Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations....I'd like to know more about the basis for saying "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." I'm guessing that's a reference to the admissibility of the evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule (803(6)). The weight to be given the evidence depends on all of the circumstances. By the way, it's double hearsay, since we're asked not only to believe what Comey wrote but the unnamed individuals who told the NYT about the memo. The NYT has not seen a copy of the memo.
But let's assume the memo exists and says what you read quoted in the post title. How bad is it to say Flynn is a "good guy" and to express "hope" about the outcome? The headline has a pretty aggressive paraphrase of the quote. It reads: "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation."
The asking is at most only implicit in what is a declarative statement: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go." That's just Trump revealing what he hopes for. There's no question at all, let alone any pressure or threat. And "see your way clear" is a delicate phrase. That's not saying do it my way. Go your way. And if your path is clear and it gets you to the outcome I hope for, then I will get what I want, but I'm assuming you will go where you see it clear.
Here's the White House response to the memo:
“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn. The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey."
पोस्ट्स
३१९ टिप्पण्या:
319 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The tapes will definitely help us sort this out.
I expect that Trump is taking good care of the tapes, to assist in any subsequent law enforcement investigation.
Because that's the kind of guy he is. Good guy.
Well, Comey is known for letting people go.
Even if I saw a memo Comey is such a drama queen I don't know what I would believe. Unnamed sources are just Hillary fans with a fantasy of what they believe is fake but accurate. Maybe someone from Kinkos will fax Dan Rather the memo.
From The New York Times' history, we can infer that this is another baby hunt by the left-wing establishment. They have been looking for a narrative to deem Trump not viable and abort him since day -100. So far, they have only managed to discover witches, and the mob outside their window, as evidenced by progressive left-wing violence, is growing impatient.
LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!
I am surprised/not surprised to see this lawyerly, munificent parsing of Trump's attempt at interference.
Trump wasn't ordering or asking Comey to stop the investigation. For the love of God NYTimes and the rest of the MSM, let it go!
"I'd like to know more about the basis for saying "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations."
Indeed you would.
Let's focus on the important stuff, as Althouse sees it..
Impeach! - the mob cried.
"On what grounds?"- the kind shepherd gently asked one of the clamoring supporters.
"Doesn't matter! We'll find something. Impeach, I say!"
It's like Watergate without the burglary.
General Flynn is a far better person than Comey or all of the leftists that conspired to bring him down.
It was right to fire him because he fucked up. On the other hand Susan Rice did far worse things, fucked up far more often, and lied frequently to the american people and was never fired. General Flynn was a far better person than her.
And oh yeah... Flynn is a far better person than Chuck the leftist pretending to be a lifelong republican. These people haven't cared about any of this stuff until it was useful in protecting the DC rice bowl.
I can't read this crap anymore. You leftists are just terrible people. There is zero good faith and no intellectual honesty. Your double standards are so obvious it is repulsive.
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
None of this will make Hillary President. Ever.
Talk about burying the lede! It would only make sense then that Comey has notes of the discussions he had with Loretta Lynch regarding Hillary Clinton's server and the meeting she had with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.
Where are those notes and what do they say? And if he doesn't have them, why not, and isn't that evidence of bias?
Let's see....
The media didn't give shoot when Obama said, in a nationally televised interview regarding Lois Lerner and her team's criminal activity at the IRS, "Not even a smidgin of corruption..."
or, about the investigation into Hillary's email server, "she would never intentionally put America in any kind of Jeopardy.”
Publicly announcing what he wants the investigation to did and, indeed, what they eventually did.
Not a peep out of WAPO or NYTimes NBC about any of that.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
5/16/17, 5:13 PM
Well, if Comey turned up dead a block from his house with two slugs in his back and nothing missing, it would be a nothingburger...a laugh...
Right, Inga?
Where are Loretta Lynch's notes of her meeting with Bill on the tarmac?
Good for you, Ann -- exactly what I was thinking when I read all the remarks ordering me to think that expressing a hope for an outcome was bad. I hope it doesn't rain, OMG I am telling the weather what to do.
"Not a peep out of WAPO or NYTimes NBC about any of that."
Likewise DJT's kind public words re Flynn.
What ya need to look for (as an apple v apple thing-y) is Comey notes where BHO is telling the FBI to stop investigating. That's the same thing.
tcrosse said...
None of this will make Hillary President. Ever.
No, but it will help make a much better person (almost anybody) a Democrat president in a few years time.
After Bush Jr and now Trump the odds of another Republican president in our lifetimes may be closing in on zero.
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
Overheard by a deep state operative, a journolist, a disenfranchised DNC insider, a foreign intelligence operative, an occupy movement repurposed.
Still no babies, but plenty of witches.
An FBI memo usually fits within an exception to the hearsay rule, and the second level of hearsay ("Trump said X") could fall within the "statement against interest" or "statement of party opponent" exception.
But as Ann says, that might make it admissible in a courtroom, but it doesn't make it indisputable, not by a long shot.
And if it's true, how much do we really care? I'm sure if you think that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians to steal the election, well then all of this fits well within your giant conspiracy, and thus is of grave importance.
But if you're sane and realize how utterly implausible (and lacking in evidence, we can be pretty sure at this point) that is, then you have a guy --- Flynn --- who may have been untruthful in his account of a discussion he had with the Russkies; maybe because he remembered it incorrectly, maybe because he was embarrassed, that's the sort of thing where the executive, exercising the kind of discretion it exercises every day of the year, might "see its way" to declining to charge someone even if you think there may have been a violation of the law (whatever that might be in this instance).
Like it or not, everyone in the executive branch works for the President, who right now happens to be Donald J Trump. There could certainly be some circumstances, where there is evidence of a serious crime, and particularly if the President is trying to protect himself, where trying to control an investigation might be wildly inappropriate. But we have no evidence that this was such a case, and the fact that the President sees someone as a "good guy" who he hopes doesn't get sucked into a criminal case is not a crime. It sounds like an act of decency.
