partisan default position is, we may not like it but it's all politics and there are no possible charges for either of them. My non-partisan view is, for the sake of Democracy, go after both of them and if any case can be made, prosecute with all vigor.

What you are advocating WP... would be the constant second guessing of job related decisions as criminal acts... pretty much every time the executive branch changed from one Party to the next.

Or as it stands right now... a congressional election that may determine whether or not the President faces an impeachment vote in the House regardless of what the outcome of the investigation happens to be. Mueller could come out and say there was no obstruction and Democrats would still support. Mueller could come out and say there as obstruction and Republicans will still oppose.

Criminal Justice by election... might makes right.

Are there circumstances that would rise to the level where everyone agrees that crimes have been committed? Sure.

The President of the United States (as far as I understand) cannot Pardon himself, and therefore logically could not order an investigation of "himself" to be stopped. A President, Attorney General, or FBI director cannot break laws themselves (destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses, etc...)

But whether or not otherwise perfectly legal decisions are good, bad, partisan, biased, fair, unfair... or whatever... I don't believe that there is any good that can come from those types of decisions being investigated as criminal actions. You don't like the job an elected official or appointed person is doing, then the proper constitutional remedy is the next election. Not criminal prosecution.

C.H. Truth said...

To be clear... if it turned out that Lynch hid evidence from Comey, or somehow intimidated witnesses, or received some sort of quid-pro-quo to hand out immunity or limited testimony agreements... then the job related decisions could come into play.

If, for instance, it could be proven that Hillary Clinton offered Lynch to stay on as AG if her investigation was thwarted... then those same job related decisions would definitely be criminal.


But to be extra clear here... the "possibility" that such an event took place, or even the "probability" that such an event took place does not lead me to believe that we should simply investigate with "all vigor" just because we can piece something together as a theory.

I would suggest like most investigations, you need more than an allegation. You need something of substance to get an investigation moving.

james said...

Speaking of something of substance: Shortly after Comey's testimony, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer challenged the White House to release the supposed tapes Trump indicated he may be in possession of.

He said: "It's awfully curious that no one from the president's team will either confirm or deny the existence of the tapes when the tapes are the only way to prove that Mr. Comey's testimony, which came under oath, are false or misleading."

During an off-camera press briefing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about whether or not there is a taping system in the White House, and said she had no idea, joking that she would "look under the couches for them."

But this is no joke, Sarah. If those tapes exist, even Republican reps are insisting that they be made available. (signed) James

wphamilton said...

It's not at all true that you must prove a crime before there can be obstruction. Not does there have to BE a crime, proven or otherwise.

There are several Federal statutes dealing with Obstruction of Justice. Some are very specific, such as killing a person to prevent his testimony. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 is interesting reading.

Yet there are also very broad, general definitions. Right at the start of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, if you corruptly, by intimidation influence an investigation, you are guilty of obstruction. The section looks like it applies to only judicial proceedings, but in practice it is applied to any law enforcement investigation. There is categorically, no requirement that any crime was actually committed. There only needs to be an investigation, or other court proceeding or lawful duties of officers of the court.

Think about it - the mob boss threatens witnesses in his racketeering trial. If you were right, he could never be convicted of obstruction because the witnesses wouldn't testify at his racketeering trial! No crime committed, no obstruction in your view. But that's not what happens, if they can show witness tampering.

Commonsense said...

Think about it - the mob boss threatens witnesses in his racketeering trial. If you were right, he could never be convicted of obstruction because the witnesses wouldn't testify at his racketeering trial.

But the underlying crime is racketeering. So he would be obstructing justice.

There is a reason you need an underlying crime to prosecute obstruction. If there wasn't anybody who refused to cooperate with a fishing expidetion could be charged.

wphamilton said...

If, for instance, it could be proven that Hillary Clinton offered Lynch to stay on as AG if her investigation was thwarted... then those same job related decisions would definitely be criminal.

Precisely! If there were any quid pro quo, any deals offered, than Lynch's instruction to Comey looms large. If there were any quid pro quo between Trump's people and the Russians, any deal offered, then Trump's instruction to Comey looms large.

We do know that Flynn offered easing of sanctions against Russia. He discussed military cooperation favorable to the Russians. That's half of it - was there any hint of Russian help in the election coming back? If there is, then Trump's attempt to halt the inquiry indicts him.

With all of those covert communications during the election, and the amoral business history of Trump and his associates it is likely that there was. I won't say a dead lock certainty, but be realistic. Intercepted Russian intelligence shows that they were pursuing several Trump associates, and believed they had solid influence. Do you really believe that they never offered anything? What are the odds? It's a matter of digging it out and proving it.

Commonsense said...

Speaking of something of substance: Shortly after Comey's testimony, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer challenged the White House to release the supposed tapes Trump indicated he may be in possession of.

We don't know whether tapes exist but we do know Comey's memos exist.

It would be nice to see all of the memos other that the bits and pieces Comey chooses to release.

wphamilton said...

But the underlying crime is racketeering. So he would be obstructing justice.

There is an INVESTIGATION of racketeering, or a TRIAL for racketeering. He could be completely innocent, no crime there. Or a hung jury couldn't convict him. And still obstruct justice, get tried for it and serve time in prison.

Commonsense said...

But there is no doubt the Racketeering crime exist.

The investigation is about who is responsible for the racketeering.

wphamilton said...

There is a reason you need an underlying crime to prosecute obstruction. If there wasn't anybody who refused to cooperate with a fishing expidetion could be charged.

Make no mistake: you can be charged if you obstruct even a fishing expedition.

If you're fighting a phony speed trap in backwoods magistrate, and you intimidate a witness, you can be charged.

It requires a judicial proceeding, that's all.

C.H. Truth said...

Think about it - the mob boss threatens witnesses in his racketeering trial. If you were right, he could never be convicted of obstruction because the witnesses wouldn't testify at his racketeering trial! No crime committed, no obstruction in your view.

I guess you are not following...

You are comparing perfectly legal job related actions (such as an AG providing criminal immunity or a President providing a pardon) - with the actions of a mob boss?

It seems to me that you have moved beyond any assumption that the normal every day actions of the AG and President would be legal, and now are comparing them to Mob bosses.

Perhaps it's your feelings about our leaders being like mob bosses that creates our differences here?


My point is clear.

Absence of some evidence that other crimes were committed in relation... otherwise perfectly legal job authorized actions should not be investigated as "criminal" - just because you could piece together a "theory" that there was some bad intent.

C.H. Truth said...

Intercepted Russian intelligence shows that they were pursuing several Trump associates, and believed they had solid influence.

You mean the NYT reports that James Comey stated under oath yesterday were "almost entirely wrong".

Suggesting that those who are leaking classified information do not have an understanding of what they were leaking, while those who do have an understanding of the classified information are not leaking.


There were no ties between Trump associates and Russian intelligence, no matter how many times the NYT wants to suggest it.

C.H. Truth said...

We do know that Flynn offered easing of sanctions against Russia.

We know it was suggested by people within the Clinton team that she was leaning towards keeping Lynch on as Attorney General. Certainly could be seen as a tossing some incentive out there?

