I get the commentary as it pertains to the current news, but part of me would like to see "The Trial" rewritten as a series of tweets from K.
"Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested...." Full text at link, so have at it.
Here's Trump tweeting his response to the WaPo rumor:
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017
IN THE COMMENTS: Kate wrote:
-No breakfast today. wtf?
-Old woman who lives opposite is a freakin busybody. Buy the book, honey!
-Come on in pal, and join the party.
Him: You rang?
No, srsly, that's what he said!
Me: Howzabout breakfast?
-Ugh. I should've stayed in my room.
-Hey, buddy, it's a free country. Peace, love. Laws. wtf are you doing in my home?
-Is this a bday prank? Cuz I can take a joke like a bawz. #candidcamera
Posts
151 comments:
If there was no collusion and there was no obstruction, Trump has nothing to worry about, does he.
But, Trump is worried because he is going to get found out for obstruction of justice and most importantly money-laundering plus other financial mis-deeds.
Once a Special Prosecutor is appointed, they can go in multiple directions which is precisely what Mueller is doing.
OT:
To prove the NYT is full of lies.
NYT still peddling trash about Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting
THE media are a disgrace.
unknown - "Money-laundering and other financial misdeeds."
Really - other than the leftwing fever swamp that has infected your dumb brain - do you offer any proof? hope and hunch.
BTW - If you voted for corrupt money grubbing Hillary you certainly do not have a problem with financial mis-deeds, do you.
"Kafka's hero didn't have tweets" is a good one.
It reminds me of "Charlie don't surf" from Apocalypse Now.
@ReneSaunce
Spend quality time away from Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars et al to start seeing reality as it is not as you want it. Understand history wrt Nixon, Bill Clinton and the role of prosecutors. Then again, once a Trumpski always a Trumpski. No hope and hopeless.
For some time I have been bothered by the term "under investigation," and this obstruction of justice charge is a perfect example.
We have Comey's statement under oath as to what the President said to him and we have the Secret Service on statement that there is no White House recording of the meeting. The only thing that remains that I can see is to ask the President if he did or did not say that to Mr. Comey.
So what is to be investigated?
I think this is just so that the media can keep inserting a dark reference to Mr. Trump being "under investigation" in every article remotely about the President, including his Father's Day proclamation.
"If there was no collusion and there was no obstruction, Trump has nothing to worry about, does he."
-- Technically, no. You can obstruct justice even if people are investigating a legal person. You can obstruct justice, sometimes, even if the investigation itself is illegal. The legal system gives a lot of deference to following the law/respecting authority, hence for example the IRS has a "pay then litigate" rule.
But, we have to remember, the following were NOT obstruction of justice in the Clinton probe:
* Destroying evidence before AND after it was subpoenaed.
* Not handing over documents when requested.
* Lying that the documents handed over were complete when you actually handed over edited versions.
* Refusing to answer questions, despite being granted immunity.
* Lying to the FBI, even after being granted immunity (Abedin and the Weiner laptop).
* Withholding requested documentation.
So, Trump has a lot of space to maneuver in the "did not obstruct" lane.
I don't have cable, you fucking moron.
"The fact that we found nothing proves he must have been obstructing our investigation!" Seriously, are they that evil?
Larry J said...
"The fact that we found nothing proves he must have been obstructing our investigation!" Seriously, are they that evil?
6/15/17, 7:43 AM
So much for the "unity" everyone was going on about yesterday.
We knew that would fall by the wayside soon.
This is starting to feel very strongly of "Find me the man, I'll find you the crime."
Sessions can't sit on this. He's either got to come out & [say] WaPo is wrong or he's got to make the entire team recuse itself, start over.
Start over? There is nothing there.
Shame Trump didn't fire Comey on day one, also - every single Obama appointee. The corrupt IRS guy, etc... Flushed.
Drain the swamp, Mr. President.
"Shame Trump didn't fire Comey on day one, also - every single Obama appointee."
-- It was a mistake, and one no other Republican will ever make. Mass firings, day one, every administration, from here on out. Thanks Obama.
Rene Sauce wrote: "THE media are a disgrace."
I became aware of the liberal bias of the media in the early 1980's. It still amazes me that Ronald Reagan and both George Bushes were elected in the face of very significant media work for the Democrats. They were a disgrace then.
However, they have now declared themselves to be in opposition to a democratically elected POTUS. They are worse than Pravda. At least, the Soviet people were well aware that Pravda was a propaganda organ. Many Americans, including the recent shooter, think the media are telling us "all the news that's fit to print."
I keep hoping it makes some difference that in the case of Watergate, there was an actual burglary. Police reports and everything. There was an actual cover-up to the extent that some very expensive lawyers showed up at the first hearing for the burglars. So the question was: who was behind the cover-up? How high up did it go?
So far with Trump there is ... nothing. He hurt Comey's feelings, or made him blush and feel ashamed, or caused him to hide in the drapes (hoping his nice navy suit would blend in with something blue), or made him fear for his job while he hoped to hang on somehow. Probably just reminded him of what a Democratic partisan he's always been. I've always thought some of the heros of Watergate were somewhat over-rated, but the Dems are really scraping the bottom of the barrel this time.
1. By law, the president cannot be prosecuted for a crime while in office. Impeachment is the only remedy.
2. A person can only be found guilty of obstruction of justice if there is intent for a corrupt purpose. Where is the new evidence? How could that be proved?
3. Why would the Trump campaign collude with Russia to win? How could that get votes? Way too risky with a speculative payoff. This has never made sense to me.
So, yes, it is a phoney story.
The Press went on for months and months and months about Clinton and Benghazi. After all the investigations, no wrongdoing was ever found. Should the Press not have reported on Clinton/ Benghazi? The Press was reporting on innuendo being propagated against her, should they have remained silent?
"After all the investigations, no wrongdoing was ever found."
-- No crime was charged.
We did learn that Clinton lied to people. She lied about rejecting security requests. She illegally passed highly sensitive information to her daughter to workshop political talking points. The president, for some reason, conducted government business using a pseudonym on a non-secure server while discussing what they knew to be an on-going terrorist attack.
You may think none of that matters. But, believe me: Learning that is IMPORTANT.
FD - That's why the media should be called "The pro-democrat hack press."
Hillary lied to the Benghazi families. No crime in lying, on the left.
Lies all all A-OK, as long as you have a (D) after your name.
She deleted 30,000 emails after the request was made to hand them over.
No biggie! because she did it with a cloth.
Matthew, and these investigations of Trump may also provide significant information. You approved of Clinton being investigated. If Trump did nothing wrong, then he and you have nothing to worry about.
Inga,
What ever happened to the documentary film maker who was blamed and jailed for the Benghazi fiasco? Did the media defend him and point out the absurd lies told by Hillary and Obama?
I think not.
How often did Hillary obstruct justice in defending Bill against very credible evidence that he is a serial sexual assaulter? If the media ever took that seriously, along with her other crimes, she would be in jail, not running for POTUS.
"Matthew, and these investigations of Trump may also provide significant information. You approved of Clinton being investigated. If Trump did nothing wrong, then he and you have nothing to worry about."
-- And yet, thus far, they have not.
Also: "If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about," is a terrible, terrible argument. Should police be able to investigate you without a warrant or cause? No! People have rights. We saw what happened when the left went after Ted Stevens with a witch hunt. Same with Palin. Same with Rick Perry. Same with Scott Walker.
The left goes on months to year long witch hunts, comes up with nothing, shrugs and says, "Well, hey. If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
No -- the process IS something to worry about. Ted Stevens died thinking that people thought he had committed a crime. We later learned that prosecutors were literally hiding evidence and sleeping with people involved in the investigation and manipulating the case.
So, yes. You better have SOME reason to investigate people.
"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice." Nice, but a little late, buddy. If you want drain the swamp, drain it. Don't let the swamp creatures crawl around. Your mistake.
Mueller is hiring a lefty hit team to pull a Fitzgerald on behalf of his friend Comey. What if Josef K had the power to fire his prosecutors and declassify all information gathered in his "case"?
-No breakfast today. wtf?
-Old woman who lives opposite is a freakin busybody. Buy the book, honey!
-Come on in pal, and join the party.
Him: You rang?
No, srsly, that's what he said!
Me: Howzabout breakfast?
-Ugh. I should've stayed in my room.
-Hey, buddy, it's a free country. Peace, love. Laws. wtf are you doing in my home?
-Is this a bday prank? Cuz I can take a joke like a bawz. #candidcamera
Inga- She set up and used a Private Server while she was Secretary of State, and did so in order to hide her private dealings.
Trump is only being investigated because he won the election, and the media are seeking revenge.
Name Trump's crime, Inga. Innuendo and hope for a crime - do not count.
The Press went on for months and months and months about Clinton and Benghazi. After all the investigations, no wrongdoing was ever found.
Lying with a straight face would apply if we could see you.
The Press helped suppress the story. Four men died at Benghazi. Clinton lied to the families in their faces !
Rice went on TV and lied on five programs.
There is still no evidence because it has been hidden. Where was Obama ? What was Clinton doing ?
The one guy who did tell the truth was demoted and assigned to a "rubber room" office.
Lies, lies, lies.
Two former heads of US diplomatic security in Libya have told a congressional hearing that requests for additional agents to protect American officials and premises in the face of a growing threat from armed militias were rejected by the state department ahead of the attack on the Benghazi consulate that killed the US ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other officials.
You must be getting senile to bring up Hillary's worst crime as Sec State,.
Hours before the hearing, the state department was forced into an embarrassing retreat on its claim that the attackers used the cover of a popular protest outside the consulate as cover for the assault. Officials acknowledged on Tuesday that there was no protest and that as it occurred on September 11 it was likely timed to mark the anniversary of al-Qaida's assault on the US 11 years ago.
The former head of embassy security in Libya, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, said that he recognised the situation in Libya was volatile and that he and other officials pressed for additional agents to protect the consulate in Benghazi.
"The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there … Diplomatic security remained weak,'' he said. "The RSO (regional security officer) struggled to obtain additional personnel there, but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."
"The investigations have only begun in earnest."
-- We only know this because Comey finally broke down and admitted what we were told was not true for six months: Trump has never been investigated before now.
The process worry and concern existed for Clinton, except for the fact she DESTROYED SUBPOENAED EVIDENCE. The investigation into Clinton didn't start *until she admitted to having a server she should never have had.* There was *never* a reason to think the investigation into Clinton was illegitimate.
Matthew,
"-- And yet, thus far, they have not."
The investigations have only begun in earnest. I'm quite sure Mueller wouldn't have been appointed had there not been reason to investigate. Did the "process" worry or concern the right when it came to Clinton? The process now concerns itself with Trump and his campaign associates, now you're worried?
... I hate when people delete something I quoted, and then I look stupid.
Ooh! But in this case, it looks like I'm a time traveler. Cool!
Trump is spot on on this. We were promised exposing Manchurian candidate, but all we're gonna get is chasing after technicalities.
In related news, beats me completely why black people are promoting an aggressive prosecutor as a rising political star, after complaining for so long about bias and unfairness of criminal investigations.
Matthew,
There is potential for Trump's wrongdoings to be criminal in nature. These are criminal investigations now. They started as counter intelligence investigations and have been expanded, for a reason, not just to annoy the right or discredit Trump.
The investigations have only begun in earnest. I'm quite sure Mueller wouldn't have been appointed had there not been reason to investigate.
Steely trap logic right there! Your trust in our political class, however misguided, is touching in a way.
No crime was ever proved. The people who held the documentary evidence refused to give that evidence to the investigating body. And therefore, the people who were trying to investigate were unable to know the truth.
And Leftists believe that is the same as a thorough investigation that found no evidence of a crime.
Exactly Michael - the press did everything they could to hide the Obama-Clinton lies surrounding Benghazi, including happily peddling the Susan Rice lie that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous eruption based on a YouTube video. Nobody in the ME sits and watches obscure Youtube videos.
The left used that film maker as a scapegoat.
You Remember, Inga. "Shadowy character" was to blame. Throw him in jail!
The left will gladly imprison "shadowy characters" to cover for their incompetence and lies. The left will ruin lives wholesale to cover for the incompetence and lies.
The hack press fed the Susan Rice lie to us, wholesale, over and over.
"There is potential for Trump's wrongdoings to be criminal in nature. These are criminal investigations now. They started as counter intelligence investigations and have been expanded, for a reason, not just to annoy the right or discredit Trump.
-- There is no evidence OF wrongdoings yet.
There never WAS an investigation into Trump, himself, until this (if this leak is even accurate, which many have not been.) I'm fine if there's a legitimate investigation. But given that Comey and McCabe swore (literally, under oath), that the White House has not interfered with the investigation, it is a hard, hard sell for me to believe that they lied, under oath, to Congress.
and have been expanded, for a reason,
Yes, they have been expanded because reasons people!
How do you parody this stuff?
1) How dare AG Sessions not answer our perjury trap questions completely and honestly in a way that might expose him to perjury charges.
2) There was no crime but now there is an obstruction of justice (if we believe the press accounts, given their recent track record) investigation to see if non-crimes for which there is non-justice could have been obstructed.
3) We are sure there is a pony in here.
What have I missed?
Trump is such a whiner. He led chants of "lock her up!" and promised his supporters that he would make sure that Hillary Clinton would go to prison. Now he is crying about how unfair he is being treated. If Clinton had won and fired the FBI director after he would not promise loyalty to her and end the investigation of one of her closest aids, you conservatives who post here would be going nuts.
It's like the "Toothless Revolutionary" who has complete faith in how our criminal justice system must have handled completely fairly Teddy Kennedy's "leaving the scene of an accident" because we can trust them implicitly. Although I would think that leaving the scene of a fatal accident in which you were at fault and most likely drunk amounts to a felony and obstruction of justice in any case, I would be wrong.
This same "Revolutionary" believes that the Harvard deserves its perch at the apex of wealth and power in the United States on account of their proven superiority.
He is not a "revolutionary," he is more into civil war.
Inga too, she has complete and utter faith in our political class because reasons!
The left are Stalinists. Pure and simple. Any lie will do, and while their criminals go free, innocents get locked up or dragged thru the mud.
All for the corrupt progressive common good. Fuck you and fuck the left.
"If Clinton had won and fired the FBI director after he would not promise loyalty to her and end the investigation of one of her closest aids, you conservatives who post here would be going nuts."
-- I doubt it. Conservatives basically shrugged when Obama fired the IG who was investigating his administration. They barely peeped when Obama implied the guy was too senile, and then refused to hire a new IG to complete the investigation. So, the past history shows that, most likely, conservatives/Republicans would've said, shouldn't have done that, maybe hold a hearing, and then shrug and move on.
Virtually Unkown,
Maybe you should send off an email to Mueller and demand all the classified information, so the "reasons" make more sense to you.
Shall we add the corrupt midnight raids in Wisconsin for the manufactured non-existent crimes. All in an attempt to over-throw an elected Governor of Wisconsin.
Trump's true crime is that he usurped the throne from its rightful heir. For this there is no forgiveness, particularly from Hillary's merry band of Yonic Narcissists.
Mueller and demand all the classified information, so the "reasons" make more sense to you.
LOL! Yes, we have the evidence, you can trust us to suppress any partisan motives, but alas, it is classified... When it comes to light, we will prove with geometric logic that Trump had two scoops of strawberry ice cream, TWO! twice as many as the reporters!
But Inga is superior because she has twice as many standards as we do. It's science.
"2) There was no crime but now there is an obstruction of justice (if we believe the press accounts, given their recent track record) investigation to see if non-crimes for which there is non-justice could have been obstructed."
-- You can obstruct justice, even if you are innocent of what you're being investigated for. For example, if instead of giving the alibi, "I was with my mistress," you lie to the investigators about where you were and fabricate a different one to avoid having to admit to having a mistress, that's still potentially very bad for you. Even if you didn't do whatever they are asking you about.
Rene Saunce said...
OT:
To prove the NYT is full of lies.
NYT still peddling trash about Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting
THE media are a disgrace.
6/15/17, 7:24 AM
I feel a real need to highlight Rene Saunce's "OT" comment.
I read that NYT editorial. I read the criticism of that editorial, at the link in the comment.
Rene Saunce is right. The Times' critic is right. The Times' referral to the claim that Jared Lee Loughner's shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and others as a political crime is an obscenity to sound editorial writing.
Every bit of evidence in that case pointed to Loughner's psychosis. Loughner didn't even have a coherent political ideology.
Althouse should blog that disgraceful error on the Times' part.
Media-corruptocrat witch hunt to avenge Hillary.
Trump might have lost if Hillary stepped down as a candidate. Alas, leftwing liars like the Clintons get a pass, and they never go away. Now Terry McAuliffe will run as the Clinton successor and surrogate.
We are eternally stuck in the Clinton web. In the meantime- Trump committed crimes, he obstructed Justice - we cannot name it, but he did it! Media promises!
Blogger Inga said...
"The Press went on for months and months and months about Clinton and Benghazi. After all the investigations, no wrongdoing was ever found. Should the Press not have reported on Clinton/ Benghazi? The Press was reporting on innuendo being propagated against her, should they have remained silent?"
The only thing that kept Hillary out of jail was obvious corruption. She was caught blatantly breaking several laws.
We are not going to accept your double standards anymore. Your entire movement is corrupt and full of violent awful people.
The left better start acting like decent people. This will not be tolerated. Mueller can start by resigning.
Matthew Sablan,
The better answer is quit investigating the non-crime.
thank you, Chuck.
There was never a shred of proof that Jared Loughner visited Sarah Palin's web-site. And yet- the false narrative lives on. Makes you wonder what other false narratives the NYT is pushing.
Jared was obsessed with Gabby Giffords long before Sarah Palin was even on the scene.
Just goes to show that the left will build any false narrative, any lie, and then circle the wagons around that false narrative.
I agree on that.
I am sure all of you conservative posters here spoke out against Ken Starr when he went after Bill Clinton for "dissembling" about whether he had sexual relations outside of his marriage. Republicans impeached and tried to remove Clinton from office for obstruction of justice. The irony here is so hilarious.
Clinton *did* commit perjury though. Find an actual crime Trump committed.
Rene Saunce said...
...
...
The hack press fed the Susan Rice lie to us, wholesale, over and over.
The media that I consume (including the WSJ, the Weekly Standard, National Review, FNC, etc.) wasn't feeding me any Susan Rice lies. They were all ripping Susan Rice and rightfully so.
I know that there was a lot of benign neglect and counter-narration in other corners of the media. But insofar as that is a problem, I just don't understand why WSJ, Weekly Standard and NRO aren't selling subscriptions like hot cakes. It is so easy, in a liberal media environment, to find better quality reporting and commentary.
"There is potential for Trump's wrongdoings to be criminal in nature."
There are some people who are so clueless that it is of no use to associate with them.
On the chance that ignorance might be contagious, I am going to my book early.
Blogger Once written, twice... said...
"Trump is such a whiner. He led chants of "lock her up!" and promised his supporters that he would make sure that Hillary Clinton would go to prison. Now he is crying about how unfair he is being treated. If Clinton had won and fired the FBI director after he would not promise loyalty to her and end the investigation of one of her closest aids, you conservatives who post here would be going nuts."
There is nothing similar to compare. Hillary is and was clearly a criminal.
This Stalinist crap is over. The country will not accept removal of the president on the grounds he "obstructed" an investigation of nothing.
You people are undermining our democracy with violence and lies. It is what the left does.
"The left better start acting like decent people. This will not be tolerated."
Oh? What are you going to do?
"Weekly Standard and NRO aren't selling subscriptions like hot cakes."
Chuck, they went the NeverTrump route with such abandon that both lost thousands of subscribers.
I can understand those who are reluctant about him, like you say you are but they both went off the deep end.
Bill Kristol has said recently that he prefers "The Deep State."
That way lies craziness.
Matthew Sablan, the independent counsel has been there for only two weeks. You don't know and I don't know what information he is looking at and will be uncovering and looking at. Let's let the process play out.
But what we do know is that Trump is extremely reckless and believes the rules do not apply to him. Do you agree with that assessment?
Once written, twice... said...
I am sure all of you conservative posters here spoke out against Ken Starr when he went after Bill Clinton for "dissembling" about whether he had sexual relations outside of his marriage. Republicans impeached and tried to remove Clinton from office for obstruction of justice. The irony here is so hilarious.
Republicans, conservatives, and their friends in the media (I am thinking about the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review in particular) promptly campaigned against the independent counsel statute and worked to let it die at the time of its statutory sunset.
As for me, I have no hypocrisy problems. I thought that Bill Clinton's perjury was serious. And it will come as no surprise here, that I'd view any Donald Trump perjury and/or obstruction of justice as a serious matter.
No problem for me at all.
Skimming comments, I think only Kate took up the post's challenge. I think it's a brilliant premise, wish I was up to it but hope others will give it a shot.
"Althouse should blog that disgraceful error on the Times' part."
There was no error. The NYTs knows exactly what they are doing. The majority of readers of the NYTs believe republicans deserve to get shot.
We know who is pushing this garbage. People shouldn't support Stalinism.
"The majority of readers of the NYTs believe republicans deserve to get shot."
More nuttery.
Blogger Inga said...
"The left better start acting like decent people. This will not be tolerated."
"Oh? What are you going to do?"
There you are people. This is who she really is. This is who they really are.
"You don't know and I don't know what information he is looking at and will be uncovering and looking at."
-- Do you think Comey and McCabe committed perjury? If they did not, what in the last few days do you think Trump did to obstruct justice?
It's kind of interesting how Trump fires the FBI director who is heading the Trump-Russia investigation and then goes on national TV and says it was about Russia. And, the next day after the firing tells the Russian Foreign Minister and Russian Ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian thing. All of it in public and recorded.
Hey Trumpski's - do ya'll think anything remotely suspicious about those chain of Trump events? You don't see it do ya. Grab some Russian vodka and get back to Fox News as they are showing highlights of each Clinton email.
"But what we do know is that Trump is extremely reckless and believes the rules do not apply to him. Do you agree with that assessment?"
-- He is reckless, but Comey testified he wanted the Russia investigation completed, and he wanted to know if any of his "satellites" had done anything wrong. So, even if he generally is reckless, in this case, we have Comey's testimony that he wanted to hold his people to the rules.
Blogger Inga said...
"The majority of readers of the NYTs believe republicans deserve to get shot."
"More nuttery."
I posted a half dozen clear examples yesterday twice in response to your lies. You are acting out of pure dishonesty.
The left let the mask slip too far yesterday. Too many people know who you really are now.
"I just don't understand why WSJ, Weekly Standard and NRO aren't selling subscriptions like hot cakes"
Just like you don't understand how Clinton lost Michigan.
There are many things you don't understand that are pretty clear to the rest of us.
Achilles wrote "There is nothing similar to compare. Hillary is and was clearly a criminal."
No she is and was not. Hillary Clinton was under more scrutiny than any other public figure in the history of this country. She was under intense scrutiny for three decades including investigations. There was never even a close chance she would have charged with anything but a technical violation of the law. And there was only one case of that: her e-mails.
M., the grandson of K., was brought in for questioning by the authorities. The crime: there was no evidence that M had committed any crime. This was evidence that M. was engaged in a massive cover-up and a plot to obstruct justice.
Cosby pled not guilty and hired some top attorneys. Is this obstruction of justice?
"There was never even a close chance she would have charged with anything but a technical violation of the law."
-- Which is the problem. Anyone else admitting to the server set up she had would be lucky to simply lose their clearance and be fined.
If Once wants me to waste more time replying to him, he's going to have to find a way to pay me.
Also, that's not wishcasting or speculation. People lose their jobs over forgetting to lock doors around classified material. What do you think would happen if they told their maid, who had no clearance, to go pick up the secret email for them?
Trump: "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice"
Lawrence O'Donnell: "They made up a phony story about Al Capone being a gangster & murderer, found zero proof, so they got him on tax evasion. Nice"
Tee hee.
Chuck - the ABC- NBC - CBS - CNN MSNBC axis of narrative were selling Susan Rice's lies.
I do remember.
Trump's tweets and statements only provide more evidence of intent when it comes to an obstruction charge. Just as his statements and tweets were used by all the Federal Judges in the Travel Ban decisions. He is his own worst enemy. The Press could stop reporting on him altogether and he would continue to tweet just to get attention.
Bill Clinton committed perjury. Clinton lies under oath. No biggie in leftwing liar universe. It's perfectly fine to lie if you are on the left.
Obstruction of justice? Name it, Inga. Still waiting.
Matthew Sablan said...
This is starting to feel very strongly of "Find me the man, I'll find you the crime."
Exactly. There's another Beria quote that I used in the previous thread that I'll reprise here:
"Let our enemies know that anyone who attempts to raise a hand against the will of our people, against the will of the party of Obama and Clinton, will be mercilessly crushed and destroyed."
-- Lavrenti Beria, Robert Mueller, et.al.
(Yeah, I know, Beria said it about "the party of Lenin and Stalin," but these days, same-o, same-o.)
Real good sign: the Special Counselor's team is already leaking to the press. I mean, it's not like many people see the process as discredited based on political fighting/partisanship, that the series of events leading up to the SC's creation is highly suspect (having been orchestrated by a disgruntled Comey), or that the SC himself is tainted by his close association with the guy who used a leak to get the investigation into Trump himself going. No sir, none of that is a problem at all, so it's real good so see the SC leaking stuff designed to harm Trump to the Media already. Real good.
You want Kafkaesque? How about the bizarre illogic of comparing Trump to Josef K.
What justice was obstructed?
ooo justice! it was justice, and it was obstructed.
Blogger Once written, twice... said...
Achilles wrote "There is nothing similar to compare. Hillary is and was clearly a criminal."
"There was never even a close chance she would have charged with anything but a technical violation of the law."
There are numerous service members in jail for a few pictures on their laptops. Hillary is only free because she was treated differently than people who served.
You are completely dishonest. The entire left is full of people this awful.
"Trump's tweets and statements only provide more evidence of intent when it comes to an obstruction charge."
-- That's... that's not how it works. You have to PROVE he obstructed justice. Comey and McCabe testified under oath he did not. If you think his firing Comey was obstruction, then they both need to go down for perjury. If you're not willing to jail them for perjury, then let it go.
No one really believes that Hillary Clinton had any idea about the set up of her e-mail server and the handling of her e-mails. At worse she got some bad technical advise. There was also precedent because because previous SofS used the same setup, including Colin Powell.
"Just as his statements and tweets were used by all the Federal Judges in the Travel Ban decisions."
-- Which is bad law. Something shouldn't be constitutional if President Hillary Clinton did it, but unconstitutional because President Trump did it. We are literally not a nation of laws if that is allowed to stand.
Matthew Sablan said...-- You can obstruct justice, even if you are innocent of what you're being investigated for. For example, if instead of giving the alibi, "I was with my mistress," you lie to the investigators about where you were and fabricate a different one to avoid having to admit to having a mistress, that's still potentially very bad for you. Even if you didn't do whatever they are asking you about.
Scooter Libby agrees. Martha Stewart, too.
"No one really believes that Hillary Clinton had any idea about the set up of her e-mail server and the handling of her e-mails."
-- Does not fly. She signed a government document acknowledging she understood her responsibilities managing classified information. If she didn't know if it was a good idea, she should have gone to a government IT person, not a campaign staffer.
"At worse she got some bad technical advise."
-- Actually, she got specific advice to NOT DO IT. She was told to ONLY USE GOVERNMENT APPROVED IT devices. She chose to not follow the advice.
"There was also precedent because because previous SofS used the same setup, including Colin Powell."
-- Colin Powell said that was not true, and in fact, specifically said he wished Clinton's team would stop spreading that lie.
How much do you ACTUALLY know about this subject? You seem ill informed.
Blogger Inga said...
"Trump's tweets and statements only provide more evidence of intent when it comes to an obstruction charge. Just as his statements and tweets were used by all the Federal Judges in the Travel Ban decisions. He is his own worst enemy. The Press could stop reporting on him altogether and he would continue to tweet just to get attention."
Trump's true crime is finally revealed. He talks and tweets. Incredible.
These people are stalinists. Violent amoral stalinists.
WaPo has the same credibility as CNN and the NYT.
Liars, hacks, narrative pushers and democrat operatives with by-lines.
Inga said...
... If Trump did nothing wrong, then he and you have nothing to worry about.
Hardly. There are undoubtedly innocent people in prison who are victims of malicious prosecutions. The cases of Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are perfect examples of overzealous prosecutions where the original crime was non-existent but they were still jailed on "process crimes" because they couldn't keep their story straight under interrogation. I hope that nothing similar ever happens to you.
Matthew- the left get to move the goal posts and "create how it works" with each passing day.
That's how they roll.
Also, we can see from how Clinton handled the investigation that she *knew what she did was wrong.* Otherwise, they would not have *physically destroyed evidence after it was requested.* That is not the action someone who doesn't know about technology does. Someone who isn't sure how to set up their email doesn't create pseudonyms for her daughter, the president and others to talk to her on a private system. She does not set up a rotating email system that required the president to monthly receive updates about her new email so he could communicate electronically with her. She does not hire a company specializing in forensic destruction of data.
All of her actions, save "Like, with a cloth?" show a clear understanding of what she was doing.
No one really believes that Hillary Clinton had any idea about the set up of her e-mail server and the handling of her e-mails. At worse she got some bad technical advise. There was also precedent because because previous SofS used the same setup, including Colin Powell.
The smartest pantsuit in history holding one of the most powerful positions in government didn't understand federal laws regarding the handling of email and classified information? She may be incompetent and corrupt but unlike you, I don't believe she's a moron.
Colin Powell did not set up a private server.
Blogger Once written, twice... said...
"No one really believes that Hillary Clinton had any idea about the set up of her e-mail server and the handling of her e-mails. At worse she got some bad technical advise. There was also precedent because because previous SofS used the same setup, including Colin Powell."
Unbelievable. There are veterans in jail for less and you can pedal this garbage and sleep at night.
Stalinism.
It is no longer worth engaging these people. The only reason to have a discussion now is for decent people Who want to protect liberty to decide what we are going to do about this.
"“If Trump were to fire Mueller and it could be shown that his purpose was to impede the investigation, it could be additional evidence of obstruction of justice,” McQuade, who was appointed by President Obama, told The Daily Beast.
But some privately concede that Trump is so unpredictable—and so frustrated with the persistence of the investigation and its cost in political capital—that they’re not ruling it out. Another White House official conceded that it would be “suicide” if Trump sacked Mueller at this point, but “I’d be insincere if I said it wasn’t a concern that the president would try to do it anyway.”
For now, officials are simply concerned with limiting fallout from what is sure to be a thunderous reaction from the president to news that he is personally the target of the FBI’s probe.
Asked what the internal game plan should be, one senior Trump administration official replied, “Keep him away from Twitter, dear God, keep him away from Twitter.”
“The president did this to himself,” the official added."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/even-trumps-aides-blame-him-for-obstruction-probe-president-did-this-to-himself
Inga: Didn't the Daily Beast also report Trump was under investigation, despite his insistence that he wasn't? Did the Daily Beast also report Rosenstein was going to quit? Did the Daily Beast report the NYT story that Comey has said was completely wrong?
In short... has the Daily Beast been RIGHT about any of this?
Once written, twice... said...
"But what we do know is that Trump is extremely reckless and believes the rules do not apply to him. Do you agree with that assessment?"
Could you point to something President Trump has done (not tweets or rumors or speculation -- something he's *done*) that looks like someone who "believes the rules do not apply to him"?
Even where I disagree with his policy positions, I see a president making every effort to do everything by the book. When judges ruled against Obama, he ignored them. When judges rule against Trump, he rewrites the EO and appeals the ruling. We can agree that tweeting his displeasure about them should be beneath him... but he absolutely followed the rules in what he *did*.
Do you have some counterexamples?
Unknown said...
"... And, the next day after the firing tells the Russian Foreign Minister and Russian Ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian thing. All of it in public and recorded."
You are mistaken.
There are rumors that such a conversation occurred.
Whatever happened in that private meeting, it did not occur in public and we have only rumors to substantiate your claim.
What's an anti-Trumper to do?
(A) Let the Mueller investigation play out and see what you can do with findings that don't live up to the innuendo or
(B) Bait Trump into firing Mueller which will effectively prove the innuendo.
Did the Daily Beast report the initial reports that no one in the Trump administration was incorrectly unmasked, only for us to later learn that Flynn, actually was inappropriately unmasked? What about the reports that Sessions would quit? Or the reports that was it the DNI/CIA had to go out and say were wrong about?
What parts of the story has the Daily Beast gotten right verse what have they gotten wrong? Because, if they've got a track record like most of the media, they have a trust debt to pull out of before you should believe their anonymous sources.
Inga said...
"The left better start acting like decent people. This will not be tolerated."
Oh? What are you going to do?
Do you REALLY want to find out?
"Whatever happened in that private meeting, it did not occur in public and we have only rumors to substantiate your claim."
-- Oddly enough, the Russians offered the media their own notes of the meeting to prove what was or was not said. No one took them up on it.
huffpo pulls article calling for execution of trump and persecution of supporters.
Of course you know why they pulled it.
This is over obstruction of an investigation of nothing. Pure Stalinism.
Poor innocent confused Hillary. She had no idea she set up a Private Server to stuff her Family Foundation Coffers, and hide her dealings behind it.
Hillary Clinton’s IT guy invokes 5th Amendment more than 125 times
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department
Clintons And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing
Hillary Clinton Denounces Corporate Crime While Accepting Cash From Blackstone, Firm Sanctioned By SEC
But she had no idea.
Hillary Clinton, In Paid Speeches To Wall Street, Promoted Commission That Pushed Social Security Cuts
Matthew,
Remember investigations progress based on acquired information. What may be true at one point early on in the investigation could change depending on the information coming in. No investigation is stagnant, it continues accruing information until it's over.
By the way…..people say “how does MSM and leftwing hate groups cause an old man to try to assassinate Republican legislators”? Well, lets ask them. So I went to read the comments on Huff Post.
Here’s what they saying and have been saying for some time.
-Republicans are winning only due to gerrymandering. And there is nothing you can do. They win by cheating.
-The Corporations control the country and there is nothing you can do. {Actually I say this is partially true, but it is leftwing corporations like Amazon, silicon valley in general, NCAA, NFL, etc}
-The system is rigged
-Trump and the Republicans are Nazis and need to be stopped at any cost
-Therefor The People are desperate and need to resort to desperate tactics.
Get it? The MSM and leftwing online groups first convince you that Republicans are cheating to get and hold power. Then they say that those Republicans are Hitler. So since Hitler needs to be stopped and you can’t do it at the ballot box (because the system is rigged) you need to resort to violence.
Some Huff Post commentators said they have considered doing what Hodgkinson did.
Achilles....as I was typing, you posted.
Ann says she wants name calling to end on her blog. I hope she reviews the comments to this post and notes who did and did not engage in namecalling.
Matthew Sablan said...
"There was never even a close chance she would have charged with anything but a technical violation of the law."
-- Which is the problem. Anyone else admitting to the server set up she had would be lucky to simply lose their clearance and be fined.
Not to mention the fact that Hillary and her henchmen STILL HAVE THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES!!
You or I would be in jail.
Will the SLPC declare HuffPost a hate site? No, that doesn't raise funds. Someone has to pay for those fun trips.
Good to see that, as predicted, FLOTUS presence at WH has calming influence on POTUS.
"Remember investigations progress based on acquired information. What may be true at one point early on in the investigation could change depending on the information coming in. No investigation is stagnant, it continues accruing information until it's over."
-- Right. And, if you believe Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey, all the evidence existed when he did it. I know because there's been no new information brought forward that people didn't have then, save exculpatory testimony from Comey that Trump wanted the investigation completed.
So, if you think that was obstruction, McCabe and Comey lied under oath. Are you willing to charge them with perjury?
Inga and Alisyn Camerota. Separated at birth?
Rene Saunce said...
Poor innocent confused Hillary. She had no idea she set up a Private Server to stuff her Family Foundation Coffers, and hide her dealings behind it."
Yeah, she's just an innocent babe in the woods. Why she's so guileless and simple she thought you wipe a server clean with a cloth!
"“If Trump were to fire Mueller and it could be shown that his purpose was to impede the investigation, it could be additional evidence of obstruction of justice,” McQuade, who was appointed by President Obama, told The Daily Beast."
To a Stalinist, everything the enemy does is obstruction of justice. In this thread we have learned that trump's tweets and statements are further evidence of obstruction as well.
There is nothing that will stop these people. Trump is guilty of something and they will find it. Disgusting.
Once written, twice... said...No one really believes that Hillary Clinton had any idea about the set up of her e-mail server and the handling of her e-mails. At worse she got some bad technical advise. There was also precedent because because previous SofS used the same setup, including Colin Powell.
I don't want to get us off track, but no part of what you said here is correct. Neither Powell nor any other SoS ever set up their own email system/bought and maintained their own physical server, etc. Clinton was specifically aware of the set up being used--some of the emails released show discussions about the IT guy she hired to manage her system, going to him about problems, etc. She was personally aware of how things were set up, and she presumably directed they be set up in that way. Her excuse that she did things that way "for convenience" is a clear lie--it would have been more convenient (and cheaper) to use the official State Dept system OR an existing commercial/public system (GMail, Yahoo) like other SoSs did--but Clinton specifically went to the extra trouble and extra expense of setting up her own system.
Anyway, nothing in your comment is correct, which in a way is almost impressive. The words were all spelled correctly, I guess.
"No investigation is stagnant, it continues accruing information until it's over."
And it is not over until a crime has been discovered. If it takes forever.
Blogger Inga said...
"Matthew,
Remember investigations progress based on acquired information. What may be true at one point early on in the investigation could change depending on the information coming in. No investigation is stagnant, it continues accruing information until it's over."
You can't make a better parody. Except they really are stalinists. Amazing.
I had to laugh at the NPR reports this morning. The Media has been insisting that Trump is under investigation for weeks now. Comey's own testimony is that Trump was frustrated by repeated Media reports saying Trump was under investigation when he was, in fact, not under investigation and Comey's people (despite leaking damn near everything else) would not correct those Media assertions. That's, like, the whole genesis of a lot of this--that the Media incorrectly reported something, over and over again. (Remember CNN and the WashPo insisting that it couldn't be true that Comey assured Trump 3 times that Trump wasn't under investigation? I remember!)
Now, though, they're breathlessly reporting (based on anonymous leaks!) that Trump IS under investigation. What a story!
It's sort of a "hey, we were wrong the last dozen times we said it, but THIS time it's true!" type of thing. Funny.
Blogger Dave from Minnesota said...
"Achilles....as I was typing, you posted."
Apologies.
I am done with this thread I think. Time to go talk to some friends who are making poor life choices. I wouldn't want them to be with the stalinists in ignorance.
Rene Saunce said...
Chuck - the ABC- NBC - CBS - CNN MSNBC axis of narrative were selling Susan Rice's lies.
I do remember.
Not only do I remember that; I saw most of those appearances, on the Sunday in question, in real time.
And I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of Susan Rice. Her deception; the Obama Administration's organized malfeasance; the continued coverup; I got detailed information on all of that, to my heart's content, simply by changing the channel to FNC, and by reading my own chosen conservative media. (And supporting that media, with subscriptions.) It's not that hard. I don't feel like much of a victim, and I don't feel particularly weak.
I also listen to NPR; and like Ms. Ann Althouse I have a subscription to The New Yorker. And I am fully aware of the politics involved.
I long ago gave up on "The Media." More than any time in a century, we no longer have a single "media." I have lots of choices. Everybody does. Broadcast networks have no power over me.
I hope Ann notices who is throwing invectives in these comments and constantly calling those whose opinions they don't like "stalinists."
Once written, twice... said...
I hope Ann notices who is throwing invectives in these comments and constantly calling those whose opinions they don't like "stalinists."
Chill out, comrade. Nobody likes a stoolie.
OWT: "Ann says she wants name calling to end on her blog. I hope she reviews the comments to this post and notes who did and did not engage in name calling."
Can you provide a single example of name calling from this post? Just one. Two would be better, but I am setting the bar as low as possible for you.
Once written: "I hope Ann notices who is throwing invectives in these comments and constantly calling those whose opinions they don't like "stalinists.""
It's unfair to note that those who advocate for stalinist techniques and stalinist outcomes are behaving in a stalinistic fashion.
Perhaps we should force any criticism of the left thru an academic peer review process in order to weed out any "wrongthink" and wrongspeak".
Oops!
Thats Stalinist.
Alas, what is a stalinist to do when every attempt to stifle criticism of stalinists is, itself, Stalinist?
This is a problem that would even vex Stalin! But I'm sure he would muddle thru to some "workable" "solution".
They've cast Tony Perkins as K? He was terrible in Fear Strikes Out.
Still off in Taipei, visiting a couple of old MBA pals.
East Asian local news media (Manila, HongKong, Taipei) ignores the inside baseball of the Washington maneuvers almost entirely, as the locals (speaking personally to them) find it incomprehensible. The only MSM covering it out here is CNN, and I think in a limited way vs CNN in the US.
The US media spin on nearly anything, and the lack of substance, makes US events very hard to follow, even for readers of the WSJ. Nobody at all, even those who should be in the know, understand, for instance, US healthcare arguments, or the US strategic position in East Asia. I think this confusion is true even for national governments. The US these days is inscrutable.
BTW, the local MSM is refreshingly useful, focusing on practical matters, and (even in HK) has a vastly more varied range of opinions on nearly anything than the US MSM.
Inga: "Just as his statements and tweets were used by all the Federal Judges in the Travel Ban decisions."
Just as his statements and tweets were used by the leftist activist judges (not all) who were happy to actually, specifically, and explicitly ignore actual laws on the books and utilize analysis that has already been specifically ruled by the SC to be unconstitutional.
Other than that its all peachy.
In related news, there is no starvation and everyone is happy in Venezuela!
buwaya:
Inscrutable by design. The Deep State must act in the shadows until all power is subsumed and they can declare themselves, early adopters like Bill Kristol notwithstanding.
Why do you guys argue about words with somebody who doesn't speak English natively, does not live in the US, and has demonstrated nearly complete obtuseness about the issues under discussion?
> and (even in HK) has a vastly more varied range of opinions on nearly anything than the US MSM.
Yep, the US MSM is almost unique in its suckiness.
Off that the MSM-owning "oligarchs" receive none of the criticism from Leftists for their oligarchy-ness.
No enemies to the Left, as they say.
Grab your carry on.
"Althouse should blog that disgraceful error on the Times' part."
Disgraceful, yes. "Error"? Hardly. They knew damn well it was false.
They've already walked it back, but not before the lie went all the way around the world. Possibly related to the fact that Palin tweeted about a libel suit.
DHS probed WV and KY as well as Georgia?
Well, well, isn't this getting interesting!
If you voted for corrupt money grubbing Hillary you certainly do not have a problem with financial mis-deeds, do you.
Only the non voters are without sin. They are the real Amerika.
"Prague's Kafka International Named Most Alienating Airport"
antiphone said...
Only the non voters are without sin. They are the real Amerika.
Those who don't know sin are doomed to repeat it.
Gregor Samsa woke one morning from troubled dreams. What happened next will shock you!
One might imagine anybody who uses a 'k' in the word America might not like America's traditions very well. Declare your side and get on with it.
"Gregor Samsa woke one morning from troubled dreams. What happened next will shock you!"
lol
Achilles said...
Blogger Inga said...
"The left better start acting like decent people. This will not be tolerated."
"Oh? What are you going to do?"
There you are people. This is who she really is. This is who they really are.
6/15/17, 8:52 AM
No, Achilles, she's right. Are you going to bark all day, little doggie, or are you going to bite? All talk. Why should she fear? What should she fear? You'll do nothing.
No matter your qualifications and preparations. Hercules and Atlas together, waiting for the "right time," are going to get beat to death by some antifa with a sockful of shit, who has no rules but "Win."
Automotive tools suppliers in Singapore, automotive tools traders in Singapore, Hand Tools, Shop Equipment, Auto Lifts, Lift Parts and Lift Accessories Complete coverage with parts breakdowns for easy ordering. VIEW MORE - Automotive tools
Post a Comment