Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.ADDED: What's so good about that is not the legal analysis but the recognition of the priority of political analysis. I'm seeing way too much "legal" analysis that follows political opinion, and I believe that the political analysis is, for nearly everyone, prior to the legal analysis. So let's increase the chances of accuracy, honesty, and persuasiveness, by talking about what we are probably really thinking about: the politics. And I don't mean are we pro- or anti-Trump. If that's all it is, there's nothing special to talk about here. I mean the positive value and the risks of an independent FBI and positive value and the risks of a President influencing, exerting pressure on, or overriding the FBI. In that light, did Trump do something wrong?
Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.
१० जून, २०१७
"Comey confirms that I'm right — and all the Democratic commentators are wrong."
Writes Alan Dershowitz.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३४५ टिप्पण्या:
345 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»When somebody's advocating looking into your conduct, they're out to get you.
The rhetorical move is to become invisible yourself while observing your target.
Here is a long post from another blog on who Comey really is.
Expanded list of why Comey is a snake, Clinton-plant and demonstrable liar.
1 He first came into Clintonworld in 1996 as deputy special counsel to the Senate special committee on the Whitewater investigation.
2. Comey was lead prosecutor while in U.S Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York against Marc Rich. In 2002, as the US. Atty for Southern District, he oversaw criminal investigations into Clinton's last-minute presidential pardons, including of Rich. The investigations concluded there was no wrongdoing on the Clinton's part, despite donations to Clintons. All of pardons stunk - money went to Clintons, or Hillary's Senate run. Rich pardon gets most attention because of large amount of money involved- $450,000 from Rich to Clinton library and $10O,O00 from Rich's ex wife to Hillary Senate campaign. I personally wonder whether Israeli goverment, whom Rich often helped, asked Clinton to do that pardon. However even if so, it like the other pardons was corrupt as the Clintons reeived money for it. There were no prosecutions on any of the pardons.
3. Comey was DoJ prosecutor who in 2004 let Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger off on misdemeanor charges for stealing classified Clinton Admin. documents wanted by 911 Commissoin from National Archives. He also stopped investigation from probing whether Bill Clinton involved.
4. As General Counsel of Lockheed Martin, he approved payments to Clinton Foundation.
5. Back at work in DoJ, he was DoJ prosecutor who appointed his close friend Fitzpatrick as Special Prosecutor in Valarie Plame matter, and approved FitzPatrick prosecution of Scooter Libby.
6. To get his appointment as FBI Director, he told story of how he rushed to bedside of hospitalized AG Ashcroft to stop W.H. counsel Gonzalez and Chief of Staff Andrew Card from getting Ashcroft to sign an unconstitutional measure. How dramatic, and how presumptuous. Gonzalez was equally competent to make that determination, as was Ashcroft. Another example of him thinking only his opinion could be right - and throwing Bush people under bus.
7. His brother is an accountant who works for firm that did Clinton Foundation internal audit and does Foundation's tax returns. His brother works on Foundation matters. Any investigation of Foundation would necessarily extend to his brother. Yet Comey in charge of Hillary and Foundation investigations. Why has no one raised glaring conflict of interest? Mr. Boy Scout, indeed!
8. His deputy McCabe is close enough to Clintonworld that his wife got $750,000 from Clinton friend/benefactor/former campaign manager Terry MacAulife for her failed Senate run. Yet McCabe was/is actual supervisers on Clinton and Trump investigations. McCabe should have been recused.
(Why no howls about that conflict of interest?) Comey testified he didn't know what Trump meant when he told Comey he had never raised "the McCabe thing."
Demonstrable lie. Of course Comey knew what Trump meant.
Isn't that interesting ? I didn't know half of it.
Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it.
That's what matters. Trump is a lying, corrupt, bullying piece of shit and it's way past time to acknowledge that.
Via Insty:
IN THE WASHINGTON POST, OF ALL PLACES: Trump committed no crime. Democrats need to get over it.
Trump should have fired Comey on day one. He should also ask Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Comey. As Michael K noted above thread, Comey is a walking RICO Act.
That's what matters. Obama is a lying, corrupt, bullying piece of shit and it's way past time to acknowledge that.
FIFY
And in Obama's case, waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy past time to admit it.
Boy who crys wolf wants to fearmonger about wolves.
Trump could shoot Comey in the middle of Times Square and no one would be media accounts of it.
You've immunized Trump against legitimate complaints, nice job libtards.
Also, why the fuck do you still have jobs? Your election analysis was wrong, your polling was wrong, your punditry was wrong. Worse, you blinded your own side with false narratives and came news that left them shell-shocked after the election. 7 months later and they are still throwing themselves at the walls of the psyche ward.
And now you got everything wrong about the Trump Russia narrative. Fake news. We can get this level of analysis from the likes of HuffPo for free.
So why do you still have jobs?
This Dershowitz column was being touted by Althouse commenters since it appeared on line. It must have been linked somewhere as supporting Trump.
I read it, found it to be generally sensible (and interesting, as is much of Dershowitz's cross-partisan writing), and then wondered what sort of "exoneration" it contained, for Donald J. Trump.
I never got wound up, hoping or expecting that Trump committed obstruction of justice. I'm not one of the Democrat pundits that Dershowitz was speaking to. I was long ago on record being critical of the Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby prosecutions. I am a complete agnostic on Jim Comey. But Donald Trump's deserved reputation as a liar gets longer and stronger with each passing week.
Similarly, all the idiocy about the constitutional right of foreign Muslims to travel freely to the U.S. glides right past the clear language of the law - besides inventing constitutional rights for a class of people, foreigners, who have none. If the president wanted to apply a religious test for entering the country then the law allows him to do exactly that. The shouting match around these issues is about nothing but the question Lewis Carroll posed so long ago: who is to be ruled and by whom. If the struggle for naked power for its own sake continues and eventually eclipses everything else it will never again recede. These are the stakes. Beware, lefties. You ignorant assholes, one and all.
Yes the problem here is Democrat pundits. It's so obvious, once it is pointed out by a Harvard law professor.
So if President Obama had put pressure on the FBI to end any investigation into Clinton's private e-mail server you Althouse Hillbillies would have been fine with that? For some reason I doubt that.
Democrats AND congressional Republicans are investigating whether Trump is abusing the powers of his office including obstruction of justice. If it becomes clear he has then they will consider using their power to impeach and remove him.
NO, the problem is Democrats in general since you have gone insane and show no signs of recovery.
If the WaPo sounds more sensible, you are in deep trouble.
The first rule of holes, and all that.
cubanbob said...
Trump should have fired Comey on day one. He should also ask Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Comey. As Michael K noted above thread, Comey is a walking RICO Act.
RE: Trump firing Comey "on day one."
Trump was fine with Comey as long as Comey was going after Crooked Hillary. Trump likes a partisan witch hunt as much as anybody, as long as its his witch hunt. (Quickly, I will point out that I think the Clinton server investigation was worthwhile and I am disappointed and surprised that it did not result in any charges.) Trump didn't fire Comey on day one for the same reason that he later fired Comey; pure political expediency.
By the account of Mr. Donald J. Trump, the decision to fire Comey was made suddenly, and as a result of Comey's handling of the Russia investigation. Trump's own account, a wholly dubious one from the perspective of appropriate Executive Branch conduct, was made all the worse by Trump's apparent direction to seek another pretext to fire Comey.
RE: Congress "appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Comey."
The Department of Justice, not Congress, does criminal investigations. God help us, if Congress ever has the power to do criminal prosecutions.
Dershowitz is a national treasure. Perhaps, the last honest, honorable Democrat.
To recap:
1. There is no criminal investigation of Trump.
2. The FBI Director reports to the AG, who reports to the President. Both of these underlings can be fired by Trump for any reason or no reason at all.
Myself, I don't believe Comey's leak is illegal. Just incredibly stupid and petty. I do think the Committee should find Comey's leaking buddy (Columbia Law Prof) and see if these two had leaked like this before.
The Dems are a disgrace. They are literally trying to take Trump down with a phony claim about Russian collusion, all because Hillary lost.
Hey Once: Obama DID put pressure on the FBI over Hillary's email.
What the heck do you think that Loretta Lynch and Billy Boy's airport meeting was? Yet you Democrats defended it completely. "Of course it was all about grandchildren? I mean, let he who doesn't meet the head of the US justice department when his spouse is under criminal investigation on the tarmac in a running airplane cast the first stone!"
Obama was neck deep in fraud and political pressure. Remember the IRS Commissioner's over 100 visits to the white house to coordinate the IRS attack on Republicans?
Oh, wait, that's one of those stories where you fully approved of weaponizing the US tax system.
Face it, leftists on this thread: Obama did far, far worse than anything Trump has even been suggested by the fever swamps of doing. And not a single one of you had problems with Obama literally letting people die because they were "inconvenient" like, say, a US Ambassador under attack after running guns to Turkey. A-ok for Obama to let him die! Hillary too!
--Vance
This whole thing could blow away if Hillary would acknowledge why she really lost and put her formidable weight behind Kamala Harris.
Shards of glass ceilings and glasses of chard all around.
Hotspot shield is the best software which you can download from this site https://techubi.com/hotspot-shield-crack-full-version-free-download/
"So if President Obama had put pressure on the FBI to end any investigation into Clinton's private e-mail server you Althouse Hillbillies would have been fine with that? For some reason I doubt that."
Of course people wouldn't be fine with it. And they weren't fine with it.
If the President has this right as Chief executive, it only means there's no legal price to pay. It doesn't mean there would be no political price. And I think the Democrats paid a heavy political price for not holding Hillary to the same standard any ordinary government employee would be held to. Democrats tried to avoid paying this price by putting on a show of holding Hillary accountable using James Comey.
Trump didn't fire Comey on day one for the same reason that he later fired Comey; pure political expediency.
He may have thought that Comey was honest and had cooperated with Lynch to keep his job but made his JUly statement to keep the FBI agents from mutiny.
He was wrong and your hatred of Trump blinds you to a lot of alternative explanations.
I think he should have fired him the first day,. too.
Sunsong: "That's what matters."
LOL
Sunsong deploys the "As far as Comey see's it" Clause of the Constitution.
Well played. Well played.
Although, not to nitpick, could you show us where that clause is?
No Sunsong - Hillary Clinton is a corrupt lying piece of shit. the FBI let her get away with it.
Hillary Clinton is a mean vindictive self-serving bitch. She lost. Get the fuck over it.
Chuck, your analysis falls apart when confronted by the fact that Trump encouraged Comey to investigate Trump subordinates for any unethical or illegal ties to Russia.
Whom to believe, whom to believe?
Dershowitz or random MI lawyer and supposed "lifelong republican" who has been wrong about everything?
You know, it's a close call but I think on balance I'll have to go with Dershowitz.
