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 June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
What's going to happen tomorrow is that various politicians are going to grill Comey on his narrative and try to push him either towards or away from the obstruction of justice narrative. Democrats will obviously try to get him to say that he felt like Trump did impede the investigation. Republicans will examine him on his prior statements to the Senate that he has never experienced politicians interfering with an investigation for political reasons before.
This is what I'm expecting. Basically both sides just trying to get comey to say tweetable things that support which ever narrative.
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.
I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change
The wording here makes it seem like there would be expected to be a 'change' in the future and an actual personal investigation against Trump.
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
This part is interesting
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.
I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change
The wording here makes it seem like there would be expected to be a 'change' in the future and an actual personal investigation against Trump.
Nah, it is just being lawyerly cautious.
Yeah, that's an important point. Comey took great pains to be cautious with everything that he has written and said so far. At best, his narrative implies through innuendo that Trump did something wrong. If Comey really wanted to burn Trump, he would have done it already. That's why this narrative is a dud, and why I'm pretty sure that democrats are going to be disappointed tomorrow.
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
This part is interesting
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.
I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change
The wording here makes it seem like there would be expected to be a 'change' in the future and an actual personal investigation against Trump.
Nah, it is just being lawyerly cautious.
it's more of a 'if in the future we DO need to investigate you, confirming the opposite now ties our hands insofar as we must correct the record. if we say nothing now, our hands will be untied in the future.'
is how i'm reading it. *this does imply what everyone thinks- that trump can't possibly see so far into the future (next week) at the cost of his present. he's interested in actively hurting his future just to make right now go away.
yea. everything XD said. just comey going out of his way to keep things confidential/classified. which in turn means tmrw will be a disappointment.
i am surprised Comey decided to tell us he recorded each interaction. i guess that qualifies as news. i feel like if he intended to divulge as little as possible (which seems the case given all the rest,) admitting he kept logs means they're going to get subpoenad right?
I can't believe how incredibly stupid this article is. Did people actually read it?
It's pretty obviously both stupid and misleading. I'm sur.... No wait, it was Danglars posting this. That makes perfect sense.
Here's a video of the "Bat wielding mob" beating non thinkers with baseball bats from the idiotic article.
Danglars, wouldn't you want them to be able to carry guns instead anyway?
I knew I'd get a response from you, always dependable. They have been asked on their "community patrols" to not carry bats.
Dear RAD Students,
We are aware of a small group of students coordinating a community patrol of housing and campus. We acknowledge and understand the fear and concerns that are motivating these actions. We also understand that these students are seeking to provide an alternative source of safety from external entities as well as those community members who they distrust.
Community patrols can be a useful tool for helping people to feel safe, however the use of bats or similar instruments is not productive. Some members of this group have been observed carrying batons and/or bats. Carrying bats is causing many to feel unsafe and intimidated. The bats must be put away immediately in order to protect all involved. Non-students participating in this activity are advised to leave campus.
I know we have issues communicating. Openly carrying bats walking around campus on patrol is intimidation, particularly when the message is they're justified because of fake oppression. If there were more civil rights on campus and students were allowed to carry guns in self defense, I can imagine these radicals would think twice before using them. It's dumb and you're empowering all the wrong kinds of people by being so blatantly illiberal and intolerant on campus.
Of course you would get a response. I'm not going to let you post something so ridiculously stupid and not call you out for it. "fake oppression", really?
You realize WA is an open carry state? So people can walk around with guns displayed on their hip or on their shoulder if a long gun?
So you would prefer they were walking around with shotguns on their shoulders? Because this isn't about beating random people, it's self-defense. I'm guessing you didn't even read much beyond the garbage lie of a tweet.
This is exactly the kind of reinforcing of white supremacy I'm talking about. You know there are actual injustices on campus and in the area that people are trying to address while you're busy trying to prop up phantoms of the persecuted white man?
Do you ever look these things up before spouting off. Evergreen college bans any kind of carry for its students and teachers. They actually can't. Don't lie and invent to make argument, you're just reinforcing anti-speech stereotypes with a typical disinterested response to student groups patrolling campus with bats. It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation.
lol So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus? You're correct that they can't currently carry (on campus), I was under the understanding that you supported students being able to carry guns on campus though?
I actually giggled when I saw the pictures and video compared to the hyperbolic bullshit describing it.
Like, holy sh*t man
campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.
are you serious with this trash?
It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation
Is this you conceding the police regularly intimidate POC and that is an exponentially bigger problem than some marginalized people at Evergreen feeling the need to defend themselves from a dangerous and violent environment?
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
What's going to happen tomorrow is that various politicians are going to grill Comey on his narrative and try to push him either towards or away from the obstruction of justice narrative. Democrats will obviously try to get him to say that he felt like Trump did impede the investigation. Republicans will examine him on his prior statements to the Senate that he has never experienced politicians interfering with an investigation for political reasons before.
I expect the the Republicans to ask about emails tbh, mostly Hillary's emails.
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
This part is interesting
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.
I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change
The wording here makes it seem like there would be expected to be a 'change' in the future and an actual personal investigation against Trump.
Nah, it is just being lawyerly cautious.
Yeah, that's an important point. Comey took great pains to be cautious with everything that he has written and said so far. At best, his narrative implies through innuendo that Trump did something wrong. If Comey really wanted to burn Trump, he would have done it already. That's why this narrative is a dud, and why I'm pretty sure that democrats are going to be disappointed tomorrow.
The narrative confirms a lot of unsavory things we already heard, so it's far from a dud.
And Democrats aren't the only ones that dislike Trump. Something you should keep in mind.
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
This part is interesting
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.
I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change
The wording here makes it seem like there would be expected to be a 'change' in the future and an actual personal investigation against Trump.
Nah, it is just being lawyerly cautious.
Yeah, that's an important point. Comey took great pains to be cautious with everything that he has written and said so far. At best, his narrative implies through innuendo that Trump did something wrong. If Comey really wanted to burn Trump, he would have done it already. That's why this narrative is a dud, and why I'm pretty sure that democrats are going to be disappointed tomorrow.
If there were anything truly bad he would probably not want to say it because it could hinder Mueller in his investigation of the very thing. Basically he is probably going to spend tomorrow dodging just as many questions as the DNI directors did today just for entirely different reasons.
On June 08 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote: The criminal intent is really shown when he asks kushner and sessions to leave before speaking with Comey
Criminal intent to do what? What did Trump do when they left the room that was illegal?
You know the answer to this question. So why ask it?
xDaunt is making the argument that there is nothing criminal about the president instructing the director of the FBI to cease investigations into the president. I asked him earlier if he thought there was a conflict of interest there, he declined to answer.
The fact that Comey is confirming the media reports under oath means it's not a dud. Trump attempted to interfere with the Flynn investigation. But I'm no expert on obstruction; it may well require a successful attempt.
On June 08 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote: The criminal intent is really shown when he asks kushner and sessions to leave before speaking with Comey
Criminal intent to do what? What did Trump do when they left the room that was illegal?
You know the answer to this question. So why ask it?
xDaunt is making the argument that there is nothing criminal about the president instructing the director of the FBI to cease investigations into the president. I asked him earlier if he thought there was a conflict of interest there, he declined to answer.
That's what I'm talking about. Him playing stupid doesn't move the conversation along and it just exacerbates everything we are trying to talk about.
On June 08 2017 04:26 Mohdoo wrote: So, in addition to everything in these memos, what are we expecting/hoping to hear about tomorrow? Now that we have a complete retelling of all of Comey and Trump's interactions, what is left?
This part is interesting
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.
I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change
The wording here makes it seem like there would be expected to be a 'change' in the future and an actual personal investigation against Trump.
Nah, it is just being lawyerly cautious.
Yeah, that's an important point. Comey took great pains to be cautious with everything that he has written and said so far. At best, his narrative implies through innuendo that Trump did something wrong. If Comey really wanted to burn Trump, he would have done it already. That's why this narrative is a dud, and why I'm pretty sure that democrats are going to be disappointed tomorrow.
If there were anything truly bad he would probably not want to say it because it could hinder Mueller in his investigation of the very thing. Basically he is probably going to spend tomorrow dodging just as many questions as the DNI directors did today just for entirely different reasons.
For anyone curious, this is why I haven't been very interested. Despite the dramatic delivery and the things he will leave open to speculation, it's unlikely anything really good/big is coming out tomorrow.
I don't think we get to an impeachment unless the political circumstances line up just right (haven't crunched who's vulnerable between now and 2020 vs how Trump does in their district). At best we end up with a primary challenge or Trump pulling out himself.
Mueller will take until after '18 to finish so there's not going to be any there there until it's too late.
Actually...only willful blindness would lead one to conclude that the Flynn conversation wasn't obstruction.
"I need loyalty...please end the Flynn investigation."
Defendants Must Corruptly Endeavor to Obstruct a Judicial Proceeding. The third element of the offense requires the government to prove that there was a "corrupt endeavor" under the statute to impede or obstruct justice. The "corrupt endeavor" language in the statute clearly reaches any "attempt" to obstruct the administration of proceedings even if the attempt does not succeed. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995).
Comey's testimony isn't the stand alone smoking gun. The point of Comey's testimony is that it demonstrates that yes, Trump did lean on Comey over the FBI investigation prior to Trump firing Comey. Then Trump confirmed in some tweets that the firing was over the Russia thing.
FBI Russia Investigation --> Trump leans on Comey --> Comey confirms in testimony --> Trump confirms firing was over FBI Russia Investigation --> Obstruction charge.
Comey's testimony is the critical link in that chain.
EPT
