6 ms·

I'll try, sorry if I fail. It feels like the media is just thrashing right now. One week we are told Trump fired Comey to stop the investigation on his ties to

I'll try, sorry if I fail. It feels like the media is just thrashing right now. One week we are told Trump fired Comey to stop the investigation on his ties to Russia. To be honest, I had a hard time swallowing that a thing like that hinged on 1 person at the FBI. But now if you read all these papers they are saying Trump is in for it because Robert Mueller is named special council in the Trump/Russia investigation. So the investigation goes on, even though last week it wasn't supposed to according to the same sources. That leads me to the other recent thing regarding the Comey memo. The FBI (Comey) cleared Flynn January 24th but this "memo" says Trump asked Comey in mid-February to let Flynn go. Why would anybody regardless of their intelligence ask for something they've already gotten? Long story short: I'm having a hard time making any sense of what seems like obvious problems with the reporting. Yet I see no clarifications, redactions, or anybody even trying to clear up the mess that quite frankly feels like targeting. I get why they are targeting Trump after the things Trump said about them. But once everybody stoops to the same level... I don't feel like there is anybody worth listening to.

comex 9y ago
Trump admitted, in that NBC interview, that disliking the Russia investigation was at least part of his motivation to fire Comey. That doesn't mean that firing him was actually sufficient to stop the investigation. To stop the FBI's investigation, Trump would have to nominate a strong ally as the next FBI director, and Congress would have to confirm them. Getting Congress to confirm a partisan nominee would be tricky to start with, and much harder with the media furor. Separately from (but complementary to) the FBI investigation, there's the question of a special prosecutor, which can be appointed either by Congress (making them part of the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch), or by the Justice Department (which is nominally under the president's authority, but only in the sense that Trump could fire Rosenstein and cause an even bigger shitstorm). The latter is what just happened. January 24th is when the FBI interviewed Flynn. On the same day, anonymous sources told the press that they had found "no evidence of impropriety" in the phone calls - but that's different from the FBI formally closing the investigation. Among other things, it leaked much later (around February 16) that Flynn had falsely told his interviewers that he hadn't discussed sanctions in those calls, whereas the recordings showed that he had. This potentially opened the door to charges of lying to law enforcement. The second round of leaks said that the FBI believed he was trying to be "truthful" and wasn't intentionally lying, so was unlikely to be charged, but again, that's different from formally closing an investigation. Even now, the broader investigation into Trump-Russia ties continues, and Flynn remains a part of that investigation.
cloudboyz 9y ago
>I had a hard time swallowing that a thing like that hinged on 1 person at the FBI because it didn't... Trump is literally that big of an idiot. >But once everybody stoops to the same level, now I don't feel like there is anybody worth listening to. It's really something truly amazing to see "both sides are equally bad" given that we have a traitor for a President, a GOP and Congress that is happy to look the other way as much as possible.
- R_haterade 9y ago
  Yikes. >Trump is literally that big of an idiot. This line again. I'll believe it when I see it. So far I think he's played everything very well, and that started with his choice of opponent. >It's really something truly amazing to see "both sides are equally bad" given that we have a traitor for a President, a GOP and Congress that is happy to look the other way as much as possible. You sound like a republican in 2009. For heaven's sake just listen to yourself for a moment. I guess what goes around, comes around.
  - cloudboyz 9y ago
    > So far I think he's played everything very well, and that started with his choice of opponent. Huh? Did you just claim that DJT "picked" HRC as his opponent somehow? And then further imply that it's somehow evidence of him playing 4-dimensional chess? >You sound like a republican in 2009. For heaven's sake just listen to yourself for a moment. I don't know what that means. Obama literally did nothing within a mile of what Trump is being accused of (with evidence, no less). People that say what you just said are loudly advertising "I'm not paying any real attention to the news". Session lied about meeting Kislyak. He committed perjury over it. The Russian agent accused of being behind the plot to compromise the 2016 election. And then months later, Trump meets with them, in the White House, gets bamboozled by them and reveals top secret intel to them. How the fuck can you, in good faith, actually act like Obama did anything of that caliber?
    - R_haterade 9y ago
      >Huh? Did you just claim that DJT "picked" HRC as his opponent somehow? And then further imply that it's somehow evidence of him playing 4-dimensional chess? Yep. He had another presidential bid in 2008. He knew he couldn't beat Obama or before that, the Romney machine. This time around he saw a frail felon on the opposite side, and primary competitors that were at best feckless, and at worst dolts. >I don't know what that means. Obama literally did nothing within a mile of what Trump is being accused of (with evidence, no less). People that say what you just said are loudly advertising "I'm not paying any real attention to the news". OBO plays clean until the ref isn't looking. Just wait about 60 days--I suspect we're going to see some serious shit, especially related to aggressive "unmasking." Until then, I'll agree to disagree with you. When the facts are revealed, either you or I will have to update our priors.
tw04 9y ago
>So the investigation goes on, even though last week it wasn't supposed to according to the same sources. None of those sources once claimed the investigation would stop. Richard Nixon also fired people to TRY to stop the Watergate investigation. Assuming there's any chance at all of collusion with Russia, Rosenstein would be an absolute idiot to not appoint special counsel. Even if there weren't the possibility of him facing prison time for his role in the firing of Comey, he'd have a REAL tough time finding a job again with his name attached to this debacle (again, assuming there actually is something to the Russia story). As for the let him go - serious question, is English not your first language? Trump is asking him to "Let him go" as in drop the investigation into Flynn's ties to Russia, not "Let him go" as in fire Flynn. If you're reading the articles that should be obvious. Again, I can only imagine the reason you're having a tough time making sense of the stories is because you haven't bothered to read them. You're either only reading headlines, or you're only reading conservative news sites that have done a VERY poor (or I guess technically good), and VERY intentional job of misrepresenting what the rest of the news world is reporting.
- mkhpalm 9y ago
  Wow! You are making a lot of accusations about somebody you don't even know. You also clearly didn't understand what I wrote before deciding how you were going to respond. I'm not conservative... but I'm inclined to lean to their side if the way you're acting is my alternative.
  - comex 9y ago
    Just FWIW, in case you're feeling besieged: yep, you're completely right about the patent being rude as well as misunderstanding your post. I too disagree with your post, though; I tried to come up with a more accurate rebuttal in a different reply.
  - tw04 9y ago
    Which is why you frequent The_Donald and breitbart... I understood, I've seen it many times. Feigned ignorance in an attempt to troll. In any case, I'm a conservative leaning independent, so please do lean that direction. Just be a real conservative who cares about our constitution and having our president act... presidential.

comex 9y ago

Trump admitted, in that NBC interview, that disliking the Russia investigation was at least part of his motivation to fire Comey. That doesn't mean that firing him was actually sufficient to stop the investigation. To stop the FBI's investigation, Trump would have to nominate a strong ally as the next FBI director, and Congress would have to confirm them. Getting Congress to confirm a partisan nominee would be tricky to start with, and much harder with the media furor. Separately from (but complementary to) the FBI investigation, there's the question of a special prosecutor, which can be appointed either by Congress (making them part of the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch), or by the Justice Department (which is nominally under the president's authority, but only in the sense that Trump could fire Rosenstein and cause an even bigger shitstorm). The latter is what just happened. January 24th is when the FBI interviewed Flynn. On the same day, anonymous sources told the press that they had found "no evidence of impropriety" in the phone calls - but that's different from the FBI formally closing the investigation. Among other things, it leaked much later (around February 16) that Flynn had falsely told his interviewers that he hadn't discussed sanctions in those calls, whereas the recordings showed that he had. This potentially opened the door to charges of lying to law enforcement. The second round of leaks said that the FBI believed he was trying to be "truthful" and wasn't intentionally lying, so was unlikely to be charged, but again, that's different from formally closing an investigation. Even now, the broader investigation into Trump-Russia ties continues, and Flynn remains a part of that investigation.

cloudboyz 9y ago

>I had a hard time swallowing that a thing like that hinged on 1 person at the FBI because it didn't... Trump is literally that big of an idiot. >But once everybody stoops to the same level, now I don't feel like there is anybody worth listening to. It's really something truly amazing to see "both sides are equally bad" given that we have a traitor for a President, a GOP and Congress that is happy to look the other way as much as possible.

R_haterade 9y ago
Yikes. >Trump is literally that big of an idiot. This line again. I'll believe it when I see it. So far I think he's played everything very well, and that started with his choice of opponent. >It's really something truly amazing to see "both sides are equally bad" given that we have a traitor for a President, a GOP and Congress that is happy to look the other way as much as possible. You sound like a republican in 2009. For heaven's sake just listen to yourself for a moment. I guess what goes around, comes around.
- cloudboyz 9y ago
  > So far I think he's played everything very well, and that started with his choice of opponent. Huh? Did you just claim that DJT "picked" HRC as his opponent somehow? And then further imply that it's somehow evidence of him playing 4-dimensional chess? >You sound like a republican in 2009. For heaven's sake just listen to yourself for a moment. I don't know what that means. Obama literally did nothing within a mile of what Trump is being accused of (with evidence, no less). People that say what you just said are loudly advertising "I'm not paying any real attention to the news". Session lied about meeting Kislyak. He committed perjury over it. The Russian agent accused of being behind the plot to compromise the 2016 election. And then months later, Trump meets with them, in the White House, gets bamboozled by them and reveals top secret intel to them. How the fuck can you, in good faith, actually act like Obama did anything of that caliber?
  - R_haterade 9y ago
    >Huh? Did you just claim that DJT "picked" HRC as his opponent somehow? And then further imply that it's somehow evidence of him playing 4-dimensional chess? Yep. He had another presidential bid in 2008. He knew he couldn't beat Obama or before that, the Romney machine. This time around he saw a frail felon on the opposite side, and primary competitors that were at best feckless, and at worst dolts. >I don't know what that means. Obama literally did nothing within a mile of what Trump is being accused of (with evidence, no less). People that say what you just said are loudly advertising "I'm not paying any real attention to the news". OBO plays clean until the ref isn't looking. Just wait about 60 days--I suspect we're going to see some serious shit, especially related to aggressive "unmasking." Until then, I'll agree to disagree with you. When the facts are revealed, either you or I will have to update our priors.

tw04 9y ago

>So the investigation goes on, even though last week it wasn't supposed to according to the same sources. None of those sources once claimed the investigation would stop. Richard Nixon also fired people to TRY to stop the Watergate investigation. Assuming there's any chance at all of collusion with Russia, Rosenstein would be an absolute idiot to not appoint special counsel. Even if there weren't the possibility of him facing prison time for his role in the firing of Comey, he'd have a REAL tough time finding a job again with his name attached to this debacle (again, assuming there actually is something to the Russia story). As for the let him go - serious question, is English not your first language? Trump is asking him to "Let him go" as in drop the investigation into Flynn's ties to Russia, not "Let him go" as in fire Flynn. If you're reading the articles that should be obvious. Again, I can only imagine the reason you're having a tough time making sense of the stories is because you haven't bothered to read them. You're either only reading headlines, or you're only reading conservative news sites that have done a VERY poor (or I guess technically good), and VERY intentional job of misrepresenting what the rest of the news world is reporting.

mkhpalm 9y ago
Wow! You are making a lot of accusations about somebody you don't even know. You also clearly didn't understand what I wrote before deciding how you were going to respond. I'm not conservative... but I'm inclined to lean to their side if the way you're acting is my alternative.
- comex 9y ago
  Just FWIW, in case you're feeling besieged: yep, you're completely right about the patent being rude as well as misunderstanding your post. I too disagree with your post, though; I tried to come up with a more accurate rebuttal in a different reply.
- tw04 9y ago
  Which is why you frequent The_Donald and breitbart... I understood, I've seen it many times. Feigned ignorance in an attempt to troll. In any case, I'm a conservative leaning independent, so please do lean that direction. Just be a real conservative who cares about our constitution and having our president act... presidential.