|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 10 2017 22:34 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 22:26 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:16 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 21:10 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 20:25 prplhz wrote:
Most republicans don't seem to mind this, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham both out in support of Trump along with most of the GOP establishment. Richard Burr and John McCain, Jeff Flake, with some token scepticism but it doesn't seem like it's going to lead anywhere. I have little doubt that the Trump appointee will be confirmed by the senate with a party line vote.
James Comey is neither partisan nor incompetent, nobody is denying that. Where does the claim that he's lost "public trust" come from? Should it matter as long as he has congressional trust? Will the Trump appointee be more trustworthy? The reasonable is self contradictory and the timing is horrible, yet it seems that he's going to make a clean getaway. It's all so tiresome.
Is there anything this man cannot do?
Is there any hope that the Democrats will regain control of the house or the senate in the 2018 midterms? Only 8 republican senators are up for reelection, seems unrealistic to capture 3 of those seats while not losing a single one themselves, even in a wave election. How about the house? Trump's appointee will have to have a stellar reputation. Anybody that looks like he/she will be pushed around or led won't be confirmed by the Senate. There's too much riding on this one. Did you read the Dep AG letter? You'll find no better argument laid out for his inability to lead his department and work with his justice department colleagues based entirely on his misbehavior. Public trust then is just a term of art. Both sides thought he mishandled the whole issue for different reasons. Until there was political hay to be made, Dems were calling for his dismissal. The best Dems can hope for is an independent investigation that carries through until 2018 midterms. If that happens, all bets are off. If someone was named tomorrow, it would take until September to be fully staffed and chugging on intel, so it's quite possible. Of course this is if Dems successfully persuade enough R's to gain the point. The letter signed by Sessions, who praised many of those decision during the election. If these were problems, why now? Why in the middle of an investigation and why is there no replacement on tap? From all reports, no one knew this was coming, including congress. As one senator said, that letter doesn’t pass the smell test. Because his boss once praised Comey? Hardly. The timeline of Dep AG fits. The letter is well-cited. Trump still hasn't filled his staff but we're expecting him to already be telling his replacement (right, like Plansix would actually think better if Trump already announced his successor rofl). And why the fuck you bringing up Congress, this is the justice department serving the President, not the CBO or something. I find it hard to believe that the Deputy AG has been missing since Trump took the oath of office to now, and that this decision was anything but last minute when literally NO ONE but Trump/Sessions and the Dep AG knew what was happening an hour before it happened. Trump sent his PRIVATE BODYGUARD to go deliver the letter to Comey while he was in the in the middle of a speech. And Congress people on both sides were informed less than 30 minutes before it happened and Comey was set to testify at another public hearing on Russia again TOMORROW and this happened the DAY AFTER a public hearing with Yates/ Clapper Stop deluding yourself. This is an attempt to slow down the Russian probe and it happens on the DAY Russian Minister Lavrov is visiting the white house. To the point at which the SoS and Russian minister were blindsided with the info by a reporter after they spoke to the press and made a statement about Mr. Lavrov's visit. Lavrov said "Wait, he's fired? you're kidding!" when he heard it from the press. Sean Spicer HID IN THE BUSHES to avoid press. Not even a joke but a literal truth. He hid in the bushes to avoid the press.
You're unaware with the process. The Deputy AG had to go through the Senate. He was confirmed April 25th. When you remove the head of the department, you don't go chattering down the hallways about it. People from both parties have called for his removal for ages. Fucking Jarrett in the Obama administration wanted it done for petes sake. He drafts a letter explaining all the ways he can't lead a department and all the high-profile dumb actions. Sends it to the AG, AG concurs this guys gotta go, tells the president. Yes, he should've seen the letter first before the press got ahold of it.
I can't help you with your Russia derangement. He's not going to nominate a stooge and the Senate won't confirm a stooge. No amount of rational argument will cure the pathology that everything Trump is actually Russia. Maybe in the weeks and months people will sober up to reality.
|
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it.
|
On May 10 2017 22:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 22:26 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:16 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 21:10 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 20:25 prplhz wrote:
Most republicans don't seem to mind this, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham both out in support of Trump along with most of the GOP establishment. Richard Burr and John McCain, Jeff Flake, with some token scepticism but it doesn't seem like it's going to lead anywhere. I have little doubt that the Trump appointee will be confirmed by the senate with a party line vote.
