|
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 June 08 2017 06:09 Wulfey_LA wrote:
That is what Muller is for. Documentation of Trump's statements to the Russians at that fateful meeting exists and it will eventually come out (NYT reporters claim to have seen the document). Further, Trump will at some point rant and rave and confirm the substance of his statements. At that point, we will have the full chain from: [lean on Comey --> Comey refuses --> fire Comey --> brag about FBI pressure taken off]. That is the pressure, the fail, the act, and then proof of obstructing intent.
Let's say that proof for (lean on Comey --> Comey refuses --> fire Comey --> brag about FBI pressure taken off) comes out. What will you say then?
What do you expect me to say? If sufficient evidence comes out showing obstruction of justice, then Trump is clearly in trouble. I'm just saying that we're a very long way from that right now. And like I said earlier after looking at Comey's narrative, I think that the more plausible reading is that Trump fired Comey because Comey refused to publicly state that Trump wasn't under investigation. That was the "disloyalty" for which Comey was canned. Trump wanted some political breathing room from the Flynn investigation and thought that such a statement from Comey would give it to him. And given that Trump wasn't under investigation, Comey should have thrown him that bone. In short, Comey's termination isn't really about the Flynn investigation (which is still ongoing and unimpeded, I might add).
|
So Comey was fired for not being a lapdog to an egomaniac? That's what we're going with now?
|
For Trump standards that is a pretty reasonable explanation, and certainly isn't illegal. NYT story needs to be confirmed somehow. Can't believe how far and out of the way Trump went to make a case against himself.
|
On June 08 2017 06:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So Comey was fired for not being a lapdog to an egomaniac? That's what we're going with now?
No, I don't think that's fair a reading given that, from Comey's own narrative, there's no evidence that Trump interfered with the Flynn investigation (outside of possibly the termination). Trump just wanted Comey to help him get some political breathing room. Now, I understand the argument from Comey's perspective that it's a bad idea to get the FBI involved in politics, but I think that Comey clearly crossed that bridge repeatedly during the election.
|
He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to
you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he
meant by “that thing.”
Having to deal with Trump in any sort of personal capacity sounds like a nightmare lol.
|
People need to lay off Xdaunt on this one, he is right. He is approaching this from a strictly legal standpoint and reviewing a single piece of evidence that we have right now. This is what lawyers do, look one aspect of a case at a time. Otherwise fact sets are to complex and you end up in the weeds. The exact same discussion happened at my firm over lunch and all the attorneys agreed: What we saw today, on its own and without other evidence, is not sufficient for criminal charges.
This entire thing won’t end in fireworks. It will end in a whimper. It is a grind, just most legal proceedings. Just dull, plodding attrition.
|
Would you not say that Comey learned from his dealing with the emails that he wanted to not get involved again? That he did the emails out of concern to be as impartial as possible and to offer up any evidence and to declare once and for all that there would be no indictment against Clinton for the email server?
|
United States42734 Posts
Markets still seem to think that Trump's tax reforms are coming which is a good sign for him. Either that or it's a bubble.
|
On June 08 2017 06:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Would you not say that Comey learned from his dealing with the emails that he wanted to not get involved again? That he did the emails out of concern to be as impartial as possible and to offer up any evidence and to declare once and for all that there would be no indictment against Clinton for the email server?
You can argue that, but the problem is that Comey stepped in it repeatedly during the email scandal thing, and he has been very public throughout the Flynn investigation. In other words, I'm not seeing where he learned the lesson when there have been multiple opportunities to show that he has.
|
Props for comey though to agree to do this, he is going to get completely destroyed by half the questions
|
On June 08 2017 06:35 biology]major wrote:
Props for comey though to agree to do this, he is going to get completely destroyed by half the questions
He himself asked for a public hearing no? He was offered a private one.
|
Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in a conversation about keeping his job, which could be a straight up threat. Then Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. That's an attempt at impeding the investigation.
|
On June 08 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 06:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Would you not say that Comey learned from his dealing with the emails that he wanted to not get involved again? That he did the emails out of concern to be as impartial as possible and to offer up any evidence and to declare once and for all that there would be no indictment against Clinton for the email server? You can argue that, but the problem is that Comey stepped in it repeatedly during the email scandal thing, and he has been very public throughout the Flynn investigation. In other words, I'm not seeing where he learned the lesson when there have been multiple opportunities to show that he has.
I agree with you.
And for the record, I'm not trying to lambaste you or anything of that sort. I'm not fluent in legalese, so I wanted you to be as clear and concise to your position as possible. I'm looking to understand both sides to the issue. Apologies if I came off aggressive.
|
On June 08 2017 06:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2017 06:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Would you not say that Comey learned from his dealing with the emails that he wanted to not get involved again? That he did the emails out of concern to be as impartial as possible and to offer up any evidence and to declare once and for all that there would be no indictment against Clinton for the email server? You can argue that, but the problem is that Comey stepped in it repeatedly during the email scandal thing, and he has been very public throughout the Flynn investigation. In other words, I'm not seeing where he learned the lesson when there have been multiple opportunities to show that he has. I agree with you. And for the record, I'm not trying to lambaste you or anything of that sort. I'm not fluent in legalese, so I wanted you to be as clear and concise to your position as possible. I'm looking to understand both sides to the issue. Apologies if I came off aggressive.
No offense taken.
|
On June 08 2017 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 06:35 biology]major wrote:
Props for comey though to agree to do this, he is going to get completely destroyed by half the questions He himself asked for a public hearing no? He was offered a private one.
Yes, he's pretty much going to get destroyed on 2 points. 1) Why did he not disclose this information to justice dept? 2) Why did he give 3 assurances to Trump that he wasn't under investigation?
|
|
|
On June 08 2017 06:10 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 06:04 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2017 05:53 Wulfey_LA wrote:On June 08 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2017 05:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:That is a false framing. The question isn't just 'what happened in the room'. It is what happened after his efforts to get Comey to lay off Flynn failed. Once Comey wouldn't lay off, then Trump fired him to ease the pressure over Russia. Proof of the Comey-Trump conversations are coming out through Comey. More proof will come to back up the Trump-Russian Official conversation. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html Yes, this is the correct way to frame it if you're gunning for Trump. It's all about the termination. Trump is the dumbass who told the Russians: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” That is his ass, not mine. He is President now and is accountable to both the law and all of us in a way he wasn't as a private citizen. Yes, that's a problematic statement if that's actually what Trump said. However, I wouldn't rely upon it without seeing more. It's a very good example of why hearsay generally isn't admissible in courts, and there are 5 layers of hearsay (and authentication) that have to be accounted for Trump => recording, recording => paper, paper => official, official => NYT, NYT => public. There are countless questions to be asked regarding the authenticity and completeness of what the NYT published. While you have been repeatedly giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, every single time there has been a leak, it has always been proven to be accurate. For instance, even the Comey memo leaks are confirmed almost verbatim in today's prepared statement, and frankly its tiresome to keep giving Trump the benefit of the doubt given his track record. I'm certain that NYT (hate it as you may for having a liberal slant) holds a far higher journalistic standard than most right wing outlets, and probably actually saw a copy of the transcript in question and confirmed its veracity before even releasing the news.
Xdaunt isn’t talking about journalism; he is talking about the rules of evidence. There is a huge difference between what we know or suspect to be true and what is admissible as evidence in court. They are worlds apart. The basic rule: no witness to confirm what you have submitted is legit, it isn’t admissible. There are exceptions, but they very specific.
The example I use with clients is that you could submit perfectly accurate a copy of the Constitution as evidence. But the court would still require a witness to testify under oath that is was a perfectly accurate a copy of the Constitution.
Nothing in that NYT article is admissible. They could ask Trump about it under oath, but he could just plea the 5th. Or the terrible plan: lie(that one only works if no one else can be compelled to testify).
|
On June 08 2017 06:30 Plansix wrote:
People need to lay off Xdaunt on this one, he is right. He is approaching this from a strictly legal standpoint and reviewing a single piece of evidence that we have right now. This is what lawyers do, look one aspect of a case at a time. Otherwise fact sets are to complex and you end up in the weeds. The exact same discussion happened at my firm over lunch and all the attorneys agreed: What we saw today, on its own and without other evidence, is not sufficient for criminal charges.
This entire thing won’t end in fireworks. It will end in a whimper. It is a grind, just most legal proceedings. Just dull, plodding attrition.
I honestly don't see this ending in fireworks either, I think you have a point. An impeachment takes a lot of buildup, an airtight case with plenty of evidence, and nothing in it all guarantees some sort of cathartic climax. I see it more as sinking into quicksand. Just because this isn't explosive, and not enough for something like an impeachment, it's still far from good, and it's not anything a Trump supporter should celebrate. It's more sad for the country than anything.
If you're celebrating the fact that testimony as to the legal/ethical infractions made by the president is not quite conclusive, I think you're missing the point. We now have a president who has more widespread approval for impeachment than anything else, his approval continues to sink, and he's caught in one hapless mess after another, due either to incompetence or corruption. Even when he isn't hamstrung by "clouds", his policies are far from popular. He continues to sink deeper each day.
|
Oh my goodness lol. Is Trump the only one who didn't know that he personally wasn't under investigation, but that it was his campaign?
|
We're not at impeachment territory yet and likely won't be for some time, particularly given the fact that Mueller is in charge of the investigation. Nevertheless, I think there's a good chance that things move in that direction over the next year or two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
