Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

everlast75 wrote: »

Fixed your post...

You should have said "Mexican jail":D

Professor Moriarty

Interestingly, this poll shows that, of those who expressed a preference, 48% of people find Comey more believable than The Donald while vice versa is 32%. So 32% of people find The Donald believable. Unbelievable.

FreudianSlippers

notobtuse wrote: »

IMO, if anyone thinks Comey’s book Higher Loyalty and his rounds on the TV shows will bring down Trump… the reports of Trump's political death continue to be greatly exaggerated.

I haven't seen anyone making this suggestion to be fair.

PropJoe10

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interestingly, this poll shows that, of those who expressed a preference, 48% of people find Comey more believable than The Donald while vice versa is 32%. So 32% of people find The Donald believable. Unbelievable.

Thats the most remarkable thing about this, for me. Says a lot about his electoral base.

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Thats the most remarkable thing about this, for me. Says a lot about his electoral base.

Every time Trump does something and it is let go by his base it just goes to further the position that HC was actually correct (if politically suicidal) to call them deplorables.

They have let him cross every line that they themselves claimed were the reasons they voted for him and continue to stick by him, many of them saying that nothing could change their minds

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

Every time Trump does something and it is let go by his base it just goes to further the position that HC was actually correct (if politically suicidal) to call them deplorables.

They have let him cross every line that they themselves claimed were the reasons they voted for him and continue to stick by him, many of them saying that nothing could change their minds

Sure look, it always comes back to what Trump said himself. He could gun down a load of people on Fifth Avenue and not lose his base. Its scary that facts and truth don't really hold much weight anymore in the States.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interestingly, this poll shows that, of those who expressed a preference, 48% of people find Comey more believable than The Donald while vice versa is 32%. So 32% of people find The Donald believable. Unbelievable.

Comey did look good on TV. But looks can be deceiving.

I think most will agree Comey is guilty of politicizing the FBI and meddling in the 2016 election. And an investigation should commence to determine if Comey is guilty of several federal crimes. IMO, absence of a federal investigation into his potential wrongdoing will only show that America's top law enforcement officials are above the law.

I think Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation is greatly suspect. Why was no Grand Jury empanelled in this case, no search warrant issued, and immunity granted to Clinton aides that stripped Congress of its power to issue subpoenas to gather evidence from phones and laptops before they were destroyed? And Comey testified to Congress that he made the decision to clear Hillary Clinton AFTER she was interviewed by the FBI, but surfaced FBI documents suggest Comey made that decision beforehand. It looks like it may be a case of lying to Congress… which is a federal crime. Then, Comey has publicly admitted that he gave memos recording his interactions with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with the intention that the contents would be leaked to the media in order to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel. Those documents were created on an FBI computer and which dealt with an ongoing and highly sensitive investigation. It was FBI property and therefore Comey might be guilty of theft of government property or records.

Mueller probably won't focus any attention on his good friend James Comey. So a second independent special council needs to be convened in order to look into Comey and McCades actions.

josip

In many other countries, if single party voters were unhappy with the party they usually vote for, they would have a 3rd option that they would choose for 1 or 2 elections in order to register their disatisfaction.

After the crash here, core Fianna Fail voters, who would never vote for Fine Gael, could have voted for Labour or Independents.

In the UK, the Lib Dems would provide that function.

However in the dysfunctional duopoly that is US democracy, neither side has that option, no matter how disillusioned they may be with 'their' candidate.

True, but it just means that for all the uproar and condamnation that she received at the time it turns out that she was pretty much on the ball.

They are happily clapping as Trump tears down on pillar of the US after another. The FBI/CIA, rule of law, political discourse, standing of the US internationally. If he was doing this to right the path that the US was on, to right the wrongs on injustices of the past and to MAGA then I would see the logic, but everyone, well except his base it seems, can see that all of this is being done for no other reason than for himself. That others may benefit just makes it easier to get done.

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Sure look, it always comes back to what Trump said himself. He could gun down a load of people on Fifth Avenue and not lose his base. Its scary that facts and truth don't really hold much weight anymore in the States.

Is that a result of the world closing in on the States?

They are now ,more or less one country amongst others ,no longer immune from what goes on around them.

Before there was an upside to perceived foreign policy altruism and now they can wallow in perceived victimhood like everyone else.

America no longer "exceptional" .

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

IMO, if anyone thinks Comey’s book Higher Loyalty and his rounds on the TV shows will bring down Trump… the reports of Trump's political death continue to be greatly exaggerated.

I haven't seen anyone making this suggestion to be fair.

I’ve noticed quite a bit of Democrats are, and they are looking at impeachment if they take back control of Congress. But I believe Democrats will have to get Donald Trump out of the White House the old-fashioned way… The ballot box in 2020.

Captain Obvious

notobtuse wrote: »

Comey did look good on TV. But looks can be deceiving.

I think most will agree Comey is guilty of politicizing the FBI and meddling in the 2016 election.

Something he was admired and congratulated for by Trump supporters.

notobtuse wrote: »

Comey did look good on TV. But looks can be deceiving.

I think most will agree Comey is guilty of politicizing the FBI and meddling in the 2016 election. And an investigation should commence to determine if Comey is guilty of several federal crimes. IMO, absence of a federal investigation into his potential wrongdoing will only show that America's top law enforcement officials are above the law.

I think Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation is greatly suspect. Why was no Grand Jury empanelled in this case, no search warrant issued, and immunity granted to Clinton aides that stripped Congress of its power to issue subpoenas to gather evidence from phones and laptops before they were destroyed? And Comey testified to Congress that he made the decision to clear Hillary Clinton AFTER she was interviewed by the FBI, but surfaced FBI documents suggest Comey made that decision beforehand. It looks like it may be a case of lying to Congress… which is a federal crime. Then, Comey has publicly admitted that he gave memos recording his interactions with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with the intention that the contents would be leaked to the media in order to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel. Those documents were created on an FBI computer and which dealt with an ongoing and highly sensitive investigation. It was FBI property and therefore Comey might be guilty of theft of government property or records.

Mueller probably won't focus any attention on his good friend James Comey. So a second independent special council needs to be convened in order to look into Comey and McCades actions.

You are saying all of that as if Trump doesn't have the ability to do anything about it. He continually calls for someone to do something, but the AG was appointed by him, same with Rosenstein. He has put in loads of judges, including SCOTUS. GOP control the house and senate.

The question should be, if Trump really knows all this to be true (which his tweets suggest, then why aren't they being prosecuted? Unlike for Trump, none of these guys have a political party protecting them.

My thinking is that Trump doesn't want to go there, as to defend themselves they will have to spill the beans on him. So instead he will call them out on Twitter but fail to do anything about them.

FreudianSlippers

notobtuse wrote: »

I’ve noticed quite a bit of Democrats are, and they are looking at impeachment if they take back control of Congress. But I believe Democrats will have to get Donald Trump out of the White House the old-fashioned way… The ballot box in 2020.

The Comey book and the (likely) impeachment hearings arising as a result of Mueller's investigation are two entirely separate things.

Zubeneschamali

notobtuse wrote: »

I think most will agree Comey is guilty of politicizing the FBI and meddling in the 2016 election.

Yes, in his efforts to look fair and balanced, believing Hillary would win, he issued a statement during the crucial runup days saying Hillary was not in the clear on the stupid emails thing.

This was, of course, nonsense, but it tipped a point or two Trumps way and allowed him to scrape a win.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I’ve noticed quite a bit of Democrats are, and they are looking at impeachment if they take back control of Congress. But I believe Democrats will have to get Donald Trump out of the White House the old-fashioned way… The ballot box in 2020.

The Comey book and the (likely) impeachment hearings arising as a result of Mueller's investigation are two entirely separate things.

Comey's book is not the sole reason some Democrats are seeking impeachment. But it is all related. Democrats have been calling for impeachment since Comey's firing.

I think the slant being put in it is that Comey did it to somehow affect the vote, when actually I think the opposite is true.

I think he thought that HC was going to win, and that the storm over the e-mails was over and that he was putting it out there so that when she won people couldn't claim they were duped. That is his version and I can see the logic. Trumps/Conways etc version makes no sense. If he was trying to politicise then surely that would be in Trumps favour and wouldn't that degrade the legitimacy of the result?

When Comey has an issue is why he didn't, at the same time, make known to the public about the ongoing investigation into Trump's connections with Russia, that we now know was in place prior to the election?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, in his efforts to look fair and balanced, believing Hillary would win, he issued a statement during the crucial runup days saying Hillary was not in the clear on the stupid emails thing.

This was, of course, nonsense, but it tipped a point or two Trumps way and allowed him to scrape a win.

Does anyone remember what it was that prompted Comey's statement just before the election ? Was it just as a result of his ongoing deliberation or had new evidence come to hand?

There is this:
"I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump," Mr Comey said.

"And so I'm sure that it - that it was a factor.

"I don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been. That - that she's going to be elected president, and if I hide this from the American people, she'll be illegitimate the moment she's elected, the moment this comes out."
from
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43755990

But I wonder if he was pushed or nudged by new information at the time.

Of course none of this name calling of trying to paint Comey as political etc has anything to do with the key part in all of this. Did Trump fire Comey because he wouldn't drop the investigation?

Trump knew nothing of his notes, his thoughts on Trumps hand size of tie length.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course none of this name calling of trying to paint Comey as political etc has anything to do with the key part in all of this. Did Trump fire Comey because he wouldn't drop the investigation?

Trump knew nothing of his notes, his thoughts on Trumps hand size of tie length.

Or just ,did he try to corrupt Comey by getting him to do something he really shouldn't and keeping him if he could see he would be an a... licker?

He fires so many that perhaps that was just par for the course.

Trent Houseboat

amandstu wrote:

Does anyone remember what it was that prompted Comey's statement just before the election ? Was it just as a result of his ongoing deliberation or had new evidence come to hand?

The possibility of new information arising from the investigation into Anthony Weiner, and the seizure of his computer.

Spoiler alert there was nothing incriminating (for Clinton) found.

Zubeneschamali

amandstu wrote: »

Does anyone remember what it was that prompted Comey's statement just before the election ?

There was a separate ongoing investigation of Anthony Weiner's weiner pics which found a bunch of emails on his PC some from HCs office, and that triggered a question of whether any of those were classified and therefore illegal. With just that much info, Comey said HC was still under investigation.

But in fact all of the emails found there had already been seen (at the office end) and accounted for, there were no new Hillary emails at all, literally nothing to see here.

But that conclusion did not come out until after Hillary had lost.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There was a separate ongoing investigation of Anthony Weiner's weiner pics which found a bunch of emails on his PC some from HCs office, and that triggered a question of whether any of those were classified and therefore illegal. With just that much info, Comey said HC was still under investigation.

But in fact all of the emails found there had already been seen (at the office end) and accounted for, there were no new Hillary emails at all, literally nothing to see here.

But that conclusion did not come out until after Hillary had lost.

Was there anything suspicious in the emails on Weiner's PC being found at that time?

Just bad luck on HRC's behalf? (my god this is tortuous)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

Does anyone remember what it was that prompted Comey's statement just before the election ?

There was a separate ongoing investigation of Anthony Weiner's weiner pics which found a bunch of emails on his PC some from HCs office, and that triggered a question of whether any of those were classified and therefore illegal. With just that much info, Comey said HC was still under investigation.

But in fact all of the emails found there had already been seen (at the office end) and accounted for, there were no new Hillary emails at all, literally nothing to see here.

But that conclusion did not come out until after Hillary had lost.

She was cleared by Comey before the election of 8th of November, 2016.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-comey-clinton-emails-20161106-story.html

Zubeneschamali

amandstu wrote: »

Was there anything suspicious in the emails on Weiner's PC being found at that time?

No.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

Was there anything suspicious in the emails on Weiner's PC being found at that time?

No.

I believe at least 18 classified emails sent from the account of Clinton's aide Huma Abedin were found by the FBI on the personal laptop of Anthony Weiner, which is illegal in of itself... with five previously unreleased classified emails.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Not unreasonable to imagine,though that Comey's ear was being bent by some of his colleagues who could see that a reinvestigation into HRC would be dynamite.

Was there much leaking coming out of Comey's office at the time I wonder.