James Comey is neither partisan nor incompetent, nobody is denying that. Where does the claim that he's lost "public trust" come from? Should it matter as long as he has congressional trust? Will the Trump appointee be more trustworthy? The reasonable is self contradictory and the timing is horrible, yet it seems that he's going to make a clean getaway. It's all so tiresome.
Is there anything this man cannot do?
Is there any hope that the Democrats will regain control of the house or the senate in the 2018 midterms? Only 8 republican senators are up for reelection, seems unrealistic to capture 3 of those seats while not losing a single one themselves, even in a wave election. How about the house? Trump's appointee will have to have a stellar reputation. Anybody that looks like he/she will be pushed around or led won't be confirmed by the Senate. There's too much riding on this one. Did you read the Dep AG letter? You'll find no better argument laid out for his inability to lead his department and work with his justice department colleagues based entirely on his misbehavior. Public trust then is just a term of art. Both sides thought he mishandled the whole issue for different reasons. Until there was political hay to be made, Dems were calling for his dismissal. The best Dems can hope for is an independent investigation that carries through until 2018 midterms. If that happens, all bets are off. If someone was named tomorrow, it would take until September to be fully staffed and chugging on intel, so it's quite possible. Of course this is if Dems successfully persuade enough R's to gain the point. The letter signed by Sessions, who praised many of those decision during the election. If these were problems, why now? Why in the middle of an investigation and why is there no replacement on tap? From all reports, no one knew this was coming, including congress. As one senator said, that letter doesn’t pass the smell test. Because his boss once praised Comey? Hardly. The timeline of Dep AG fits. The letter is well-cited. Trump still hasn't filled his staff but we're expecting him to already be telling his replacement (right, like Plansix would actually think better if Trump already announced his successor rofl). And why the fuck you bringing up Congress, this is the justice department serving the President, not the CBO or something. If you are willing to lap up the justification provided by the Justice Department, then I guess that is your choice. I had sort of hoped you would be a little more skeptical of a president firing the guy investigating him, no matter the reason provided.
How about the criticism of nearly every former AG? I weigh that quite high. The man was going, everybody knows it, the question was when and it looks like right after they put together the report. It's like Colbert's live studio audience loudly cheering when he announced Comey's firing and he appeared flustered ... they had to be told Comey's a good guy now and all this is about a Russia cover-up.
|
On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it.
It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address.
|
On May 10 2017 22:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it. It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address.
The actions that Trump and Sessions praised him for and that they did not fire him for 3 months ago...
|
On May 10 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 22:59 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it. It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address. The actions that Trump and Sessions praised him for and that they did not fire him for 3 months ago...
And that Danglars probably praised him for too.
|
On May 10 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 22:59 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it. It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address. The actions that Trump and Sessions praised him for and that they did not fire him for 3 months ago...
When neither had to run or oversee the justice department ...
Edit: AG Sessions was in place, but hadn't staffed his department.
|
It doesn't even have to be about a nefarious plot to undermine the FBI's investigation of Trump's campaign. Reports suggest it's more about pettiness and news coverage - though the line between that and interfering with the investigation is not very thick. The fact that anyone would accept the pretext of Hillary's email investigation is a troubling level of trust in Donald Trump.
|
Canada13401 Posts
On May 10 2017 23:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 22:59 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it. It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address. The actions that Trump and Sessions praised him for and that they did not fire him for 3 months ago... When neither had to run or oversee the justice department ... Edit: AG Sessions was in place, but hadn't staffed his department.
The fact of the matter is the timing is ridiculous and the Senate WILL confirm anyone put forth if they tow the party line. They relaxed the requirements for approving appointees in the senate if you have forgotten.
And no Comey isn't a good guy. Yes he should be replaced. But no, it shouldn't be now, it shouldnt be in the middle of the russia probe, it shouldn't be by the people he's investigating.
If the AG thought it was THAT bad he should have brought it to Congress and let that process address the situation. Especially since he recused himself from the russia probe and thats what comey has been doing in the public eye for months now.
Or you fire the man and agree to a special prosecutor and select committee because the apparent conflict of interest is clear to everyone. Whether it exists or not, the optics don't change.
but we all know how this administration deals with conflicts of interest, they don't apply to the president or his confidants.
|
On May 10 2017 23:23 Doodsmack wrote:
It doesn't even have to be about a nefarious plot to undermine the FBI's investigation of Trump's campaign. Reports suggest it's more about pettiness and news coverage - though the line between that and interfering with the investigation is not very thick. The fact that anyone would accept the pretext of Hillary's email investigation is a troubling level of trust in Donald Trump.
The fact that everybody forgets they called for his firing before objecting strongly to his firing betrays its political nature. Whine about the timing if you want; he'd have been punished far worse if he did so immediately after assuming office. There was no good time to do it and it was clear before the fact that the justice department was in disarray. Just because I dislike Trump and don't trust him generally to do the right thing doesn't mean I'm obligated to call everything he does bad. You should try it too.
|
On May 10 2017 23:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 22:59 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it. It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address. The actions that Trump and Sessions praised him for and that they did not fire him for 3 months ago... When neither had to run or oversee the justice department ... Edit: AG Sessions was in place, but hadn't staffed his department.
But, like, both Sessions and Trump went out and praised Comeys actions and there's nothing in the Dep AG letter that they haven't known all along. Fact is that the reasonable they use was known to them and just as valid 3 months ago except for the diffuse and vague "public trust" argument.
Why don't you think Trump is going to 52-48 a stooge in? This is a man who values completely loyalty over anything else and most republicans have already shown that, if not being straight up supportive, they're perfectly willing to just go along and see what happens. Comey was confirmed with 93 senate votes. Do you think Trump's appointee will get close to a mandate like that? Do you think Trump even cares? I'm not completely sceptical here, you could absolutely be right, McMaster was confirmed with 88 votes and Mattis with 98, but I don't think people care so much about this FBI Director thing. McMaster replaced a guy who was caught red handed trying to sell himself to the russians and Mattis is the guy who needs to keep Trump from nuking some random country because of something he saw on Hannity.
I agree that the democrats should not have bashed Comey like that because it was pretty clear all the time that the guy was doing fairly well considering that he has a pretty much impossible job where any course of action would have led to massive criticism. They sort of walked into a trap for political reasons (no democrat wanted/wants to seem "weak" or "moderate"). At the same time, no democrats called for his firing, they were just, understandably, critical.
Also it's just sad that the President of the United States is demeaning the office by making up stupid nicknames like a 10th grader.
On May 10 2017 20:08 Acrofales wrote:
Yeah, I don't think ascribing Comey's firing to some nefarious plot makes sense.
On May 10 2017 23:23 Doodsmack wrote:
It doesn't even have to be about a nefarious plot to undermine the FBI's investigation of Trump's campaign.
Yep. It don't think it looks like it's about that either, at least not a nefarious plot hatched by Trump himself. And I fear that focusing on that, pushing that argument, while it's super easy to do, is not going to do anything or lead anywhere.
|
On May 10 2017 23:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 23:23 Doodsmack wrote:
It doesn't even have to be about a nefarious plot to undermine the FBI's investigation of Trump's campaign. Reports suggest it's more about pettiness and news coverage - though the line between that and interfering with the investigation is not very thick. The fact that anyone would accept the pretext of Hillary's email investigation is a troubling level of trust in Donald Trump. The fact that everybody forgets they called for his firing before objecting strongly to his firing betrays its political nature. Whine about the timing if you want; he'd have been punished far worse if he did so immediately after assuming office. There was no good time to do it and it was clear before the fact that the justice department was in disarray. Just because I dislike Trump and don't trust him generally to do the right thing doesn't mean I'm obligated to call everything he does bad. You should try it too.
I think Comey should have been fired months ago. My dislike of the man hasn't changed and I'm glad he's gone. I just think it's exceptionally bad timing, with a pathetically flimsy excuse for firing the man. This is the same reason I would have used for firing the man 3 months ago. Nothing new has come up, and the same people who were saying 3 months ago that Comey was doing a bang-up job are suddenly using the exact same stuff they were praising him for as grounds to fire him.
Meanwhile, the only thing that has changed in Comey's job is a change of public focus from the FBI's investigation into Hillary's emails to the investigation into Trump's campaign's ties with Russia.
Note, I still don't think Trump is firing Comey to mess with the investigation. I just think he is a blithering incompetent idiot firing him in a petty temper tantrum.
|
This clip is pretty amazing
|
On May 10 2017 23:28 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 23:10 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 22:59 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 22:55 Doodsmack wrote:
This isn't about Hillary's emails, Danglars, and I think you know it. It isn't. It's his handling of the investigation into Hillary's emails and response to Lynch's actions. I'm not aware that Comey is mentioned a lot in Hillary's emails or sent any to her private address. The actions that Trump and Sessions praised him for and that they did not fire him for 3 months ago... When neither had to run or oversee the justice department ... Edit: AG Sessions was in place, but hadn't staffed his department. The fact of the matter is the timing is ridiculous and the Senate WILL confirm anyone put forth if they tow the party line. They relaxed the requirements for approving appointees in the senate if you have forgotten. And no Comey isn't a good guy. Yes he should be replaced. But no, it shouldn't be now, it shouldnt be in the middle of the russia probe, it shouldn't be by the people he's investigating. If the AG thought it was THAT bad he should have brought it to Congress and let that process address the situation. Especially since he recused himself from the russia probe and thats what comey has been doing in the public eye for months now. Or you fire the man and agree to a special prosecutor and select committee because the apparent conflict of interest is clear to everyone. Whether it exists or not, the optics don't change. but we all know how this administration deals with conflicts of interest, they don't apply to the president or his confidants.
The legislative and executive branches are separate. The AG doesn't bring issues up to the legislature. It's not a matter for Congress, only the Senate has a role and that's confirming or not confirming Presidential nominees. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting these ideas about the structure of the American government.
The Russia probe and the bad agency head is a mess and was always going to be a mess. Can't you see there was no easy way out? I want to see the investigation continue under new leadership and I expect everyone to press their Senators to reject a possible bad nominee. Comey's a free man now. If he discovered some bombshell fact Trump is trying to suppress he won't sit still with a coverup investigation. It should be clear to you how Comey acted under the Obama administration that the FBI doesn't kow-tow to the President.
|
On May 10 2017 23:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 23:23 Doodsmack wrote:
It doesn't even have to be about a nefarious plot to undermine the FBI's investigation of Trump's campaign. Reports suggest it's more about pettiness and news coverage - though the line between that and interfering with the investigation is not very thick. The fact that anyone would accept the pretext of Hillary's email investigation is a troubling level of trust in Donald Trump. The fact that everybody forgets they called for his firing before objecting strongly to his firing betrays its political nature. Whine about the timing if you want; he'd have been punished far worse if he did so immediately after assuming office. There was no good time to do it and it was clear before the fact that the justice department was in disarray. Just because I dislike Trump and don't trust him generally to do the right thing doesn't mean I'm obligated to call everything he does bad. You should try it too.
The bolded part is just not true. If the present justifications were given in January, I would have thought it was a little weird but probably fine. The timing is so, so much worse now, to the point that it betrays the stated purpose (to restore public trust in the FBI).
I assume because it's you we're talking to, the fact that anonymous sources in the WH and elsewhere are saying it was about the Russia investigation is inadmissible as evidence?
|
On May 10 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:
It should be clear to you how Comey acted under the Obama administration that the FBI doesn't kow-tow to the President.
So it was a good thing how he acted?
|
|
|
On May 10 2017 23:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 23:31 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 23:23 Doodsmack wrote:
It doesn't even have to be about a nefarious plot to undermine the FBI's investigation of Trump's campaign. Reports suggest it's more about pettiness and news coverage - though the line between that and interfering with the investigation is not very thick. The fact that anyone would accept the pretext of Hillary's email investigation is a troubling level of trust in Donald Trump. The fact that everybody forgets they called for his firing before objecting strongly to his firing betrays its political nature. Whine about the timing if you want; he'd have been punished far worse if he did so immediately after assuming office. There was no good time to do it and it was clear before the fact that the justice department was in disarray. Just because I dislike Trump and don't trust him generally to do the right thing doesn't mean I'm obligated to call everything he does bad. You should try it too. The bolded part is just not true. If the present justifications were given in January, I would have thought it was a little weird but probably fine. The timing is so, so much worse now, to the point that it betrays the stated purpose (to restore public trust in the FBI). I assume because it's you we're talking to, the fact that anonymous sources in the WH and elsewhere are saying it was about the Russia investigation is inadmissible as evidence?
He gets into office and immediately fires the guy who's investigating Russian influence on the election. Have you lost your mind? That would be ten times worse as a matter of public visibility, no matter how justified he'd be in doing it. I'll stand with you if the new FBI head is treating the investigation lightly or senior FBI officials resign in disgust.
In January, no AG Sessions and no Dep AG. I fail to see how having nobody to present said justifications makes them materialize into thin air.
|
What a fucking embarrassment... I dont care how bad Hillary might have been in terms of FP, Econ, or identity politics, it would have never been this embarrassing. i hope they filmed him hiding in the bushes and plaster it all over every website and news channel so people can see exactly what they elected... the best of the best....
|
Haha that's pretty funny. Standing in darkness and unfilmed? What a press office and such bad coordination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
