POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Bigly.

And missed in yesterday's bombshell was that the US District Court for the Eastern Division of Virginia has not only cleared it's dockets but has also issued subpoenas for documents pertaining to a $3.5 million dollar mortgage loan issued to Paul Manafort the day after he was fired from his limited role in the Trump Campaign (read, leader of the Trump Campaign holding the role of campaign manager).

 

Comey would not comment on ongoing investigations while head of FBI, tenny. He told us so. Repeatedly. That's why you didn't hear about the memo.

 

DC elites set Manafort up, obviously.

 

Not to mention, it wasn't obstruction of justice until he got fired so no reason to hear about them sooner.

 

That's correct, but only insofar as it pertains to public disclosure and comment.

He could have (and some would argue that federal law required him) went directly to the AG with that, the morning after it happened. Or to anyone on Intel or Oversight Committee. He didn't do any of those things, as inconvenient as that truth is.

And the acting FBI Director could have said the same, when he testified under oath before Congress, just last week and when specifically asked that very question. Not only didn't he say that such occurred, but just the opposite - and that no one had made any attempts to interfere with, much less obstruct, any FBI investigation. And again, that's not what he said to a shouting throng of reporters on the street, but directly to Congress and while under oath.

I'm not even willing to immediately say that Comey's memo is wrong, or that Trump didn't say exactly what he alleges (although the White House has adamantly denied it) - but if it was truly seen by Comey as any credible effort by Trump to truly obstruct the FBI in any way, then why didn't he act on it before being fired, and which he could (should?) have done, if it occurred and constituted obstruction?

Finally, I would say that it's somewhat telling that Comey not only recently refused an invitation to speak to the Senate Intel Committee, but as a civilian, and that it's not even Comey who has leaked this current memo - it's his associates who have done so, and it's unknown whether they remain within the FBI (I blind-ass guess they are), or have done so at his direction.

I'm less curious to follow this memo deal than to see what happens to future leaks, now that Comey isn't in place. But, I'm also eager to see who Trump nominates to replace Comey, how independent s/he is, and whether the Republican-controlled Congress is willing to confirm any person who is unlike Comey / the current acting Director, insofar as they aren't also an establishment friendly person.

I'm happy to watch it all play out, and for the punishment of any person who is proven to have committed any wrongdoing.

I don't think that anyone can now imagine how that's going to turn out. So, we'll watch it together.

 

How does he testify to being interfered with prior to being interfered with?

 

This is nothing more than your own, personal, self-serving and notably biased opinion.

It's great to have opinions, and I have my own.

We only differ insofar as I am willing, however begrudgingly, to consider the possibility of how my inherent bias affects my opinions, how these can differ with facts, and my possession of enough intellectual honesty to see, again and often begrudgingly, where I have mistakenly conflated the two.

 

What? You serious? Another way to ask your question is this: If Trump never interfered with Comey / the FBI, then when would they ever be able to allege that he did?

My answer to that question is two-fold:
1. Never. Because it never occurred.
2. Anytime. Because if you're going to lie about something that didn't occur, it matters little as to when you tell it, in relation to its fictitious occurrence.

Comey's meeting with Trump, and when this is alleged to have occurred was both months before McCabe testified just last week, and before any number of times that Comey himself subsequently testified under oath. And those were just the opportunities during publicly-held testimonies to Congress, and while under oath. Either one could have picked up a phone, sent an email, shot a text or used a homing pigeon to tell either Committee about it, and at any time.

But the fact remains that they didn't. Anyone can diminish or fail to accept that or not - but it's the inarguable truth.

 

Prove it.

 

I don't think Comey had anything to say when Trump asked him if he would drop it. He made his memo, passed it on to whomever needed it inside the department and went on his way.

When he was fired is when Obstruction of Justice can come in play, and only then, as I understand the definition, because that is when the actual obstruction happens. I imagine the President can ask the FBI director for anything, is this possible, could we do this, etc. Immoral? Yes. Illegal? Perhaps not. Not until force is used to coerce the director.

And that happened when Comey was fired, especially when Trump admits in an interview that the Russia stuff was involved in his being fired.

That is how I see it, but I could be wrong as I am not a lawyer or law expert.

 

No, we only differ in so far as you either haven't yet, don't want to or can't see it.

 

Unless the AG is complicit too, hypothetically, and federal courts, 1/3 of our gov't with checking powers over the executive, was handling it. You a fan of H.R. McMaster? Ever read his book "Dereliction of Duty"? Check out the subject matter.

But you are correct. We'll watch together to see where this goes if anywhere.

 

Oh, and Comey is demanding his testimony be public. He isn't running from anything.

 

The only fair way to do it would be to keep all evidence secret from everyone save Trump himself. Then, allow him to modify or destroy the evidence as he wishes, before turning it over to the investigative authorities and at a time that is convenient for him.

 

He'll either be the great negotiator he claims to be, or nothing will get done. How exactly will he destroy the government? How exactly is he destorying it now?

 

For this to be in any way plausible, you'd have to somehow tie Comey's firing to Trump's demand that he stop AND THEN
prove that his firing somehow did, actually, obstruct the investigation, itself.

Not only wasn't Comey personally conducting any investigation (no moreso directly than Trump is collecting taxes, standing post at the border, giving tours of Yellowstone, etc.), he certainly wasn't singularly doing so, and hence, his firing alone did not - and could not- obstruct anything.

Any investigation which was happening before Comey's firing still continues, and just as the acting FBI Director testified under oath to Congress just last week* - no one has made any attempt to interfere with (much less obstruct) any investigation. So, either the acting FBI Director perjured himself (possible, he's just as big of a political POS as Comey), or you've got to take him at his word - and Trump has neither interfered with nor obstructed anything. You can't have both, no matter how much you wish or mentally contort to find it, so just pick the one you like, I guess.

I know it's juicy. I know you hate him. I know this is going to be damaging to him. But barring something more than this coming to light, this not only isn't in any way impeachable, but Trump is likely to easily beat it - and you - like a rented mule over it. A first year law student could exonerate him in one hearing for crissakes (Buddha-sakes?). You still haven't seen the full fall out from the Russian silliness, and the disturbing questions it raised about surveillance, Rice, the unmasking of names, etc. My genuinely blind-assed guess is that Comey refused to pursue those allegations, and others, and that's why he got shit-canned.

*Sidenote to All: Honestly, is no one willing to acknowledge this, and rationally think through its implications?

 

What Commitee would have allowed it to be private?

In other news, my wife insists that I not make passionate love to Beyoncé.

 

No one will get this. Just like everyone assumes that the DNC refused to hand over its server following the ol' "Russian hack" for fear it would show the extent of their infiltration....when it could have just as easily (likely?) been that it would prove that it was an inside job, and the Ruskies didn't hack it, at all.

And, it's two wrongs.

 

IP is like everyone else - he gets in a lather, occasionally. He may change his mind, given some tme to reflect.

He said one of the few who still can, so perhaps I'm merely wishing he can stay amongst the reasonable.

 

"No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly."
-Donald Trump, today, Coast Guard Graduation