Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[ARCC]

But asking Comey to stop investigating him isn't exactly legal.

No, but the problem is there is nothing stated that he did so. It all hinges on his "hope" statement. Could he have been pressuring Comet with that statement? Sure, but only two men were in the room together and if Comey states today he didn't feel pressured there is no case. At best these guys will start pleading the fifth.

Anyone who actually thinks Trump will get impeached on any of this is delusional. Clinton was caught with evidence and she got off. If you can't charge her, does anyone think they can convict Trump the sitting President?

 

[gangstonc]

No, but the problem is there is nothing stated that he did so. It all hinges on his "hope" statement. Could he have been pressuring Comet with that statement? Sure, but only two men were in the room together and if Comey states today he didn't feel pressured there is no case. At best these guys will start pleading the fifth.

Anyone who actually thinks Trump will get impeached on any of this is delusional. Clinton was caught with evidence and she got off. If you can't charge her, does anyone think they can convict Trump the sitting President?

But didn't Trump claim to have recordings to refute Comey?

 

[ARCC]

But didn't Trump claim to have recordings to refute Comey?

The only thing I remember was Trump's "tape" tweet that had the media in a frenzy.

I expect Comey's statement will be right on the fence today. Probably say something to the effect the He didn't feel pressured by Trump but that the conversation was inappropriate. At the end of the day, both sides will say they are right and the conclusion will rest on party lines and this all will be a waste of time.

 

[gangstonc]

The only thing I remember was Trump's "tape" tweet that had the media in a frenzy.

I expect Comey's statement will be right on the fence today. Probably say something to the effect the He didn't feel pressured by Trump but that the conversation was inappropriate. At the end of the day, both sides will say they are right and the conclusion will rest on party lines and this all will be a waste of time.

Agree.

However, Comey could give strong enough testimony to start an investigation that would take 18 months.

 

[Evan]

Then I want them to bust him publicly with actual facts and documents and not leaking he said that she said that someone said to the two of the most liberal newspapers in the US. All you end up with is even more a circus than it already is. For instance the whole testimony with Comey and associates will likely be nothing more than a circus with no information revealed that will actually do anything.

This whole situation is a mixture of political and legal processes. They don't move quickly. No one is going to publicly bring out documents and reveal Top Secret sources, methods, and SIGINT. Just not going to happen at this stage of an investigation. I understand Trump supporters and the rabid anti-Trump left both want this process to move quickly and to their desired results, but unfortunately that's not how all this works. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the leaking has come from Trump's own White House. That rests solely on him. Perhaps he should have done a better job vetting those he offered jobs to. Perhaps he shouldn't constantly undermine them. Perhaps he shouldn't encourage Lord of the Flies infighting and backbiting. Perhaps he shouldn't have completely ripped up his transition team's work right at the end.

Do I believe people should be leaking classified information to the media? Absolutely not. If there is damning or damaging intel that requires an investigation and follow-up, there are procedures in place to run that up the chain of command. If those employees believe the information is being buried by their bosses there are actually processes in place by which they can work with a NATSEC attorney (that has the appropriate clearance) to get information on the record and force the agency to respond appropriately. It isn't ideal, but we aren't to the point yet that such leaking is in the national interest or necessary. A good example of this is Reality Winner. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that she leaked those documents in the first place was illegal and completely inappropriate. But, to leak them to an organization made up of Putin apologists was just plain dumb.

Finally, let's recall what set off a lot of these leaks: statements Trump made on Twitter or in public. For instance, saying Obama "had his wires tapped." As I mentioned, the vast majority of leaking has come from the White House itself and has involved very little classified information. You aren't going to see documents and investigative facts presented to the public before Mueller, Congress, and a host of other investigations have run their course. Comey's situation is unique because he was fired and is no longer a government employee. He can now speak to conversations he had with Trump that were not classified. Again, Trump brought that upon himself by firing Comey in the first place -- not to mention how he went about it, and his behavior prior to firing Comey.

 

[Evan]

Case and point, the Coates situation. The WP reported someone said that someone said that he told them he was pressured. Before Congress he said he wasn't. I'm gonna use my all powerful, future seeing ability and predict that WP will report that someone said someone said he told them he was pressured by Trump to say he wasn't pressured. The liberals will scream he lied under oath and the Trump people will laugh. Then Trump will post on Twitter about fake news.

These people are trying to cut down a massive oak tree with a butter knife and every time they flake off a piece of bark they scream that now it will fall. Trump supporters are busy laughing at them and the rest of us are embarrassed at the spectacle with our palms firmly planted on our forehead.

Coates did not say he wasn't pressured. Please be very careful with statements like this. If you watched the entire hearing you would know that the Senators conducting the hearing tried multiple times to get Rogers and Coates to answer that exact question and neither of them would do so. They would only give a very specific answer, and it wasn't to the question being asked.

Rogers said: “never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate,” and does not remember feeling “pressured to do so.” Key words here are "directed" and "felt pressured." That's nowhere near the same thing as being asked/suggested to do something or being "pressured" but not feeling that pressure because you believed the President didn't understand what he was doing was inappropriate.

Coates was asked:

'Are you prepared to say that you've never been asked by the president or the White House to influence an ongoing investigation?' said Rubio.

'I hate to keep repeating this but I'm going to do it,' Coats responded. 'I'm willing to come to before the committee and tell you what I know and what I don't know. What I'm not willing to do is to share what I think is confidential information that ought to be protected in an open hearing. And so I'm not prepared to answer your question today.'

It is not correct that Coates told the Senate committee that he was not pressured or asked by the President to influence an investigation. He refused to answer that question and wouldn't even say why. Rubio specifically said I'm not talking about anything classified -- I'm simply asking if you were asked to influence the investigation. Coates wouldn't answer. He said he would only talk about it in a closed session. Rogers gave a similar response.

Quotes from the hearing are available here, but I watched the entire hearing live, and I've re-watched it to verify these quotes are reported accurately. I can understand why you believe that Coates said he wasn't pressured as many Pro-Trump and right wing news outlets made that claim, but it simply isn't true. Coates and Rogers were extremely careful to not answer that question. They also could not say whether or not the White House was planning to try to invoke Executive Privilege. They stated they had not yet gotten a clear answer from the White House one way or the other. Again, if you watch the full hearing you can see Coates and Rogers use a variety of hair-splitting language and non-answers so as NOT to lie under oath and to avoid answering questions that they said they didn't feel comfortable/appropriate answering.

Source for quotes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4580888/Intel-heads-hot-seat-Capitol-Hill-today.html

The full hearing is also available online. I don't know if the full transcript has been posted yet.

Here's my question: If Trump never asked them to intervene, influence, or do anything about the investigation then why doesn't the White House simply say we aren't invoking Executive Privilege here, and we instruct Coates and Rogers to fully disclose the pertinent information relevant to the Senate committee's questions about what the President said and did? Tell me why that would be bad for Trump if he didn't do anything? If the WH says were are asking them to ONLY address this particular narrow area why would that be an issue? Could it be that the WH doesn't want the EP shield to be pierced lest Rogers and Coates reveal other information that is harmful politically/legally to the President?

 

[Evan]

The only thing I remember was Trump's "tape" tweet that had the media in a frenzy.

I expect Comey's statement will be right on the fence today. Probably say something to the effect the He didn't feel pressured by Trump but that the conversation was inappropriate. At the end of the day, both sides will say they are right and the conclusion will rest on party lines and this all will be a waste of time.

I don't believe Comey would be taking things to this level if he solely believed what the President did was just inappropriate. I don't expect him to say he believes the President obstructed justice, nor do I believe that the written testimony released ahead of the hearing is enough to substantiate an obstruction of justice charge. It seems pretty clear that the White House is pulling out all the stops to attack Comey's crediblity -- which is troublesome in itself if the President did nothing wrong -- but again seems to show that Trump doesn't want everything out in the open.

My opinion is that Comey believed the President was very close to the line. I think he believed that the President would eventually cross the line, so he waited and documented his interactions to build a case. Pretty much what any FBI Director would do in such a case. Comey just happens to be really good at doing so. We simply don't know what conversations the President had with other people including McCabe, Rosenstein, Sessions, Rogers, Coates, and a whole host of other people -- including White House staff that might have had conversations with those people or others at the involved agencies. It is very premature to say that Trump is in the clear or he's damned to impeachment. The process needs to continue to play out. As it stands, today, based SOLELY on Comey's written testimony, you can't substantiate a legal charge of obstruction. Was it an abuse of power, highly inappropriate, and completely unethical? Absolutely. Does it show someone who is unfit and unprepared to be President? Yes, it does, but that's not something that most people didn't already know.

Trump can continue to scream Fake News whenever there is a story that comes out that he doesn't like, but the American people aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. Of those 65 and older, half believe that Trump simply says Fake News whenever he doesn't like a story. Among those under 25 it is a vast majority. Among Independents a majority also believe he simply says Fake News whenever he doesn't like a story. I will have to find the poll that has these numbers, but I'm not currently able to look it back up right now.

Trump has blown a lot of credibility (which he had little of to begin with) by trying to meddle with the investigation into his campaign. Even ASKING about the investigation is inappropriate. The WH is going to push out a full-court press saying that the President was frustrated that Comey wouldn't say publicly that he wasn't under investigation even though he told the President personally something similar. But this isn't even remotely true. Comey told him THERE IS A PROCESS to make that happen, and he explained to Trump exactly what he needed to do. Trump was too impatient and too incompetent to listen, and just decided to fire Comey and bring this whole firestorm down on his own head. Comey told him to talk to Sesssions and the DOJ about getting stuff out to the public. He also told Trump that pushing back on the Russia dossier might not be a good idea. If Comey really was simply out to get Trump, and not just appalled by his inappropriate behavior, he could have said "sure, Mr. President, we will conduct an investigation into the hooker story" and then the FBI could have released a report saying they weren't able to confirm that part of the dossier but they also weren't able to disprove it. As Comey told Trump, very difficult to prove a negative.

It is not an excuse that Trump doesn't/didn't know better or is impatient. He ran for President and said he was qualified. Either you are or you are not. You don't get to pick and choose depending upon how it helps you.

 

[Evan]

No, but the problem is there is nothing stated that he did so. It all hinges on his "hope" statement. Could he have been pressuring Comet with that statement? Sure, but only two men were in the room together and if Comey states today he didn't feel pressured there is no case. At best these guys will start pleading the fifth.

Anyone who actually thinks Trump will get impeached on any of this is delusional. Clinton was caught with evidence and she got off. If you can't charge her, does anyone think they can convict Trump the sitting President?

Here's the thing. He's the President. Saying "I hope" is pretty much the same thing as an order. There's this fiction based view of the Presidency and of leaders that they go around all day ordering people to do things and sprinkle in "I order you to do X." People have seen way too many movies. Many leaders and even past Presidents don't explicitly say what they want, or specifically order it to be done. They just let it be known that it is their desire or hope that a certain thing happens. It gives them plausible deniability and a buffer to basically argue "hey, I never ordered you to do that or say you had to..." when in reality, when someone at that level of authority says "I hope," it means the same thing as I want you to do this. Legally it may preclude Trump from facing an obstruction of justice charge based on that one interaction, but everyone who is honest with themselves know exactly what Trump was doing. Trump is incompetent and ignorant but he isn't stupid. It is just like the mobster that wants to buy your building or land. He comes and meets you at your office and asks if it is for sale. You tell him no. He says, "aww, that is a shame it is such a beautiful place I was really HOPING to buy it from you" then he looks over at a picture of your two children on your desk, and then says with a smirk: "are those your children? I bet you are very proud of them and worry everyday about something bad happening to them. You never know what can happen in today's world." Did the mobster threaten the guy? There's certainly no way to prove it, and there's no prosecutor in the world that could make that case.

I haven't seen many people reference this, but there was something very interesting in Comey's written testimony. Did anyone see the part about Trump saying:

COMEY: I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

Trump 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."

That conversation was from a phone call on April 11th.

Prior to that conversation on March 30th, Trump called Comey and this was reported to have been said:

In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn't brought up "the McCabe thing" because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe's wife) campaign money. Although I didn't understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

Comey refrains from making a conclusion, but specifically states that he did not reply or ask him what he meant. Notice how in the first conversation on March 30th, Comey is confused by why Trump brought up "the McCabe thing." But, on April 11th, the President says "we had that thing you know" and Comey says he didn't respond or ask Trump what he meant. Read between the lines. Comey isn't stating it, and I'm sure he's going to be asked about it in his testimony, but it isn't hard to see why Comey is pointing out both pieces as they fit together like a puzzle. Trump was basically intimating that he believed McCabe to be disloyal because he donated to someone close to the Clintons, but hadn't brought it up because Comey said he was honorable. He brings this up ABRUPTLY after saying we need to get it out publicly that I'm not being investigated. Why else would Trump bring that up other than as an attempt to pressure or compromise Comey?

Well, you say, the President is scatterbrained and he sometimes rambles like that. OK, then explain why in his last call with Comey he AGAIN asks Comey what he is doing to get it out publicly that he isn't under investigation (Comey again told him I've passed on your request and am waiting on the DOJ), doesn't get the answer that he wants and ADDS this: "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know."

What "thing" could Trump have possibly been referring to other than McCabe? There were no conversations or meetings in between the two phone calls. In the phone conversation about 10 days before, Trump had abruptly brought up "the McCabe thing" but said he hadn't brought it up before because Comey said McCabe was honorable.

How can anyone read that and not get the implication that Trump is pressuring/threatening Comey? Why else would you bring McCabe up or circle back to "that thing we had." Literally that is exactly how mobsters try to compromise and use people. And this is no conspiracy theory -- Trump had a lot of dealings with the Mob in NYC as they used to control a lot of the construction trades like concrete. So, hey, about your buddy McCabe, it sure would be a shame if something happened to him. I hope you can let this Flynn thing go he's a good guy. You told me McCable is honorable so I haven't brought him up. Hey, remember we had that "thing" you know, so get it out that I'm not being investigated. I did you a solid now you do me a solid.

We all know Trump has a history of trying to compromise and use people like this. That he tried to do it with the Director of the FBI is simply amazing. If these two exchanges aren't explored in detail during today's testimony then I seriously believe Congress isn't doing their job. It was a clear attempt to influence/pressure Comey. Was it laid out in clear detail like you do this thing for me or you are going to have a problem? No. It was laid out like... hey I'm doing you a favor with this thing. Hope you can handle this thing I want. Hey, we had this thing, so.... what about my thing? Have you handled it yet?

I seriously don't see how anyone can read that and not believe that Trump absolutely crossed the line. Does it prove a legal case of obstruction of justice? As I've said, based on that written testimony alone it does not. But ask yourself what you'd think if this was Obama doing this, or if this was the mayor in your local town talking to the police chief.

 

[Evan]

Comey testimony is explosive. Comey said he believes that Trump directing him to end the investigation. Comey stated he's the President and I took it as was directing me to DO this. Additionally, he said he took his first dinner with Trump as "he was looking to GAIN something from allowing me to stay in my job." Good lord.

 

[Evan]

Comey says he allowed content of his memo to be reported to media by a friend because he hoped a special prosecutor would be appointed. He also said he believes Mueller IS investigating Trump for obstruction.

 

[Evan]

Comey also says he can't disclose the reason that Sessions had to recuse in public. Wow.

 

[Matt]

Evan unhinged! Wow!

 

[Evan]

Seriously concerned with John McCain's behavior. Did he have a stroke or take 30 Xanax?

 

[Evan]

Evan unhinged! Wow!

So posting direct quotes from the Comey hearing and summaries of what he said is unhinged? Huh? Please feel free to point out ANY inaccuracy and I will correct it. I watched it live.

 

[ARCC]

This whole situation is a mixture of political and legal processes. They don't move quickly. No one is going to publicly bring out documents and reveal Top Secret sources, methods, and SIGINT. Just not going to happen at this stage of an investigation. I understand Trump supporters and the rabid anti-Trump left both want this process to move quickly and to their desired results, but unfortunately that's not how all this works. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the leaking has come from Trump's own White House. That rests solely on him. Perhaps he should have done a better job vetting those he offered jobs to. Perhaps he shouldn't constantly undermine them. Perhaps he shouldn't encourage Lord of the Flies infighting and backbiting. Perhaps he shouldn't have completely ripped up his transition team's work right at the end.

Do I believe people should be leaking classified information to the media? Absolutely not. If there is damning or damaging intel that requires an investigation and follow-up, there are procedures in place to run that up the chain of command. If those employees believe the information is being buried by their bosses there are actually processes in place by which they can work with a NATSEC attorney (that has the appropriate clearance) to get information on the record and force the agency to respond appropriately. It isn't ideal, but we aren't to the point yet that such leaking is in the national interest or necessary. A good example of this is Reality Winner. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that she leaked those documents in the first place was illegal and completely inappropriate. But, to leak them to an organization made up of Putin apologists was just plain dumb.

Finally, let's recall what set off a lot of these leaks: statements Trump made on Twitter or in public. For instance, saying Obama "had his wires tapped." As I mentioned, the vast majority of leaking has come from the White House itself and has involved very little classified information. You aren't going to see documents and investigative facts presented to the public before Mueller, Congress, and a host of other investigations have run their course. Comey's situation is unique because he was fired and is no longer a government employee. He can now speak to conversations he had with Trump that were not classified. Again, Trump brought that upon himself by firing Comey in the first place -- not to mention how he went about it, and his behavior prior to firing Comey.

I just get tired of gutless politicians who won't give up their career to do something right. I'm so tired of our government it's pitiful. I'm neither in the hate Trump or love Trump category, I'm just tired of seeing about it or hearing about it.

Comey actually surprised me today and I give him props. At least someone has some guts up there.

 

[Evan]

I just get tired of gutless politicians who won't give up their career to do something right. I'm so tired of our government it's pitiful. I'm neither in the hate Trump or love Trump category, I'm just tired of seeing about it or hearing about it.

Comey actually surprised me today and I give him props. At least someone has some guts up there.

I'm with you. And I don't hate Trump. I just don't believe he is fit to be President and he's harming a country I dearly love. It was hard to do anything other than see Comey's testimony as credible. He reacted all down the line much like anyone else would in a difficult situation, and he admits where he could have done better. Would be interesting to have a President that could do so too because the last two certainly haven't been capable of it.

 

[gangstonc]

Why did Trumps lawyer say comey leaked classified info?

 

[Evan]

Why did Trumps lawyer say comey leaked classified info?

Because he's insane.

But, no it's because Trump couldn't find a DC lawyer to take the case so he hired a personal attorney he's been using that has zero experience with these types of matters. One, Trump already spoke on these matters before the memos were leaked, two the White House already declared they weren't going to declare Executive Privilege, and three it was a Congressional hearing.

Hey, maybe just MAYBE Trump could've claimed Executive Privilege if he hadn't been so pig-headed about writing "I appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation." Oops. Shield of Executive Privilege immediately pierced.

Comey is a very experienced bureaucrat and DC operator, a lawyer, and former Prosecutor, and obviously the former Director of the FBI. I guess Trump's ambulance chasing attorney from NYC never pondered that Comey probably checked with numerous elite attorneys before leaking.

Trump just can't fathom that everyone doesn't just wing it like he does and actually plan and think before they act. Comey is in the clear.

I found it hilarious that Trump's attorney attempted to knock Comey for discussing Trump's conversations with him with colleagues at the FBI/friends. How does he think anyone can execute the President's instructions if they can't talk about what the President said?

The issue is that Trump thinks of himself as a King, and he just doesn't understand why he can't snap his fingers and make people in DC do what he wants.

The letter from his attorney absolutely besmirched what little remaining prestige is attached to the Presidency. This clown misspelled President as "Predisent" and made a host other hilarious grammatical or punctuation errors. Can this shyster not even afford to hire a secretary?

Just another example of Trump hiring "only the best." It would almost be hysterical if it wasn't a deadly serious matter that is seriously harming our country.

 

[Matt]

Why did Trumps lawyer say comey leaked classified info?

I would think a conversation Comey had with the president is privileged and not for public consumption. Even if it is about the weather.

 

[gangstonc]

I would think a conversation Comey had with the president is privileged and not for public consumption. Even if it is about the weather.

You would be incorrect.