But without some specific agreement of quid-pro-quo, is there really a "there there"?

Again... we can piece together all sorts of theories and suggestions... but it doesn't mean that we have evidence of a crime.

Roger Amick said...

There's a lock out the article in the Wall Street Journal on the impulsive behavior of Donald Trump

wphamilton said...

Speaking of not following ...

"You are comparing perfectly legal job related actions (such as an AG providing criminal immunity or a President providing a pardon) - with the actions of a mob boss?"

No sir, I am giving an example of why Obstruction doesn't require that a crime has been committed.

With that, I'm finished trying to educate on this subject. If you want to know the fact of it, Google the two code sections I provided above. Or keep your cherished illusions, I don't care.

C.H. Truth said...

No sir, I am giving an example of why Obstruction doesn't require that a crime has been committed.

Technically Scooter Libby was charged and convicted of obstruction of an investigation that otherwise uncovered no real crime. But lying under oath, witness tampering, destruction of evidence... are crimes in and of themselves.

But you cannot use that as an example of why you could charge someone with obstruction for performing perfectly legal actions authorized to them by the job they hold....

My point is that absence of other crimes proving otherwise... perfectly legal actions should not be investigated as criminal, just because someone can create some theory as to why they "could" be criminal.

wphamilton said...

But without some specific agreement of quid-pro-quo, is there really a "there there"?

Yes you need a quid pro quo. No, you do NOT need it in the same sentence, the same conversation, or the same two people. You have to find a line connecting the quid and the quo. It doesn't have to be "specific". It doesn't have to be an "agreement" either - it could be a clandestine negotiation, which likely includes good faith actions.

Find any incident of the Trump campaign asking for something illicit from the Russians, and that's as "specific" as this needs to be. Show where the Russians followed through for that request, and that's all the "agreement" you need. A prosecutor might want more, but these imaginary pseudo-legal requirements are irrelevant.

wphamilton said...

perfectly legal actions should not be investigated as criminal, just because someone can create some theory as to why they "could" be criminal.

Really? Wasn't it "perfectly legal" for Nixon to tell his Secretary of State to deliver a directive to the CIA?

Isn't it "perfectly legal" to give money to a Judge, or to anyone you want to? It's "perfectly legal" to put a padlock on your own door, but a crime if you've locked tenants inside. I could do this all day, citing examples of actions which are "perfectly legal" by themselves, but criminal when taken together.

"Perfectly legal" action means you won't be charged for that action. If it's part of the case against you, nobody cares that it was "legal" all by itself.

If you want to talk specifically about Trump, and his "perfectly legal" instruction to Comey, the first hurdle this hinges on is whether Trump gave this "perfectly legal" instruction with a corrupt mind, intending to influence the investigation. He has to intend to have impeded or influenced it. That's not an easy task for the prosecutor, but it IS a true legal standard, as opposed to this "perfectly legal" fictional standard that you propose.

C.H. Truth said...

Okay WP... caught me on a technicality... while ignoring the previous statement?

But you cannot use that as an example of why you could charge someone with obstruction for performing perfectly legal actions authorized to them by the job they hold....

This is what we are talking about... job decisions that someone like an AG or and DA or whoever. They make judgement calls all the time about who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. Who to investigate. Who not to investigate. Who to give criminal immunity to. Who to not give criminal immunity to?

What do you propose is the criteria to start charging DA and Police detectives with obstruction because you do not agree with their decisions on who they decided to investigate and who they decided to prosecute and who they decided to provide immunity to?

This is a core part of their jobs. Decisions that we hope are made for the right reasons. But sometimes people are just going to disagree with whether or not the reasons are good.

Does the fact that an individual is a good person who has no criminal record and otherwise has suffered because of certain actions warrant a different decision than someone who is a repeat offender and is likely to continue to cause problems?

Of course a prosecutor is going to take that into consideration. Of course previous history and the type of individual who is involved will play a part in how an investigation goes. Heck a cop who pulls you over might determine whether or not you get a ticket based on your attitude, past driving record, and whether or not you otherwise looked like you were trying to cause other problems.

These are judgement calls...

At what point do "you" suggest we decide to investigate them as criminal?

If not some evidence that there was something unethical or otherwise illegal associated with the decision?

rrb said...



At what point do "you" suggest we decide to investigate them as criminal?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

as long as i've been alive there has only been a single standard to determine this -

is there an "R" or a "D" after their name?

that's pretty much it. there's your occam's razor answer and i would stand by it all day.



KD said...

It's really strange that you keep harping on a President's right to pardon someone. We all know that is a power of the President that can be abused." James

That is strange that you see a power exclusively given to this President and even thou he has yet to use it, you see it as an "abuse".

This President is the Commander of the Executive Branch, he could have demanded all investigations by the FBI be stopped, he did not. He could have pardoned anyone --- He did not. He also has the exclusive power to have an investigation started, which he just did, on Comey.

I love the sound of backfire in the morning.

KD, said...

we do know Comey's memos exist.

It would be nice to see all of the memos other that the bits and pieces Comey chooses "

I found it unbelievable that the Cowardly Lion Comey, did not bring the MEMO he typed out on a US owned secured Government lap top to the hearings, for that matter, just turn over the entire lap top and have it gone thru.

Liberals, Lawyers on your side are saying that Trump is not going to be impeached. How does that make you feel?

wphamilton said...

At what point do "you" suggest we decide to investigate them as criminal?

If not some evidence that there was something unethical or otherwise illegal associated with the decision?


To warrant an investigation, I would draw the line where:

1. There is a conflict of interest, where the person in authority is potentially a target of the investigation, or has close professional and/or personal relationships with targets.

AND

2. The person has in some way in fact influenced or impeded the investigation,

AND

3. the specific decision and/or nature of the interference is other than ordinary, in cases where there is no personal or professional involvement.

I'd say that the first two are clearly represented in Trump's case, and for the third I'd ask how many of the tens of thousands of FBI investigations going on, has Trump had Comey or his boss in his office and told them to drop it?

The judgement on where the line is, in reality, more difficult and complicated than I've outlined here, and highly situational with sometimes unique elements. But I believe these are a reasonable baseline for opening an inquiry.

rrb said...

The judgement on where the line is, in reality, more difficult and complicated than I've outlined here, and highly situational with sometimes unique elements. But I believe these are a reasonable baseline for opening an inquiry.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

in other words, the criteria is totally subjective, with the only qualifier being whether the target is a republican or a democrat.

i've covered this in a previous post.

case in point - general petraeus. petraeus authored his "black books" on a government laptop and once it was discovered he shared this classified data with his mistress he found himself up to his eyeballs in legal hot water.

of course, petraeus was a republican.

will comey suffer the same fate? not a chance. not after colluding with lynch to let hillary skate free.

you can parse and dissect the legal minutiae of obstruction of justice until the fucking cows come home, and even challenge alan dershowitz himself, but until what you are parsing is applied equally to republicans AND democrats, you're just wasting time and bandwidth.

wphamilton said...

But it it applied equally rrb, both Lynch and Trump are going to equally skate on bullying poor Comey. Unless something wild suddenly pops up.

C.H. Truth said...

2. The person has in some way in fact influenced or impeded the investigation,

I am guessing that you would consider a "legal actions" that falls within the scope of the job (such as a D.A. deciding not to prosecute or supervisor offering an opinion to a subordinate) as somehow an "impediment" of the investigation?

Seems like a pretty broad scope that would require probably three times as many people in law enforcement just to investigate each other for possible misdeeds.

rrb said...



only if you see lynch's collusion with the clinton campaign using their campaign approved language legally equal to -

"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."

particularly when trump is well within his exec authority to order flynn's investigation halted. and that's not even what he did with his plea to comey.

lynch otoh, received her marching orders directly from bill clinton in a highly unethical and most likely illegal meeting in phoenix. one that would never have been revealed except for a sharp local reporter.

so yeah, your double standard is duly noted. trump could skate on doing nothing wrong while lynch could skate on actually breaking the law.

hardly 'equally applied' but as 'equal' as it gets when it comes to application of the law to republicans vs. democrats.

my side always ends up having to be satisfied with this double standard because that's as good as it ever gets for the GOP.



james said...

Just watching Trump's live press conference along with Rumanian pres. and he gets a question about tapes and he can't just come right out and say whether there are or are not tapes. Instead he says "in a very short period of time" you will know and "you will be so disappointed."

President said Comey was lying under oath, but also said he was so truthful he vindicated him. So "he was a liar" and "he vindicated me." How can a liar do that?

Ducked the question whether Russia is a threat to Europe.

---Not a single Senator, Dem or Republican, on the committee yesterday questioned Comey's truthfulness.

rrb said...

Seems like a pretty broad scope that would require probably three times as many people in law enforcement just to investigate each other for possible misdeeds.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

precisely. every potentially illegal situation becomes a potential legal trap for all involved - both the accused and those conducting the investigation.

.

james said...

Regarding the tapes, it would have been so easy to say yes or no.

Is he maybe going to say I have them, but be damned of I'll give them to anyone.

I guess he thinks executive privilege means he will not have to prove that he is not now lying and Comey was.

james said...

*damned if I'll give them

If tapes exist, and Trump says he is willing to answer any questions Mueller has, Mueller will rightly insist on hearing the tapes, if they exist.

james said...

Does anyone doubt that if Trump were not on tape as saying that he walked up and grab them by the _____, he would have said that he never said that?

Loretta said...

Troll

Loretta said...

Troll

Loretta said...

Troll

james said...

Re: NO COLLUSION?

We better keep remembering that when Comey was asked if there was any evidence of Trump's people being in collusion with the Russians, Comey said he would not answer that in open session, but in closed session.

This thing just keeps growing tentacles, and that's not a good thing in Washington for sitting Presidents who are under a cloud.

KD, Liberal Hillary Support and Lawyer Dershowitz said...

“Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated [by the Trump-Russia collusion],” Dershowitz said. “And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime.”

KD, Hi James said...

Hi James, just wanted to stop in and inform you that "cloud" is raining on your parade.

CHT/WP civility rule in effect.

james said...

“Yes, I was on the Judiciary Committee that impeached Bill Clinton and sent him for trial in the Senate for matters less serious than the ones before us now.”
— Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), on Twitter.

KD, Winning Biggly, less people on Food Stamps, cool said...

James, I am being as civil toward you as I can.


“Ever wonder why of all the things in this investigation, the only thing that’s never been leaked is the fact that the president was not personally under investigation despite the fact that that both Democrats and Republicans in the leadership of Congress knew that and have known that for weeks” the senator continued.


That is how you call someone out, with class.

Comey, at that point coward, stuttered, 'Frooze" and wet himself.

KD, Keep running down the rabbit whole , ignore Real Life said...

IRL,, President Trump has nominated 11 very conservative Judges that will fill spots in the higher level federal courts. Attempting to restore some balance.

OH, and his NEW FBI Director,,, looks like his confirmation should go easy ,,,, as in 75 or more YES votes.

Winning the courts back and LEO's trust in the FBI , again.

james said...

What Republicans Are Saying This Morning

June 9, 2017Playbook: “Forget what the White House thinks of yesterday’s testimony. We spent the day in the Capitol, talking to Republican members of Congress — the ones that have to vote on President Donald Trump’s agenda — and they were absolutely shocked at how poorly yesterday went for the president. Publicly they say that the president is a political neophyte who is still learning the presidency. But privately, they said James Comey was extraordinarily convincing and Trump’s team absolutely botched their response. They’re all afraid of more shoes dropping.”
“Trump’s political standing on Capitol Hill is growing more and more perilous. Meanwhile, the RNC’s principal rebuttal seemed to be that the Obama administration had a bad day — which is true, but almost entirely irrelevant.

“Republicans were shocked just how well Comey came across. He didn’t try to jam his viewpoint down the committee’s throat, he was confident but not cocky and admitted, on several occasions, that his impression of his interactions could’ve be faulty, but the evidence otherwise seemed overwhelming to lawmakers.”

james said...

"...the evidence otherwise seemed overwhelming to lawmakers.”

And to the public.

james said...

Trump Accuses Comey of Lying

With an early morning tweet, President Trump accused former FBI director James Comey of lying under oath, Playbook observes.

“Lawmakers will say if the president believes Comey lied, Trump himself should come to Capitol Hill and testify under oath about his recollection of events. This is why keeping quiet is oftentimes the best idea. Trump has now created a whole new storyline that is certain to distract Washington for the days and weeks to come.”

“Note that most Republicans yesterday didn’t accuse James Comey of lying — in fact, many of them called him honest and honorable. They just took issue with whether Trump directly asked Comey to drop the Russia investigation.”

cowardly king obama said...


james, if you continue to refuse to follow the rules I will again have to completely and utterly demolish you including words you appear to avoid.

I on the other hand enjoy battering you with them and will start again unless you cease. I have just been trying to comply with what CHT has asked for here, but will not hold back if you refuse to comply. Fairs fair.

Your choice

KD said...

James, you speak now for "The Public"?

That is really amazing, given how little you talk for yourself, unless it is in a 50 piece cut n paste.

CHT/WP rule is really, really in effect.

Commonsense said...

With an early morning tweet, President Trump accused former FBI director James Comey of lying under oath

Uh No, this is the tweet.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 11h11 hours ago
More
Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!


Where in this tweet did Trump said Comey lied under oath?

That's the trouble with leftist. They see what they want to see instead of what is.

opie said...

Where in this tweet did Trump said Comey lied under oath?

He did say it at the presser in the rose garden this afternoon. .

wphamilton said...

I am guessing that you would consider a "legal actions" that falls within the scope of the job (such as a D.A. deciding not to prosecute or supervisor offering an opinion to a subordinate) as somehow an "impediment" of the investigation?

Yes . Impede in the normal, English usage of the word is how it is meant in the statutes.

Seems like a pretty broad scope that would require probably three times as many people in law enforcement just to investigate each other for possible misdeeds.

I think it's pretty standard.

Commonsense said...

He did say it at the presser in the rose garden this afternoon. .

He didn't say there either.

Trump: I didn't say that.

Reporter: Did Comey lie under oath.

Trump: I didn't say that.

opie said...

He said comey lied to the senate, which was under oath. IDIot. Suggest you watch it in english rather than republicon. LOL

opie said...

You want to reconsider your post Mr. .2% or do you want to double down on stupid again More crickets from menstral.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/09/trump-says-comey-lied-under-oath-remains-coy-on-tapes.html

James said...

I understand that late today laders of the House Intelligence Committee asked the White House to produce any tapes or other documentation that might exist of Trump’s conversations with Comey. (He earlier in a tweet suggested that Comey had better hope there were none.)

I understand rgR Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) asked White House counsel Don McGahn to confirm whether any tapes exist, and if so, to produce them for the committee by June 23.

Bi-partisan investigators are asking Trump to put up or---?

opie said...

BTW Child of menstral. those denials you quoted were for questions concerning whether he asked for loyalty and the flynn investigation. I guess again you admitting you were in error is better than trump releasing his taxes. He's playing you like the fool you are.

opie said...

Ossoff +7 in Ga 6.....Biggest lead yet out of MOE. maybe voters are finally coming out of their trump coma....still 2 weeks to go and a lot of things can change......

wphamilton said...

Ossoff has been polling with a small lead, and this latest big one, but I don't really trust it. I know, the district is more affluent than before, and more diverse and support for Trump is weakening. Yet Republican early votes (near as anyone can tell) are a lead for Handle. We see from pundits that Handel is focusing on mobilizing her core - Trump's core - while Ossoff is energizing new votes. And yet ... Handel's campaign is pounding our phones, not Osseff. It leads me to think there are movements and strategies that these polls are missing.

James said...

Commensa, it is amusing that you at 4:06 above accuse others of seeing what they want to see. For Trump to refer to "so many lies" in the same tweet he referred to Comey as a leaker can only mean that he is accusing Comey of lying under oath.

But you don't want to see what is so utterly obvious.

opie said...

Unlike CH, you post logic with your not trusting the polls....With the amount of money being spent, most of it from out of state from both sides, I sure hope this is not precedent for future races. Will be back in blairsville in 10 days to experience the assault of campaign ads that are most annoying. What the R's do better than anyone is getting their people to vote, unlike the D's who want something in return to get to the booth. To me, that is the most infuriating thing about this country, the abject lazy voters who don't think it is their supreme right and obligation to show up. Done venting. Going to be interesting to see how the poll changes after the lie fest of today.....

james said...



Ch said:
Not so fast...
So one of the major talking points on the right was James Comey's testimony regarding the Hillary Clinton Email investigation and his obvious dissatisfaction with the way that Loretta Lynch handled that case.  Some are even suggesting that special counsel or some sort of congressional inquiry should be appointed so the whole matter could be investigated.
__________________

Ch, could we have a link to some of those "some" who are suggesting that?

james said...

While we are waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting ... for Ch to provide that link,
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP----

Trump’s Lawyer Has Russian Ties Too

Washington Post: “The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

“Marc Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.”

No wonder you don't want me to post facts here.

james said...

Trump Escalates His Attacks on Comey

President Trump’s “combative press conference this afternoon, in which he declared his ‘100 percent’ willingness to rebut Jim Comey under oath, reflects the White House’s new take-no-prisoners war footing,” Axios reports.

The theory: “The best way to defend is to attack. If you’re explaining, you’re losing. White House officials, while recognizing the optics were devastating, tell us they were relieved that the substance of Comey’s testimony lacked a smoking gun. But they know that special counsel Bob Mueller poses A DIRE THREAT TO TRUMP'S HOLD ON THE OFFICE.”

Commonsense said...

For Trump to refer to "so many lies" in the same tweet he referred to Comey as a leaker can only mean that he is accusing Comey of lying under oath.

No it does not. Which is exactly my point. Until you can come up with a direct quote, presenting your pointless speculation as fact is in itself a lie.

Commonsense said...

Meanwhile, outside the bubble.

Trump Country Largely Unfazed by Comey Hearing

"A lot of our people view this as just a continual re-litigation of an election the Democrats lost," said Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina GOP, who said 800 Republicans came to a party gathering last weekend to hear Kellyanne Conway and Lara Trump speak. "Nothing that James Comey says is going to impact whether they can put gas in their car, whether they can feed their family, whether they can take an additional day at the beach or the mountains this summer."

cowardly king obama said...

Even when fucking little james tries to disguise his cut-n-paste he fucks up

"James said...
I understand that late today laders of..."

"I understand rgR Rep. Mike Conaway"

james laders and rgR only you understand, well I do too because this was an obvious cut-n-paste from an unattributed by you Politico story.

I guess if you comply to CHT's "rules" and quit spamming you actually have nothing, which is obvious to everyone. Oh other than worshipping at the feet of king obama, so you do have something.

ROFLMFAO !!!

opie said...

Commonsense said...
Meanwhile, outside the bubble.

You mean like military counties where he's lost 10 points of support???????

opie said...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-s-support-drops-military-communities-n768036

Unlike menstral who makes stuff up like trump, His error of comey lying and trumps statement stands by itself......link for crashing poll numbers of trump.

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

Let us note here that Ch and Wp have both suggested we could do without personal attack, insults, and the use of obscene words here. Most of us are observing that.

Commonsense said...

Well Opie, NBC never exactly said how it extrapolated the data but if you are using a regular national poll the sample would have to be considerable larger than the 1100 polled nationally in the usual job approval poll to get anywhere near a definitive conclusion over such a small demographic subset.

Or a regular poll targeting "military counties" would have to be conducted.

Neither possibilities seems likely.

James said...


Re 6:28 Why do you cherry pick the exchange? All you have to do is look at an actual transcript of the press conference and it is clear that Trump was specifically saying that he did not ask Comey to back off the investigation and thus was accusing Comey of lying under oath. He even affirmed that. No one but the most in-the-tank Trump supporters believes otherwise. The MSM is only telling the truth in reporting that.

Dare you to quote the transcript of that entire portion of the exchange IN FULL here.

Commonsense said...

Well I don't think you are going to get Opie to give up obscene insults.

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

7:44

James said...

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Mr. Trump, release those tapes!

Commonsense said...

Re 6:28 Why do you cherry pick the exchange?

I didn't cherry pick anything. I quoted Trump's entire tweet and the relevant portion of the interview.

If you had something you would have quoted it yourself instead of challenging me to re-quote the entire transcript.

James said...

Imagined scene in the Oval office:

VISITOR: And Mr. President, just let me say this in confidence [leans over and whispers into Trump's ear].

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Now repeat that into my cuff link.

James said...

During a joint press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis in the Rose Garden on Friday, President Donald Trump flatly denied former FBI Director James Comey's bombshell testimony in an open hearing on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Trump denied that he ever asked Comey for a pledge of loyalty, or suggested that he "let go" the criminal investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. He also said that would be "100%" willing to be questioned under oath. Following is a transcript of the video.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Who would like to ask — should I take one of the killer networks that treat me so badly as fake news? Should I do that?
Go ahead, Jon.
Be fair, Jon.

JONATHAN KARL: Oh, absolutely.

TRUMP: Remember how nice you used to be before I ran? Such a nice man.

KARL: Always fair. Mr. President, I want to get back to James Comey's testimony. You suggested he didn't tell the truth in everything he said. He did say, under oath, that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped the Flynn investigation, you could let — he could let go.

TRUMP: I didn't say that.

KARL: So he lied about that?

TRUMP: Well, I didn't say that. I mean, I will tell you, I didn't say that.

KARL: And did he ask you to pledge his —

TRUMP: And there'd be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I've read today, but I did not say that.

KARL: And did he ask for a pledge of loyalty from you? That's another thing he said.

TRUMP: No he did not.

KARL: So, he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of events?

TRUMP: 100%. I didn't say under oath — I hardly know the man, I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance, under oath? I mean, think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No, I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

KARL: So, if Robert Mueller wanted to speak with you about that you'd be willing to talk to him?

TRUMP: I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you, Jon.

KARL: And, you seem to be hinting that there are recordings of those conversations.

TRUMP: I'm not hinting anything, I'll tell you about it over a very short period of time.
Okay, do you have a question here?

KARL: When will you tell us about the recordings?

TRUMP: Over a fairly short period of time.

PRESS POOL: Tomorrow? Now? Are there tapes, sir?

TRUMP: Oh, you're going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer, don't worry.
____________________

What a poor excuse for a President!

But I am glad that even Commonsense like practically all observers, Republicans as well as Democrats, does not think that Comey was lying under oath.

James said...

"...And there'd be nothing wrong if I did say it..."

His lawyers tear out their hair when he makes self-contradictory statements like that.

cowardly king obama said...

James said... "Let us note here that Ch and Wp have both suggested we could do without personal attack, insults, and the use of obscene words here. Most of us are observing that."

Uh NO, I don't recall ever seeing CHT mentioning any sort of rule regarding language, in fact I recall him being quite graphic (appropriately) towards fucking james and his inappropriate behavior.

I do recall him asking james to stop spamming many times.

fucking shithead james only swallows his own rules and therefore so will I.

ROFLMFAO !!!

James said...

The discussions go on so much better here when obscenities and insults are left out. We can also do without meaningless things like ROFLMFAO.

cowardly king obama said...

for a poor excuse of a president you only need to look to Obama

and his pen and phone..., guess it was disappearing ink


ROFLMFAO !!!

cowardly king obama said...


hey fucking james

you are not the board monitor, in fact you don't even abide by the "rules"

so fuck off

ROFLMFAO !!!

Commonsense said...

That's not self-contradictory James. You should learn the meaning of that word.

And there is a rather large legal body of opinion that the president may order an investigation terminated and/or fire executive officers without being liable for "obstruction of justice".

Or to put it another way. If a president could be held liable for quashing an investigation, Barack Obama would be in a whole lot of trouble.

Commonsense said...

Well James we just assume that nobody would risk the penalties of perjury.

But different people remember things differently and Comey was artful enough to not speak to actual facts that can be disproved but to his own "feelings and impressions" that can't be disproved. Including his own "feeling that Trump is a liar".

You can't disprove thoughts and feelings so it's a neat way to create a false narrative without actually committing perjury.

Loretta said...

Nothing but trolling from James Boswell.

Yawn.

Rev. Jim Boswell said...

I learned a long time ago that CS never lies or misrepresents, even when he does. ;-)

Interesting headlines at politicalwire.com this morning:

Comey's Leak Was Not Illegal
Conservatives Near Revolt on Healthcare Bill
Trump Undermines Tillerson

Commonsense said...

Gee James, aren't you now insulting and participating in uncivil behavior?

Hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism.

rrb said...

Including his own "feeling that Trump is a liar".
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ironic as hell considering the fact that comey served the previous president who lied pathologically, and that he offered support for another pathological liar who sought the white house as her consolation prize for staying married to yet another pathological liar for several decades.

but it was trump that concerned comey most as having a tendency to lie.

heh.

opie said...


Well I don't think you are going to get Opie to give up obscene insults.

Depends on what your definition of obscene is. I consider trump and everything he says to be obscene, are you going to stop being an idiot????? LOL

opie said...

n't say that. I mean, I will tell you, I didn't say that.

IOW"S trump called comey a liar. Any non trump sycophant would see that is what he said.

opie said...

Shocking. Plus Mueller has brought in a noted criminal prosecutor to his team....wonder who is going to get it you know where????????

Trump’s lawyer in Russia probe has clients with Kremlin ties WP head line.

opie said...

but it was trump that concerned comey most as having a tendency to lie.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Thousands cheering as the towers fell.....Obama's born overseas..... Tower was tapped.... and you think comey is the one who lies. LOLOLOLOL.

Commonsense said...

IOW"S trump called comey a liar.

That is your opinion and we all know what that's worth.

opie said...

It's opinion echoed by many more than measly me, menstral. Like GW is a hoax, evolution is fake, I guess you are just a superior thinker than most who follow others thoughts, not your own... LOLOLOL Just because you have OCD, doesn't make you correct. Suggest you google trump called comey a liar, you get some very interest results from reich wing sites like fox. As a matter of fact, Chris Wallace thinks trump is toast. Very funny read for me, devastating for you. LOLOLOL

Jim Boswell said...


Wow. Chris Wallace thinks Trump is toast? Wow.

opie said...

For Rat hole.......another example of massive voter fraud shut down in Indiana.....seems no illegal votes were cast. Still looking for those 5 million illegal votes trump claimed. LOL

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/09/voter-registration-group-charged-falsifying-registrations/384244001/

Commonsense said...

Reporters have been calling Trump "toast" for years now.

And every time they have been wrong.

Every damn time.

opie said...

Yep. He's now the canary in a coal mine.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/704529/fox-news-chris-wallace-says-comeys-testimony-damaging-trump

opie said...

Commonsense said...
Reporters have been calling Trump "toast" for years now.

Yep and fox news was not one of them was it menstral. Plus trump hadn't done a string of naive things yet. Great that Paul Ryan gives a 70 year old president a pass on being stupid. Great leadership there doncha think. LOLOLOL

James said...

Cursing is not necessary, CS. Don't they teach you that at church?
And isn't it in the Sermon on the Mount?

Loretta said...

Fuck off troll.

James said...

Commentators here and elsewhere frequently called Obama toast.
He served two terms, however.
Trump may not reach that. Apparently Chris Wallace thinks not.

cowardly king obama said...


I see the "pastor" continues to lie, obfuscate and not practice what he preaches.

Chris Wallace did not call Trump toast.

What a fucking piece of shit you are, Hell can't be hot enough.



Commonsense said...

James has an expansive interpretation of the 9th commandment.

wphamilton said...

If by "toast" we mean that Trump is politically damaged to the extent that he is unable to effect major policy initiatives, then that would be almost a best-case scenario. For Americans, maybe even for Republicans if by this they learn where the line is, in promoting dishonest attacks.

Accomplish what you can, take your lumps and field capable candidates next time.

James said...

Note the following, WP:

"NONESENSE": POWERFUL REPUBLICAN DENOUNCES WHITE HOUSE SHUT OUT

Chuck Grassley (R), who has served in the Senate since 1981, called the attempt to cut off information from Democrats per the Office of Legal Counsel's guidance "nonsense" and described it as "a bureaucratic effort by the Office of Legal Counsel to insulate the executive branch from scrutiny by the elected representatives of the American people."

The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Justice Department and its Office of Legal Counsel, which published the guidance last month.

Grassley said it goes against the U.S. Constitution by misrepresenting how Congress functions and trying to tell the legislative branch how to do its job. It also impedes Democratic lawmakers' ability to check up on the president, a responsibility also laid out in the constitution, Grassley wrote in a letter replete with footnotes and case citations.

/www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/09/nonsense-powerful-republican-denounces-white-house-informatio/22135148/

James said...

*NONSENSE

cowardly king obama said...


I guess from your definition Obama was toast from early on his first term. Despite being "toast" then he got a second term. And checking the only "likely voter" poll I see Trump still has 46% approval... definitely high enough for second term possibilities, especially going against a very week bench. Way too soon to feel strongly in any direction as I'm sure you know.

All those pen things didn't seem to age well however...

wphamilton said...

Sen. Grassley is right in my opinion - I don't know the correct legal or Constitutional answer to whether the Administration can unilaterally ignore individual Senators but it's not a good idea. I think if a senior Senator on the relevant committee signs off on disregarding a random Senator who is fishing for trouble, then it would be justifiable but that would have to be on a case-by-case basis.

Escalating tension between Congress and a President's Administration under siege of investigations and inquiries has to be the wrong strategy, and messing with Constitutional powers and authority is even worse.

But what strikes me is the almost accidental context of the Administration withholding information from Congress, and the White House tapes that may or may not exist - which tapes, if they do exist, are being withheld by President Trump and would answer or confirm the accusations of Comey made against him. It seems like Nixon made a mistake with audio tapes ... and it snowballed into a constitutional crisis ...

KD, President Trump, not going anywhere said...

I just checked WHITEHOUSE.GOV, and President Trump is still the sitting President.

I see that, however, not for long, right?

Monday , will the Dems stop running their collective sucks and state impeachment?

KD, Impeachment clock starts Monday said...

"Constitutional Crisis"

Yep, started about 3 pm on November 9th of 2016.

Go for it, get your congressman to start the impeachment.


Meanwhile in the US Economy, we hit a milestone in the wealth of private citizens , it is at an all time High, we the people are wealthier then ever in the history of this nation, Making US Rich again.

Oh, and on the economy welfare roles are dropping like a rock, people are less likely to submit for unemployment and food stamps.

KD, from the Hospice Blog said...

TrumpCare Will Leave 23,000,000 Americans Left To Die - Roger Amick

That is the election slogan for 2018.

wphamilton said...

Impeachment would be a form of Constitutional crisis I guess, but generally it's when the executive branch or legislative branch oversteps their constitutional authority, or infringes on the constitutional authority of the other. With an impasse, the matter is brought before the Supreme Court, which hopefully resolves the conflict and forces one branch to comply if necessary.

It's not a good idea for a weakened President to provoke a constitutional crisis because it will further estrange Congress and further weaken the Administration should they lose. If there is already a cloud over whatever the President is balking over - such as the purported tapes - it can become worse than simply being weakened politically. Trump is not Nixon yet, but is he starting to follow in Nixon's footsteps?

KD, The next Dem as President should be treated the same as Trump has said...

Wp, we all due respect.


Nov. 9th, 2016 was when this got started, the Duly Elected President has been under the so called "cloud" by the media and liberals and the Democrat Party on that date.

After that the hate took over, it does explain the actions of many here and the lamestream media that does nothing but report negatively upon this President.

I have stopped watching all the news, really, what is the point, Trump is the devil and is killing mother earth. Really, and when a few years ago he was a Democrat and flooding money to NY DEMS, including Hillary, he was what?


Donald Trump donated $175,860 more to Democrats than Republicans from 1989 to 2010",, oh that, well that was before he defeated Hillary, Obama, Biden and the 17 Republicans.

The thing that is really getting my blood boiling is the attack upon me, for my vote, for my Trump vote, the constant need to nullify my vote by any means .


I believe the hate trumpers are on their 5 reason why he should be impeached.

opie said...

LiAR KD, from the Hospice Blog said...
TrumpCare Will Leave 23,000,000 Americans Left To Die - Roger Amick


Gee, surprise surprise......KD like trump made that up. Why do weak minded farmers lie?????

OPIE said...

Farmer idiot said.....

"cloud" by the media and liberals and the Democrat Party on that date.

Yep, all of trumps travails are self inflicted. And you still support him. Amazing the lack of intellect you show with that LEO degree you allegedly have. LOLOOLO

opie said...

Loretta said...
Fuck off troll.

Leave it to a damaged women to toss the first stoned troll. LOLOLOL!!!!

KD, Bless your Heart Opie and have a great evening said...

Gee, surprise surprise......KD like trump made that up. Why do weak minded farmers lie?????" our Friend Opie

Well, Mr Opie, if you have an issue with this:

"TrumpCare Will Leave 23,000,000 Americans Left To Die - Roger Amick"

Then you should take it up with the Author, Roger Amick
Posted by Roger Amick at 6:49 AM

KD, Fast and Furious said...

Mr Opie a question for ya.


Did you support Obama for his two terms?

KD said...


@AlanDersh

We should stop talking about obstruction of justice. No plausible case. We must distinguish crimes from pol sins"

yep

opie said...


Did you support Obama for his two terms?

None of your business....Funny how you embrace Alan when you have ridiculed him on all other occasions. LOLOLOLOL


"TrumpCare Will Leave 23,000,000 Americans Left To Die - Roger Amick"

Your quote, point to the place he said it!!!!. Prove it or go plant a hill of tomato's . Idiot trumpette liar.

opie said...

Message for KD the dirt bag


Loretta said...
Fuck off troll.

wphamilton said...

Nov. 9th, 2016 was when this got started, the Duly Elected President has been under the so called "cloud" by the media and liberals and the Democrat Party on that date.

After that the hate took over, it does explain the actions of many here and the lamestream media that does nothing but report negatively upon this President.


This is all true. The media has treated Trump horribly, consistently going to ridiculous lengths in their attacks. Washington Post deletes my comments btw, if I ask questions they can't answer. You can't trust their, anyone's, journalism any more, or the experts they cite, nor the editorial staff such as they even have one nowadays.

Yet Trump has supplied a lot of material though in this Comey conflict. Without Trump's contradictory reasons for firing him, without Trump himself linking it to the Russia probe, and without Trump going hard at Comey insisting that Comey lied about everything in his sworn testimony, I doubt that the alleged White House tapes of their encounter would be an issue. But Trump has made them an issue, if they exist, and the more he plays cute with them the more it looks like a cover-up.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

James said...

Wp, you defend Trump far beyond what he deserves. He himself is responsible for much of the criticism he has received. Again and again he has appalled even his own handlers by the way he mis-conducts himself.

American journalism is still smarting under the realization that they played along with his game long enough to help him get elected. They abandoned the kind of rigorous probing they should have been giving him all along and gave his ridiculousness far more play than it deserved. They allowed him to dominate headline after headline after headline.

All they are doing now is pointing out what a poor excuse he is for one who inhabits the high office that he bloviated into and which almost no one including himself actually expected him to get.

James said...

As the NYT points out below, even now we are allowing Trump's ridiculous boisterousness to divert our attention to him away from what is really important and a very, very serious manner, as Comey tried to stress. The Russians are there and they will be back. They are a serious threat.

So is President who makes everything about his own preposterous self. The sooner we get rid of him the better.
______________________

Political Scandal Eclipses Russian Threat

New York Times: “What started out as a counterintelligence investigation to guard the United States against a hostile foreign power has morphed into a political scandal about what Mr. Trump did, what he said and what he meant by it. Lawmakers have focused mainly on the gripping conflict between the president and the FBI director he fired with cascading requests for documents, recordings and hearings.

“But from the headquarters of the National Security Agency to state capitals that have discovered that the Russians were inside their voter-registration systems, the worry is that attention will be diverted from figuring out how Russia disrupted American democracy last year and how to prevent it from happening again. Russian hackers did not just breach Democratic email accounts; according to Mr. Comey, they orchestrated a ‘massive effort’ targeting hundreds of — and possibly more than 1,000 — American government and private organizations since 2015.”

Commonsense said...

So James you think the media didn't do enough to prevent Donald Trump from being elected?

James said...

It is appalling how little attention Trump has given the Russian threat. It's as if for him it does not exist.

As he cozies up with Putin I find myself wondering if the Russians really do have something on him so devastating it would bring him to an end if they release it.

James said...

I think they did not do enough to vet any candidate of either party. Journalism is supposed to be investigative, not just headline seeking for the sake of ratings.

News magnates made lots of money. And gave us Trump.

Commonsense said...

You mean all the made-up accusations of sexual assault didn't do the job?

All the accusation of racism?

Seems to me they went to heroic lengths to influence the election.

opie said...

You mean all the made-up accusations of sexual assault didn't do the job?

IOW's the pussy grabbing comments are okay by you. LOLOLOLOL

Loretta said...
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Loretta said...
Fuck off troll.

james said...

Opie, why in the world do you constantly repeat foul language?
Repeating it is neither clever nor productive.

wphamilton said...

Blogger James said...
Wp, you defend Trump far beyond what he deserves. He himself is responsible for much of the criticism he has received.

That's a big part of why I find it despicable James. The Washington Post, and others, don't need to report unfounded rumors and speculation as fact, nor frankly ignorant analysis in their "fact checks", nor devise attacks unsupported by the facts. Or mock the beliefs of a good section of the country, who happened to support Trump. Trump provides enough, his agenda provides enough, without any of that. All they really achieve is to give Trump's supporters, and Trump himself, a legitimate gripe about news coverage. It puts everyone else, who want to be objective, in the position of "defending Trump" in contrast. Why they would want to do that, create more Trump "defenders" is beyond me, but their methods are shameful.

james said...

I think you have a point, Wp, when you put it like that.

rrb said...

Why they would want to do that, create more Trump "defenders" is beyond me
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

don't assume it's intentional. a more logical explanation to me is that they are so blinded by their burning, seething hatred of trump, they can't even see the results of their actions as you describe them.

it's basically their collective pauline kael moment -

‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.'”

the walls of their collective bubble are thick, and remain impervious to opposing views.

wphamilton said...

I don't think that the ultimate effect is intentional, but their bullshit definitely is. Is journalistic integrity a modern concept? Do we even train journalists any more? Do our modern media not realize that abandoning the ethics of journalism automatically strengthens the blow-back, automatically producing effects opposite to what they intended? That's the part I really don't get.

rrb said...

It’s a swamp of innuendo based on anonymous sources, investigations fed by illegal eavesdropping, scandals in which the outrage comes before the evidence whose purpose is to overturn an election. These aren’t investigations. They’re a coup by the losing side that refuses to admit it lost a presidential election. The coup isn’t just aimed at President Trump or any single member of his administration.

It’s aimed at America, at democracy and at any policy to the right of free entitlements and no freedoms.

If you believe in free speech, the right to keep what you earn, freedom of conscience, free elections, a free press, rule of the people by the people, Plymouth Rock, a little piece of paper out of Independence Hall, emancipation, reason, art, literature, history and civil rights, the coup is aimed at you.

The three things that Republicans don’t get, in order of descending importance, are that the left hates anyone to the right, that it wants absolute power and that it will do anything to destroy its enemies.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-plot-against-democracy.html

rrb said...



modern journalists are not trained but indoctrinated. imho, any j-school is simply an multi-year exercise in bias confirmation.

liberals gravitate to the "profession" and arrive at j-school with liberal ideologies that are rough and crude, and leave with those same liberal ideologies honed and sharpened.

couple that with the invincible ignorance of them just "knowing" that they're on "the right side of history" and they basically can't see the forest for the trees.



"Do our modern media not realize that abandoning the ethics of journalism automatically strengthens the blow-back, automatically producing effects opposite to what they intended? That's the part I really don't get."

i suspect some realize it and some don't. some see it merely as a cost to be paid in pursuit of the greater goal. truth, like money, has become fungible.

opie said...


Anonymous james said...
Opie, why in the world do you constantly repeat foul language?

Because I follow their lead. Yes it is immature, but, if someone starts, I will certainly finish in kind. Sad.

james said...

Byron York thinks that the
Democrats Don’t [feel they] Need Any More Evidence [just the votes]

Byron York: “How many times have you heard a Democrat or Trump critic say that the Russia investigation is ‘just getting started’ or that they are determined to ‘get to the bottom’ of it? With a new prosecutor starting an open-ended investigation, they’re hoping for years of happy hunting.

“But the fact is, Democrats do not need any more information than what is already publicly known to pursue impeachment proceedings against the president. What they need is 218 votes in the House of Representatives. If they had majority control of the House now, they would already be pursuing impeachment.”
__________________

Quote of the Day

“I think there’s absolutely evidence to begin a case.”
— Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, on This Week, on the legal case for obstruction of justice against President Trump.

james said...

12:40 It would be better just to stop it. Let their side be the immature ones.

janes said...

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday evening accused former FBI director James Comey of providing false testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. According to DOJ spokesman Ian Prior, who made the accusations against Comey via an official DOJ press release, Comey did not answer truthfully when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Cali.) asked him about the process by which Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any federal investigations of Russian interference with the 2016 elections.

janes said...

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, says she was "stunned" when former FBI Director James Comey revealed during his public testimony on Thursday that he asked a friend to leak information.

janes said...

Judge who censored undercover Planned Parenthood videos was on pro-abortion group’s board

Raised my eyebrows

James said...

KD is putting up "janes said" comments. He thinks that's clever. He is alone.

James said...

Republicans Fear a Downward Spiral

Mike Allen: “The spotlight has been on President Trump’s legal jeopardy. But inside the small circle of top Republicans who advise this White House, there’s increasing concern that future political problems are stacking up.”

Said one trusted political hand: “Simply put, Trump has lost control of his presidency. He still has all the power of the office, but for someone who spent a portion of his life in real estate litigation, he shows once again he has not learned the first rule of legal combat: It is often better to say nothing and do nothing.”

“What Republicans fear: a downward spiral in which the Russia distractions make it harder to pass Trump’s agenda, new talent won’t come into the West Wing, top-shelf potential challengers are reluctant to run as Republicans in 2018, the House flips, and article of impeachment become a real risk.”

James said...

Republicans See House at Risk In 2018

Playbook: “Republicans are growing increasingly worried that they will lose the House of Representatives. The pervasive pessimism comes as there continues to be a dearth of legislative victories, and a toxic political environment that appears to be worsening. Of course, the midterm elections are nearly a year and a half away. But more than a dozen Republicans we’ve spoken to in the last few weeks say the prospect for political and legislative wins big and small is dimming. And as much as President Donald Trump has worked to woo over fellow Republicans with dinners at the White House and regular meetings with GOP leadership, it hasn’t had much of an impact on the overall state of play.”

“What does all this mean? Republicans will be less willing to take risks as they shift into political survival mode.”

COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A MORE DESERVING PARTY.

James said...

Cruz Goes from Lucifer to Dealmaker

Bloomberg: “Ted Cruz is trying a radically new role: dealmaker.”

“The first-term senator from Texas is seeking to unite warring wings of the Republican Party around an effort to kill Obamacare and is showing a new willingness to compromise with colleagues to devise a replacement plan.”

“It’s a significant departure for the formerly obstructionist Cruz, who lost the Republican presidential contest to Donald Trump and has long had icy relations with other lawmakers. Cruz once called Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor, and former Republican House Speaker John Boehner once called Cruz ‘LUCIFER IN THE FLESH’ aAND THE MOST ‘MISERABLE SON OF A BITCH’ HE HAD EVER WORKED WITH. His most notable legislative accomplishment so far has been to help force a shutdown of the government for 16 days in 2013 in an unsuccessful effort to strip funding from Obamacare.”

EVEN S. O. B. LUCIFER CRUZ IS RECOGNIZING COMPROMISE IS NECESSARY.
THE BASE WILL NOT BE HAPPY.

James said...

Ossoff Holds Edge Heading Into Final Week

FiveThirtyEight: “The race remains too close to call. Ossoff’s lead is slim, especially given the past accuracy of special House election polling, and we simply don’t know what to expect voter turnout to be in Round 2 compared with Round 1. Still, it’s significant that Ossoff has maintained and even widened his lead as voters make up their minds, because it suggests that undecided voters aren’t overwhelmingly Republican. It’s possible that Handel will pick up the vast majority of the remaining undecided voters in the campaign’s final days, but there’s no reason to expect that to happen.”

“Ossoff’s small lead in Round 2 shouldn’t be too surprising because it’s exactly what the polls before Round 1 indicated might happen.”

janes said...

The testimony of James Comey proved long on atmospherics and short on ethics. While many were riveted by Comey’s discussion of his discomfort in meetings with President Trump, most seemed to miss the fact that Comey was describing his own conduct in strikingly unethical terms. The greatest irony is that Trump succeeded in baiting Comey to a degree that even Trump could not have imagined. After calling Comey a “showboat” and poor director, Comey proceeded to commit an unethical and unprofessional act in leaking damaging memos against Trump.

Comey described a series of ethical challenges during his term as FBI director. Yet, he almost uniformly avoided taking a firm stand in support of the professional standards of the FBI. During the Obama administration, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave Comey a direct order to mislead the public by calling the ongoing investigation a mere “matter.” Rather than standing firm on the integrity of his department and refusing to adopt such a meaningless and misleading term, Comey yielded to Lynch while now claiming discomfort over carrying out the order.

janes said...

Comey’s position would effectively gut a host of federal rules and regulations. He is suggesting that any federal employee effectively owns documents created during federal employment in relation to an ongoing investigation so long as they address the information to themselves. FBI agents routinely write such memos in investigations. They are called 302s to memorialize field interviews or fact acquisitions. They are treated as FBI information.

The Justice Department routinely claims such memos as privileged and covered by the deliberative process privilege and other privileges. Indeed, if this information were sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it would likely have been denied. Among other things, the Justice Department and FBI routinely claim privilege “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

Of course, Comey did not know if there was a privilege or classification claim by either the Justice Department or the White House because he never asked for review. He just woke up in the middle of night upset about Trump’s name calling and released the damaging information. In doing so, he used these memos not as a shield but a sword.

Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

janes said...

Robert Mueller should step aside: Friends shouldn’t be investigating friends

The Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller barely has gotten off the ground, and already there is a stench.

That stench was created by former FBI Director James Comey, who admitted in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he leaked, through a friend, memoranda purporting to document improper conversations between Donald Trump and Comey

assigning credibility (or lack thereof) to witnesses, including Comey.

There is a problem here that goes beyond their long professional interactions. In 2013, The Washingtonian described the close professional history, Forged Under Fire—Bob Mueller and Jim Comey’s Unusual Friendship.

The Boston Globe reported on May 20, 2017, that the men considered themselves friends, Comey, Mueller have been allies, and now spotlight is on them:


The two men have had similar careers. Both have been top federal prosecutors. Both have been FBI directors. Several people who know both men say they respect each other.

“Clearly it’s a relationship based on professional colleagues, initially. But I think they would consider themselves friends,” said John Pistole, who worked for Mueller as deputy director of the FBI and also knows Comey. “Mueller is a mentor of sorts to Comey.”

Whether they were just close professional friends, or consider themselves personally friendly, the fact is that they are not at arms length. This relationship, at least as reported, appears to be much more than the routine interactions you might expect two law enforcement officers to have had in the regular course of business.

janes said...

Wow. Dem Senator Calls For Investigation Into Loretta Lynch After Comey Hearing

It’s not every day the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee says a political appointee of the same party needs to be investigated. But that’s exactly what Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) said on Sunday’s State of the Union on CNN of former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions in regards to the Clinton email scandal.

Commonsense said...

Opie said..

Because I follow their lead. Yes it is immature, but, if someone starts, I will certainly finish in kind.


One only has to browse these threads to know what a complete and total lie this is.

He's a troll and an obscene troll at that.

opie said...

One only has to browse these threads to know what a complete and total lie this is

BWAAAAAAAAA!!!! All you have to do is admit you are wrong, something I have done, and called my self immature with my language. Whose post did I use in the start of this. Suggest you look before looking dumber than now. . And all you add is biased BS. Mr. .2%......

Commonsense said...

Well, I don't need to insist that you admit you are wrong.

That is self-evident.

opie said...

Commonsense said...
Well, I don't need to insist that you admit you are wrong.

Really Mr. .2% that was self evident and you still refuse to admit your error. Nice try, again.

Commonsense said...

Well Opie you haven't sufficiently begged enough.

Do keep begging.

Anonymous said...

The real James is in blue print above,
between 8:58 and 9:06 am.


The "janes" are not KD
but 'Cowardly being cowardly. :-)

Anonymous said...

James said...
KD is putting up "janes said" comments. He thinks that's clever. He is alone.
June 12, 2017 at 8:44 AM

ROFLMFAO !!!