GoBills808 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Another point in favor of that explanation is that Trump has always insisted the Russia investigation is much ado about nothing. So he either fired Comey because he (Trump) was lying all this time, and thereby impulsively and precipitously exposes his own statements as lies. Or he fired Comey for some other reason, impulsively and precipitously...and not realizing that it would make his previous statements look like lies. Which, either way...five-alarm moron. And another reminder...not eight hours before Comey was fired, Congressional Democrats were calling for his head because of the discrepancies in Comey "misled" the Senate Judiciary Committee with his testimony, which required written "clarification" from the FBI. HOW !@#$ING EASY would it have been to wait a couple of days and ask Comey to resign for his mishandling of the Clinton case as evidenced by his clearly inconsistent testimony. Get what you want, get a politcal win by giving Senate Democrats what they want, insulate yourself from any blowback by indirectly engaging Senate Democrats in the decision. But no...let's just poke the situation with a sharp stick, and make Comey the anti-Trump hero to people who not eight hours earlier wanted him drawn and quartered as a pro-Trump stooge. It's actually pretty hard to be that stupid accidentally. You almost have to put some effort into it. Yep. I though he was trolling a week ago, but now the proof's in the pudding. Trump siding with Putin's transcript of the convo over the FBI's is just going to be the icing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) If it's this big and this important and this bad...any idea why Comey sat on it until two weeks after he was fired? Incompetence? Not going to find me confidently guessing at Comey's motives but I also am sympathetic to his no-win position at multiple points in this mess. Maybe he didn't see it as obstruction or maybe he did and kept the memo as evidence of his inability to be swayed. As a betting man, I think he kept the memos as a ticking time bomb that would blow up at an anticipated firing. Good old fashion human revenge. Edited May 17, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Not going to find me confidently guessing at Comey's motives but I also am sympathetic to his no-win position at multiple points in this mess. Maybe he didn't see it as obstruction or maybe he did and kept the memo as evidence of his inability to be swayed. As a betting man, I think he kept the memos as a ticking time bomb that would blow up at an anticipated firing. Good old fashion human revenge. Comey was in some way either complicit in spreading false rumors regarding Trump or criminally liable for not reporting Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 Comey was in some way either complicit in spreading false rumors regarding Trump or criminally liable for not reporting Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation. Did the CIA get in trouble for not reporting Nixon's abuse of power when he called them to throw off the investigation of watergate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Comey was in some way either complicit in spreading false rumors regarding Trump or criminally liable for not reporting Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation. It's being reported that Comey recorded the memo and shared it with FBI associates. We'll find out next week when he testifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Did the CIA get in trouble for not reporting Nixon's abuse of power when he called them to throw off the investigation of watergate? Hey, how many different subjects are you going to get involved with? One would think there's no room for any more egg on your face. From post# 418 of this thread: Tiberius, on 17 May 2017 - 11:53 AM, said: This must be complete BS Try this on for size, you dumbass. Have you ever thought that maybe you should check things out before opening your mouth. You know, there is a world outside of Huffington Post. http://ijr.com/opini...t-course-trump/ This is, essentially, what ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat admitted yesterday during an en banc hearing on the travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, during an exchange with Judge Paul Niemeyer (video above thanks to NTK network): JUDGE NIEMEYER: We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump, won the presidency, and then chose to issue this particular order...Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored? OMAR JADWAT: Yes your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional. This was a huge - and potentially costly - admission by Jadwat. It effectively conceded that the executive order is, in fact, facially constitutional; that is, he agreed that nothing about the text of the order is illegal (so much for the passionate arguments about statutory violations or due process rights!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2017 Author Share Posted May 18, 2017 Har har, thanks for positively affirming it is bull sh it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Governor Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Another point in favor of that explanation is that Trump has always insisted the Russia investigation is much ado about nothing. So he either fired Comey because he (Trump) was lying all this time, and thereby impulsively and precipitously exposes his own statements as lies. Or he fired Comey for some other reason, impulsively and precipitously...and not realizing that it would make his previous statements look like lies. Which, either way...five-alarm moron. And another reminder...not eight hours before Comey was fired, Congressional Democrats were calling for his head because of the discrepancies in Comey "misled" the Senate Judiciary Committee with his testimony, which required written "clarification" from the FBI. HOW !