F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 24

[Lighthouse]

So they thought leaking these would HELP the President? Nunes is such an idiot.

 

[Marvolo]

He was voted worst US President (before Trump) for a reason.

Well **** I guess if an opinion poll says Buchanan is the worst president ever we better throw out history and context and give him "all the blame" for the Civil War.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have no interest in rating. Is he the worst President in history? Don't know, don't care. He's an evil, awful and astonishingly stupid President right now.

 

[Sawyer]

https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/987095117809856512

I just spit my water

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is damn good.

 

[Orba]

So they thought leaking these would HELP the President? Nunes is such an idiot.

The leaking of the full e-mails was a really smart move. Everyone was predicting that once the likes of Nunes got hold of the notes they would have selectively leaked some of the notes (probably completely out of context) which would then have been used by the Trump media to push that Rosenstein should go. That would give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein and put in one of his lackeys.

By leaking all of the notes they have completely undercut that move.

 

[Aximili86]

These Comey memos are hilarious.

Basically contradict his whole book. There's even a "Trump urged us to continue looking into the Russia stuff", and an implication he (Comey) didn't think the FBI should announce that Trump's not a personal suspect in the Russia stuff, but that he had no problem if another department did.

Methinks the obstruction charge is pretty damn unlikely at this point.

It'll shift focus to something else, though. First collusion - nothing to back it. Then obstruction - ehhh, we're struggling. It'll shift to the Stormy payment now, which could be potentially a major problem for Orange *****e, but it's not taking him down.

Also, **** Comey's such a catty little weasel of a man. t: Awesome. It's funny seeing him taking heat from both the right and left at this point, even Savannah Guthrie was't buying his book ****.

 

[Marvolo]

The leaking of the full e-mails was a really smart move. Everyone was predicting that once the likes of Nunes got hold of the notes they would have selectively leaked some of the notes (probably completely out of context) which would then have been used by the Trump media to push that Rosenstein should go. That would give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein and put in one of his lackeys.

By leaking all of the notes they have completely undercut that move.

#StupidWatergate

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

These Comey memos are hilarious.

Basically contradict his whole book. There's even a "Trump urged us to continue looking into the Russia stuff", and an implication he (Comey) didn't think the FBI should announce that Trump's not a personal suspect in the Russia stuff, but that he had no problem if another department did.

Methinks the obstruction charge is pretty damn unlikely at this point.

It'll shift focus to something else, though. First collusion - nothing to back it. Then obstruction - ehhh, we're struggling. It'll shift to the Stormy payment now, which could be potentially a major problem for Orange *****e, but it's not taking him down.

Also, **** Comey's such a catty little weasel of a man. t: Awesome. It's funny seeing him taking heat from both the right and left at this point, even Savannah Guthrie was't buying his book ****.

They don't do any of what you are saying.


At this point... We just have to refer to you as MR. GLASS, seeing how transparent you are and how brittle your arguments.

 

[Aximili86]

Let's cut the personal attack bullsh****, champ, next one gets reported.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Let's cut the personal attack bullsh****, champ, next one gets reported.

Here's my question... Why all the lying?

The administration, I mean.

Why.

All.

The.

Lying?

People who don't have anything to hide don't have to continually lie. And lie. And LIE about simple things that are easily checked. The continual lying from the admin. and it's supporters just makes people think they are liars. I know... It's quite the mystery for some to figure out. The lying will always lead to investigation. Better to tell the truth. It's simple, especially if you don't have anything to hide, but... Then what's motivating all the lying about Russian contacts?

 

[Aximili86]

That's all pure opinion, though.

Fact is, these Comey notes don't paint a picture of Trump obstructing. They just don't, each side of the aisle - Fox and CNN alike - are in agreement on this.

What that means for the investigation overall, who knows? Could be nothing, could be everything. But the Comey notes he made at the time are pretty contradictory to what he's saying after-the-fact.

But again, you know this.

 

[Orba]

Its always fun watching the Trump defenders on TV etc talking about Cohen. The talk is always about if Cohen will flip on Trump or not. Its hard to claim that Trump did nothing while at the same time wondering if Cohen will cut a deal with Mueller. If Trump has done nothing wrong Cohen would have nothing that he could tell the Feds and therefore would have nothing to make a deal with.

 

[Aximili86]

Cohen could flip against Trump. And whatever he saus could still not rise to the bar of any legal wrongdoing.

We're just civilian rubes not privy to the info. It could go either way at this point. If Donny-boy goes down, great, but let's not assume that's written in stone. Mueller could just as easily come back with a big legal "shrug - ehh" on this thing too. And if it goes that way we're going to have to accept it - any "Mueller's been turned!" stuff is going to be moronic.

 

[Lighthouse]

These Comey memos are hilarious.

Basically contradict his whole book. There's even a "Trump urged us to continue looking into the Russia stuff", and an implication he (Comey) didn't think the FBI should announce that Trump's not a personal suspect in the Russia stuff, but that he had no problem if another department did.

Methinks the obstruction charge is pretty damn unlikely at this point.

It'll shift focus to something else, though. First collusion - nothing to back it. Then obstruction - ehhh, we're struggling. It'll shift to the Stormy payment now, which could be potentially a major problem for Orange *****e, but it's not taking him down.

Also, **** Comey's such a catty little weasel of a man. t: Awesome. It's funny seeing him taking heat from both the right and left at this point, even Savannah Guthrie was't buying his book ****.

It literally does none of this, "champ".

 

[Aximili86]

Alrighty then, uh, "chief".

CNN & CBS & ABC disagree, as of the coverage today.

 

[Schlosser85]

Really? Because I was watching CNN yesterday and the panel was discussing how whatever one might think of his judgment, Comey looks pretty credible as a witness due to the overall consistency between his memos and his book. Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell were discussing the same thing.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Here's my question... Why all the lying?

The administration, I mean.

Why.

All.

The.

Lying?

People who don't have anything to hide don't have to continually lie. And lie. And LIE about simple things that are easily checked. The continual lying from the admin. and it's supporters just makes people think they are liars. I know... It's quite the mystery for some to figure out. The lying will always lead to investigation. Better to tell the truth. It's simple, especially if you don't have anything to hide, but... Then what's motivating all the lying about Russian contacts?

But to be fair, some times the Trump admin simply lie to lower public standards, make them numb to lying and systematically destroy the need for accountability.

 

[Schlosser85]

Dana Bash also opined the other day that Trump does it to keep jazzing up his hardcore base who eats up and believes everything he says (for some reason).

 

[Matt]

Matt do you really think this is an issue of policy differences for everyone? You are correct. It's not something to be enacted because of policy, and squeek was probably speaking more emotionally than rationally. That out there... I'm not happy about said policies being proposed or enacted (which by the way seems to be something that changes on a weekly if not daily basis as incoherent on so many issues as this administration is.) either, but no... This is not about policy for I assume most people thinking impeachment is likely warranted.


I will grant you that all of this is contingent on the findings of the special counsel but let's lay it all out.

If the findings of the special counsel comes back with are trial worthy evidence more explicit than what we already do know that does in fact point to the low hanging fruit of everything from campaign finance fraud, money laundering, violations of the emoluments clause and obstruction of justice (And let us not pretend that the obstruction would not be connected to crimes possibly committed before he took the oath of office, the lying and obfuscation logically is about not wanting an investigation to proceed and uncover evidence of crimes. And I know... Perhaps you feel personally that those cannot be proven, but there are quite a few people with as much or more legal acumen and experience as you who have publicly stated the opposite let's remember) that is found sufficient to bring charges then, while sensitive to the political issues and vagaries of our current climate, I am sorry but no, those alone are reasons to impeach. Not based on policy differences, but on the question of rule of law.


Also notice, I didn't even bring up the issue of conspiracy with a foreign adversary yet. For some time I have mulled that they may not be able to make that case but recent events (and actions by the administration as well, often at the highest levels) have made me seriously rethink that.

A highly respected (and sorry but he is despite what frankly, propaganda that is being broadcast from various proven unreliable media sources intent on propping the administration up ) former intelligence agent of our closest ally who was a decades long expert on Russia brings to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies information that leads to an official investigation. That information has so far often proved correct, to the point where I am confident in saying that while not all has been verified as true, nothing has been proven false either and if the Mclatchy story is confirmed by the Mueller team then one huge defense of the Trump team and supporters, that Trump's personal lawyer did not meet up in Prague with agents of the Russian government, is totally shot to hell. Then there is the simple fact of so many public pronouncements of this administration and members of the campaign about contacts with Russian agents of one stripe or another ("business" and government in Putin's Russia are intimately tied together) being proven again and again to be bluntly lies. Let's also remember that even before Steele's findings were brought to the relevant agencies' attention there were already investigators looking into Trump or those in his orbit.

Again, contingent on the Mueller findings, if that can be proven, IF Matt... Then I have to support actions to remove a sitting president, maybe even the Vice President as well given that he may have lied as well on various occasions to the public and possibly the investigators as well.

I honestly can't take seriously the idea that some have posted here about equivalency between Trump's administration and previous less than honorable ones. Again, if proven true, this blows Tea Pot dome and Nixon's obstruction out of the water. Conspiracy to collude with a foreign adversary kinda trumps the enrichment of robber barons in the post reconstruction era in my book and I very much doubt I am alone.


This wouldn't be about policy differences or hell, even questions of character. You are correct, those are things voters much weigh when at the ballot box, whether voting for a president or voting for congressional representation as a check on a president.

But issues of crime, obstruction, criminal conspiracy? That is a time when, unless there are severe overwhelming factors that would perhaps supersede other considerations, and for the life of me I cannot think of a single one that is airtight and holds water morally, politically or legally, for the sake of this Democracy within a Republic, regardless of political fallout, which I think many are overestimating the impact of ,again, if a case can be made to charge a president within our legal system then I think more citizens than not would approve, then our elected officials in congress need to take action. And that action would be clear. Impeachment, removal from office and then allowing the pertinent criminal and civil charges to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


People often state, especially pundits, that we are where we are because so many feel that the "elites" (whose definition differs depending on the political persuasion ) have essentially been unmoored from consequences of their actions or beliefs. I could think of nothing that could be more demoralizing to the general body politic at this moment than having a chief executive not being held responsible for actions that cross multiple legal lines, again, if proven. Let us also not pretend that voting doesn't play a part in this as well. I don't think that I have to list all the examples of this congress being supine in the extreme towards the administration. There is a vast swath of voters who are going to make their voices heard in the midterm, with knowledge of what that vote means should there be evidence of wrongdoing presented officially by Mueller.


I think some folk do misspeak about the reasoning behind wanting the POTUS removed but that doesn't change that there seems to be a lot of public evidence already even before the final report that points to the possible necessity of impeachment, and I do not in the least begrudge elected and rank and file Democrats (and quite a few Republicns as well I would wager) preparing for that in some fashion.

I disagree with nothing you are saying. The problem is you have people running for Congress, campaigning on the promise that as soon as they take office they will introduce articles of impeachment. The Times reported last week that impeachment is the new litmus test in Democratic primaries across the country. But impeachment on what grounds? As you point out, there have been no findings released by the Special Counsel's Office that would warrant impeachment. As far as we are aware, POTUS isn't even under investigation. Ergo, these promises are merely political in nature. You have people who are not incumbents, with no access to any evidence from the Special Counsel's Office or that of either chamber of Congress's investigative committees, running on the promise that they will move to impeach POTUS on day one. That is what is dangerous. Because the only conclusion that can be reached there is that it is a policy/political based impeachment.

Let's assume everything shakes out in the way you suggest. Mueller comes back with a report finding undeniable evidence of obstruction of justice. I ask you this question: how does POTUS get due process? What is so dangerous about what these candidates are doing is that it taints the process. Its the equivalent to a prosecutor asking a potential juror if they think the Defendant is guilty, the potential juror says "sure do! I promise I will vote to convict him no matter what the evidence says!" and the judge seats that juror. At that point it ceases to be a trial and becomes a star chamber.

Remember: impeachment proceedings are, at their heart, a fact finding inquisition and Congress is the jury. Even POTUS is entitled to due process of the law. Let's assume Mueller has a slam dunk case and Trump is impeached by the 116th Congress, in which a significant amount of members ran on impeaching him (before Mueller released a single finding). In that scenario, is Trump really wrong when he says "witch hunt?" That is what I am cautioning against, the impeachment process becoming politicized.

 

[Schlosser85]

I do agree that Democrats shouldn't be running on promises of impeaching Trump while the investigation is ongoing, partly because it's making a promise you have no idea whether you'll be able to keep just to get voters fired up, partly because it gives Trump more ammunition to cry about a witch hunt.

It's premature and irresponsible.

 

[Matt]

I mean, sadly, in some of these Democratic primaries, its not even just ammunition. Trump is right. People running on impeachment are taking part in a witch hunt. They are pointing and screaming "witch" with no evidence and using it merely to consolidate their own power. If those people get to Congress, it delegitimizes any potential impeachment before it even starts.

As both an attorney and a professional political operative, I am curious how this all plays out if he is impeached by the 116th. Trump will have valid grounds to claim that the process was tainted from the onset. Much as his tweets about immigration are used against him when challenging his immigration ban (to show his discriminatory intent), I am curious if these campaigns can be used to show that people in Congress have tainted the process by deciding his guilt before he was even under investigation. But I have no idea what the oversight or remedy there is. Nothing in the Constitution even remotely addresses the potential for due process violations in an impeachment proceeding. Its simultaneously fascinating and frightening for our democracy as it could bring about a full blown Constitutional crisis.

 

[Lighthouse]

While I would agree with you Matt, if I remember correctly, it seems his "witch hunt" accusations have always been addressed at the Mueller investigation and not Democratic promises to impeach if elected.

 

[Matt]

While I would agree with you Matt, if I remember correctly, it seems his "witch hunt" accusations have always been addressed at the Mueller investigation and not Democratic promises to impeach if elected.

Its not mutually exclusive though. Its not as if he played that card and can never play it again. He can say the impeachment process is a witch hunt once the 116th is seated. And even if he is wrong about Mueller, even if Mueller crosses every t and dots every i, Congress acting on it could still be corrupt if they made up their minds before even seeing the evidence.

To go back to my original analogy of a trial...imagine the FBI spends 2 years carrying out a massive RICO investigation of a huge crime boss. For simplicity's sake, let's call him Lex Luthor. The FBI carries out a flawless investigation. They build a perfect case. They get warrants. They follow process. Evidence goes through the chain of custody properly. There are no grounds to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation...it is perfect, the FBI has Luthor dead to rights.

But then at trial, during the voir dire (jury selection) process, the prosecutor asks each potential juror "do you think Mr. Luthor is guilty?" Each juror says yes. Prosecutor asks "would you vote to convict Mr. Luthor?" Each juror in the pool says yes. Prosecutor asks "is there anything at all that will change your mind?" Each juror says "no." Defense attorney stands up and asks to disqualify the entire pool, judge says no and seats 12 of them.

Suddenly, it doesn't matter how strong the evidence is or how thorough and by the book the FBI was while investigating Luthor. The trial has no legitimacy.

Now in that case, the conviction would be overturned on appeal, a new trial would be ordered, and a new, unbiased jury (and judge) would be seated to preside over it. Luthor would be convicted, the end.

You don't have that luxury with an impeachment proceeding. You get one shot at it with one group (the 116th Congress). Congress is judge, jury, and executioner. Even if Mueller's investigation is perfect and the evidence is undeniable...the process is tainted and there is no one else but Congress who can hear the evidence. We can't simply seat a new Congress to hear the Trump impeachment. No matter how good the evidence and investigation, the most crucial part of the proceeding will have no legitimacy. Starting to see the problem?

 

[mclay18]

Trump thinks the leaked Comey memos exonerate him?

He keeps showing the world what a moron he is.