With apologies to ARM of course who is apparently arguing that now we are supposed to ignore Harvard types after spending years telling us we are all fools for not taking guidance from them.
Well.
Lefty and "lifelong republican" commentators are certainly a fickle bunch.
Unknown said...
Hey Once: Obama DID put pressure on the FBI over Hillary's email.
What the heck do you think that Loretta Lynch and Billy Boy's airport meeting was? Yet you Democrats defended it completely. "Of course it was all about grandchildren? I mean, let he who doesn't meet the head of the US justice department when his spouse is under criminal investigation on the tarmac in a running airplane cast the first stone!"
Obama was neck deep in fraud and political pressure. Remember the IRS Commissioner's over 100 visits to the white house to coordinate the IRS attack on Republicans?
Oh, wait, that's one of those stories where you fully approved of weaponizing the US tax system.
Face it, leftists on this thread: Obama did far, far worse than anything Trump has even been suggested by the fever swamps of doing. And not a single one of you had problems with Obama literally letting people die because they were "inconvenient" like, say, a US Ambassador under attack after running guns to Turkey. A-ok for Obama to let him die! Hillary too!
--Vance
All of those events/scandals were covered, reported and commented upon, at the National Review, in the Weekly Standard, at the American Spectator and in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. Better known to you as #NeverTrumpLand.
Criticism of Trump does not equal tolerance for Obama/Clinton illegality.
Fen: "Chuck, your analysis falls apart...."
This is pretty much the only appropriate opening for any response to any of Chuckies posts.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Criticism of Trump does not equal tolerance for Obama/Clinton illegality."
LOL
Unknown at 10:42: You beat me to it, explaining to "Once" just how Obama did apply pressure. I can only add, and how Lynch then applied pressure to Comey.
To beat the horse one more time, expressing a hope that Comey might find his way clear (after appropriate investigation and letting the chips fall where they may) is awkward. It makes Comey feel queasy. Oh dear. We're only talking about the FBI Director, a completely seasoned veteran.
But in comparison to what Trump (reportedly) said, we have Comey himself telling us that Lynch pretty much DIRECTED him to recharacterize the investigation into the Clinton emails. At best that was an expression of her preference, but in fact it was (and Comey saw it as being) an order. And it was an order that meant, at best, let's deceive the public about what we're really doing here (an investigation). Or, worse, you need to stop this investigation and produce nothing troublesome.
Trump's comment can almost be explained away. Lynch's cannot.
I suspect Trump didn't fire Comey on day 1 because his buddy Chuck Schumer had promised Trump that his boy Comey would be great if he continued as FBI Director.
Trump and Schumer were close-isa at some point. Schumer even spoke at Trump's inauguration.
But then Trump realized that Schumer's assurances were only because Comey would be good for Schumer, and Schumer as a friend of Trump was a lot different than Schumer as a powerful political opponent. And so Trump fired Schumer's two legal golden boys, Bahara and Comey.
Chuck: Trump's own account, a wholly dubious one from the perspective of appropriate Executive Branch conduct,
This would be so much more compelling if Trump's own account didn't include the fact that Comey told him 3 times that he was not being investigated, and all of Washington (Lawrence Tribe!) called that a lie for a month.
An instructive list would be one (long) one that included all the various ways Democrats and the Press (but I repeat myself) have tried to convince themselves that the election of Donald Trump as President could be deep-sixed, starting with the Faithless Electors and up to (so far) non-Obstruction of Justice.
"But then Trump realized that Schumer's assurances were only because Comey would be good for Schumer, and Schumer as a friend of Trump was a lot different than Schumer as a powerful political opponent. And so Trump fired Schumer's two legal golden boys, Bahara and Comey."
I did find it interesting that the two people whom Trump had to fire in the DoJ were Schumer's Mutt and Jeff team of Comey and Bahara.
Drago said...
Whom to believe, whom to believe?
Dershowitz or random MI lawyer and supposed "lifelong republican" who has been wrong about everything?
You know, it's a close call but I think on balance I'll have to go with Dershowitz.
You can't even read, can you? I just got through writing that I agreed with Dershowitz; that I found his column "generally sensible."
I was "going with Dershowitz," you moron. Let's highlight Professor Dershowitz"
"Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.
"Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.
"Director Comey’s testimony was thoughtful, coherent and balanced. He is obviously angry with President Trump, and his anger has influenced his assessment of the president and his actions. But even putting that aside, Comey has provided useful insights into the ongoing investigations.
So now let's review what Professor Dershowitz has told us. Comey was thoughtful, coherent and balanced. And he has raised important issues, even if they do not rise to the level of indictable federal crimes. Political, moral and other non-criminal aspects of Trump's behavior. And while Comey's sworn testimony was devastating to Trump's credibility (while we await Trump's own document production and testimony under oath), let's again remember that Dershowitz thinks that the Comey testimony was "thoughtful, coherent and balanced."
"His brother is an accountant who works for firm that did Clinton Foundation internal audit and does Foundation's tax returns. His brother works on Foundation matters. Any investigation of Foundation would necessarily extend to his brother. Yet Comey in charge of Hillary and Foundation investigations. Why has no one raised glaring conflict of interest? Mr. Boy Scout, indeed!"
Great Post, Michael K! Everyone was puzzled why Obama appointed a "Republican" to the FBI. Now, we know.
MadisonMan said...
An instructive list would be one (long) one that included all the various ways Democrats and the Press (but I repeat myself) have tried to convince themselves that the election of Donald Trump as President could be deep-sixed, starting with the Faithless Electors and up to (so far) non-Obstruction of Justice.
Yes! Ha!
Don't forget the calls for him to pull out of the race after the ET Tapes.
I'm curious here, actually. This is off topic, but still.
So: lots of marches against Sharia law are taking place, both here in America and also in London. Some gay rights groups have joined the London march.
And now the rest of the LGBT groups are calling them "Fascist right-winger Islmaaphobic". Apparently marching to protest Sharia law is not acceptable, even for gays.
It's only a matter of life and death, you know. But party over all!
So, leftists: Who is right here? The gays protesting Sharia, or is that "islamaphobic" and should be denounced?
--Vance
I'd add that Comey and Chuck Schumer are BFF going all the way back to 2007. Comey worked with Schumer to keep his testimony a secret. Gonzales never forgave him for that.
Not that I have much liking for Gonzales.
"That's what matters. Trump is a lying, corrupt, bullying piece of shit and it's way past time to acknowledge that."
It would be nice if we could work together to build a better Amer-oh, fuck it, I absolutely delight in the embittered, frustrated, high-chair pounding of the Golden Shower Left. Petty of me, I know, but such sweet, sweet, music.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "You can't even read, can you?"
Indeed I can.
In fact, I even read the DNC talking points so I can tell what you'll be posting about next.
"Democrats tried to avoid paying this price by putting on a show of holding Hillary accountable using James Comey."
And Obama, Clinton, and the DNC very nearly got away with it. Unfortunately for them (and for the GOP), populism and democracy got in their way and they, represented here by Once Written Twice Jay Retread, are now left in a state of disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality. They think they are part of a "resistance" when in fact what they have is little more than "dutch courage".
It almost makes me want to put them all in a basket. A nice comfy basket with a bottle.
Bay Area Guy said...
Dershowitz is a national treasure.
A bit like Chuck.
The Cracker Emcee: "It would be nice if we could work together to build a better Amer-oh, fuck it, I absolutely delight in the embittered, frustrated, high-chair pounding of the Golden Shower Left."
That should read "the Golden Shower "lifelong republicans" and Left"
Meade wrote: "....now left in a state of disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality."
Well stated.
My only disagreement is your use of the word "now." Leftism has become a cult that lost contact with external reality a long time ago.
Its amazing how many DC republicans go "Maverick" while the opposite is almost impossible to find.
Schumer has no trouble keeping all 48 Democrats in line, even though some of these Red State Senators are signing their own electoral death warrant.
Meanwhile, McConnell can't keep his majority in line to pass things Republicans campaigned for. And you have 6-10 Republican Senators who can't wait to go in front of the TV cameras and trash Trump.
ARM: "A bit like Chuck"
I see what you did there you rascal.
I ought to pull your ear.
Quote: "It would be nice if we could work together to build a better Amer-oh, fuck it, I absolutely delight in the embittered, frustrated, high-chair pounding of the Golden Shower Left. Petty of me, I know, but such sweet, sweet, music.
/quote.
I personally think we should pass the "Guam bitter liberals Act" where we open Guam up for immediate resettlement by any liberal upset by Trump.
Bonus: Once we get a few thousand leftists there, the island will tip over and they'll all drown. I have that on good authority from one of the leading Democrats around, Hank Johnson.
--Vance
Bay Area Guy wrote:
"Myself, I don't believe Comey's leak is illegal. Just incredibly stupid and petty. I do think the Committee should find Comey's leaking buddy (Columbia Law Prof) and see if these two had leaked like this before."
It probably is illegal, but is relatively minor, so I also wouldn't bother prosecuting it for a lot reasons were it up to me, but you second point is the really, really good one- I also don't think this leak was the only one Comey did using this guy. Will Mueller or anyone at the DoJ follow up on this?
rcocean: "Schumer has no trouble keeping all 48 Democrats in line, even though some of these Red State Senators are signing their own electoral death warrant"
Well, you could argue the republicans are more principled.
Or, you could argue that many republicans are caught in the milieu of the Washington/Media complex and simply cannot face the inevitable ostracizing that comes with standing for more conservative policies.
Vance: "Bonus: Once we get a few thousand leftists there, the island will tip over and they'll all drown. I have that on good authority from one of the leading Democrats around, Hank Johnson."
#RealityBasedCommunity
#RealLeftScience
MayBee said...
Chuck: Trump's own account, a wholly dubious one from the perspective of appropriate Executive Branch conduct,
This would be so much more compelling if Trump's own account didn't include the fact that Comey told him 3 times that he was not being investigated, and all of Washington (Lawrence Tribe!) called that a lie for a month.
This is one of Trump's failings as president, right? That he can be trolled into all sorts of weird shit just by being provoked in the media. Right?
Do some of you consider it a STRENGTH of Trump's? That he hits back ten times as hard, when he is hit? Trump, the consummate counter-puncher?
I'd say, that this was the week when James Comey took a page out of the Trump playbook, and utilizing his best telegenics and messaging skills, hit back at Trump twice as hard, for Trump's shot at him. It's such a terrible scenario for a president, and such a good one for Comey. Comey's got a longtime personal friend as special counsel. Investigating a guy (Trump) who is much-hated in Washington, who is a remarkable liar, and who has a lot to hide from the public, starting with his tax returns. Comey has no public job right now, no promises to keep, no agenda to fulfill with a hostile and rancorous Congress. Trump has all of that and more, to contend with. Plus the leakiest White House since the 19th century.
And I love the crap about "The long tradition of FBI Independence".
Remember when Clinton fired the current FBI director in June 1993. Remember all the outrage? Oh, right there wasn't any.
But surely you remember when 500 FBI files on prominent politicians and others turned up in the Clinton White house because someone made "a mistake".
"Well, you could argue the republicans are more principled."
Yeah, that's nice. Principled about what, not giving the Republican voters what they voted for?
"lifelong republican" and Failed MI Electoral Politics Prognosticator Chuck: "I'd say, that this was the week when James Comey took a page out of the Trump playbook, and utilizing his best telegenics and messaging skills, hit back at Trump twice as hard, for Trump's shot at him."
We'll file that under "More Stuff Chuck Is Wrong About For Whatever Lefty Reason He Has Adopted Today".
Admittedly, we'll need longer file folder Header tabs.
"Well stated."
Thanks, but I have to confess that I pretty much cribbed that line from Psychology Today while looking for the definition of psychosis.
rcocean: "Yeah, that's nice. Principled about what, not giving the Republican voters what they voted for?"
I said you could argue that, not that you must. Plus, I gave you another option!
Meade: "Thanks, but I have to confess that I pretty much cribbed that line from Psychology Today while looking for the definition of psychosis."
Well, that's a bit ominous.
Reminds me of the NeverTrumpers.
- We don't care if Hillary is elected, we won't give up our principles.
- Yeah, what principles are those?
- Smaller Government.
LOL.
Chuck why are you a life long Republican shilling for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their numerous felonious acts? We are discussing here actual criminal behavior not political promises. Comey tanked the FBI investigation of Clinton. He didn't even put her under oath and record the testimony. No legitimate reason to give her a pass, a courtesy he couldn't find a reason to give to others in his previous position as a US Attorney. Then by inventing a legal standard that he wasn't empowered to do he gave Clinton the ability to skate a prosecution. As for Obama he knew about Clinton's actions and did nothing. He is an accessory to her crimes. It is not illegal to not disclose one's tax returns. So far all you have is accused Trump of bogus garbage and when called on it whine about Republicans going after Hillary which they should have since she is a criminal with the evidence to support the charge. Yes the DoJ appoints the special prosecutor but Congress has to fund it and Congress can always say no if it feels it's just a dog and pony political show trial. Speaking of appointing special prosecutors enough of this wasting time on this Russian nonsense which is nothing (exposing a criminal isn't a crime and exposing political dirty tricks isn't a crime) and start investigating the real criminals in and out of government starting with the Clintons.
cubanbob: "Chuck why are you a life long Republican shilling for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their numerous felonious acts?"
Sometimes, the answers to questions are staring at us right in the face.
AReasonableMan said...
Bay Area Guy said...
Dershowitz is a national treasure.
A bit like Chuck."
There is gold and then there is fool's gold. Can you spot the difference?
I think that a lot of things went into Trump's initial decision not to fire Comey up front. For one thing, Comey is tokenly a Republican, and had served in previous Republican Administrations, which meant that from Trump's point of view, presumably one of the good guys. Then there was the ten year term thing, which rant that Trump probably should have needed to show cause (which was done in the termination letter). And the proble that Comey's FBI was investigating possible collaboration between the Russians and Trump's people. So, Comey got the benefit of the doubt. Bahara did not, because he was a Democrat, and a known enemy of Republicans, having been a Schumer staffer, having incarcerated D'Sousa for essentially producing an anti-Obama film, etc
But, in the end Comey showed his true stripes and got fired for lack of loyalty. Not the loyalty oath type of disloyalty, but the stab-you-in-the-back bureaucrat type of disloyalty that is so endemic in DC. Comey was told by his boss, Trump, to go after the leakers. Instead, after saying "sure", he did what he wanted to anyway, and produced zero scalps for either the leaking of classified information or the unmasking of Trump people in FISA sanctioned intercepts. Instead the leaking seemed to have increased if anything. And then it turned out that Comey too was a leaker, and Trump knew the rat, that the leaking of the contents of their one-on-one conversation could have only come from or through Comey. And the leak was designed to hurt Trump. The guy tasked to take out the leakers, was one himself. The wolf in charge of the henhouse. Comey only pretended to be on Team Trump, but was really only on Team Comey. As someone pointed out, if you try to assasinated the king, you had better succeed. Comey tried and failed.
cubanbob said...
Chuck why are you a life long Republican shilling for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their numerous felonious acts? "
Because his hatred of Trump far outweighs any distaste he might feel for the Democrats.
Bill Kristol said he prefers the Deep State to a Trump presidency. Chuck is the same. A successful Trump presidency would be a disaster in his book. He would rather live under Democrat rule.
cubanbob said...
Chuck why are you a life long Republican shilling for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their numerous felonious acts?
...
I'm not!!!!
I'm not "shilling" for any Democrat!
I can't think of anyone in media, who was more hostile to the sins (and crimes) of Hillary Clinton, than Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard. Few if any columnists did more to lead the reporting on the Benghazi and Servergate issues.
And I also can't think of anybody who is more "NeverTrump" than Steve Hayes.
I adore Steve Hayes.
Now I want to know where you step off, accusing me of "shilling" for Democrats. Get to work, and show the good readers here some past comment of mine, where I ever "shilled" for any Democrats.
That is the Trumpian response; to name me as a libtard, a Democrat, an Obama supporter. Ironic, since I volunteered for the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012.. while this blog's hostess actually supported Obama. (Memories are short and selective in TrumpLand, where Fred and Donald Trump were both long time Democrat donors.) As with most things Trump, it is a stupid and baseless charge, trying to call me out as a Democrat supporter. You can't find a pro-Democrat quote from me.
cubanbob: "There is gold and then there is fool's gold. Can you spot the difference?"
I don't think you are quite getting what that rapscallion ARM was going for on that one.
"I adore Steve Hayes."
Of course you do. Another Establishment hack.
"lifelong republican" and "Noted Passionate Defender of Stolen Valor Democrat Richard Blumenthal" Chuck: "I'm not!!!! I'm not "shilling" for any Democrat!"
Quite frankly, I'm surprised Chuck had the energy to actually write that given all his shilling for democrats that he shovels out by the metric ton.
"Comey only pretended to be on Team Trump, but was really only on Team Comey."
Good comment.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "That is the Trumpian response; to name me as a libtard, a Democrat, an Obama supporter. Ironic, since I volunteered for the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012."
Hmmmmmm. What types of correlations can we draw from that, eh?
Republicans lose in 2008, 2012.
Chuckie goes insane in 2016 and republicans win.
Well, I think I've seen enough.
Somebody put Chuckie in charge of a campaign now! That guy is SOLID gold politically!
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "(Memories are short and selective in TrumpLand, where Fred and Donald Trump were both long time Democrat donors.)"
LOL
Wow. That sure seems relevant.......not.
You know, when you've shilled and minimized and obfuscated for the dems as much as Chuck, it can be difficult recalling one instance in particular.
I think I'll wander over to DailyKos to see what Chuck will be hitting us with next.
I'm a man without conviction
I'm a man who doesn't know
How to sale a contradiction?
You come and go, you come and go
Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey Chameleon
You come and go, you come and go
Yep: Boy George.
I am Laslo.
I'll note for Chuck that ARM also was virulently opposed to Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure that ARM would never claim to be a Republican......
Fact is, you are on the record as openly calling for Trump's impeachment. Since before he was inaugurated. You march lockstep with whatever fantasy the left comes up with, and never critically analyze anything the NYT and company puts out about Trump. You fell hook, line, and sinker for that "Dossier" that was made up about Trump.
Yes, you may not be John Podesta, but what's the difference between John Podesta and Bill Kristol anymore? Both are allies, working as one in the great "Destroy Trump, the most evil person alive!!!!!!!" ranks.
Why are you so threatened by someone who wants to gut the federal government and return it to its proper place? Isn't that the platform of the Republican party? Why are you so opposed to actually doing it? To actually being Republican, instead of failure theater like McConnell always does?
--Vance
Damn, Chuck isn't even trying anymore. His 11:40 reads like a Monty Python skit.
Yesterday, I was thinking about a very recent interview on the radio with Alan Douchowitz, and that is when I came up with his appropriate last name to make myself smile. He was lambasting Democrats for being partisan hypocrites in their treatment of Trump regarding his possible obstruction of justice. As if Republicans are not partisan hypocrites? Douchowitz is arrogant, angry, and grating to listen to. I listen to douche bags, only to question my own beliefs and change them when appropriate. But I limit my auditory exposure to tolerable amounts to preserve my sanity.
Dershowitz is correct as a matter of the law, but very few people are even smart enough to understand the distinction he is making, and practically no one who works in the MSM is smart enough to understand it.
Obstruction of justice is a crime for which people go to jail. It involves perjury, suborning of perjury, destruction of evidence (even evidence that isn't subject yet to subpoena!), withholding of evidence that is legally required to be forfeited, etc. A president telling his subordinates what to investigate or what not to investigate isn't a crime because this power flows directly from his constitutional powers. It doesn't even matter if the president himself is the subject of the investigation.
However, a president can be guilty of obstruction, but it has be due to the actions I mentioned above- committing perjury, suborning perjury, destroying evidence, and withholding evidence. These actions don't flow from his constitutional powers. As an example, Richard Nixon faced no proper legal jeopardy for firing Archibald Cox because that wasn't obstruction, but he did face jeopardy for being part of the conspiracy to buy the silence of potential witnesses among other probable criminal acts.
Though firing Comey could never be charged as obstruction, it doesn't mean a president can exercise these constitutional powers unconstrained- the Constitution never says that or implies that, but it is Congress that is the real constraint since it does not have to find the president committed a crime for which he can be prosecuted and jailed- it is sufficient that Congress find the president exercised his powers for unethical reasons, like shutting down an investigation into himself, friends or family, or for financial gain- that isn't obstruction legally defined but, rather, it is abuse of power.
Dershowitz may well think that Trump is abusing his power according to Comey's testimony, but I think the facts that he isn't abusing his power are pretty fucking clear. The investigations weren't shut down, and everyone including Comey who is working on this and have testified publicly have said the investigations have not been impeded in any way by Trump. Indeed, the investigations are continuing right as I write.
I am absolutely certain that Trump wishes the investigations would wrap up ASAP, but he hasn't exercised any of his power to force the matter to a conclusion, and it is likely he won't. However, politically it will need to be wrapped by the end of the year at the latest because if there aren't any concrete details about the allegations and innuendo (and that is the entirety of the data to this point), it will be seen by all but the most die-hard anti-Trump partisans as what I already think it is- a witch-hunt.
This is one of Trump's failings as president, right? That he can be trolled into all sorts of weird shit just by being provoked in the media. Right?
Do some of you consider it a STRENGTH of Trump's? That he hits back ten times as hard, when he is hit? Trump, the consummate counter-puncher?
