Just the idea that there's a piece of paper has a powerful effect on the American mind.
Remember when "the transcript" stopped a presidential candidate so cold he never recovered?
Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.ADDED:
Obama: Get the transcript.
Crowley: He did, in fact, sir. So let me call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden. He used the word–
Obama: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Applause.)...
Posts
74 comments:
Any transcript YOU have, Putin can do better!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVgmUYXE6g
The Democrats, and particularly their news media myrmidons, are about to learn a very bitter and very ancient lesson about taking a lethal shot at a ruler and missing.
Turned out that transcript was fake. Poor Romney; quite possibly the best president we'll never have.
That "appeal to authority" (i.e. the physical paper) has lost some of its luster. Remember Rathergate and the fake Bush guard memos?
As one wag asked: Where are Comey's notes on the Clinton-on-the-tarmac meeting with the AG.
That "appeal to authority" (i.e. the physical paper) has lost some of its luster. Remember Rathergate and the fake Bush guard memos?
The main lesson the media learned there wasn't "be honest." It wasn't "check your sources." It was "don't show your supposed evidence to the dirtbag public because they might debunk it."
So now, "anonymous sources." "
I love the money quote from Reuters:
"It's hard to imagine what else can these people who generate such nonsense and rubbish can dream up next," said Putin. "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans. Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
I loathe to disagree with Putin (Disagreeing with him can be detrimental to one's health, but that's how the Russians do politics since the days of Yaroslav the Wise.) but stupid, corrupt, and dangerous are not mutually exclusive.
If we do not believe in a piece of paper, we would not around carry paper as money and talk about "titles" to prove ownership as a paper you can hold in your hand or admission tickets as pieces of paper.
It is an old 100% confirmation bias. Without a Paper as a proof, then we would need to use our brain power.
Liar leftists stick together. like candy.
In Russia, transcript has YOU!
Ross Douthat is calling for impeachment. Elites need to regain control over the vox populi. Good luck to him!
“I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”
I predict when Comey is asked, "At the time you met with President Trump in February, did you believe he was trying to improperly influence your investigation of General Flynn?" Comey will spend several minutes conferring with his lawyers and then plead the Fifth.
If he answers no, he'll be just a vengeful asshole of the kind every employer has had to deal with. If he answers yes, he's a criminal.
I have here in my hand a list of 205...
Was that 205 or 57?
“I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”
Q beat me to it.
Now that there is some collusion!
Michael said...
As one wag asked: Where are Comey's notes on the Clinton-on-the-tarmac meeting with the AG.
Actually Senator Pete Sessions has asked for just that.
Quaestor, I think "Stupid, Dangerous and Corrupt" was one of the rejected slogans before her campaign adopted "I'm with Her" (alluding to the old I'm with Stupid T-shirts and playing on the arrow on the H thing they spent money on), which was quickly supplanted by "Better Together" (a phrase* so ambiguous no one really knew what it meant).
*Also the slogan of Site One stores, a John Deere Landscape adventure. Wonder how they liked her absconding with their corporate slogan?
Quaestor said...
The Democrats, and particularly their news media myrmidons, are about to learn a very bitter and very ancient lesson about taking a lethal shot at a ruler and missing.
5/17/17, 9:09 AM
Yeah, yeah, what lesson? Who will be punished? Nothing will happen to any of the miscreants and malefactors, or if it does, I will be pleasantly surprised.
"Poor Romney; quite possibly the best president we'll never have."
Yes, if only he had had Trump's ability to respond quickly.
I donated more to his campaign than I have ever done to another. I consider that the last chance the country had to avoid the collapse.
I have hopes about Trump but Romney was far more likely to save our skins.
traditionalguy said...
If we do not believe in a piece of paper, we would not around carry paper as money and talk about "titles" to prove ownership as a paper you can hold in your hand or admission tickets as pieces of paper.
It is an old 100% confirmation bias. Without a Paper as a proof, then we would need to use our brain power.
5/17/17, 9:16 AM
i feel like this attitude might be changing though. for instance these days i get a little bit irritated when i get a letter in the mail. isn't it just easier to send me an email? and who pays bills through the mail anymore. well obviously some people still do, but i think it's changing. regardless, i think althouse could still be right.
I think Putin is fucking with Trump and the US just for the fun of it.
A journolist's report based on hearsay of a witness's recollection recorded on paper following the meeting, days or weeks later? I wonder if the FBI would consider that actionable evidence.
That said, the anti-native left-wing bigots have a peculiar phobia of Russia, and Putin specifically. Is it because he intervened in their elective regime change in Syria? Is it because he backed Ukrainian refugees following the Western-backed coup in Kiev?
Yeah, yeah, what lesson? Who will be punished? Nothing will happen to any of the miscreants and malefactors, or if it does, I will be pleasantly surprised.
You have a short memory, Bad Lieutenant.
19 December 1998 — the House passes Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton. They were morally right to do it but politically foolish. The Republicans had only a thin majority in the Senate, in no way sufficient to remove Clinton, and so quite naturally they failed. The Republicans thought the sordid details of Clinton's sexual predations and perjuries would cripple the whole Democratic party for decades, but instead, Clinton's handpicked successor, the thoroughly corrupt Al Gore, came with a hair's breadth of the White House. And they lost control of the Senate. The impeachment only benefited the Democrats.
n.n.: "That said, the anti-native left-wing bigots have a peculiar phobia of Russia, and Putin specifically."
That said, the anti-native left-wing bigots have a very very very very VERY recently developed peculiar phobia of Russia, and Putin specifically.
FIFY.
How pathetic is the left in this country when they are getting called out for being morally suspect by Putin.
Today there are many examples of where Obama discussed classified material with the Russians coming out. Perspective. This is what leaders of countries do.
This attempt to destabilize our government will pass just like all of the others. But we will remember how you people act when the time comes.
If you want Trumps popularity problems fixed overnight, impeach him. Nothing will serve better to clarify whom the public truly hates.
Well, that (nonexistent transcript), and the fact that his Beta Male ass got bullied in front of the American public by a fat CNN chick.
What a great moment that was in 2012.
Isn't it neat that Candy anticipated and prepared that she might need such a transcript? And that President Obama guessed correctly that she would have done so?
Remarkable.
I keep seeing people say things like, "If this is true, it's really bad for Trump."
But I don't see people saying, "If this is a lie, it's really bad for the media."
I wonder why that is.
At what point do we stop believing the nyt and candy Crowley and the rest?
Here's my problem with unnamed sources.
I keep seeing on Twitter that the source for the NYT story is Preet Bahara (Or however you spell the US Attorney name).
Maybe sometimes they don't name these sources because everyone knows these sources have an ace to grind and we wouldn't pay attention to what they say if we knew who they were.
Ah Candy Crowley an Obama hack; may she live in infamy. And of course from the howls on the Democrat hill, the 1980s got their foreign policy back.
“I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”
McCarthy was right.
AND Candy lied, and the debate monitors didn't correct her...so Romney looked bad, and Obama came out smelling like a rose once again...Still wonder why we do not trust the Main Stream Media and their lies???
Tape recording > transcript > Memo > Some dude told me something
Trump turned this country into a laughingstock to the world. Putin found his useful idiot in Trump.
lost a few seats mostly due to the gerrymandering the dems had done in 1990. similarly the shutdown had no long term drawbacks in the next race, chasing unicorns is no way to go through life,
"Poor Romney; quite possibly the best president we'll never have."
A fine man, but far too nice and decent. He should have gone Full Giuliani on Crowley and pissed all over her parade. "Who the hell am I running against? You, or president Obama?" He could have turned that into a 10-minute diatribe against the press and earned a lot of love. Yuuuuge missed opportunity, one that coulda/shoulda given us a different president.
yes, as with mark felt, a disgruntled senior gman who had run the weatherman surveillance op. that would have made his dissident status seem more inauthentic,
Comey is a known, proven liar; why is anyone listening to him?
Inga wrote: Trump turned this country into a laughingstock to the world. Putin found his useful idiot in Trump.
You evidently did not read the article, Abby darling. Was it fear that restrained you? Probably. Having one's delusions destroyed is excruciatingly painful, isn't it?
Putin told the world that you and your fellow brain-damaged monstrosities are either stupid or corrupt and dangerous. And how correct he is.
The money quote from Reuters, re-posted for the benefit of Abby Someone and her fellow re-animated corpses:
"It's hard to imagine what else can these people who generate such nonsense and rubbish can dream up next," said Putin. "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans. Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
Enjoy the shit sandwich, Inga. You made it. You must now eat it.
Inga said...
Trump turned this country into a laughingstock to the world. Putin found his useful idiot in Trump.
5/17/17, 11:53 AM
I don't think the world is laughing at the country nearly as hard as it was when Obama was leading from behind. And least you forget, that "idiot" still beat Hillary like a second hand mule...
Todd said...
. . . And least you forget, that "idiot" still beat Hillary like a second hand mule...
The real target of the hate isn't Trump. Trump is whatever he is. The real target is the 46% of American voters who elected Trump, Trump is just a stand-in for them.
I can't imagine what it would be like to view half of my countrymen with fear and contempt. I would emigrate if I thought the US was half as bad as most Democrats believe that it is.
"It's hard to imagine what else can these people who generate such nonsense and rubbish can dream up next," said Putin. "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans. Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
What I've been saying: the left's Russian insanity only shows outsiders that Dems will do anything to beat their domestic opponents, damage to country be damned. But as others have noted, the options are not mutually exclusive: they are dangerous and corrupt and willingly damage their own country.
Lewis Wetzel said...
> I would emigrate if I thought the US was half as bad as most Democrats believe that it is.
So you showed no contempt for all the Obama voters who just 'wanted free stuff' and were 'free loaders' who wanted you to 'pay for their health care'? Etc. Come on. You know you hate the Obama voters and Democrats.
On the other hand, this REALLY IS about Trump. He's in trouble. The voters who voted for him may still blindly support him but that is expected because most ALL voters support their candidate through thick and thin. I don't blame them for not voting for Hillary.
"The Democrats, and particularly their news media myrmidons, are about to learn a very bitter and very ancient lesson about taking a lethal shot at a ruler and missing."
It's not the Democrats who have the kill shot. It's Republicans.
We are now out of the realm of law applied to facts, and into the kingdom of politics. So far (Andrew Johnson and Clinton) we have avoided making impeachment into a regular political tactic. We do so at our peril, but these are perilous times, because we have made them so.
If I were Trump, I would be making it clear to Republicans that I would be a third party candidate in 2020 if they force me out, and also if they try to force me out and fail.
You think we are seeing hardball now? It's just starting, and it is going to be terrible for the country.
The financial markets have decided to reflect the governance uncertainty.
We are governed by fools.
Matt said...
Lewis Wetzel said...
> I would emigrate if I thought the US was half as bad as most Democrats believe that it is.
So you showed no contempt for all the Obama voters who just 'wanted free stuff' and were 'free loaders' who wanted you to 'pay for their health care'? Etc. Come on. You know you hate the Obama voters and Democrats.
Uh, you are wrong, Matt. When you look in a mirror, you see yourself, no one else.
Lewis Wetzel said... [hush][hide comment]
Todd said...
. . . And least you forget, that "idiot" still beat Hillary like a second hand mule...
The real target of the hate isn't Trump. Trump is whatever he is. The real target is the 46% of American voters who elected Trump, Trump is just a stand-in for them.
I can't imagine what it would be like to view half of my countrymen with fear and contempt. I would emigrate if I thought the US was half as bad as most Democrats believe that it is.
5/17/17, 12:34 PM
Yes, I know. That was "faint praise" for Trump. Heck, with the proper lighting a head of cabbage had a good chance to beat Hillary. It was a two person race: Hillary versus Not-Hillary and thank the good Lord, not-Hillary won.
I don't know who I despise more, the America-destroying Leftist-Democrats or the pseudo-Conservative idiots in the GOP. The Republicans are just unable or unwilling to rule or get anything done and they collude with their enemies. At least the Dems are relentless in their efforts to destroy their enemies.
FOX NEWS alert: "F" you, we're going left.
CNN Breaking: Now you know why we love Trey Gowdy, suckers.
MS/NBC: Rachel Maddow's wandering eyes hopelessly fixed on far ceiling.
More of the Comey comedy hour, it seems.
It makes no difference what Trump said to Comey. The Constitution says that the "executive Power shall be vested in the President ..." That means all of it, including the power to prosecute crimes, and it is his constitutional duty (and his alone) to see that the "Laws be faithfully executed ..." In exercising his executive powers, Trump was fully within his rights as a legal matter to direct Comey to take any action that Trump believed in the national interest, including to desist from any investigation or other matter. In exercising those powers, Trump was not obstructing anything -- indeed, because the "executive Power" is vested entirely in him by Article II, it is not legally possible for a president to obstruct justice by directing a subordinate official to desist from any action. (Things would be different if Trump was not exercising his executive power, by (for example) asking a witness to lie, or destroying evidence in some fashion.) And, Trump can exercise his powers to end criminal investigations after they have begun, indeed after they have resulted in a conviction by granting "Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States," which the Constitution authorizes him, and him alone, to grant.
For the crazies in the media and academia who are spinning silly theories of criminality, they might stop and engage in a little thought experiment. Imagine that the conversation Trump is reported to have had occurred between Comey (or a subordinate FGI agent) and a U.S. Attorney, in which one says to the other about a potential indictment something like: "The defendant's not such a bad guy -- he was a vet who fought for his country, and we owe him something for that. Perhaps this is a case where we should elect, in our discretion, not to proceed and let the civil law handle any problem that might remain." That kind of conversation happens all the time in prosecutor's offices. None of the participants is obstructing anything -- just doing their job and trying to exercise their (delegated) executive powers in s sensible manner.
Anyone even slightly familiar with the constitution understands that the President is given a unique role, and cannot possibly be committing a crime by exercising the powers granted to him by the constitution. A similarly crazy theory of criminality was pursued by another group of lefty loons against former Texas Gov. Perry, and the indictment was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court on similar reasoning -- the chief executive does not commit a crime -- any crime -- by exercising his constitutional powers.
It's all just politics and partisan spin.
I will admit though, I was somewhat surprised myself when Trump did win. I though Hillary had the thing bought and paid for months before November. I guess what saved the country was Hillary wanted to win on the cheap and save the payouts for "the family" so the campaign must have gotten stingy with the illegal votes funds suppressing fraud voter turnout. I guess it was a good thing she believed her own press. Well that and her health issues probably didn't leave her enough strength to continue with a rigorous campaign.
Meanwhile, "impeach" is turning into I'm-an-apple, you're-an-apple.
Lewis Wetzel
I've been on Breitbart and Instapundit and Townhall and even Althouse enough to know that a good many Republicans and Conservatives have nothing but contempt for liberals and Democrats. Or specifically the Frankenstein monster they build of liberals from anecdotal evidence. So I am GLAD that you are not one of those haters. Maybe it means we can really debate like adults? I welcome it. Now, I say Trump is sort of in trouble at the moment. Agreed?
"Trump turned this country into a laughingstock to the world. Putin found his useful idiot in Trump."
No. Putin is actually calling out fifth-column leftists like you. Not Trump.
Now, I say Trump is sort of in trouble at the moment. Agreed?
I did not vote for Trump, Matt.
I don't know what you mean by "trouble." Aren't presidents always in trouble? You need to be more specific.
Lewis Wetzel
> You need to be more specific.
Really? LOL. Okay! Have you read the news lately? The Comey memos specifically. This is not nothing.
It's dominating the news cycles everywhere. On memeorandum it's cited in the top 25 news links.
http://www.memeorandum.com/
Really? LOL. Okay! Have you read the news lately? The Comey memos specifically.
What Comey memo? Has anyone actually seen this memo? Has Comey talked about it?
Let's investigate and find out if indeed Trump instructed Comey to halt an FBI investigation into former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Rather than just side with Trump or just side with the Democrats lets get an independent investigator and have hearings. I think that's fair.
I will take a stab at defining "trouble" as I understand the term used by people who do not support Trump:
Trouble (n) The condition experienced when Democrats in Congress and the MSM use every opportunity to define as a scandal/emergency/crisis the normal condition of politics. Most especially troubling is when Republicans (e.g. LLR John McCain or LLR Lindsey Graham) say reasonable things about following the evidence that allows the Democrats and MSM (but I repeat myself) to pretend that the worst interpretation of facts is simultaneously the most plausible interpretation of those facts.
Example: President George W. Bush was in trouble when he used the Presidential Weather Machine to generate a hurricane in the Gulf that hit New Orleans, whose politicians did not order evacuation and had not properly maintained the system of levees that control flooding.
Another definition:
Fair (n) The condition by which a Republican president is impeded in implementing the program they were elected to implement, usually with open ended investigations of non-crimes.
The MSM creates the news cycles, or their managers would like to. This is a propaganda exercise.
An independent investigation can be guaranteed not to be independent, the entire system is too corrupt for that.
And moreover it is guaranteed to cripple the President.
None of this is normal politics. This is the battle Trump was guaranteed to have, vs the massed array of institutional power.
Blogger Matt said...
Let's investigate and find out if indeed Trump instructed Comey to halt an FBI investigation into former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Rather than just side with Trump or just side with the Democrats lets get an independent investigator and have hearings. I think that's fair.
Of course that's not fair. The Dems want an investigation, Trump does not.
You have no evidence that any such memo exists. Comey is around. Ask him.
Didn't you think it odd that the NY Times story on this (and that is the only original reporting that I've seen, all other media are just repeating that story, distorting that story, or talking about that story) never mentions that they tried to contact Comey.
The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.
Real solid evidence, there.
The ". . . read parts of it to a Times reporter" phrase I find deeply troubling. Which Times reporter? Is all of this "evidence" coming from single Times reporter? Why would the source insist on not forwarding a physical copy? The Times says the memo wasn't classified. Why did the source read some parts of the memo but not others?
This stinks. The Times should know it stinks. This is why people refer to the Times as a "once great newspaper."
"Has anyone actually seen this memo?"
-- More importantly, is there any actual evidence of it existing before it was read by an associate to the NYTs?
-- More importantly, is there any actual evidence of it existing before it was read by an associate to the NYTs?
No.
My guess is the times reached out to Comey, and he declined to comment or would neither confirm nor deny what the Times had, or denied it altogether. Any of those responses would have worked against the narrative that this was a leaked Comey memo, so instead the Times left gaping wound in the story. What did Comey himself say about it?
The Times rules require anonymous sources not being directly quoted. They quoted an anonymous source here. The Times rules insist that two independent sources are required to confirm a thing when the sources are anonymous. They don't even bother to make that claim in this story.
They don't even bother to make that claim in this story.
Very soon the New York Times will be sold primarily through supermarket chains. Eight years from today their lead stories will be about Batboy.
Putin's point is that the memo is not an independent witness. It is a creation of the first witness. So what remains is still he said/he said. It's still a baby hunt.
There is one other explanation for this irrational maneuver. Comey is working with Trump to expose the leaks in the White House and subsequently the journolists that feels compelled to publish sensitive and perhaps classified material in order to force a baby trial.
Every time I read the story, I see more weirdness.
"An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations."
Comey is not an FBI agent. He is a political appointee. It's a memo that may not exist, not "contemporaneous notes". What does "credible evidence of conversations" even mean? Wasn't the Left just lambasting Comey for lying about the number of Hillary email's on Huma's laptop?
And there is no evidence that the memo actually exists.
"Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter."
"Shared the existence of the memo" not "shared the memo." What a strange thing to say. And the existence of the memo was shared with "senior F.B.I. officials and close associates." Who were these "close associates"? Comey's lawyer? His fishing buddies? One of these "close associates" (not a senior FBI offical) called up a Times reporter and read him parts of a memo whose existence had been shared with him?
Is this some kind of joke?
Post a Comment