On
Fox News Sunday this morning, first, there was Newt Gingrich:
CHRIS WALLACE: Speaker Gingrich, I want... to start with the - your tweet... "Republicans need to focus on closing down independent counsel because it clearly isn't independent." What's your reasoning and wouldn't that really look like an obstruction of justice?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, look at what Comey said. Comey said, I deliberately leaked, through an intermediary, to create this counsel, who happens to be one of his closest friends. Then look at who Mueller's starting to hire. I mean these are people that, frankly, look - look to me like they're - they're setting up to go after Trump. They've - including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. I think this - this is going to be a witch hunt. I think that Comey himself, by his own testimony, tainted this particular process. You have a director of the FBI deliberately leaking in order to create a special counsel, who we're now supposed to believe is going to be this neutral figure. I think that's just nonsense....
Then, Karl Rove:
ROVE: Look - look,... I think it would be a huge mistake to try and checked [sic] down the special counsel. This would leave the Trump administration, the Trump presidency, under a cloud until the very last day and make it an ongoing issue. I do have confidence in Mueller. I - the question is, is Robert Mueller Patrick Fitzgerald or not? Is he going to look for an underlying act and focus on the underlying act -
WALLACE: Now, we should point out, Patrick Fitzgerald was the special counsel in the case about Valerie Plame and the leak of that information.
ROVE: And the day that he took - the day he took his responsibility, he knew exactly who had leaked her name, Richard Armitage, undersecretary of state. He knew she was not a covered person, that there was no underlying effort. Chuck's paper, when they found out - when it was - was several years later revealed that it was Richard Armitage, they said, well why - why did we even go through all this exercise because everybody knows Richard Armitage had no axe to grind. But the - but he ground an axe for a long period of time trying to find people that he could indict on the fact that they had said one thing in - in - that he could get them on and he got Scooter Libby on the fact that he had not - that he said -
WALLACE: Let me - let me - let me - let me just move on because we're - I - I don't want to talk about Scooter Libby. I - I will say, you were also a target and you ended up spending a whole pile of money on private legal fees....
Posts
214 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214@Ritmo: Willfully obtuse!
Hard to believe people are still paying attention to Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. What a demographic Fox has.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
You're a dummy.
Typical unconscious opening.
What you're against is checks and balances,
Is that what you thought when Obama was president?
the federal judiciary,
You can't actually honestly defend what they are doing. You are just glad they are taking your partisan position.
and the ability of the federal government to ensure clean air and water,
It has been a long time since bureaucrats in DC gave a shit about the environment.
safe and effective drugs,
Real people out here actually do this. The FDA just sits around picking their nose.
working transportation and other infrastructure (see Commerce Clause for details),
You have no idea who actually builds the infrastructure. (hint: not a single damn person in DC does a single fucking thing to build any useful infrastructure.)
a non-patronage based civil service (championed by Teddy Roosevelt),
You are describing the administrative state right now. A bunch of people who do nothing for anyone. They are unelected, make rules, and act as judge jury and executioner. Absolutely unconstitutional and completely antithetical to due process.
autonomous federal law enforcement and every other administrative apparatus of the federal government
Does that include a federal government that spies on political opponents? You only like it because it was people you didn't like they went after. You ready for it to come after you?
as affirmed over and over again as constitutional by any SCOTUS that knows a thing about the difference between the U.S., Egypt and SOMALIA.
The difference between the United States and Egypt and Somalia is the people that live here. The government is derived from us. You can walk down the street safely because 99% of the population has a judeo christian background and moral code. The people of Egypt and Somalia believe in sharia law.
That you think the government is the source of all good things is pathetic. Really this whole post was unconscious and pathetic. Boring.
The difference between the United States and Egypt and Somalia is the people that live here.
Not the argument he made. He said that the U.S. has a "deep state," which either reflects the fact that he flunked civics (or never took it) and doesn't understand checks and balances or doesn't realize that non heads of state can actually take over the government in the form of a coup, such as in Egypt. That's because in Egypt and other countries where this term actually can be truthfully used, institutions such as the army are powerful enough to replace the president. No other agencies can remove the president in the American system, except through legal means spelled out in the Constitution. You want to erroneously use terminology to illegally destroy any part of the federal executive that Trump doesn't like. He doesn't have that authority, though. Get used to it.
But nice job being a bigot. I can't find anything in the Constitution about race and the "sort" of people that you think makes a legal document special in any way other than the words it contains.
The rest of your post was just a typically frustrated scattershot that broadcast your inability to find entertainment in the things that you should be using to educate yourself. But apparently you hate the idea of being informed and actually knowing what you're talking about. How entitled you are to demand that people who point out how wrong you are have an obligation to entertain you. Pretty sad!
Real people out here actually do this. The FDA just sits around picking their nose.
They evaluate the evidence that's submitted to them. But since you hate the idea of weighing evidence and never passed a science course, performed an experiment, or basically figured out how science works, you just rage against the whole process of how review works. Tell me, do you use your "gut feelings" to do science and then throw the actual evidence out? Interesting. Do tell us more about this science by macho assertion that you are such a fan of.
What you got to remember Trumpski's is this "thing" is not about Left vs Right or R's vs D's but about Americans vs Trumpski's. Everything else is noise. When all is said and done, Trumpski's will be on the wrong side of history.
The people who are smearing and discrediting Comey don't understand this isn't the end of the investigation, it is the beginning. Mueller is the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
Trumpski's: read a Constitution 101 for Dummies and Law 101 for Dummies if you're having difficulty understanding. Btw, the USA is a land of laws which Trump is also subject to.
Here's the difference between Nixon and Trump.
Nixon, despite the fact that the Establishment hated his fucking guts ever since the Hiss case, wanted to be liked by them. He prided himself on reaching out to the Establishment and being a pragmatist. He surrounded himself with "Centrists" like Kissinger, Moynihan, Dean, and Lee Garment. All of whom betrayed or did nothing to help him.
Trump, OTOH, knows the Establishment is 100% against him. He's there to drain the swamp - not be part of it. He asked Comey for "loyalty" because he knew he was disloyal. He needs to fire Mueller and get a special counsel who is truly independent.
Inga said...
"Our President Trump should declassify everything -- EVERYTHING -- related to Russiagate."
"YES! He should! But he won't, wonder why?"
Uh. Because, "special prosecutor"
Come up for air, ritmo. Nobody is delaying the investigation.
This is going to be interesting. My feeling right now is that Trump is probably not that worried about the special prosecutor. His problem is that the Russian conspiracy thing has been getting in the way of getting his agenda done. He first tried to go through channels, and push the FBI Director to either find something, or drop it. Wrap it up somehow. Comey, being part of the Deep State, and probably owing more loyalty to Chuck Schumer than Trump anyway, played him along, without moving the ball noticeably on the field, burning through the first maybe five months of Trump's Administration. Trump wanted the FBI to shit or get off the pot. Comey and the rest of the Deep State had no intention of obliging, figuring that if they just keep the bathroom door locked long enough, he will get frustrated and go elsewhere, maybe back to hosting Apprentice, leaving Pence, who knows the DC rules, in the White House.
I see appointing Mueller as special counsel as an attempt to both jumpstart the investigation, in order to maybe get beyond it quicker, and justification for putting the investigation on a back burner politically. Trump wants it off the front page. Yes, it is a gamble. A big one. But, Trump us a gambler at heart. And, a pretty good one. If a couple of his people go down for process violations, fine - that was the cost of the wager. He can always pardon them. Bush didn't pardon Libby, and should have. But Trump plays by his own rules, and there is nothing keeping him from firing Mueller if he becomes too much of a problem. The discredited Comey setting up the appointment through his leaking, and then being buddies with the guy appointed is just ammunition to be kept in reserve, should another firing be necessary. Sure, the inside-the-beltway crowd would be apoplectic, but his followers probably would be ecstatic.
The mob want's blood.
I can't get over the speed with which this happened. Comey leaks the memo and then, blink we have a special counsel and it's Robert Mueller. I'm not sure how much people feel that trust has to do with this, but I do know I no longer trust Robert Mueller. You'll notice it wasn't special counsel Rudy Giuliani, which would have had the Democrats screaming.
There's really only one thing that bothers me about this, the special counsel isn't held accountable for the way he conducts the investigation. What Patrick Fitzgerald did was beyond pathetic. The amount of time and money he wasted, not only our money but the people who had to hire lawyers to protect themselves from Fitzgerald, was unnecessary. So, it becomes apparent that the special counsel can do whatever he wants and, if he doesn't have integrity we know what's going to happen, Lynch will be avoided like the plague and some obscure Trump people will end up with jail time.
Fen,
"But I don't really care if your blue city-states come tumbling down."
I hate feeling that way, but hardly a week goes by that I don't feel that way a little more. (And--you'll love this, you lefties--this is a one-way ratchet: nothing ever happens to make me hate the blue city-states less.)
There's this meme going around that all our wealth comes from those blue city-states, but that's powerful nonsense. Other than computer software/hardware design, the reason that the blue areas are higher in income levels is that they are the middlemen/financiers of all the wealth-generating activities, many of which still happen in the rural heartland. We can much more easily reconstitute the activities of Wall Street or ADM than we can the actual growing, mining, and building of stuff.
#LetSeattleBurn
Kirk
48,000 people have abandoned Cook county-read Chicago-Illinois last month alone. As former mayor "little" Richie Daley once opined, "Good riddance. We don't need em."
Post a Comment