No, I don't consider Trump saying in his letter that he'd been 3 times assured by Comey that he was not under investigation as one of his failings. Do you, seriously?
This wasn't even a hit. This was a very natural, normal reaction to the fact that the IC was willing to leak everything they could against Trump, but not the fact that he wasn't under investigation. In face, I think it's important we citizens know that.
Trumpit: "Yesterday, I was thinking about a very recent interview on the radio with Alan Douchowitz..."
Aaaaaaaaand that's about all that we need to see from this guy Trumpit.
A comment I once buried in a 400-comment post, but here it is again, still applicable:
Sometimes a Commenter you've never met can fully remind you of someone...
He is this guy.
This guy.
And this guy.
He IS Jeffrey Jones as Ed Rooney in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"
He IS Paul Gleason as Mr. Vernon in "The Breakfast Club"
He IS William Atherton as Walter Peck in "Ghostbusters."
Look at these quotes from those movies:
"Tell ya what, dipshit. If you don't like my policies you can come on down here and smooch my big ole' white butt."
"I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind."
"We'll keep going. You want another one? Just say the word say it. Instead of going to prison you'll come here. Are you through?"
"You'll get the answer to that question, Mr. Bender, next Saturday. Don't mess with the bull, young man - you'll get the horns."
"Hold it! I want this man arrested! Captain, these men are in criminal violation of the Environmental Protection Act! And this explosion is a direct result of it!"
"Oh, what mendacious bullshit. You accuse ME of mincing words and hiding behind twisted meanings and opaque definitions?!? What a lot of fucking nerve....What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are..."
"You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS."
Okay, you caught me: those last two weren't from the movies, they are from a Certain Commenter. But the similarities are uncanny, right...?
The Guy with the Inflated Ego and Sense of Self-Worth. The Guy Who Is The Stickler For The Rules. The Guy Who Verbally Explodes When It Is Not Going His Way. The Guy Who Wishes He Can Have You Arrested, Or Put Into Detention, Or Prevent You From Graduating. Note: I did those in reverse order, hopefully that wasn't too confusing...
I am Laslo.
Maybee: "No, I don't consider Trump saying in his letter that he'd been 3 times assured by Comey that he was not under investigation as one of his failings. Do you, seriously?"
You see, the problem here is that you and Chuck do not share the same goals.
You would like to see Trump and the nation succeed.
"lifelong republican" Chuck, a noted "shiller" for dems, wants very very much for Trump to be impeached.
From Chuckies perspective, calling Comey out and making the media look bad regarding all the lies about this "3 times" deal IS a failing, since it moves Chuckie further away from his fevered dreams of Trump being impeached.
Once you understand that it all becomes clear.
Your spot-on analysis of Chuck's drinking/commenting remains a Blogger classic, Laslo. A solid piece of behavioral science.
"Respected Trump Family Historian" Chuck: Memories are short and selective in TrumpLand, where the Scottish ancestors of Donald Trump were late, LATE I TELLYA, to the battle of Falkirk.
Did you hear what I said???!!!!
Donald Trump's Scottish ancestors were late to the Battle of Falkirk!!
Donald Trump is PERSONALLY responsible for the defeat of the Scots at the hands of Edward the Longshanks!!
You stupid, stupid STUPID Trumpkins!!!
The Cracker Emcee: "Your spot-on analysis of Chuck's drinking/commenting remains a Blogger classic, Laslo. A solid piece of behavioral science."
I am also quite fond of Laslo's Les Miserables analysis framework for a Certain Commenter.
What would happen if Laslo encountered Betamax and they joined forces to fight evil and blog humorously in their off time?
In which Chuck confirms he does not understand tit for tat strategy in a repeated game.
I think "obstruction of justice" is more specific than that.
Thus Bill Clinton's crime was not just that he committed perjury in Federal court "about sex," but that the perjury was injurious to Paula Jones, a fellow citizen, and her quest to seek justice in that court.
Remember, Republicans are allowing minority Democrats to conduct these televised snipe hunts. I wonder if they will live to regret that.
“What I want for you to do is "call off your f–king dogs, Barack!” Clinton allegedly barked at Obama, according to Klein’s account, which cited sources close to Clinton and Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.
I just want to know why Clinton isn't obstructing justice here, and why Obama wasn't obstructing justice when in fact, as Comey testified this week, actual dogs were called off by the DOJ as a result.
If this is all prosecutorial discretion by the Obama White House, why is it not the same for Trump? And Trump committed obstruction by hoping for an outcome in Comey's presence, why isn't Clinton guilty of obstruction by demanding one in the Oval Office?
This stuff was very pubic during the campaign, and not a smidgeon of obstruction was charged by the same media who inserts the word "obstruction" into random articles about Trump today.
Chuck wrote: "I'm not "shilling" for any Democrat!"
I think you believe that.
You don't seem to know what you are doing except attracting attention.
What a sad, pathetic little man.
There's no there there.
So the temper tantrums.
Darrell: "Remember, Republicans are allowing minority Democrats to conduct these televised snipe hunts. I wonder if they will live to regret that."
Probably not for now as the republicans, like McCain, who are playing footsie with the dems overall are still throwing out some "home team" lines/questions/positions here and there that give them plausible deniability.
Dershowitz is one of the few liberals I respect, because he is consistently willing to acknowledge when the left is wrong about something. Tapper used to be in that category, but not since the move to CNN.
Darrell said...
"Remember, Republicans are allowing minority Democrats to conduct these televised snipe hunts. I wonder if they will live to regret that."
They will not. If they had the capability to regret actions they would have done so by now, countless times.
They are all planning to ride out the Storm that is Trump. With a Wide Stance.
The Chucks will win in the end.
I am Laslo.
Laslo: "The Chucks will win in the end"
Well, the dems will win in the end which means the "Chucks" will win in the end, since they are one and the same.
And as far as the Russians "hacking" the election, I can't help but feel the election was similarly "hacked" by the Obama DOJ and its handling of the Hillary server matter. Why is it "hacking" to undermine a candidate and not "hacking" to steer one around criminal charges so as to keep her in the race?
If we really want to "get to the bottom" of things in 2016, we have to dig deeply into how Hillary's case was handled, or mishandled, by the DOJ. It's much more a "threat to our democracy and our freedoms" as anything Russia has done or may do in the future.
As opposed to Scooter Libby lying about who told him about Valerie Plame; it was against the statute law, but had nothing to do with the purpose of the investigation at hand and no justice was being "obstructed."
@ Laslo
I cannot agree that Chuck and his NeverTrump cohort can win. If they win on the Republican side, Democrats win the prize.
Chuck and the NTs are spoilers, at best.
Holy leukemia! Batman is dead!
Hagar said...
As opposed to Scooter Libby lying about who told him about Valerie Plame; it was against the statute law, but had nothing to do with the purpose of the investigation at hand and no justice was being "obstructed."
Indeed.
This is why it's important for the DoJ to resist calls like the one Kamala Harris made- to make the Special Investigator accountable to no one.
Comey did that for Fitzgerald, and look what we got. Of course, Harris saw that as a great model.
Kevin: "And as far as the Russians "hacking" the election, I can't help but feel the election was similarly "hacked" by the Obama DOJ and its handling of the Hillary server matter."
I have a quibble here based on the fact that the dems did precisely what you've written and much more while the entire Russia Hacked our Election is a made up democrat/"lifelong republican"/Media driven Hoax.
Kevin: "And as far as the Russians "hacking" the election, I can't help but feel the election was similarly "hacked" by the Obama DOJ and its handling of the Hillary server matter."
Yeah, that's my question too.
Why is it ok for the US Media to talk about the fake dossier, to release classified information about the president's meetings with foreign leaders in the oval office, and to continually imply he was put in office via a Russian conspiracy.....but it is unprecedented interference for Wikileaks to publish the fact that Hillary had a team of people writing each tweet?
Why doesn't CNN see their bad reporting as interference in democracy?
"Yes, you may not be John Podesta, but what's the difference between John Podesta and Bill Kristol anymore? Both are allies, working as one in the great "Destroy Trump, the most evil person alive!!!!!!!" ranks. "
Republicans like Kristol work for the same people the democrats do. They get their money from the same people. Their goals are the same as the democrats. They are far more aligned and like the elites than republican voters.
The difference is the service they provide their masters. The democrats relentlessly push their agenda when they get power regardless of electoral consequences. They espouse the belief and always fight tooth and nail.
The republicans like kristol also provide a service. Undermine any attempt by republicans to do what their voters want. That means when a republican that actually listens to the republican voters pops up they destroy them. Trump isn't the first. Kristol is only one. Could you imagine Romney going after obama like he went after Trump? Just like Chuck doesn't really care about Hillary's law breaking. He has to go through motions just like Romney did during the 2012 campaign. Romney savaged Newt and gave Obama hugs. Romney completely went off the rails to get Hillary elected and did his job: attack trump.
Vichy republicans.
LMFAO.
I challenge you pathetic loser Trumpkins to find a quote from me -- just one -- where I "shilled" for a Democrat. Find just one pro-Democrat quote from me. Ever.
And none of you can do it.
And yet it has become standard on these pages for other commenters to attack me personally and insult me as a liberal and a Democrat. All for -- and only for -- criticizing Trump. It speaks to the fanaticism that surrounds Trump personally. And the extent of Obama Derangement Syndrome among Trump supporters. And their basic political naiveté, wherein there can only be two sides and the enemy of my friend is my enemy.
Pathetic.
Chuck: "And yet it has become standard on these pages for other commenters to attack me personally and insult me as a liberal and a Democrat."
Nonsense!
You are a clear "lifelong republican".
Dem Senator Richard Blumenthal in particular appreciates your efforts to minimize his Stolen Valor assertions made multiple times over many years.
Andrew McCarthy writes a concise and probably true analysis of why Comey got axed.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: " And their basic political naiveté..."
LOL
Why don't you just spend a bit more time trying to understand your very own state electorate there, Mr. Political Sophisicate!
Yancey Ward @ 11:58: Agree, Dershowitz is making the essential point, and most people can't or won't pay attention to it, or believe it. They want to confuse politics and law. Different systems entirely, but interwoven.
Nice post.
Chuck,
If you ever get to meet Osiris when you pass from this mortal coil, have him rip out your brain to weigh against his legendary feather, Just saying. . .
Yancey Ward: "Andrew McCarthy writes a concise and probably true analysis of why Comey got axed."
I think that is exactly right. Comey was more than happy to ensure that the one most critical aspect of the entire charade, that Trump was never under investigation himself, would be kept buried for years as Chucks dem friends in the IC continued to illegally leak misleading and inaccurate information to Chucks dem/media pals.
This is why Chuck is so very upset that Comey is gone. Having Comey in place was perfect for the dems and their "lifelong republican" allies and now he's gone.
Some reporters are now intimating that Comey was the source of many more leaks as well.
duh.