@#$ING EASY would it have been to wait a couple of days and ask Comey to resign for his mishandling of the Clinton case as evidenced by his clearly inconsistent testimony. Get what you want, get a politcal win by giving Senate Democrats what they want, insulate yourself from any blowback by indirectly engaging Senate Democrats in the decision. But no...let's just poke the situation with a sharp stick, and make Comey the anti-Trump hero to people who not eight hours earlier wanted him drawn and quartered as a pro-Trump stooge. It's actually pretty hard to be that stupid accidentally. You almost have to put some effort into it. Apparently It was Kushner's call which surprised me. They aren't very bright. It also was Ivanka and Kushner that insisted on promoting Flynn when everyone knew the FBI had him dead to rights. This is a family that doesn't believe they have to follow the law. Laws are for the peasants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 This is a family that doesn't believe they have to follow the law. Laws are for the peasants. Why should they? They've been lifelong Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 W was dumberw was a smart guy and very good at working with people. He was non different than Obama off script. Its remarkable how bad politicians are off script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Har har, thanks for positively affirming it is bull sh it! Oh wow, this comes close to you not knowing how many weeks are in a month. You should sue your mother. All evidence proves that you must have been dropped on your head as a child. From very high up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 http://ijr.com/opini...t-course-trump/ This is, essentially, what ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat admitted yesterday during an en banc hearing on the travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, during an exchange with Judge Paul Niemeyer (video above thanks to NTK network): JUDGE NIEMEYER: We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump, won the presidency, and then chose to issue this particular order...Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored? OMAR JADWAT: Yes your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional. This was a huge - and potentially costly - admission by Jadwat. It effectively conceded that the executive order is, in fact, facially constitutional; that is, he agreed that nothing about the text of the order is illegal (so much for the passionate arguments about statutory violations or due process rights!) Their legal argument was that comments made by Trump and his surrogates during the campaign indicated that Trump planned on banning certain immigrants for religious reasons. Since the Clinton campaign didn't make those comments, that argument would have failed for her. Which means her doing it would have been constitutional under the argument that was outlined. My usual question with articles like this: is the author simply ignorant, or is he intentionally misleading his ignorant readers? I can forgive the first but not the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 It's actually pretty hard to be that stupid accidentally. You almost have to put some effort into it. So, what is he distracting the medias attention away from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Their legal argument was that comments made by Trump and his surrogates during the campaign indicated that Trump planned on banning certain immigrants for religious reasons. Since the Clinton campaign didn't make those comments, that argument would have failed for her. Which means her doing it would have been constitutional under the argument that was outlined. My usual question with articles like this: is the author simply ignorant, or is he intentionally misleading his ignorant readers? I can forgive the first but not the second. Except that's not a legal argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Except that's not a legal argument. Yes it is. It's called evidence. And while I have seen compelling arguments that campaign statements should not be admissible as evidence, the argument that the lawyer "admitted" that Clinton could have done it constitutionally still is invalid. He didn't admit it, it was a part of the argument. I would bet anything the context of that discussion was about Trump's campaign statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Yes it is. It's called evidence. And while I have seen compelling arguments that campaign statements should not be admissible as evidence, the argument that the lawyer "admitted" that Clinton could have done it constitutionally still is invalid. He didn't admit it, it was a part of the argument. I would bet anything the context of that discussion was about Trump's campaign statements. So let me get this straight: You're trying to say that the judge asking if another candidate had won "and then chose to issue this particular order..." is somehow about campaign statements? By the way, that's not called "evidence". It's not even called a "legal argument." It's just a really !@#$ing stupid answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 So let me get this straight: You're trying to say that the judge asking if another candidate had won "and then chose to issue this particular order..." is somehow about campaign statements? Well yeah. Trump made it a point during his campaign to call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. Rudy Giuliani went on the news and admitted outright Trump had asked him to do the Muslim ban but legally. These sorts of statements are admissible evidence pertaining to the intent of the EO. The EO in context of these statements, and only in context of these statements, was decided to be unconstitutional. If Clinton had won and issued the same exact order there would be no such context and the same argument wouldn't have been valid. So the EO would have stood. If Trump and his surrogates had used any sort of restraint at all the EO would have stood. But because they constantly open their big mouths they are constantly incriminating themselves on future legal matters. He has no one to blame but himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Well yeah. Trump made it a point during his campaign to call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. Rudy Giuliani went on the news and admitted outright Trump had asked him to do the Muslim ban but legally. These sorts of statements are admissible evidence pertaining to the intent of the EO. The EO in context of these statements, and only in context of these statements, was decided to be unconstitutional. If Clinton had won and issued the same exact order there would be no such context and the same argument wouldn't have been valid. So the EO would have stood. If Trump and his surrogates had used any sort of restraint at all the EO would have stood. But because they constantly open their big mouths they are constantly incriminating themselves on future legal matters. He has no one to blame but himself. This is an absolute perversion of the legal and Constitutional process, and terrifyingly so. Statements made on the campaign trail have nothing to do with the text of an executive order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 This is an absolute perversion of the legal and Constitutional process, and terrifyingly so. Statements made on the campaign trail have nothing to do with the text of an executive order. Fascism. It's so hot right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts