EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7801
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
It will all be on Muelller digging up docs and testimony showing whether or not Trump believed firing Comey would slow the tide of the investigation. Just intimating to Comey he should drop the investigation will not be enough for the Republican house, period. And at least one doc seems to say he did (though it has not been confirmed, the Vice Chair mentioned it). So we'll have to wait at least another six months. Edit: At least the condemnation as a liar will hurt Trump's approval more, I think. He started his Comey character assassination attempts far too late for them to look like anything besides desperation moves. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12535 Posts
On June 08 2017 23:56 On_Slaught wrote: If your boss walks up to your and tells you he "hopes you do something," then you take that as direction. Period. Especially when he does it all Godfather style in some private dinner. So funny that this is literally the argument that they're going to make. As if there was some sort of mystery around what "hope" means when it's directed at a subordinate by his boss in a room that was cleared specifically for that conversation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 23:57 Danglars wrote: As in, he's put his phone down (someone's spelled it out for him) because the entire play is for him to tweet something or say something that dooms him. Your mood today in this debate forum is noted; if you don't want to respond don't respond. More likely is Trump will catch this when its on another news network like Fox or is recording it. Reporters have noted that his “live tweets” normally happen when CNN or Fox run coverage of something, even when it is live on CSPAN. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:02 Nebuchad wrote: So funny that this is literally the argument that they're going to make. As if there was some sort of mystery around what "hope" means when it's directed at a subordinate by his boss in a room that was cleared specifically for that conversation. yeah, comey didn't just fall off the turnip truck. maybe it's one of those "take trump seriously not literally" things? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:01 Mohdoo wrote: The good thing is, everyone and anyone who is reviewing this matter will interpret it the same way. This nonsense about "but that wasn't the word used" is ridiculous. If your boss spoke to you like that, and you didn't do what they hoped for, you fucked up. No two ways about it. Not donny jr though | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 08 2017 23:58 NewSunshine wrote: I like to respond to people who have actual discussion, you do not. Stop picking me out of the group for no reason. Listen, that's the thought and comment I had on your original post. If you're mad at past interactions, just PM me. This is a forum and expect interaction from people with other views, none of which demand response. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:02 m4ini wrote: I kinda feel like the constant "again, i could be wrong" doesn't really help anything. I want to believe that guy, but fun thing is, him constantly pointing out that so much of his story (or his assessment of back then ongoing events) "could be wrong", makes me feel like i can't trust his statements? He is an investigator, not a mind reader. Most of these questions are about the intent. He isn’t really there to persuade the senate towards an outcome. If he were more direct, he would come off as having an agenda. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote: More likely is Trump will catch this when its on another news network like Fox or is recording it. Reporters have noted that his “live tweets” normally happen when CNN or Fox run coverage of something, even when it is live on CSPAN. I really hope senior administration officials have prevailed on him to put down the phone for this live hearing. They have the history of Comey's firing as proof; no dumb tweets and statements would've meant no special counsel and this would be one tenth the hype. One tweet could smash my hopes. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Edit: Of course, Comey would just say "that's part of the special counsel's investigation" but it wouldn't hurt to ask it or try to contort the question to get a "no" out of Comey. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote: He is an investigator, not a mind reader. Most of these questions are about the intent. He isn’t really there to persuade the senate towards an outcome. If he were more direct, he would come off as having an agenda. Yeah he's an investigator. And the former head of the FBI. Kind of not the fucking person that i expect to constantly point out that he could be wrong. The questions about intent are the ones where there's literally no reason to say "i could be wrong", because he's asked what he assumed the intent in X was. There's no "i could be wrong", there's "i felt the intent was X". And no, while i agree that he's not there to persuade anyone, he certainly has to counteract the suggestive questions made by quite a few people there now. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:10 TheTenthDoc wrote: I will say the key thing I noticed during the short time I watched (maybe because this is in front of the Russian investigation committee or whatever) is that the Republican line of questioning didn't seem to actually involve whether the firing was intended to slow the Russia investigation or not. Nobody besides the vice chair in his opening statement seems to be touching on that, only the meetings with Trump. It seems very intentional that the Republicans are not asking any questions that touch on Comey's firing. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13422 Posts
O.O | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:12 m4ini wrote: Yeah he's an investigator. And the former head of the FBI. Kind of not the fucking person that i expect to constantly point out that he could be wrong. The questions about intent are the ones where there's literally no reason to say "i could be wrong", because he's asked what he assumed the intent in X was. There's no "i could be wrong", there's "i felt the intent was X". And no, while i agree that he's not there to persuade anyone, he certainly has to counteract the suggestive questions made by quite a few people there now. It's interesting you assume the former head of the FBI wouldn't be the kind of person to constantly point out he could be wrong in a hearing. That's almost the opposite of what I would expect. People with powerful positions that understand legal ramifications are very reluctant to make declarations. (unless they're a Trump-like I guess; then I wouldn't expect being wrong to even enter into their mind) Calling out the lies is as declarative as you'll get from someone with Comey's level of power, I think. Even in a courtroom I wouldn't expect anything beyond a statement of facts. But here he can't say "that's not my role." | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22586 Posts
Yeah that one send my ears peaking. There is some classified connection between Sessions and Russia. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
This is about as interesting as testimony gets I guess. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:17 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's interesting you assume the former head of the FBI wouldn't be the kind of person to constantly point out he could be wrong in a hearing. That's almost the opposite of what I would expect. People with powerful positions that understand legal ramifications are very reluctant to make declarations. (unless they're a Trump-like I guess; then I wouldn't expect being wrong to even enter into their mind) Calling out the lies is as declarative as you'll get from someone with Comey's level of power, I think. He can also be questioned or his assertions can be challenged. He declares Trump tried to stop him, the follow up question will be “How do you know that?” And the answer will result in him admitting he could be wrong. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 09 2017 00:02 m4ini wrote: I kinda feel like the constant "again, i could be wrong" doesn't really help anything. I want to believe that guy, but fun thing is, him constantly pointing out that so much of his story (or his assessment of back then ongoing events) "could be wrong", makes me feel like i can't trust his statements? It's lawyer speak. Lawyers are taught to relentlessly hedge and give themselves outs down the road. Personally, I don't like that style and I think that it is more convincing to simply own what you say. | ||
| ||