I challenge you pathetic loser Trumpkins to find a quote from me -- just one -- where I "shilled" for a Democrat. Find just one pro-Democrat quote from me. Ever.
I find the timing of this post - just as the discussion turns to the DOJ's "hacking" of the election and Bill Kristol's usefulness to the Dems - to be questionable.
Who is paying you to distract the commentariat in such subtle and timely ways, Comrade?
;-)
"And yet it has become standard on these pages for other commenters to attack me personally and insult me as a liberal and a Democrat. All for -- and only for -- criticizing Trump."
Ypu havte an unhealthy obsession that boarders on the psychotic.
Which, speaking for myself, I find highly amusing.
So, you know, keep it up.
Yancey- thanks for that article. It is really good.
Is no one gobsmacked by:
* Comey's claim that he no longer possesses these "memos" -- memos he claims are evidence of "obstruction of justice" by Trump?
* that he "shared the contents" of these memos w/Prof. Daniel Richman -- and Richman is now in hiding?
* the chance a tape existed of his conversations w/Trump made Comey wake up in the middle of the night?
Why isn't the fact Comey no longer has these memos not front and center in the news? That's extremely odd. I'm betting that on Monday, Mueller will say he is in possession of these memos. If Mueller does NOT have the memos, the story gets even more weird and Comey's testimony will be even more suspect.
@Michael K -- I will also bet that Trump's reference to "that thing we had" was about McCabe's conflict of interest in investigating his chief benefactress after his wife took $750k for her failed senate bid.
So who thinks Comey made tapes, seized by DOJ after Comey's firing? Or that Trump made tapes? Trump is behaving like he has absolute proof to back him up -- at least in my opinion.
@Michael K -- I will also bet that Trump's reference to "that thing we had" was about McCabe's conflict of interest in investigating his chief benefactress after his wife took $750k for her failed senate bid.
Yep. According to Comey, Trump in an earlier meeting had brought up the fact that Comey "owed him one" for Trump not going after McCabe on his conflict of interest.
"* Comey's claim that he no longer possesses these "memos" -- memos he claims are evidence of "obstruction of justice" by Trump?"
-- Wait, he really no longer has it? Well, the FBI should be able to re-create the memo that he wrote on the FBI's dime.
Man. I wonder what it takes to get the Comey treatment of being able to steal documents from the government and destroy electronic records without facing consequences.
Drago said...
Chuck: "And yet it has become standard on these pages for other commenters to attack me personally and insult me as a liberal and a Democrat."
Nonsense!
You are a clear "lifelong republican".
Dem Senator Richard Blumenthal in particular appreciates your efforts to minimize his Stolen Valor assertions made multiple times over many years.
You are of course referring to the time when Justice Gorsuch, on the Hill to promote his confirmation hearing, was quoted by Blumenthal as having said that he regarded Trump's comments on federal judges as "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Whereupon Trump went on Twitter to screech that Blumenthal had "misrepresented" Gorsuch. (And I went on Althouse and said that in just a few weeks, we'd find out if Blumenthal or Trump was the liar.) And just a few weeks later, Gorsuch -- under oath and on national television -- confirmed that Blumenthal had been correct all along. And that Trump's Tweet was just another one of his lies.
The Gorsuch confirmation; initiated by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, and orchestrated by Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans to perfection, with just a few nutty screw-ups (like the one mentioned immediately above) by Trump himself.
Trump's one great accomplishment so far.
((Of course, I stand by my previous statement that I do not believe these memos ever existed, except as Comey drafted them before handing them to the guy he wanted to leak.)
Blogger Chuck said...
"LMFAO."
Indeed.
Yancey Ward - I agree. Good article. Surprising given that its NRO. I skimmed over the comments and you have more liberals posting comments than Conservatives.
But that's today's National Review. Half their writers should just go work for New Republic.
You are of course referring to the time when Justice Gorsuch, on the Hill to promote his confirmation hearing, was quoted by Blumenthal as having said that he regarded Trump's comments on federal judges as "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
Which was brilliant political theater by Gorsuch to privately admit that to a Democrat who would no doubt leak it to the world to embarrass Trump, thereby making Gorsuch seem independent from the President.
But no, all the media could focus on was how Gorsuch and Trump didn't agree!
Fucking brilliant!
Drago said...
...
This is why Chuck is so very upset that Comey is gone.
On this very page, I said that I was a "Comey agnostic." I wrote that I thought the Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby prosecutions were miscarriages of justice.
And from that, you get that I am "very upset that Comey is gone"?
Chuck voted for Hillary.
Some Republican.
Do some of you consider it a STRENGTH of Trump's? That he hits back ten times as hard, when he is hit? Trump, the consummate counter-puncher?
Fuck yes...that is exactly why he won.
We're tired of watching Republicans roll over for the Democrats.
Today the Republican party controls the House, the Senate and the presidency. You could argue that they control the Supreme Court too. And yet they still refuse to pass budget bills and instead continue to pass Obama era continuing resolutions that lock in Democratic spending and spending priorities.
What is the problem now? What excuse are the GOP going to offer us in 2018?
Chuck spends all his time attacking a Republican President, because he's a Republican.
Got it.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "On this very page, I said that I was a "Comey agnostic."
LOL
Uh huh.
You are "agnostic" about the key personnel component required to get Trump removed from office which is your dream scenario!
Pull the other one "lifelong republican".
And yet it has become standard on these pages for other commenters to attack me personally and insult me as a liberal and a Democrat. All for -- and only for -- criticizing Trump.
Not me. I am perfectly prepared to believe that a "lifelong Republican" and supporter of the GOP Establishment can be as deranged about Trump as you are. In fact I believe most of them are as deranged about Trump as you are.
What makes it clear that you are a Moby for me is your constant defense of Democrats.
These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.
Lock him up!
Kevin said...
You are of course referring to the time when Justice Gorsuch, on the Hill to promote his confirmation hearing, was quoted by Blumenthal as having said that he regarded Trump's comments on federal judges as "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
Which was brilliant political theater by Gorsuch to privately admit that to a Democrat who would no doubt leak it to the world to embarrass Trump, thereby making Gorsuch seem independent from the President.
But no, all the media could focus on was how Gorsuch and Trump didn't agree!
Fucking brilliant!
Um, okay. I'll play. The comments set up some "distance" between Gorsuch and Trump, giving the appearance of "independence.
Now explain the part where Trump Tweets that Blumenthal "misrepresented" what Gorsuch said, when Gorsuch was overheard by a small handful of his Republican shepherds, assigned by the Trump Administration to help steer the meetings on the Hill.
If I were sitting at a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr., this is one of the first things I'd bring up. It is such an illustrative, representative, typical Trump story. "Blumenthal was right; he quoted Gorsuch exactly right. And then your dad lied on his Twitter account, and claimed that Blumenthal had "misrepresented" Gorsuch. But everybody knew that was not true, and just a few weeks later Gorsuch confirmed it, under oath, in his confirmation hearing. Multiply that story times about a thousand other times that your dad has done something similar, and the other times, like the 'John Miller' tape, that he has done even weirder shit... Your dad is a real fucking asshole. Do you have any excuse for him?"
I can't wait for "lifelong republican" Chuck to regale us further with even more and illuminating "Tales Of The New York Based Trump Family Political Donations".
Or better yet, how Trump, the media personality, communicated with media organizations in New York in the 1980's.
Gahrie said...
And yet it has become standard on these pages for other commenters to attack me personally and insult me as a liberal and a Democrat. All for -- and only for -- criticizing Trump.
Not me. I am perfectly prepared to believe that a "lifelong Republican" and supporter of the GOP Establishment can be as deranged about Trump as you are. In fact I believe most of them are as deranged about Trump as you are.
What makes it clear that you are a Moby for me is your constant defense of Democrats.
Since you say that I "constantly" defend Democrats, it ought to be easy for you to link to one good clear example.
You can't do it.
And if you searched and searched and found one, then I'd ask you to explain where you get the "constant" part from.
In this thread, I haven't wasted one single word defending one single Democrat.
If I were sitting at a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr., ... Your dad is a real fucking asshole. Do you have any excuse for him?"
Actually, in this scenario.....you'd be the real fucking asshole.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "If I were sitting at a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr.,...."
As if the Secret Service would ever let that happen!
You have as much chance of that as Squeaky Fromme!
Laslo was so very spot on regarding Chuck.
Laslo: "The Guy with the Inflated Ego and Sense of Self-Worth. The Guy Who Is The Stickler For The Rules. The Guy Who Verbally Explodes When It Is Not Going His Way. The Guy Who Wishes He Can Have You Arrested, Or Put Into Detention, Or Prevent You From Graduating."
Gahrie said...
...
Today the Republican party controls the House, the Senate and the presidency. You could argue that they control the Supreme Court too. And yet they still refuse to pass budget bills and instead continue to pass Obama era continuing resolutions that lock in Democratic spending and spending priorities.
Lol! They lock in sequestered budgets. Trump, for his part, wants to spend trillions more. More on infrastructure, more on military. Which might be okay. If, that is, Trump was proposing some sensible spending cuts too. But Trump promised to not touch Social Security or Medicare, or any other big-ticket budget items. Trump nibbles around the inconsequential edges, with foreign aid, and the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc.
McCarthy mentions, almost in passing (though he does hint it was a power play thing), that Trump did want the so-called "intelligence dossier" investigated thoroughly at the January 6th 2017 meeting with Comey, but that Comey rebuffed that request by claiming it might create the false narrative that Trump was under investigation.
Sounds odd, doesn't it? However, think about it- the dossier was so ridiculous and easily rebutted that it is almost 100% certain to be false in almost every important detail, and it is 99.9% certain that Comey knew months ago, along with anyone else in the FBI and DoJ at the time, that the document was a hoax. The news media had this document for over a month prior to the election, but never printed a story based on it, and the reason is so obvious it shouldn't need explaining- the story was so ridiculous it would have backfired on Clinton, not helped her in any way. That is why the media refused to run with it- they claimed later they didn't want to run with a story they couldn't verify, but who really believes that explanation?
My theory as to why Comey didn't want to investigate the dossier is precisely because he knew such an investigation would quickly prove it false (probably already had)- far better to leave it hanging supposedly unvetted after January 20th.
I think McCarthy was a bit wrong in thinking this January 6th meeting was a power play in quite the way he wrote- I still believe the dossier was included in the meeting so that the media would have an excuse to finally print the details where they could then explain the lack of corroboration was due to the fact that it was briefed to the president elect. I think if anyone cares to take a look with subpoena power, it will be learned that Comey was one of the sources for the leaks describing this meeting back in January.
The issue with Trump is it's likely half his blunders are mistakes and half are brilliant tactical moves. The media is unable to believe that anything he does is ever thoughtful and purposeful, so they cover everything as "the latest blunder". (see: the entire campaign)
Doing so, however, gives maximum effect to his strategic choices. EVERYONE hears about them. And when they work out for him, all the media can do is write that everything good that happens, happens in spite of him. At some point if the wins become large the the losses are found to be overhyped, what does the media do then?