Subpoena the memo and the paper trail. Get any tapes that exist. Have Comey testify under oath. If this is true, Trump needs to be impeached post haste. This has gone on long enough.
I am surprised/not surprised to see this lawyerly, munificent parsing of Trump's attempt at interference.
I am not surprised to see new leftist trolls appearing daily.
Inga is having an orgasm right here on the page,
" This has gone on long enough."
If you only knew.
I listened to the news on NPR twenty minutes ago. They like to report NY Times or WaPo anti-Trump stories as simple facts, i.e. "The New York Times has reported that Trump urged Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, in what Democrats are calling a serious violation of the separation between the administration and the Justice Department."
Every word is true, but it is not meant to inform, it is meant to persuade. It is not journalism, it is advocacy.
I am disgusted and angered that my tax dollars pay for this crap.
When Trump said last year that he could murder someone in the middle of 5th Avenue during broad daylight and his followers woundn't care, he was referring specifically to Ann Althouse.
5/16/17, 8:30 AM Delete
"After Bush Jr and now Trump the odds of another Republican president in our lifetimes may be closing in on zero."
Heard that four years ago.
"This has gone on long enough."
Not yet.
The Rs that run Congress can still hang on w/ the grand bargain: 'DJT you can be a gross idiot, just sign tax cuts and other relief for the job creators and creationists.'
But, DJT may not understand the weakness of his deal making position. For Rs in congress the backup plan gets everything done, but does it better in every way: Pence.
When the POTUS tells the FBI director, "I hope you let this go" it isn't Trump just musing aloud for pity sake.
Trump needs to be impeached post haste. This has gone on long enough.
Other than the crime of personally offending you, what law has he broken?
"No, but it will help make a much better person (almost anybody) a Democrat president in a few years time."
Bill Clinton has plead guilty to worse crimes than Trump. Want him back?
Overheard by a deep state operative, a journolist, a disenfranchised DNC insider, a foreign intelligence operative, an occupy movement repurposed.
“I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump . . .
“You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question — if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?
“This is a real problem and I treat this story very seriously because I know just how credible, competent, and serious — as well as seriously pro-Trump, at least one of the sources is.”
There is no hearsay exception for law enforcement memos. But it seems beside the point. Comey isn't dead and he can say what trump told him.
"Inga is having an orgasm right here on the page"
Wasn't it a month, or less, ago that y'all liked claiming DJT was making the libs insanely hateful and angry? And, that meant that DJT was doing a good job.
Now, ya see that libs are orgasmic. And, that means that DJT is doing a good job.
Lots of intellectual rigor goin' on there: everything = DJT is doing a good job.
Carry on.
Obstruction of Justice got Nixon impeached.
And yet, EP, there's not a single name or fact in your post. The very definition of rumor. Yeah, that'll fix Trump.
Obstruction of justice got Comey fired.
Comey was fired after Flynn subpoenas went out.
But, that was completely unrelated.
Ya see, DJT fired Comey cause he was mean to HRC last year. The WH told us so, so it must be true.
“You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question — if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?
You could, you know, give your name, so that people could evaluate whether or not you are credible. Weird idea, I know.
All of these stories are getting embarrassing...for the MSM.
Cue high level official to issue denials and DJTrump to totally contradict him.
The tapes are protected by executive privilege.
People forget what the Court wrote in the Watergate tapes case.
"Obstruction of justice got Comey fired."
The pursuit Justice got Comey fired.
"Cue high level official to issue denials and DJTrump to totally contradict him."
And reduce the Left to frenzied babbling.
Even if true, how is this different from Obama asking the DoJ not to prosecute the Black Panthers? Remember, the left has, for years now, told us that the president has the authority to decide what does and does not get law enforcement resources (it was the excuse for why Obama could fire the IGs investigating him, refuse to enforce immigration law, etc., etc.)
Given the baseline the left has given us to work with... how is what Trump did wrong, using the same rules that existed under Obama?
"The tapes are protected by executive privilege."
Ha ha ha ha ha.
I think you meant 'The "tapes" are protected by executive privilege.'
Ya see for DJT the scare quotes are the get out of jail (figuratively, or not) card for making up BS.
If President Obama had asked Comey in a private meeting to end the Clinton e-mail investigation you dumb Althouse Hillbillies would have gone completely nuts saying that he should be impeached.
Hey Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies! You are Trump's bitches now! HaHaHa!
Kevin said...
Trump needs to be impeached post haste. This has gone on long enough.
"Other than the crime of personally offending you, what law has he broken?"
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Impeachment first—law afterwards."
"How bad is it ...to express "hope" about the outcome?"
Yeah, like "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" How bad was that?
Actually Inga said something useful. Subpoena, find out. Enough with this bullshit anonymous source innuendo. Enough with being asked to trust reporters no-one should ever trust, or White House spokesmen who can't vouch for what they say. Find out.
Blogger 3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Comey was fired after Flynn subpoenas went out.
But, that was completely unrelated.
Ya see, DJT fired Comey cause he was mean to HRC last year. The WH told us so, so it must be true.
5/16/17, 5:35 PM
That's called the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, PB&J.
Inga hopes Trump is impeached. By her own definition, she is obstructing justice.
"I expect that Trump is taking good care of the tapes, to assist in any subsequent law enforcement investigation."
-- He shouldn't. We know that you can take a hammer to evidence and not be punished. It is foolish for any politician NOT to be destroying evidence left and right, as there are no consequences. This is what Obama and Clinton's rules teach us, and I don't like them. You don't like them. But that's how Washington will play for at least 3.5 more years.
Lewis,
I prefer correlation v causation.
But, whatevs.
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
Hearsay from Mr. Shakespeare is inadmissible.
LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!
"-- He shouldn't. We know that you can take a hammer to evidence and not be punished."
The difference is that here the "tapes" will exonerate DJT. They will prove that Comey and his extemporaneous memos are not true.
Cause DJT is not a liar.
Carry on.
Ken B said...
"Actually Inga said something useful. Subpoena, find out."
Is there a grand jury?
If there is Executive Privilege regarding the releasing of the tapes, how is it that Sen. Warner speaks of subpoenaing the tapes? Is he mistaken?
"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he will “absolutely” subpoena recordings of conversations between President Trump and former FBI Director James Comey if they exist.
“Listen, I don’t have the foggiest whether there are tapes are not, but the fact that the president made allusions to that and then the White House would not confirm or deny, it is not anything we have seen in recent days,” Warner told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.
Warner, who is leading the Senate’s investigation into Russia’s attempts to interfere in the United States presidential election along with Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), said that while another committee may need to subpoena the tapes, it is essential to make sure they don’t “mysteriously disappear.”
“I’ve asked, others have asked, to make sure the tapes are preserved, if they exist,” Warner said."
Blogger Inga said..."Subpoena the memo and the paper trail. Get any tapes that exist. Have Comey testify under oath. If this is true, Trump needs to be impeached post haste. This has gone on long enough."
What has gone on long enough is the "Russian investigation". When are we going to see what they've got? I mean anything at all to justify all the turmoil.
"Subpoena the memo and the paper trail. "
-- There is no grounds for that, as the FBI refused to subpoena multiple devices, documents and individuals while investigating other election-related matters.
The left is in the unenviable position of having chopped down the entire forest of laws to get the devil, and wondering what will protect it once the devil turned on them.
As Matthew notes, politics now takes place within the parameters set by Clinton's corruption and Obama's incompetence. By that standard you're going to have a very tough time getting anyone who isn't a rabid Lefty to care.
AReasonableMan said...
tcrosse said...
None of this will make Hillary President. Ever.
No, but it will help make a much better person (almost anybody) a Democrat president in a few years time.
After Bush Jr and now Trump the odds of another Republican president in our lifetimes may be closing in on zero.
5/16/17, 5:20 PM
if the democrats were smart, they'd move their party's platform to the left, but i have very little faith in them doing the right thing.
"Even if true, how is this different from Obama asking the DoJ not to prosecute the Black Panthers? "
This is an Alex Jones story, isn't?
Rabid Lefty or Lifelong Republican, natch.
"LOCK HIM UP!"
Ha, that didn't take long.
"Ya see, DJT fired Comey cause he was mean to HRC last year. The WH told us so, so it must be true."
-- When people say this, I know they have no idea how private sector firing works. The proximate cause was Comey lying to Congress. To make the firing stick, you show a history of incompetence/fireable offenses. Which is why Trump, essentially said, "I want him gone. How do I get rid of him?"
Here's an interesting piece by Molly Hemingway entitled "Tips for reading Washington Post stories about Trump based on anonymous leaks"
"If there is Executive Privilege regarding the releasing of the tapes, how is it that Sen. Warner speaks of subpoenaing the tapes? Is he mistaken?"
-- Probably. Warner is not a very smart man.
Trump should have said, ''wouldn't it by ironic if Flynn got indicted after Hillary didn't?''
Matt,
So that's how it works in the private sector. And, then after all the flim flam is presented as the official reason for the termination, does the CEO always come out and completely undercut the flim flam reason?
SOP Biz 101?
Correct that we need to see the memo, if it exists.
Correct that even if the memo reads as described there is still a jury question about who is telling the truth.
But given Trump's reputation for veracity and subsequent admission that he fired Comey with Russia on his mind a neutral jury could surely find that Trump's intention in firing Comey was to stop the investigation.
And that is saying a lot.
By the way would you care to explain your move from cruel neutrality to lawyer for the defense?
" And, then after all the flim flam is presented as the official reason for the termination, does the CEO always come out and completely undercut the flim flam reason?"
-- It is not a flim flam reason. Usually they'll say "This is the last straw," or something along those lines, such as, "You have been counselled about X repeatedly, but have shown no improvement."
Althouse's nuanced and precise deconstruction of Trump's language will NOT be repeated on CNN.
"But given Trump's reputation for veracity and subsequent admission that he fired Comey with Russia on his mind a neutral jury could surely find that Trump's intention in firing Comey was to stop the investigation."
-- Considering that the next in line was McCabe, a Clinton lackey who pocketed a cool half a million from her, how would a reasonable person expect that removing Comey would stop the investigation?
Matt,
Maybe you could type that up as a memo and send it to DJT.
He doesn't seem to get it.
Carry on.
Unless Trump follows Obama's lead and engages in global (e.g. Libya, Syria, Ukraine) elective regime changes, or signs an Obamacare-like bill that protects progressive pricing of medical products at the national level, or forces more immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises) in anti-native adventures, then these unending baby hunts should backfire catastrophically on journolists, deep state operatives, foreign intelligence conspirators, and their leftists backers.
Once written, our self-designated racist, found his caps lock!
How cute.
I almost stopped reading pretty quickly after the Headline and Lede:
Headline: "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation"
First Sentence: "President Trump asked the F.B.I director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation...."
Next Sentence and Money Quote: "'I hope you can let this go' the President told Mr. Comey according to the memo."
Wow. Didn't ask him to end the investigation, didn't ask him to shut down the investigation.
Glad I didn't stop reading, though, because then I would have missed the longer quote later in the article "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
I mean, my goodness. Worse than Nixon!!!!!!
"... a Clinton administration would be one scandal after another, and you never know what’s coming next," Paul Ryan wrote on a CNN Op-Ed in November, a few days before the election.
What a statesman he's turned out to be.
@Inga Senate Warner IS most likely mistaken, but he got some press time so that's all that matters.
I suspect that before Trump's terms are up there will be at least one whopper executive powers decision in the SC that confirms many of the powers delineated to the president in the Constitution and by Congress that are currently being questioned by the Dems and poorly decided in the courts. Those decisions will be salutary for whatever party holds the WH in the future - and for the general public.
The press was pretty quiet on a number of cases that limited the attempts to expand executive power during Obama's terms. It will probably be healthy to have some decisions go the other way to define, once again, just what powers the President has.
What is the "....."?
What was left out? And why didn't comey's "friend" show them the memo? You know, make a copy with the classified parts blacked out and GIVE IT TO NYT.
Instead, we get PARTS read over the phone!
And why the Hell doesn't Comey just give his stuff directly to the press instead of always having his "Friends" talk to the MSM?
Mind you: I dislike Trump's handling of this entire affair.
But, it is perfectly within the bounds set by Obama. If you have a problem with it, you should have joined me around six or seven years ago when I said, "You shouldn't fire IGs that want your administration to answer their questions and say they're too senile to serve" instead of laughing about how Republicans are doodie heads.
"how would a reasonable person expect that removing Comey would stop the investigation"
What?
You mean DJT is flawed?
Who knew?
The only reason you don't quote everything and only read parts, and put in "...." is because you don't want people to see it.
A list of all the incorrect reporting on Trump between Jan. 20 and Feb.17.: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-errors-in-the-trump-era-your-catalogue-of-the-medias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432
It is a long list.
The MSM is shameless.
"What a statesman he's turned out to be."
- They told me if I voted for Clinton, I'd get a paranoid leader who values loyalty over competency, and they were right!
"'I hope you can let this go' the President told Mr. Comey according to the memo."
Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure.
That's how mobsters talk to people who got the goods on them. "I hope you can let this go." It's a squeeze of the balls.
Trump should was right to fire Comey.
An untrustworthy, Grandstander.
If what Trump did was so bad, why didn't Comey resign? Or at least go public in Feb?
"Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure."
-- While I agree, that's not how all of Obama's pronouncements on investigations and intent were looked at for eight years. So, I see no reason that the country should change their opinion on it solely for partisan gain.
After all, the best way to change a rule is to enforce it. Rigorously.
"Former presidents famously did record goings-on in the White House, especially John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and, disastrously, Richard Nixon. It’s believed that no president since Nixon has taped in the White House, in order to avoid the problems Nixon faced—though, of course, it’s possible some did so secretly.
The first important fact about recordings is that if they did exist, post-Nixon, an administration would be required to preserve them as a public record, in accordance with the 1978 Presidential Records Act. The recordings would theoretically become subject to Freedom of Information requests five years after a president left office, though that can be staved off to as much as 12 years. The entire recordings wouldn’t necessarily become available, because there are carve-outs for personal information about the president’s life, as well as “political” activities. If recordings did exist, it would be a crime to destroy them.
But of course, having recordings five years (at the earliest) after Trump leaves office would do little to resolve the political controversy right now. However, the Watergate precedent indicates tapes (or even “tapes”) could be subpoenaed. Ordered to turn over tapes of the White House, Nixon asserted executive privilege. The D.C. District Court rejected that claim, and Nixon appealed to the Supreme Court.
He lost there, too. By an 8-0 margin—William Rehnquist, a former assistant attorney general, recused himself—the Court ruled that the White House had to comply with a subpoena in a criminal case:"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/if-there-are-white-house-recordings-they-could-be-subpoeanaed/526632/
Trump should have just insisted they talked about their grandkids.
Blogger Brookzene said...
"'I hope you can let this go' the President told Mr. Comey according to the memo."
Not "according to the memo." According to nameless sources who claimed to have seen the memo.
"I listened to the news on NPR twenty minutes ago. They like to report NY Times or WaPo anti-Trump stories as simple facts, i.e. "The New York Times has reported that Trump urged Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, in what Democrats are calling a serious violation of the separation between the administration and the Justice Department."
What pisses me off is McMasters, Powell, and Tillerson have ALL said the WaPo story is FALSE. And yet, the MSM lablels that as "White House Pushback". No its not "Pushback"- the only Americans in the room - besides Trump - are calling the Wapo story a lie.
The asking is at most only implicit in what is a declarative statement: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go." That's just Trump revealing what he hopes for. There's no question at all, let alone any pressure or threat.
You are absolutely correct: Trump failed to add the words "or I'll fire you," so I can't imagine what all the fuss is about.
Maybe if had said Flynn didn't intend to lie to the Vice President. Comey was big on intent, even in the face of a law that said intent is not a factor.
"Within the court, there was never much doubt about the general outcome, as on July 9, the day following oral arguments, all eight justices indicated to each other that they would rule against the president.[5] However, the justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to, the major issue being how much of a constitutional standard for what executive privilege did mean, could be established. Burger's first draft was deemed problematic and insufficient, and multiple drafts ensued, with Associate Justice Potter Stewart becoming a de facto co-author of the final decision.[5]
The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed in some way to the opinion and a final version was agreed to on July 23, the day before the decision was announced.[5] Chief Justice Burger delivered the decision from the bench and the very fact that he was doing so meant that knowledgable onlookers realized the decision must be unanimous.[5]
After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." It held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process, if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality. Nixon was ordered to deliver the subpoenaed materials to the District Court."
Wiki
Yesterday, WaPo scooped NYT. Today, NYT had to come up with something to restore their ego.
Doesn't matter what Comey wrote, unless he claims to quote Trump exactly.
Inga said...
If there is Executive Privilege regarding the releasing of the tapes, how is it that Sen. Warner speaks of subpoenaing the tapes? Is he mistaken?
"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he will “absolutely” subpoena recordings of conversations between President Trump and former FBI Director James Comey if they exist.
Inga, and others:
There is Nixon-era case law that strongly suggests that there IS an Executive Branch privilege, against Congress forcing the release of, or using a congressional subpoena to obtain, White House audio tapes.
But there is further case law that makes it clear that in the investigation of a crime, the Department of Justice (or a special prosecutor as nominated under the DoJ) CAN subpoena White House audio tapes.
For these reasons, keep a sharp eye out, for any DoJ investigation of a possible crime. Or the appointment of a special prosecutor. That is why that is going to be a big deal. And why it is so far off at this point.
A congressional investigation might not produce immediate results, but it could nail down things like whether any tapes exist.
Trump tapes WOULD of course be subject to federal record-keeping laws (there is a 1978 Presidential Records Act), and anyone destroying them may be guilty of a felony. But they are not subject to FOIA.
And by the way, for what it is worth, and as much of a Trump-hater as I am, I do not see any clear avenue as yet, for any prosecution, special prosecutor or DoJ subpoena of the White House. I know that will amaze some of you. I could be wrong; and things may change. I expect things will change.
We also don't know what TRump said before and after the quote.
Maybe, he talked about how he wanted to see justice done, how he would never interfere with the FBI, and how Flynn should be investigated thoroughly blah, blah, But...
"I hope you can see your way to letting Flynn go..."
Perhaps the NY Times or the WaPo could do a story on how Comey became the most reliably truthful person in America. So reliably truthful, in fact, that even people who claim to have heard him speak or read his memos are also considered reliably truthful.
You simply can't tell a lie about the man.
Quite a turnaround for him.
maybe now we know why Trump said Comey had better have "tapes". Not because Trump was threatening him, but to back up any uncorroborated Comey "Memos" of the Trump-comey conversations.
The excrement is going to impact the impeller.
All this Trump/Comey/Russia stuff will go on through the summer silly season lighting fools the way to dusty death.
This story on Drudge displaced two other articles about North Korea and the apparent belief that it was behind the global computer hack, possibly by using teams of long-embedded cyber hacker spies in nations around the world.
A bit more consequential.
If the Nazis had placed saboteurs in 10 nations during the 1930s, and those saboteurs performed coordinated acts of destruction, saying blowing up bridges or cutting power lines or telephone wires (a bit like the internet), and they were discovered, the war might have gone differently.
I'm reading Manchester's biography of Churchill and am now at the part about Chamberlain's two trips to meet Hitler. What 'peace in our time' meant was that the great European powers had acquiesced to Hitler's imminent dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Churchill said to Chamberlain in Parliament.
The N. Koreans just launched a missile that came within 60 miles off the Russian coast. A few months ago it fired a barrage of four missiles at Japan, landing within 200 miles of the Japanese coast inside waters it considers Japanese territory.
Hypothetical: What would President Trump do if a North Korean missile landed in the Pacific Ocean 60 miles offshore from Pearl Harbor?
My guess is that Pres. Trump is well down the road towards on getting China's tacit permission to attack North Korea, and if an event like the above actually happened, we would wake up the next morning to find that the U.S. had launched an apocalyptic strike against North Korea.
All this Trump/Comey/Russia stuff will go on through the summer silly season lighting fools the way to dusty death.
Brookzene said:
"Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure."
A. Not really. You might construe it as pressure. My guess is that Comey has seen significantly more pressure-filled pressure than that. But I can see it as a lament that a guy Trump likes got jammed up and he's hoping they don't bring down the house on him because he likes the guy. Not every statement by the boss is pressure. might be might not be.
B. Even accepting for the sake of argument that it can be construed as pressure, that's NOT what the Times reported. The Times reported that he asked Comey to 'end' the investigation; that he asked Comey to 'shut down' the investigation.
Honestly, if that's all they have, this is what I thought it was, another in the long line of innuendos by which the Media reveals its extreme bias and lack of credibility.
I hope Inga gets the impeachment she wants so badly. But I wonder: will she survive the resulting civil war?
Pretty stupid allegation for Comey to make if it's not true. Comey has to figure Trump has tapes that can prove he was lying.
Game over. Decision to Comey.
"Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure."
A. Not really. You might construe it as pressure. My guess is that Comey has seen significantly more pressure-filled pressure than that. But I can see it as a lament that a guy Trump likes got jammed up and he's hoping they don't bring down the house on him because he likes the guy. Not every statement by the boss is pressure. might be might not be.
- Respect
NYTimes reporter says several sources told her Trump is "terrified" about his upcoming foreign tour.
I don' t think the left will be happy with President Pence. I don't think Pence will tweet very much either.
'
This story is based upon a memo that the reporter has never seen and potentially may not exist, read over the phone by a third party who remains anonymous, reported by a known biased media source.
Seems legit.
Better a two term Pence than a one term crazy man. Believe me.
The GOP controls state legislatures in 33 States. Hopefully, they have sufficiently gerrymandered the districts to ensure the House stays GOP in 2018, to rain on the Dem's march to impeachment.
Of course, I jest - I'm not that partisan. There are tons of nitwits in the GOP.
But, the Dems are atrocious.......
Good! Bring the memos.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/graham-comey-firing-senate-238463
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has invited former FBI Director James Comey to testify publicly at a Senate hearing, the South Carolina Republican said Tuesday.
Comey previously declined a request to testify on Tuesday in closed session before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but The New York Times reported Comey would be willing to testify in an open session.
“I’ve asked Comey to come before the Judiciary Committee to tell his side of the story," Graham told reporters. “I think it would be good for him if he did. It would be good for the country.”"
Brookzene wrote (by proxy, evidently): Pretty stupid allegation for Comey to make if it's not true. Comey has to figure Trump has tapes that can prove he was lying.
Brookzene cannot read.
"Better a two term Pence than a one term crazy man. Believe me."
I agree.
But o, Pence has lied lied lied. So not sure how long he'll stick around. But in general, he is preferable. I just want all traitors out. Give me a patriotic Republican any day of the week. It's not Dump. Never has been and never will be.
"Anyone else think Netflix bought the news media and is releasing the whole season all at once?"
Someone's tweet
Funny!
Yeah, like "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" How bad was that?
About as bad as receiving and disseminating classified State Department e-mails on a private unsecured server in direct contravention of Federal criminal statutes.
None of the usual suspects, not Life-long Chuck or faux/voltaire or Abby Someone blinked or even criticized Hillary for the service fiasco or Billy Jeff calling on the Attorney General on the tarmac in Arizona.
"I hope Inga gets the impeachment she wants so badly. But I wonder: will she survive the resulting civil war?"
If the end result is a bunch of lefty twats and lined up against a wall and shot, perhaps this coup attempt by the deep state and democrats with bylines isn't' such a bad thing.
"BUT! BUT! BUT CLINTON EMAILS!"
Jesus people, you have Trump giving highly classified information from Israel to the Russians because he has a big fucking mouth and was bragging. What is wrong with you people? Have you all succumbed to mass retardation?
If Pence served two terms he would be tuppence.
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
A misquotation of the Henry II. Misquotes are apt in this situation, are they not.
The NY Times has an actual policy about the use of anonymous sources: https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/new-york-times-anoymous-sources-policy-public-editor/
Needless to say, the Times violates its own standards when it reports on Trump. This is, I believe, because the Times editors and reporters are driven by fear and hatred, and not by dedication to their craft.
I suggest reading the whole column, but here are a few quotes:
"The use of anonymous sources is sometimes crucial to our journalistic mission. But it also puts a strain on our most valuable and delicate asset: our trust with readers."
"The use of anonymous sources presents the greatest risk in our most consequential, exclusive stories. But the appearance of anonymous sources in routine government and political stories, as well as many other enterprise and feature stories, also tests our credibility with readers. They routinely cite anonymous sources as one of their greatest concerns about The Times’s journalism."
"Without a named source, readers may see The Times as vouching for the information unequivocally — or, worse, as carrying water for someone else’s agenda. As far as possible, we should explain the source’s motivation and how he or she knows the information."
"If the end result is a bunch of lefty twats and lined up against a wall and shot"
What a coward YOU are. I'd piss on a spineless basement dweller like you and feel pretty good about it.
Just sayin'
Brookzene said...
Pretty stupid allegation for Comey to make if it's not true. Comey has to figure Trump has tapes that can prove he was lying.
Game over. Decision to Comey.
5/16/17, 6:26 PM
With video recorders the size of a quarter available, I would expect a guy like Comey to have his own recordings.
Jesus people, you have Trump giving highly classified information from Israel to the Russians because he has a big fucking mouth and was bragging.
Oh, really? What highly classified information was that?
"Jesus people, you have Trump giving highly classified information from Israel to the Russians because he has a big fucking mouth and was bragging. What is wrong with you people? Have you all succumbed to mass retardation?"
Look in the mirror, Inga. You are hysterical and jumping to conclusions. How much of what I've quoted is known to be true?
None of it.
" I'd piss on a spineless basement dweller like you and feel pretty good about it."
You will do nothing but run your cunt mouth from behind a screen.
Quaestor said...
...
None of the usual suspects, not Life-long Chuck or faux/voltaire or Abby Someone blinked or even criticized Hillary for the service fiasco or Billy Jeff calling on the Attorney General on the tarmac in Arizona.
Where do you step off, mischaracterizing me like that? I thought that episode on the tarmac in Arizona was bizarre, repulsive and worthy of legal investigation. Deplorable, to coin a phrase.
And my loathing of any prospect of a Hillary! presidency was so awful, I voted for Trump.
What makes you think you can write shit like that about me without consequence?
"With video recorders the size of a quarter available, I would expect a guy like Comey to have his own recordings."
Unless you're Hoover I don't think you get to tape the US President without his knowledge.
"You will do nothing but run your cunt mouth from behind a screen."
Ha ha ha ha! You just double down on the yella, don't you Queenie?
"What makes you think you can write shit like that about me without consequence?"
Uh oh, looks like the lifelong republican who pretends to be a lawyer is going to go after you for "slander" even though the statement was not made orally, and is to his anonymous handle.
Or maybe the consequence is that he is going to fantasize about giving you the Greta treatment.
The latest Randy Rainbow!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2OuJYaz_oE
"That's how mobsters talk to people who got the goods on them. "I hope you can let this go." It's a squeeze of the balls."
Boy, the anonymous left wing trolls are on a mad baby seal hunt here. Of course, this may be another Ritmo sock puppet.
Static Ping said...
This story is based upon a memo that the reporter has never seen and potentially may not exist, read over the phone by a third party who remains anonymous, reported by a known biased media source.
Seems legit.
Won't be long now; all the congressional leaders, from both parties, seem to be in agreement to request that the Comey memo(s) be produced, with Comey testifying.
We'll find legitimacy.
"Boy, the anonymous left wing trolls are on a mad baby seal hunt here. Of course, this may be another Ritmo sock puppet."
One lazy ass argument. Here's a quarter, go away rummy.
2 days in a row major newspapers write stories their facts can't back up. And its obvious, deliberate.
One day Trump will really do something wrong and one will care because liberals have taught us not to care.
I'm sorry folks, but this memo business may be the last straw. Although I hasten to add that it's not the-very-last-straw. It does, however, rise to the level of impeachment.
To that selfless and noble end, it would be interesting to see how many republicans support impeachment. I suspect there's quite a few, including Paul Ryan.
Meanwhile, we've joked around about Trump Derangement Syndrome, but now it's evolved into a full-blown pathology. Funny, sure, but only in a hysterical way, hysteria being a pathology all on its own.
To be sure, we're now dealing with not only TDS, but hysteria - soon to be known as insanity’s one-two punch.
Nevertheless, the search for the very last straw goes on.
"One day Trump will really do something wrong and one will care because liberals have taught us not to care."
You think that one day he may do something wrong?
And, if that day was to come you wouldn't believe that he's capable of doing anything wrong cause the libs didn't understand that up until that one day he had not done anything wrong.
Ok
Carry on.
Chuck wrote: And my loathing of any prospect of a Hillary! presidency was so awful, I voted for Trump.
A likely fib, just like the life-long Republican fib.
Like it or lump it, Chuckie. If you want to settle this in a manly fashion come and get me. I'll meet you anywhere along the I-95 corridor from Columbia to DC. Bring pepper spray or a gun. I'll use my fists.
Although I hasten to add that it's not the-very-last-straw. It does, however, rise to the level of impeachment.
Explain your reasoning.
vicari valdez said...
if the democrats were smart, they'd move their party's platform to the left, but i have very little faith in them doing the right thing.
I would be happy to see them co-opt Trump's agenda on economic issues, which would be a shift to the left for them.
Do I have this straight? The guy who holds the pardon power asks the guy who doesn't to pardon Flynn.
"A likely fib, just like the life-long Republican fib.
"Like it or lump it, Chuckie. If you want to settle this in a manly fashion come and get me. I'll meet you anywhere along the I-95 corridor from Columbia to DC. Bring pepper spray or a gun. I'll use my fists."
LOL wtf does Althouse get these clowns? Does she truck them in from somewhere? Is this the real diehard Trumpelstiltskein?
"If you want to settle this in a manly fashion"!!
Maroonski.
Hope I'm just missing the joke ... instead of seeing it clearly.
"What makes you think you can write shit like that about me without consequence?"
Because you're a blustering Lifelong Republican, clumsy moby, and noted cyber-pugilist? Chuck has threatened people from all over these United States on the Internet and some of them will never recover from the brutal cyber-beatdowns he has administered.
I try not to do ad hominem, Chuck, but you're a punk if ever I saw one.
The idiotic avatar with the redhead kid pointing his pompous finger is PERFECT for this rodeo clown.
Just sayin'
tim maguire said...
2 days in a row major newspapers write stories their facts can't back up. And its obvious, deliberate.
One day Trump will really do something wrong and one will care because liberals have taught us not to care.
5/16/17, 7:08 PM
"Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has stated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, the underlying story is true"
Blogger Brookzene said...
The idiotic avatar with the redhead kid pointing his pompous finger is PERFECT for this rodeo clown.
How do you know it's not meant to be ironic?
Lighten up, Benzene.
Do we even really know if the Flynn investigation is a criminal investigation or a counter-espionage investigation against Russia? Temember, the FBI has two functions.
Until we know of there even was or is a criminal investigation regarding Flynn, it would be pretty hard to argue "obstruction of justice", even if arguendo Trump's statement was unduly coercive, which is by no means certain.
If firing the Attorney General, for example, were to obstruct justice in a pending investigation, then the voters would be guilty of obstruction of justice if they didn't vote for the sitting president in the reelection.
Heh. You know it's not ironic. That's HIM. But thanks for the suggestion, Lisa.
"Cruel neutrality" is so much easier to claim than to be.
Er...Louise.
"Here's a quarter, go away rummy."
It does sound like Ritmo. The crazy lefties can't keep this up for much longer without some sort of intervention.
Maybe a dart gun with Prozac, although they are probably immune by now.
Lefties think the Acme Novelty Company finally delivered the weapon that will take out the Trumpster. Meep. Meep.
The record should not be admissible in court unless Comey is unavailable to testify. That said, even then, there's some serious analysis that must be performed in this hearsay within hearsay statement. If assuming it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
This is all fucking nonsense.
"It does sound like Ritmo. The crazy lefties can't keep this up for much longer without some sort of intervention."
This kind of crap is so much easier for you than having to make an argument, isn't it?
If the memo's for real, Trump can always do the George Costanza thing and plead ignorance:
"I'm gonna get right to the point it's come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know ... "
Can't think of anything more exciting than sitting on Althouse comments and playing, "Who is that guy, really? That's Ritmo innit?"
Livin' the life, eh rummy?
"Sounds like Ritmo. Who is that really? Dang, wish I knew."
"Gaw be a sock puppet"
Lefties think the Acme Novelty Company finally delivered the weapon that will take out the Trumpster. Meep. Meep.
An anvil, a government surplus rocket sled, and eight (8) miles of railroad track (some assembly required).
The morons need to defend their guy Trump. The smart guys need to tell you why he's no good. By doing this we raise the level of the discussion and you guys don't necessarily have to be morons anymore ("Any time you wanna handle this in a manly way, lifelong Republican").
Maybe you can be smart, too, and the comments actually become interesting. Get it?
Brookzene wrote: Hope I'm just missing the joke ... instead of seeing it clearly.
You're seeing it clearly, but flipped left to right.
"Maybe you can be smart, too, and the comments actually become interesting. Get it?"
Well, that's a stupid request. I give you one thumb down on social media.
Up your game, Benzene, or it's back to the minors with you.
If the hack press can hack it, for team corruptocrat, they are up to the task.
I don't think it's stupid at all Louise, you should at least try it.
Maybe you can be smart, too, and the comments actually become interesting. Get it?
I find it interesting to watch you slip up, one comment at a time. You add entertainment value and that's about it.
I am intrigued by your handle. You don't know much chemistry, do you?
None of this will make Hillary President. Ever.
worth a repeat
"Explain your reasoning.
It should be self-evident. The liberal utterance of impeachment is always, by definition, premature and completely unfounded. On the other hand, they're much more sober about uttering: "This is the last straw." Because that's a commitment, not simply a hyperbolic statement.
But since we're talking about liberals, "reasoning" as a means to a logical end doesn't apply. For that you must feel, say, in the manner of Whoppi Goldberg or Madam Pelosi. Better known as the Goo-pot method.
Meanwhile, here's the hit-list of Dem descriptives in order of importance:
1. The Very Last Straw
2. The Last Straw
3. Impeachable
4. Absolutely Outrageous
5. He's Insane
6. Beyond Words
7. Hitler
8. Reagan
9. Stalin (the middle years)
10. 5, 3, 1
Lydia said...If the memo's for real, Trump can always do the George Costanza thing and plead ignorance
You nailed, it dearie. The memo needs to move out of the subjunctive mood.
"You don't know much chemistry, do you?"
Or maybe I know a LOT of chemistry!
What a motherfucking bore you are already.
Ooops! misplaced comma...
What a motherfucking bore you are already.
That is a superb Ritmo impression.
Whom shall I choose to chirbitize Brookzene? I need a few more hours of observation.
I thought the only thing admissible in court was what Trump said on the campaign trail.
Sarah Westwood said...
@FoxNews reporting on the air now that they can't get a Republican member on the air right now to defend Trump
You know, in Britain they used to hand out a thing called an "anti-social bevahiour order," or ASBO. This was replaced by the "criminal behaviour order (CRIMBO) in 2015.
If you want to the details, and how an ASBO differs from a CRIMBO, Benzene can fill you in.
"That is a superb Ritmo impression."
The clownship is superb. We're on a comments section having to do with whether or not the President of the United State committed an obstruction of justice and you nancies are all "Ooooo who is that? Is that Ritmo??? I think it is!"
Let me just sign your autograph books for you and you two girls can leave the rest of us to talk about politics. 'Kay?
(Actually just gonna put both of you losers on ignore now. Thanks for introducing yourselves as the non-entities you are though).
I didn't realize you were being satirical, David Baker.
It's been scarce here since the arrival of Brookzene et al.
"@FoxNews reporting on the air now that they can't get a Republican member on the air right now to defend Trump"
CNN said the same thing.
Looks like Bitchmo has been celebrating his new sock puppet by hitting the bottle. I wonder how long before the homophobic slurs come out.
President-Cream-Jeans is back. Drops the cunt word and then says "I wonder how long before the homophobic slurs come out."
You can't make this shit up! No wonder you're a Trumpelstilstkein. (No brains).
The Left is wacko. They immerse themselves in NYTimes articles and MSNBC talk shows, and thus detach themselves from the real world.
I hereby predict Trump won't get impeached (because Dems fall short of retaking House in 2018) and Trump likely wins reelection in 2020 (because Dems don't have good candidate to run against him)
That is all.
The clownship is superb. We're on a comments section having to do with whether or not the President of the United State committed an obstruction of justice and you nancies are all "Ooooo who is that? Is that Ritmo??? I think it is!"
New around here?
Some of you are everything the east coasters think you are.
"We're on a comments section having to do with whether or not the President of the United State committed an obstruction of justice . . ."
I thought the thread was about the improper use of anonymous sources by the NY Times.
(because Dems don't have good candidate to run against him)
(Back to politics) You're right about that. That's why they're going with Hillary again.
Bookmark this comment!
Some of you are everything the east coasters think you are.
Yet another clue, Bozo. My hunch is proving right.
So... : a Paper is reporting someone saw something someone else wrote down about something someone else said to him about some other guy and what that second guy wrote - if what he wrote is true - and thats assuming the first guy isnt lying about what he saw either - in any case - those words used by the third guy can be taken to mean - by some - that something very very serious should be done (impeach).
I thought President Trump was stupid macho guy. Wouldnt a stupid macho guy just threaten outright? ie "Lay off the case, buddy, or i will burn you with my goldfinger gun!" Suddenly hes Mr Innuendo on the Phone?
I would laugh if the news had identified that someone saw a Comey memo-to-file that said " the President just threatened me with a Goldfinger Gun over the phone. ". I would laugh harder if at the bottom of that purported memo it was also reported to say, in Comeys handwriting to the clerk: file under "Threats / Goldfinger / 2017". I would buy that days edition for sure.
CNN said the same thing.
Might mean something if they hadn't spent the last year squandering their credibility. Who could believe anything they say?
This kind of crap is so much easier for you than having to make an argument, isn't it?
Why in the world would anyone try to make an argument to a fool like you ?
You can't make this shit up! No wonder you're a Trumpelstilstkein. (No brains).
This is what idiot lefties think is "argument."
The sock puppets accumulate. I am getting tired of them.
Brookzene said...
"@FoxNews reporting on the air now that they can't get a Republican member on the air right now to defend Trump"
CNN said the same thing.
Maybe they could get some Althouse commenters to step up to the plate. Crazy April could explain how the Clintons killed Seth Rich, so Trump can do whatever he wants now. buwaya could give an erudite and complex explanation for how the deep state is not just responsible for Trump's problems but for Trump as well, so Trump can do whatever he wants now. Achilles could remind them what disgusting slime liberals are, wanton moralless scum unfit to walk the earth, so Trump can do whatever he wants now.
Trump revealing classified info to the Russians = bad.
The media revealing classified info about an Israeli spy = great.
ARM - the corruptocrat, could sit and spin. oh - you are sitting and spinning.
Prof. Noah Feldman wrote at Bloomberg that there is almost no possibility of a federal prosecutor even trying to prosecute on these facts, and I concur. He says that violation of the law is not the standard for impeachment - that misuse of power is. He might be right theoretically, but as a practical matter, I do not think there is any chance that any GOP congressmen will vote for impeachment without clear and convincing evidence that Trump committed some felony crime.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा