POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

cause the idiot Comey admitted telling him he wasn't under investigation. One of the worst things Comey could have done.

No, you've fallen for a GOP talking point. It doesn't matter that Trump wasn't investigation at that time. When you go after the mafia you start with Joey Five Fingers the guy who makes people fall out of windows. Once you have him penned you work him til rats out his boss, and on up the line. At some point you reach critical mass and the entire edifice collapses.

This is even easier with Trump than it was with Nixon, because Nixon, as bizarre as it seems, inspired true belief and loyalty. Look at Pat Buchanan 40 years later still peddling lies and self-delusion. Trump OTOH has no loyalty and inspires none. Outside the immediate family his operation runs on grift and intimidation. There is no reason for any of his stooges to remain loyal because they know Trump will stab them in the back at the first trickle of sweat on his soft, fat brow. At least Uday and Qusay have Pablo Escobar's sociopathic sangfroid. The Fat Infant himself will squeal the second pressure is applied, so it's every man for himself.

There is no Omertà with Trump. There is no honor at all.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

No, you've fallen for a GOP talking point. It doesn't matter that Trump wasn't investigation at that time. When you go after the mafia you start with Joey Five Fingers the guy who makes people fall out of windows. Once you have him penned you work him til rats out his boss, and on up the line. At some point you reach critical mass and the entire edifice collapses.

This is even easier with Trump than it was with Nixon, because Nixon, as bizarre as it seems, inspired true belief and loyalty. Look at Pat Buchanan 40 years later still peddling lies and self-delusion. Trump OTOH has no loyalty and inspires none. Outside the immediate family his operation runs on grift and intimidation. There is no reason for any of his stooges to remain loyal because they know Trump will stab them in the back at the first trickle of sweat on his soft, fat brow. At least Uday and Qusay have Pablo Escobar's sociopathic sangfroid. The Fat Infant himself will squeal the second pressure is applied, so it's every man for himself.

There is no Omertà with Trump. There is no honor at all.

Just because you and I understand that distinction doesn't mean the voting public understands. You're falling into the trap as well. The Republicans understand that only 5% of the voting public comprehend what you're saying. They will use that, and the good guys will lose in the court of public opinion.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

See, that's what I think is the really interesting question about all this. No question that as President, Trump had the ability to fire Comey on the spot. Trump knew that. Comey knew that.

So, if Trump comes in and basically says that he'd like Comey to see his way clear to stop investigating Flynn, but ends the conversation right there, is that still obstruction just because the requester was in a position of authority?

Also, if the request were all we had, and Comey doesn't accede to the request, does that matter in an obstruction charge? I think those are interesting questions.

Now, with the subsequent Comey firing it'll be hard for Trump to argue the "or else" didn't exist in his request to Comey.

On its face...not sure without the context. Most likely no though it would bring all sorts of ethics issues to the forefront.

The problem Trump has (or would if there was any chance this went anywhere) is that 1) Comey knows Trump can fire him for non-compliance, 2) Trump is making it very clear he wants the FBI to be loyal to him and 3) Trump is doing a horrible job of disconnecting those two things. Trump is basically playing the old Mafia strong man game "Oh what a nice store you have...be a shame if something were to happen to it!" he just isnt very good at it

The only value these hearings have (cause he wont be impeached until at earliest 2018 and wont be removed ever) is to get more info out there. Donald can talk about how he wasnt being investigated til he is blue in the face but that wasnt the point anyways. The point is whether others were (they were) and whether he tried to stop said investigations. It wont go anywhere but at least we will have the facts.

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Hovey, the language in at least one statute that might apply suggests that the attempt to impede or influence, along with the requisite intent, is enough:


Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede [/B] . . . .

Yeah, I read your post yesterday, and that's what I was wondering.

Does the statute read that you are guilty of obstruction if:

1. If you influence, obstruct or impede; or
2. You endeavor to influence, instruct or impede; and
3. You do so corruptly, by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication.

Or, does it read this way:

1. If you influence, obstruct or impede corruptly, by threats or force, or by threatening letter or communication; or
2. You endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede.

I think it's probably interpreted as in my first example (there needs to be a threat, and you must either endeavor in influence/impede or you actually influenced/impeded.)

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/o...smtyp=cur&_r=0

I find this declaration in today's NY Times editorial mind boggling. Why? Because no one in their right mind needed Comey's statement from yesterday to draw that conclusion.

Right but now it isnt just gut feeling based on his persona...now it is based on the statements of the Former Head of the FBI. Kind of a different situation

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Right but now it isnt just gut feeling based on his persona...now it is based on the statements of the Former Head of the FBI. Kind of a different situation

No gut.

Liar? Lies all the time.
Bully? Bullies all the time.
Criminal? Trump University.

It was all out there. No gut.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

No, you've fallen for a GOP talking point. It doesn't matter that Trump wasn't investigation at that time. When you go after the mafia you start with Joey Five Fingers the guy who makes people fall out of windows. Once you have him penned you work him til rats out his boss, and on up the line. At some point you reach critical mass and the entire edifice collapses.

This is even easier with Trump than it was with Nixon, because Nixon, as bizarre as it seems, inspired true belief and loyalty. Look at Pat Buchanan 40 years later still peddling lies and self-delusion. Trump OTOH has no loyalty and inspires none. Outside the immediate family his operation runs on grift and intimidation. There is no reason for any of his stooges to remain loyal because they know Trump will stab them in the back at the first trickle of sweat on his soft, fat brow. At least Uday and Qusay have Pablo Escobar's sociopathic sangfroid. The Fat Infant himself will squeal the second pressure is applied, so it's every man for himself.

There is no Omertà with Trump. There is no honor at all.

Yup. When they were nailing Flynn they werent investigating Trump they were investigating Flynn. You get your cards in a row before you go after "El Capo dei Capo".

And again people are focusing on what Trump is telling them too. Right now what matters is not whether Trump colluded...Comey is here to tell is if Don tried to interfere. Dont let Twatter Boy change the narrative.

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Yeah, I read your post yesterday, and that's what I was wondering.

Does the statute read that you are guilty of obstruction if:

1. If you influence, obstruct or impede; or
2. You endeavor to influence, instruct or impede; and
3. You do so corruptly, by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication.

Or, does it read this way:

1. If you influence, obstruct or impede corruptly, by threats or force, or by threatening letter or communication; or
2. You endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede.

I think it's probably interpreted as in my first example (there needs to be a threat, and you must either endeavor in influence/impede or you actually influenced/impeded.)

Well, if it is ambiguous it will not be enforced, for due process reasons. It certainly would not be "interpreted" against the accused.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Just because you and I understand that distinction doesn't mean the voting public understands. You're falling into the trap as well. The Republicans understand that only 5% of the voting public comprehend what you're saying. They will use that, and the good guys will lose in the court of public opinion.

No you are the one falling for the trap. Trump has already put out there that "I wasnt under investigation" trying to use that to prove he was right. (just like he did with the wiretapping BS) The Left needs to ignore that and go after the true point...was his actions with Comey obstruction or not. If they go after this looking for proof about Russia they will get smoked in this hearing.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

No you are the one falling for the trap. Trump has already put out there that "I wasnt under investigation" trying to use that to prove he was right. (just like he did with the wiretapping BS) The Left needs to ignore that and go after the true point...was his actions with Comey obstruction or not. If they go after this looking for proof about Russia they will get smoked in this hearing.

LOL

No one in this electorate is going to make that distinction. The RNC is already out front with the talking point and Cornyn today will hammer that home during the hearing.

Just because you and I get it doesn't mean the public will get it. Republicans speak on the dumb level cause they understand who they're talking to, and Democrats don't.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/o...smtyp=cur&_r=0

I find this declaration in today's NY Times editorial mind boggling. Why? Because no one in their right mind needed Comey's statement from yesterday to draw that conclusion.

And more.

You must take away from it that Trump has a consuming need to be surrounded not only by loyalists but also by lackeys. You must take away that Trump is brand obsessed — his own brand — and that anything that besmirches that brand must be blunted. You must take away that Trump knows nothing of decorum and propriety and boundaries.

Like, this is news to people? Anyone who isn't blind could see this.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Who cares what the public gets? Are you expecting any hearing to change the mind of Trump voters? You are all over the map with this stuff stop watching Morning Joe

This stuff is only going to make a difference with the Left...ammunition to get them to vote this time. Nothing will come of this and you know it.

[MaizeRage]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

So these are all now verifiable facts:

1. Trump calls Comey into his office for a private meeting and asks that he drop investigations regarding him and his associates
2. Comey does not do so.
3. Shortly after, Comey is fired by Trump
4. Trump publicly says in a national TV interview: "And in fact, when I decided to just [fire Comey], I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."

Somehow, this does not constitute a "smoking gun" for people in this thread that believed Barack Obama was recording Trump with a microwave and that Wal-Mart was creating secret death camps. So my question is, what exactly is the hypothetical situation that would be a smoking gun?

Also, hours after one of Trump's lawyers sent out a (wrong, but still) politically sensible statement saying Comey's testimony vindicated Trump, he had another lawyer send out an unhinged press statement drawing doubt on Comey's testimony because Comey mentioned Trump's concern about the pee tape.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Who cares what the public gets? Are you expecting any hearing to change the mind of Trump voters? You are all over the map with this stuff stop watching Morning Joe

This stuff is only going to make a difference with the Left...ammunition to get them to vote this time. Nothing will come of this and you know it.

LOL

You think this is going to motivate voters on the left? No. Won't happen. Voters on the left proved by electing Trump they are not motivated by evil from the right.

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

The only value these hearings have (cause he wont be impeached until at earliest 2018 and wont be removed ever) is to get more info out there. Donald can talk about how he wasnt being investigated til he is blue in the face but that wasnt the point anyways. The point is whether others were (they were) and whether he tried to stop said investigations. It wont go anywhere but at least we will have the facts.

There is no question the hearings and the surrounding hoopla has and will serve to effectively eliminate any ability of Trump to push through whatever "agenda" he may have had. I would submit, however, that it's a bit like removing the legs from a paraplegic. Trump's complete lack of political skills and an incompetent/ineffective staff pretty much made whatever agenda he had dead on arrival.

If Congress, or some aggressive prosecutor somehow found a way to remove Trump from the picture, you certainly wouldn't hear any objection from me. I was tired of hearing about Trump before he got elected. But I do see a problem that is going to hurt all of us in the end. That problem is the establishment of impeachment as de rigueur in Presidential politics.

When Nixon was forced out under the threat of impeachment, there was a general sense in the country similar to the use of the atomic weapons in WWII. We were like, "Ok, we did that, and we needed to do that, but we must never speak of or do this again." Things then settled back down.

But then we have the Bill Clinton nonsense, and D's in the House were introducing Articles to impeach Bush II, and R's in the House were talking about impeaching Obama, and suddenly we find ourselves in a situation where we talk about impeaching every President, and that ain't good. It will eliminate it as an effective tool when we really need it. Just my two cents.