What option do they have left to regain a shred of their credibility?
@Chuck (see: above) believes the Gorsuch confirmation was a McConnell masterstroke with a Trump screwup at the gooey center. I'm not so sure. If Trump wanted to give Dems a reason to vote for Gorsuch, there needed to be daylight between the two of them. Not on anything judicial, which would give the base the impression that Trump may have picked the wrong guy. But something which was insubstantial but could be widely reported as BREAKING NEWS!
That the Dems didn't vote for him doesn't mean the plan wasn't a sound one.
I'm not saying Trump planned the whole thing out. I'm not saying Gorsuch didn't say something real and Trump took tactical advantage of it. And I'm not saying it wasn't the kind of in-your-face screwup that only Trump can create.
I'm saying that you don't know either. And neither does the media. But the media clearly pretended to know. And they sure made a lot of people believe there was no other way to interpret the signals they were receiving. That is not a thorough or careful approach to understanding the information being received.
Just like they did a horrible job explaining why the latest Tweet or utterance during the campaign most certainly ended his candidacy for good. This time.
@Chuck, I missed you a week or so ago when you were gone for a few days. I think this place isn't as good or interesting when you're not here. But you asked a question and I'm going to try to provide an answer as best I can. People call you "lifelong republican" and other leftist terms because you don't seem to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Like the media, you seem to see everything he does as some sort of blunder or screw-up. In short, you are trying to make real, substantial arguments, but because of this bias in your perception of the guy, they all come off sounding like CNN.
tl;dr Even on the good things Trump does (see: Gorsuch) you bash the guy and give credit to others.
I haven't been here very long. I may be very off base. But I think that's probably where the friction is being generated.
[END OF TRANSMISSION]
For me, this week's episode showed very clearly that Trump was right to fire Comey.
Right from the first meeting, Comey was confirming to Trump, privately, that he was not under investigation. [as an aside, please note he says "no investigation" rather than "no matter"]. But Comey would never say it publicly. Remember all the commentators who claimed Trump was lying and Comey couldn't possibly have asssured Trump he wasn't under investigation? He was willing to say it privately (which people thought he'd NEVER do), so he should have been willing to say so publicly and "lift the cloud".
Also right from the first meeting, Comey was keeping written records of his meetings with Trump. Think about that. Whatever you think of Comey's stated reasons for why he felt he needed to do so, he did it From The Beginning. Who does that? An employee who is loyal (not loyal - as in do whatever I tell you even if it's illegal or immoral- but loyal as in not disloyal, backstabbing, say good things in private to me, but bad things in public)? And he never made notes of meetings with Obama or Lynch?
And Comey is admittedly a leaker. He used those notes he made when he thought it would help him and hurt Trump by leaking them (through a surrogate) to the NYT. Who does that? So now the question is rightfully asked, was Comey leaking things right from the first meeting ?
If I had an employee doing those things, I'd fire them as well. They'd deserve to be fired. And there's NOTHING wrong with that.
Nobody is going to waste their time searching for your bullshit, Chuck. It was a waste reading it the first time. From memory, you have defended Hillary and Obama. And you bring Trump into every thread--even if it were about Hillary slapping a bathroom attendant. Go ask Michelle Fields for a date. But check your homeowner's policy for all the slip and fall provisions first.
Or to return from Orwell to Hitchcock: in North by Northwest, Cary Grant plays a blameless New York advertising executive mistaken for a spy called "Roger Kaplan". There is no "Roger Kaplan": He's an invention of someone who describes himself as being "part of the alphabet soup" of federal agencies. To create the impression there is a real "Roger Kaplan", they check him into hotels across America and have his suits sent for drycleaning to make the Russians expend vast resources chasing him from town to town. Sound familiar? All that's changed is that the roles have been switched, and the "alphabet soup" has now set Americans chasing imaginary Russians.
https://www.steynonline.com/7897/comeytose-state
@Sablan -- yes, the Senate letter to Daniel Richman states Comey did not retain a copy of the memos. I find this truly unbelievable. The only plausible explanation would be that Comey gave the memos to Mueller. And so again I say, if Mueller doesn't have them, WTF is going on?
(The reclusive Professor Richman's excuse for not having the memos will be that Comey only "shared the contents" with him; Comey never provided him with actual hard copies.)
Here's the Senate letter to Richman: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-committee-calls-comey’s-friend-provide-memos-conversations-trump
We can all laugh and point at Comey for being a drama queen, and a terrific disappointment to the lefties. However, there will be someone like him playing the role of "Saving the Country From Trump" every day for the next 3 years, or 7 if Trump somehow survives the continual onslaught.
Round 1 to Trump, in a TKO over Comey. Here comes Round 2 with Mueller...
The fight goes on until Trump loses, dies, or serves out his term(s). This is NOT going to stop.
Welcome to the new normal.
Lol! They lock in sequestered budgets.
Sequestered Democratic budgets. We didn't vote for the Republicans to lock in sequestered budgets. We elected them to pass Republican budgets with Republican spending priorities. If the GOP Establishment is so in love with the sequestered budgets, then they can pass a budget bill based on them. But they can't even manage that!
Trump, for his part, wants to spend trillions more
So what? Trump doesn't write/pass the budget. Congress does. Well, at least it is supposed to.
So what is the excuse going to be in 2018? Because "we don't like Trump" is probably not going to be a winner.
"The fight goes on until Trump loses, dies, or serves out his term(s)."
Yes but, if the Democrats get spanked hard in 2018, they might start to wonder if this is the hill they want to die on.
I wonder if the Conservative disaster is a reflection of Brexit or the Muslim terror attack and May's weak response?
I guess time will tell. And the next election which will be soon.
If the Republican Party won't pass a budget, won't reduce the size of government, won't cut government spending when it controls the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court...when will it?
If they won't do it now...why would anyone ever vote Republican again?
Actually what the Dem pundits disagree with are all those Trump voters right to exist. Getting rid of Trump is the appetizer. The "old white guys" are the main course.
I'll give Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats this much.....when they had control of government..they got shit done.
Meanwhile, the NYT has a headline: "Trump’s Feud With Comey Overshadows Russian Threat." Clearly the Times has concluded Comey wasn't the smoking gun they had hoped.
@Bruce Hayden: You said, “Then there was the ten year term thing, which [me]ant that Trump probably should have needed to show cause (which was done in the termination letter).”
The ten year term thing does not mean that the FBI Director can only be fired for cause. It is, rather, in the nature of a term limit, an attempt to save us from another “FBI Director for life.”
According to Lyle Denniston (How Independent is the FBI Director?), “It is sometimes assumed that the President can oust an FBI director only ‘for cause’ – that is, for some misconduct in office. But, as a Congressional Research Service study of the director’s office pointed out two years ago, ‘there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI director.’ ”
If I were sitting at a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr., this is one of the first things I'd bring up. It is such an illustrative, representative, typical Trump story. "Blumenthal was right; he quoted Gorsuch exactly right. And then your dad lied on his Twitter account, and claimed that Blumenthal had "misrepresented" Gorsuch. But everybody knew that was not true, and just a few weeks later Gorsuch confirmed it, under oath, in his confirmation hearing. Multiply that story times about a thousand other times that your dad has done something similar, and the other times, like the 'John Miller' tape, that he has done even weirder shit... Your dad is a real fucking asshole. Do you have any excuse for him?"
That's an immense amount of certainty for someone who wasn't there. It is a version of events, but is certainly not the only one. It summarizes a story as if it is the only way to tell it, and it is not. It requires an awful lot of assumptions as to who was "telling the truth" and who was "lying", which are not scientific statements of fact, but sets of facts with value judgements laid over them.
What's more, it includes statements which can be taken as hate-filled and developed over a long time. You are not participating as an observer, but making statements about a person which go way outside the facts contained in the episode you're describing.
Again, you should like CNN on a good day and Joe Scarborough's co-host on others. To people who have nothing to judge you by but your words and how you use them, "lifelong republican" sounds ... a bit unsupported and possibly untrue.
@Bruce Hayden: You said, “Then there was the ten year term thing, which [me]ant that Trump probably should have needed to show cause (which was done in the termination letter).”
You can have a 10-year employment agreement with very liberal termination conditions. I have a colleague like that. He has a long term agreement in which either party can cancel without cause at any time.
Why the agreement then? Because it locks down the conditions of employment - what he's supposed to do or not do - and it forces an assessment of those terms at a periodic, if lengthy, interval.
I'll give Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats this much.....when they had control of government..they got shit done.
Much of which has been undone through Trump's pen in his first 120 days. Perhaps it was not as substantial as it appeared at the time. Perhaps even they knew this and desperately needed Hillary in power for it to continue its substantial appearance.
Much of which has been undone through Trump's pen in his first 120 days
Obamacare still in effect? Check.
Democratic spending priorities still in place? Check.
I liked the McCarthy piece that starts out:
"He believed that the FBI director misled the public to think that the president was under investigation. At last, at least for your humble correspondent, this week’s big hearing brought clarity. I now believe President Donald Trump fired Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey because he believes Comey intentionally misled the public into believing Trump was under investigation by the FBI. There is enough support for this theory that, had the president been forthright in explaining it when he dismissed Comey on May 9, there might have been considerably less uproar. Instead, Trump dissembled, as he seems hardwired to do. He thus bought himself a debilitating special-counsel investigation, despite its being increasingly patent that there is no crime to investigate."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448513/trump-james-comey-fbi-director-russia-investigation-fired-misleading-public
Trump wanted his name cleared. Comey admitted in private, and before a closed Congressional hearing that Trump was not a target, but kept coming up with reasons why not to clear Trump's name. And, then he announced that the FBI was continuing to investigate the Trump team for Russian collaboration, both from a counterintelligence and a criminal point of view (despite no evidence after a year of investigation of any criminality, and a ban on using the counterintelligence information in a criminal prosecution). Which made Trump look dirty. Comey could apparently justify not telling the public that Trump wasn't under investigation, but could tell them that his team was. Who was Comey working for at that time? (As I noted above - Team Comey, and not Team Trump). Comey noted that the determination of what to release and what not to was made with top DoJ officials, but failed to mention that they were all Obama/Lynch holdovers (Trump's one confirmed appointee, Sessions, having recused himself).
Read it yourself - McCarthy is much better at this than I am (which is why he gets paid for it, and I don't).
Kevin, what are you talking about?
There were several people present, when Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about the Trump judge comments. Blumenthal then made it clear to the public. No one who was there has ever disputed Blumenthal's characterization. And then, to hammer the point beyond any dispute, Blumenthal asked Gorsuch about it, in Gorsuch's nomination hearing.
What are you not getting? There is video of Gorsuch saying, verbatim, what Trump tried to claim was a "misrepresentation."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/neil-gorsuch-trump-criticism-disheartening/
Darrell said...
Nobody is going to waste their time searching for your bullshit, Chuck. It was a waste reading it the first time. From memory, you have defended Hillary and Obama.
...
And what I am saying, Darrell, is that your memory is for shit. You are imagining it. Which tells us about your own defective, warped mind. And not much else.
The reason I have repeatedly challenged people to find any pro-Democrat writing from me is that you all have repeatedly started this stupid fight. Because you ordinarily can't challenge me on the facts, relating to my criticism of Trump's stupidest blunders. So you all resort to the ad hominem. That's it.
I say again that I challenge you chickenshit pussies to put up or shut up. Find some examples of my "constantly" "shilling" for Democrats. And when you can't do it, shut the fuck up about it.
All these personal attacks on me. Veering away from the subjects of Althouse's blog posts. Some of you have really degraded the quality of Althouse comments threads. I'd be angry if I were Professor Althouse.
"Because you ordinarily can't challenge me on the facts, relating to my criticism of Trump's stupidest blunders. So you all resort to the ad hominem."
Resort to ad hominems when you don't have facts? Here at Althouse? I'm shocked. Shocked!
RE: the budget
The problem with the budget is that all of the one-time "Stimulus" spending was spent every year for all of Obama's time in office through continuing resolutions. Get that? Due to baseline budgeting required under Ted Kennedy's 1974 Budget Reconciliation Act every year the baseline of last year is used for future spending. Even off-book spending.
That is why Obama's "budgets" showed smallish deficits (on-book accounting) while the year-over-year debt increases averaged 1.2 trillion dollars.
So the sequestered budget touted by lifelong Republican Chuck, so called fopdoodle, includes the $700 billion "one time only" stimulus rolled up each of these last nine years.
Some lifelong Republican budget. Right?
My memory is legendary. Who here does not have a memory of Chuck defending Obama in a thread when we were bashing him? Same with Hillary. Same with other Democrat assholes. Or don't you read your own comments? Or do you black out after writing them? Your deference of Democrats is what caused other commenters to turn on you. Your anti-Trump schtick was expected.
Birkel, you are assuming that I like the stimulus package, or that I defended Obama budgets. I'd be quite happy, to see a new budget get written by Paul Ryan, Diane Black, Kevin Brady and Jim Jordan, and passed through on a party-line vote via reconciliation.
Trump wouldn't have much to do with it, because I don't think he knows very much about it. He'd probably take credit for it in the end, saying it is a "beautiful" budget, and the "best budget in the history of our country, believe me."
Gahrie said...
If the Republican Party won't pass a budget, won't reduce the size of government, won't cut government spending when it controls the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court...when will it?
If they won't do it now...why would anyone ever vote Republican again?
This is the crux of it. This is why the Vichy Republicans like Chuck are the real problem. They are actively trying to make sure that republicans lose as much as possible and when they do win they get nothing done. In the case of some like Bush 43 they pass new entitlements or Romney they pass Obamacare when they are in power.
What people need to realize is that people like Kristol are on the other side. DC has republicans in it. At least 40% of the people there work for the GOP in some way. But Hillary won 93% of the vote. The GOPe is funded by the same people that fund the democrats. They are paid to do a job and that is to attack the people who try to do what republican voters want.
Chuck is instructive. He clearly serves the statists goals. He just stabs us in the back instead of the front.
Brookzene said...
Resort to ad hominems when you don't have facts? Here at Althouse? I'm shocked. Shocked!
Fact: There is absolutely zero proof that Trump and his team worked with the Russians to rig the election.
Fact: None of you can name a single crime Trump has committed or site any evidence of criminal conduct.
Fact: The Obama administration was caught using federal intelligence agencies to illegally spy on numerous political opponents including republicans, democrats and Trump.
Ad Hominem and Fact: This makes you a disgusting hypocrite.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle and demander of proof
I assumed nothing about your likes or dislikes. I am stating unequivocally that the GOPe is a bunch of spineless government flunkies hoping Leviathan will eat them last.
Those are the guys you support.
Me? I am a conservative.
Darrell said...
My memory is legendary. Who here does not have a memory of Chuck defending Obama in a thread when we were bashing him? Same with Hillary. Same with other Democrat assholes. Or don't you read your own comments? Or do you black out after writing them? Your deference of Democrats is what caused other commenters to turn on you. Your anti-Trump schtick was expected.
You can run to your little buddy boys if you want, but now I am calling you out as a liar. You are lying to all of these people, when you rely on your supposed memory.
You can search my commenting history. You should do that. Because I am not just claiming that you can't find what your "memory" tells you is so clear; I am pushing back on the ridiculous notion that I am a "constant" defender of Democrats and that I am their "shill."
You are a real miserable fucking asshole, Darrell. When you are in a hole, the best thing is to stop digging. I am telling you that you are a liar and weasel and a shithead for picking this useless fight. Now get to work and try to prove me wrong. That, or shut up.
Chick threatens:
If I were sitting at a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr., ... Your dad is a real fucking asshole. Do you have any excuse for him?"
Naw, you wouldn't. You are too much of a (gentleman).
Chuck says:
You are a real miserable fucking asshole, Darrell. When you are in a hole, the best thing is to stop digging. I am telling you that you are a liar and weasel and a shithead for picking this useless fight. Now get to work and try to prove me wrong. That, or shut up.
You gettin' a little worked up,again. Maybe a warm bath and some coco might help. Don't let these commenters rile ya. You might do something regretful like bruise some lady's arm.
My post at 2:39 PM is a nice jumping off point of anybody wants to understand what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama managed to do to this country and her future.
Prof Eric Posner (Part 1):
The President orders the FBI Director to halt an investigation of the President’s former aide. The Director refuses. The President responds by:
A1. Firing the Director.
A2. Taking a fifty out of his billfold and offering it to the Director as a bribe.
A3. Pulling out a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson and shooting the Director in the forehead.
Put aside the question of whether the President can be indicted while in office. To fix intuitions, imagine that the actions come to light the day after he leaves the White House: the question is whether to charge him with a crime now that he is a private citizen.
We think almost everyone will agree that A2 and A3 are crimes. Alan Dershowitz argues that the President has the constitutional authority to order the FBI Director to end an investigation, but we are nearly certain that even Dershowitz would agree that the President must not violate the statutory prohibitions against bribery and murder along the way. It is worth noting, however, that these statutes constrain the president’s enforcement discretion—a fact that does not render them invalid.
Now consider a second scenario. The President’s former aide, who is under FBI investigation, offers the President $100 if the President stops the probe. The President then orders the FBI Director to halt the investigation. The Director refuses. The President responds by:
B1. Firing the Director.
B2. Taking a fifty out of his billfold and offering it to the Director as a bribe.
B3. Pulling out a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson and shooting the Director in the forehead.
We think almost everyone will agree that B1, B2, and B3 are all crimes. Again, the President has the constitutional authority to order the FBI Director to end an investigation, but he commits a felony if he exercises that authority in order to procure a payment for himself.
Now consider a third scenario. The President orders the Attorney General to stop prosecuting nonviolent drug offenses. The AG refuses. Again, the President responds by:
C1. Firing the AG.
C2. Taking a fifty out of his billfold and offering it to the AG as a bribe.
C3. Pulling out a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson and shooting the AG in the forehead.
C2 and C3 are again clearly crimes. But we think that now, almost everyone would agree that C1 is not.
What makes B1 and C1 different?
Part 2:
The distinction lies in the motive. Congress has enacted several obstruction of justice statutes that make it a crime to “corruptly” influence, obstruct, or impede a proceeding, or to attempt to do so. In B1, the President acts corruptly out of a desire to procure a bribe. In C1, the President presumably acts because he thinks that the prosecution of nonviolent drug offenders is a misallocation of law enforcement resources. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that view, it is difficult to argue that the President in C1 is corrupt.
A1 is the harder case—indeed, the only one of these scenarios that strikes us as difficult. It is also the case closest to the one at hand. Is it more analogous to B1 (clearly a crime) or to C1 (clearly not)? Again, the fact that the President has the constitutional authority to order the FBI Director to end an investigation does not help us answer the question, because firing the FBI Director in order to end an investigation can be a crime nonetheless (B1).
Much depends on why the President wants to end the investigation of his former aide. If he thinks that the investigation is a gross misallocation of FBI resources that threatens to divert the bureau from its crime-fighting and counterterrorism responsibilities, then A1 begins to look like C1 (not a crime). But what if he wants to end the investigation because he is worried it might bring to light embarrassing information about himself, his family members, or his political associates? Then, A1 begins to look more like B1 (criminal indeed).
The apparent fact that President Trump fired the FBI Director in order to halt an investigation of the President’s former aide does not tell us whether the President has committed a crime. Clearly, some actions that the President might take in order to halt an FBI investigation would indeed be criminal (bribery, murder). And almost as clearly, there are some circumstances in which a President who fires the FBI Director in order to halt an investigation would be guilty of a crime (B1). But there are also circumstances in which a President who fires a law enforcement official in order to stop an investigation or a prosecution (or thousands of the same) would not be a criminal. Senator Howard Baker’s famous question during the Watergate hearings—“What did the President know and when did he know it”?—might be repurposed as: “What did the President do and why did he do it.” At this point, the “why” matters just as much as the “what.”
FullMoon said...
...
... Don't let these commenters rile ya. You might do something regretful like bruise some lady's arm.
"Regrettable," is the word you were stumbling around for. Not "regretful."
And Corey Lewandowski is the bruiser. Talk to him. When he's not in the Washington lobbying swamp, working favors at the White House.
Chuck said...
..
I am also quite interested (at 6' and 190 lbs.) in performing the exact same move on Greta Van Susteren, to see how harmless she thinks it is. She could never make a credible claim for prosecution.
4/14/16, 4:41 PM
@Chuck,
I don't have a problem with your political criticisms of President Trump. I think that's fair game. Either he builds a wall or he doesn't. Either he cuts federal regs and taxes or he doesn't. Either he appoints conservatives to the federal bench or he doesn't.
We can tally up the policy wins and losses and a make a judgment on whether to vote for Trump again in 2020. Myself, I'm almost certain to vote Trump in 2020, because I think he's done a good job.
But you know that the Dems don't give a shit about this. They want to impeach Trump or indict Trump, because they specialize in lawfare - the pernicious quest to hijack public policy through lawyers and Left-wing judges. And Trump is an obstacle to their designs. That's why he's hated.
So far, the Dems have 1 scalp - Michael Flynn. They got Sessions to recuse himself, and they got Mueller appointed Special Counsel. But not much more
So, I can easily broker a peace between you and your critics, if you concede the following points:
1. The Russian-Trump collusion is bullshit conjured up by the Dems.
2. Trump should not be impeached.
3. The Obama holdovers, orchestrating NSA /FBI/DOJ leaks are actually violating the law and fueling No. 1, along with their enablers at The NY Times and WaPost.
Can you agree to these 3 things or not? If so, feel free to bash Trump, politically, all you want.
Blogger Chuck said...
It's off topic; I'm sorry about that. But right now, Rush Limbaugh is lying to his audience and saying that Obama-birtherism originated with the 2008 Clinton campaign, and indeed with Mrs. Clinton herself. It is a lie of, well, Clintonian proportions.
I expect that somebody might want to challenge me on the details. Have at it. But beyond the basic essential facts, I am curious about whether, in Rush's cosmology, birtherism is a good thing or a bad thing. Because we know that Trump was up to his eyeballs in the Birther movement. So if Mrs. Clinton was wrong to have "started" it, was Trump wrong to have continued it? Or was Trump right/justified to be an unapologetic birther? In which case, wasn't Mrs. Clinton also correct?
I mostly like Rush; it pains me when he commits his most blatant errors.
Chuck said...
Fuck you, Full Moon. I am not going to "deny it." I say again; I propose to grab Greta exactly the way that Corey grabbed Michelle. I expect Greta to be surprised and offended, and maybe even a bit frightened. Good. That's how Michelle felt, no doubt. But Greta thinks it was frivolous in Michelle's case. Again, good for me when I do it to her.
Best of all, would be to do it to Corey Lewandowski.
4/14/16, 8:18 PM
Anger management not your strong point, eh Chuck?
I would shoot Comey in the head for $100 and a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson.
"Trump is a lying, corrupt, bullying piece of shit and it's way past time to acknowledge that."
And yet he's STILL better than the lying, corrupt, bullying, piece-of-shit bitch you voted for.
Blogger Chuck said...
Full Moon -
I had no idea how stupid you really were. So I'll do this in short, direct sentences without any big words.
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His birth was noted in an announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on August 14, 1961. About the contemporaneous newspaper announcements, there is no doubt. (These words are not too big for you yet, are they?)
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen born in Kansas. About that, there is no doubt.
On two separate counts, as it were, Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen; birth within the United States, and birth to a mother who was a citizen.
Now, sometime in 1991, the New York-based book agents for the then newly-minted Harvard lawyer Barack Obama, a firm named Acton & Dystel, produced a promotional pamphlet for use within the publishing industry. The youngish Barack Obama had not yet published a book. The pamphlet was intended to serve as a promotion of Obama to publishers and agents. Obama had been the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. So he was being sold as such. My guess is that somebody -- maybe an agent, maybe Obama himself -- wanted to present him as sort of exotic and sophisticated.
And so now, I will let Snopes pick up the story, because I want all the quotes to be correct and I am too tired to type them all out from a .pdf of that pamphlet in question...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
I would have been unperturbed, if this whole story had come in careful and measured tones from Donald Trump. But it didn't. Ben Shapiro (now a card-carrying NeverTrump-er) at Breitbart helped break that story. Ben Shapiro never wrote, and doesn't believe, that any of it proved that Obama was not a citizen. On the other hand, Donald Trump spent months bloviating about how there was something wrong with the Obama birth certificate and that Trump was sending private investigators to Hawaii and that they would come back with "amazing things." They never did.
So there are some modestly interesting parts of this story, and some banal parts. (Can I use a word like "banal" and still count on you to keep up?) Obama might have had something to do with the phony literary pamphlet, but the author of the pamphlet says he didn't. As far as she recalls. Obama doesn't look great in any of this; he also doesn't look like a Kenyan national, legally.
The one and only guy who comes out of it looking like a complete asshole is Donald Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pinter/obama-birthplace_b_1530399.html
9/2/16, 11:45 PM
Blogger Chuck said...
Buwaya; yes, Mrs. Clinton's staff seems to have used BleachBit to wipe her server. BleachBit ain't no "cloth," we can agree. Real mendacity on her part, I think we can agree.
It's just that Trump sounds so fucking stupid, yowling about bleaching her server. Donald J. Trump, who seems to have never used email himself (he seems to prefer calling in the telephone, as a Mister Baron, or a Mister Miller) is not a real credible technology critic.
9/2/16, 6:43 PM
Oh my fucking God.
You are citing my takedown of Birtherism as shilling for Trump and being pro-Democrat?
You have got to be joking.
By the way, that is a 100% accurate quote from me; I don't even need to check it. I stand by every word, and wouldn't change a single one. I'm glad I wrote it.
Saying that "the claim that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, is ridiculous," is somehow disloyal to Republicans and conservatism? Is that it? I say again; you have got to be joking.
except, steve, that a sitting president can do that, order an investigation started or stopped using his executive privilege. There is precident for it. Which is moot because it is not what Trump did in this case.
Comey is an equivicating weasel of a man.
There is no honor in him and cosequently no honesty.
No thing he says is to be believed.
steve uhr
You do realize that firing Comey stopped nothing. There are some other people who work at the FBI
Darrell, you are supposed to be finding quotes from me where I was shilling for Democrats.
Pro tip for you: don't republish the ones where I suggest that there was "real mendacity" on the part of Hillary Clinton.
Blogger Chuck said...
Hoodlum; my only gripe with the Republican Party is that we didn't have a super delegate system to prevent the nomination of the nutball candidate of the year. The Democrats handled that problem a lot more efficiently. Grudging kudos to them on that.
8/26/16, 12:04 PM
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Pro tip for you: don't republish the ones where I suggest that there was "real mendacity" on the part of Hillary Clinton"
After the fact, when it no longer mattered. "lifelong republican" Chuck is always happy to belatedly, grudgingly, offer up some muted criticism of some dem long after it matters.
In the heat of the battle? It's crush the republicans only.
Again, it's impossible to understand how republicans in MI aren't beating a path to Chucks door for his political leadership and insight!
Chuck: "Oh my fucking God"
Sounds just like a dem.
Michael: "steve uhr You do realize that firing Comey stopped nothing. There are some other people who work at the FBI"
You are asking steve to demonstrate some critical thinking skills so I don't think that will be a constructive dialogue.
Why, I'll bet if you use google earth to a have look-see at the FBI headquarters parking lot you will see there is but one space, with Comey's name on it, and it's empty.
"You do realize that firing Comey stopped nothing. There are some other people who work at the FBI"
True, but Trump may have thought that someone he hand-picked to replace Comey might tend to be a little more loyal.
Blogger Chuck said...
Darrell; you need to step back from Hiilary-hate (much of which is completely justified, I suspect) and think about what sort of "mistake" the Democrats have made if Hillary Clinton wins 310 electoral votes.
8/22/16, 8:45 AM
Darrell you are coming up with some of the most curious examples of my "shilling" for Democrats. In just about every one, I make some unflattering reference to a Democrat or their party.
The good thing is that this exercise is keeping you out of any further trouble.
Idle hands are the devil's playthings.
steve uhr: "True, but Trump may have thought that someone he hand-picked to replace Comey might tend to be a little more loyal."
Well, yes, putting someone in place who is not actively working to set you up and leaking to the media might be considered more "loyal" than the last guy.
LOL
You are one sharp cookie.
Thanks Drago. I'll keep trying to garner (sorry Ann) your favor.
steve uhr: "Thanks Drago. I'll keep trying to garner (sorry Ann) your favor."
Well, shucks. I don't know what to say. I'm flattered, naturally.
Blogger Chuck said...
She was more categorically opposed to same-sex marriage in 2008.
Of course, someone might have said back then, "She's pro gay and being cagey about it." Could you imagine anyone saying such a thing about Donald Trump?
I don't care about Mrs. Clinton's (or Trump's) opposition to TPP. The people I trust nearly all favor the deal. But whatever. I just do not read Mrs. Clinton as hedging so effectively. Let's review.
"I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president..." does not seem to leave much room for fudging. I mean, she could of course reverse herself. Like she and Obama and just about every Democrat did, on the topic of federally-mandated same-sex marriage.
But to suggest that this is a particular problem for Mrs. Clinton alone is unwarranted in context.
8/14/16, 11:32 AM
The issue as defined by lifelong is that he accused of "shilling for Democrats" whereas, in my opinion the general accusation is "being consistently anti-Republican" while calling himself a "lifelong Republican." There's timing issue also. Chuck opposes what Trump or any Republicans are doing at the moment he comments while indicating that at time-vague in the past he saw a Republican do something good.
You know how it goes. Imagine that the Mitt Romney dog story has broken. What would lifelong Republican say?
Wouldn't it be something like: I've seen Mitt Romney pat dogs but still as a lifelong Republican it disturbs me that,laughing cruelly, Mitt strapped his dog to the car roof and then the whole family took selfies of themselves laughing while the dog scrabbling to get away. Then the republican candidate posted the selfies on Facebook - as reported in the mainstream press which you demented idiots regard as unreliable. And don't say I'm a Dem shill. I liked Reagan before he got senile on the second day of his administration and Reagan who would never have treated a dog or even Nancy like that. I'm sorry Mitt-the dog -abuser is my party's candidate. Show me how opposing animal abuse is shilling for Democrats you stupid, blind, idiotic rat-head, weasel-heart party destroyers. It's your obscene stupidity that makes being a lifelong Republican such an up hill battle. Well, I'm off to the polls to help out there.
Saying anything against Trump after he cinched the nomination was shilling for a Democrat--Hillary. Or are you THAT stupid? I'm not going to post your strictly anti-Trump comments because there is not enough bandwidth for that. Just posting random hits with a suspicious defense of Democrats--a defense that no Republican would volunteer.
"I'm not going to post your strictly anti-Trump comments because there is not enough bandwidth for that."
=
"I got nothin'"
The Dems thought they had the election and there are photos showing their sad faces as Hillary's election night party breaks up.
Then the Dems thought they had a conspiracy to steal the election with star witness The FBI director. And there are photos showing their sad faces in NYC bars and pubs as Comey talks on and on and his nature emerges while the substance of the accusation evaporates.
And there's a third photo yet to come in November 2018.
Make no mistake - Comey's testimony had a political side as Ann is saying. The political side is that the Dem Millies saw that there was no real substance to any serious accusation against Trump. They saw it. And Comey is not the kind of man who can sell acceptance of a lie to the kind of people Millies are. So the Millies can still hate Trump. But the scene shifts to the anti-Trumpers showing the American people that the Dems have a better track record. The Dems plan to run Hillary or rather Hillary supporters.
Run, Hillary, Run. Everyone is with you, even the dead, even the Pelosi-McCain zombie team. Shatter With Hillary - 2018.
Isn't it odd that people interpret comments differently. Chuck, so called fopdoodle, wants his comments read by the letter when he makes comments but chooses to infer intent when Trump says it writes things.
Who. Whom.
Says or writes...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा