US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7871

We have a guy, Comey, who is beyond disgruntled and angry after being fired by the president and now one of Comey's closest friends is leading the investigation as the special counsel. I don't care if you're left, right, Republican, Democrat, does that sound fair, honest, objective to you? Of course not.

On June 16 2017 10:36 Zambrah wrote:


Is it the Comey memo thing that people object to Mueller on the basis of though? I'm legit asking, I'm not sure what exactly the issue is, I'm wondering if I'm just missing something about Comey?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants former FBI Director James Comey to return to Capitol Hill to testify before her panel — and says Democrats are willing to back a subpoena for Comey if he refuses.

Feinstein’s demand came in a letter Thursday to the committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), in which she makes recommendations for how the panel should proceed in its investigation into Comey’s firing.

On Wednesday, Grassley announced the committee was launching a wide-ranging probe into the circumstances of the firing, along with attempts to influence FBI investigations during the Obama administration.

In her letter Thursday, Feinstein says the Judiciary panel needs to schedule a hearing before the August recess with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who appeared earlier this week before the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss his role in Comey’s firing and other issues.

“The committee needs to have an opportunity to question the attorney general about the department’s policies and priorities,” Feinstein wrote. “There also remain unanswered questions about the attorney general’s prior testimony before the committee and his role in firing Director Comey.”

Secondly, she writes, Comey must testify before the Judiciary panel “regarding serious concerns that have been raised about political interference with FBI investigations and possible obstruction of justice.”

Comey previously declined an invitation from the Judiciary Committee to testify on the circumstances of his firing and his conversations with President Donald Trump, instead appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee in one of the most closely watched congressional hearings in years.

“I am disappointed that Mr. Comey declined our initial request and hope he will reconsider,” Feinstein writes. “If not, the committee should take steps to compel his attendance. Be assured my Democratic colleagues are supportive of issuing a subpoena should it become necessary.”

Her letter also recommends that the committee speak with individuals with whom Comey discussed his private interactions with Trump, including acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials.

And she writes that the committee needs to “address the refusal of multiple government witnesses to answer questions posed by senators in the Intelligence and Appropriations Committees.” She specifically cites Sessions’ testimony from earlier this week, when he declined to answer questions about his conversations with Trump.

“These witnesses did not assert a privilege or specify a concrete legal basis upon which they relied upon for their non-answers,” Feinstein writes.

On June 16 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:

So you're in the equity line of justice. Until Trump stops misbehaving, you'll give others license to compromise investigations. How very realpolitik of you.

"There are no cuts to the Medicaid program" - Tom Price, lying his ass off

On June 15 2017 07:34 KwarK wrote:

That doesn't sound possible. Any evidence to support that? English language source would be appreciated but if you find a Norwegian source and tell me it says I'm wrong I'll believe you. But with a 5% yield and 20% of the Norwegian population retired then the fund ought to passively produce $43,650 per retiree without any reduction of the principal. And that's assuming that there are no contributions into the fund at all from any source and that it has to exist purely off of the money already in the fund, forever. We're talking nearly a million dollars of invested money per retiree, that's a lot.

I'd find it quite difficult to create a contrived situation in which the fund could run out of money while still receiving revenue from the Norwegian oil fields and retirement contributions from the population. There is just too much money per Norwegian. At this rate in a few more decades Norway will be able to retire and live off of the interest earned by the principal while an underclass of non citizen serfs do all the work.

On June 16 2017 11:08 rageprotosscheesy wrote:
Moderate Republicans (or what's left of them) don't like the bill either. But they ran on repealing Obamacare for the entirety of Obama's presidency so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't reverse repealing Obamacare because the Tea Party base would eat them alive.

Most of their base wants the Republicans to get rid of Obamacare and give them something better. That's fine, you can implement something better. But the Tea Party want tax cuts and don't want government intervention in the health care market. They can fulfill one of their promises (axing Obamacare) but can't promise the other (providing better health care), which is why the AHCA is so unpopular and why Republicans are constantly hiding from the bill and trying to sneak it through.

Who knows if it'll pass the Senate any time soon but the House rammed it through for Trump so he could claim he achieved something in his first 100 days.

On June 16 2017 11:14 Mercy13 wrote:


I get why they are doing it. Mostly I think they are jazzed about the opportunity to push through a $600 billion tax cut for their rich donors. The strategy they are using to accomplish this is reprehensible though.

Also I'd quibble with you about the Tea Party's goals. They aren't against government intervention in general. They were just upset we elected a black president.

On June 16 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I won't defend their in general reprehensible actions on the healthcare bill; but I will note that sometimes drafting things in secret produces better results (not that I think this will be applicable here). compromise is important, but being politicians, whenever a concession is made, someone will try to make political hay claiming they didn't have to give up on this or that, and they'll nitpick ever concession and tradeoff, and argue a better deal could've been made (without actually specifying such a deal). an open process can lead to rigidity as the hard-liners on each side make it hard to make the necessary concessions, which makes it hard to advance negotiations. if the process is secret, that happens somewhat less, and mostly just with the final deal, rather than the long negotiating process of getting there.

A recent National Security Agency memo documents a phone call in which U.S. President Donald Trump pressures agency chief Admiral Mike Rogers to state publicly that there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia, say reports.

The memo was written by Rick Ledgett, the former deputy director of the NSA, sources familiar with the memo told The Wall Street Journal. Ledgett stepped down from his job this spring.

The memo said Trump questioned the American intelligence community findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. American intelligence agencies issued a report early this year that found Russian intelligence agencies hacked the country’s political parties and worked to sway the election to Trump.

The Russia investigation’s special counsel Robert Mueller plans to interview Ledgett as part of his investigation into Russia’s efforts to manipulate the 2016 vote, a source told WSJ. Mueller is also probing whether Trump himself obstructed justice when he fired former FBI Director James Comey on May 9, according to The Washington Post.

“They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history—led by some very bad and conflicted people!” he wrote.

Comey testified a week ago that Trump had pressured him to “let go” an investigation into fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn after Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence about contact he had had with Russian officials.

Comey also testified that Trump asked him to deny publicly that the president was being investigated by the FBI. Comey said that at the time Trump was not being investigated, but he demurred from Trump’s request because he would have to correct his statement publicly if the facts changed.

On March 20, Comey testified that his investigation into Russian interference was looking at whether Trump’s campaign colluded with the foreign power. British intelligence agencies first picked up contact between Trump’s campaign members and associates in 2015.

Two current and two former officials told The Washington Post that in March Trump asked Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

During testimony to the Senate intelligence committee on June 7, neither Coats nor Rogers would answer many specific questions, but both said they did not feel pressure. Coats testified that he “never felt pressure to intervene” in the Russia investigation.

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believed to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection...I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

On June 16 2017 12:01 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/875531514716573696

Trump demanding someone say he isn't under investigation.

On June 16 2017 12:08 Nevuk wrote:


Since the mentioned tweet isn't embedded:

https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/875530713218600960

On June 16 2017 11:14 Mercy13 wrote:
Also I'd quibble with you about the Tea Party's goals. They aren't against government intervention in general. They were just upset we elected a black president.