They're showing their true colors and I find it enlightening...the elevated emotions have affected a lot of people here who are normally relatively objective and reasonable. But I have to admit...woolfe surprised me the most.
They're showing their true colors and I find it enlightening...the elevated emotions have affected a lot of people here who are normally relatively objective and reasonable. But I have to admit...woolfe surprised me the most.These guys are just throwing out smoke and some of you are falling for it... dont engange, you're playing into their hand.
I wonder if the Senate committee looking into Trump Campaign-Russia should ask to hear these Comey tapes? Pretty sure it's time to look into obstruction of justice. If there are tapes, who gets to listen to them?
I wonder if the Senate committee looking into Trump Campaign-Russia should ask to hear these Comey tapes? Pretty sure it's time to look into obstruction of justice. If there are tapes, who gets to listen to them?
Wouldnt those "tapes" incriminate Trump though? Asking the director of the FBI to be "loyal" to him? IANAL but that seems like a retarded threat to make... or is Trump stating he has tapes documenting that he never did ask such a thing?
sources close to Comey already confirmed that he has no problems with the possibility of there being "tapes"
Also, someone explain to me Sara Sanders' defense of Trump asking Comey point blank whether he was under investigation. I mean, Bill Clinton steps onto a plane with AG Lynch and everyone (Left and Right) gets upset...He wasn't even the subject of investigation! But everyone agreed it was horrible optics and Lynch had to recuse herself. But Trump does essentially the same thing, IS potentially the subject, and gets a pass?? Why isn't Judicial Watch suing to hear the Trump-Comey tapes?? If Lynch had to recuse herself after tarmac-gate, why don't we have a special prosecutor yet??
Good post. Although I didn't vote for him. I've tolerated Trump for quite a while...but now he's really starting to piss me off, especially with the way he handled Comey. It's not that he fired Comey...which I'm glad he did. But it's all the horseshit surrounding it. He's a fn trainwreck.It is my nature to take as little as possible on first impression. Often things are presented which are incomplete or untrue, not as part of some "fake news" conspiracy but because of the nature of news. Get it in fast and report as best one can. So I sit back and watch for a while and then form my opinions with a prior assumption that what I think I know may be wrong.
I knew Trump is reprehensible from the beginning, and foolish in the extreme, but people around him might have reeled him. Unfortunately recent history has revealed a nature which is incompatible with highest office. That he may be unfit from his great shortcomings however does not mean that any legal threshold had been reached for removal. By that I mean something of substance which is in direct conflict to the Office, ethics and law. To remove ANY President is not a trivial matter.
So I bided my time and considered various sources and opinions. Trump is a great embarrassment and a bad leader in the extreme and yes that matters, but we as a people need to act on a basis of law or the law means nothing, a far greater threat than Trump.
IMO we have reached that point where Trump admits to violating law, and has threatened the former Director which he fired counter to law.
This is the unambiguous red line crossed. It is not a matter of nonsense or partisan bickering, this is the outright violation of the Oath of Office and the rule of law for which Trump has clearly shown to have no regard.
In short Trump by his very words has admitted to law breaking, not at some trivial level of frustration on our parts, but what is written in our legal code. This should not be allowed to stand.
What to do? Aye, there's the rub.
We can send messages to our representatives with the facts in hand and ask directly what action if any they are supporting, and ask for details, not platitudes. I've done that. I've also sent this to all members of the House Judiciary Committee, which usually oversees impeachment. I want to know their positions when confronted with quotes of Trump and the precise law involved.
The next stage? Protests in DC. Organized and like that seen in the 60's again war and pro-civil rights. I do not know how to organize such an event but perhaps there are organizations which exist that might be convinced to do so. I'm ill informed on that front.
Next is something which isn't easy and that is recommending a party, however we are at a point IMO that the society and government we should strive for cannot exist when the most powerful leaders oppose it. If one cannot tolerate a given candidate don't vote for them, but whenever personal values allow vote for Democrats in Congress. Be sure I have many issues with the party, but they are secondary for the foreseeable future.
Pretty much all I have for now.
Good post. Although I didn't vote for him. I've tolerated Trump for quite a while...but now he's really starting to piss me off, especially with the way he handled Comey. It's not that he fired Comey...which I'm glad he did. But it's all the horseshit surrounding it. He's a fn trainwreck.
Looks like I finally got tired of "winning". lolGood man DSF
Good man DSF
derpThey're showing their true colors and I find it enlightening...the elevated emotions have affected a lot of people here who are normally relatively objective and reasonable. But I have to admit...woolfe surprised me the most.
Good post. Although I didn't vote for him. I've tolerated Trump for quite a while...but now he's really starting to piss me off, especially with the way he handled Comey. It's not that he fired Comey...which I'm glad he did. But it's all the horseshit surrounding it. He's a fn trainwreck.
Of course. The confirmation process is SOP or am I missing something here?Okay, you deserve credit for this post. But as a consequence of firing Comey who was investigating Trump-Russia, Democrats definitely need an input on the replacement. You agree?
Looks like I finally got tired of "winning". lol
Also, someone explain to me Sara Sanders' defense of Trump asking Comey point blank whether he was under investigation. I mean, Bill Clinton steps onto a plane with AG Lynch and everyone (Left and Right) gets upset...He wasn't even the subject of investigation! But everyone agreed it was horrible optics and Lynch had to recuse herself. But Trump does essentially the same thing, IS potentially the subject, and gets a pass?? Why isn't Judicial Watch suing to hear the Trump-Comey tapes?? If Lynch had to recuse herself after tarmac-gate, why don't we have a special prosecutor yet??
Of course. The confirmation process is SOP or am I missing something here?
I can't get over the fantasy world you must enjoy.It's like he read a biography of Richard Nixon and said, 'yep, i'm going to follow that path'.
As woolfe pointed out it goes beyond ethics. If you haven't read his post regarding 18 U.S.C 1505, Trump has admitted (no doubt unwittingly) to a serious illegal act with his statement connecting Comey's firing to the Russian investigation. It's an incredible breach of law.
I cited the statute without commentary as I was curious how others would interpret it. I think its language is broad, possibly over broad. I'm not sure what the word "corruptly" means at the beginning, and I doubt it has an established legal definition.
The statute reminds me of the standards for impeachment, which is that it's broad and somewhat ambiguous, and hence can be used whenever there is the political will to do so.
So far as Trump's motive for firing Comey, which is the critical issue here, I think there's really two strong possibilities. In one narrative, Trump grows increasingly angry with Comey, mainly over the Russian investigation but also for other reasons, and the anger eventually reaches critical mass, resulting in a rash act of termination. In this scenario, he may not have had a premeditated motive to derail the investigation. In the other narrative, Trump is worried over the result of the investigation, and terminates Comey specifically so that he can replace him with a loyalist who will tamp it down. As for which of these two narratives is correct, I favor the former but I'm not really sure. However, even if the former scenario is correct, Trump still has to replace Comey and I have zero faith that he will appoint someone who will reliably handle the investigation.
I also still don't think we're there yet with impeachment, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that Trump will self-destruct one way or another fairly soon.
I cited the statute without commentary as I was curious how others would interpret it. I think its language is broad, possibly over broad. I'm not sure what the word "corruptly" means at the beginning, and I doubt it has an established legal definition.
The statute reminds me of the standards for impeachment, which is that it's broad and somewhat ambiguous, and hence can be used whenever there is the political will to do so.
So far as Trump's motive for firing Comey, which is the critical issue here, I think there's really two strong possibilities. In one narrative, Trump grows increasingly angry with Comey, mainly over the Russian investigation but also for other reasons, and the anger eventually reaches critical mass, resulting in a rash act of termination. In this scenario, he may not have had a premeditated motive to derail the investigation. In the other narrative, Trump is worried over the result of the investigation, and terminates Comey specifically so that he can replace him with a loyalist who will tamp it down. As for which of these two narratives is correct, I favor the former but I'm not really sure. However, even if the former scenario is correct, Trump still has to replace Comey and I have zero faith that he will appoint someone who will reliably handle the investigation.
I also still don't think we're there yet with impeachment, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that Trump will self-destruct one way or another fairly soon.
Speculation is that it was his testimony last week. Specifically, the statement about being nauseous over possibly influencing the election. It fits with Trump's petty streak.
If Trump had fired Comey and there were no complicating factors then I'd say the the law you quoted would be inapplicable, however that is not the case. Trump linked Comey's termination to the "Trump/Russian fake investigation". Trump mentions himself IIRC and even if not he is has an interest if a favorable outcome, or termination of investigation, and so acted to interfere with the duties of the FBI. I think an argument could be made for corruption and there certainly threats made against Comey.
If so, that wouldn't necessarily point toward an improper motive on the part of Trump. It would be petty as you say, but not necessarily illegal.
It was an impeachable offense. It was clearly about stopping Trump-Russia.