ChrisWeigant.com

Will "You're Fired" Be Trump's Undoing?

[ Posted Wednesday, May 10th, 2017 – 16:36 PDT ]

Donald Trump hasn't even been in office for four whole months, and already he's being compared to Richard Nixon. That is both stunning as well as somewhat expected, really. Just on personality alone, Trump seems the most Nixonian figure to occupy the Oval Office since Tricky Dick himself roamed the hallways. Sooner or later, Trump's penchant for vengeance against his perceived enemies was going to cause some problems. It's now obvious that "sooner" won out over "later."

The two men aren't exactly peas in a pod, however. Nixon built his political career on red-baiting, and he was second only to Joe McCarthy in seeing Communists everywhere. So it's pretty tough to imagine Nixon being Trump's buddy, what with all of Team Trump's ties to Russia. Nixon might not have publicly labeled Trump a Commie or a Pinko, but it's hard to picture Nixon being some sort of elder statesman giving Trump expert advice. Then again, Henry Kissinger just surprised everyone with a photo op at the White House, so who really knows?

What Trump and Nixon would see eye-to-eye on, it is now obvious, is how to deal with inconvenient Justice Department investigations -- if the investigation gets too close, just fire the head investigator. If the head of the F.B.I. won't just make an investigation go quietly away, then hand him his hat and show him the door.

As with most things Trump does, the entire process was pretty badly handled. Trump reportedly decided last week to get rid of James Comey (just as Comey was asking for more resources for his Russia investigation), so Trump told his loyalists to find a plausible reason for firing Comey. The reason they came up with, however, is so transparently false (and downright laughable) that no one in their right mind believes it. Trump fired Comey for being too hard on Hillary Clinton, and interjecting himself into a presidential race? Um, OK... and I've got a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, too.

Personally, I'm glad Comey is gone. I think Comey acted in a manner not seen at the F.B.I. since the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Comey might not have "had a file on everybody" or directly threatened politicians with blackmail, but he certainly did put a rather large thumb on the scale during the election by publicly discussing the case against Hillary Clinton, while refusing to even admit there was a concurrent case against Donald Trump. That was unconscionable, which is why I am shedding no tears at Comey's departure.

However, that certainly doesn't preclude me from being astonished at how Trump fired Comey. If Trump had dumped him during his first week in office, it probably would have been seen as just extended housecleaning for a new administration. He chose not to. Instead, Trump was reportedly incensed at Comey's continuing investigation into Russian ties to the Trump campaign and the Trump administration. Trump really wants this investigation to just go away, but he's finding out that that's not the way things work in Washington. By firing Comey now, Trump has instead poured gasoline on the fire. By offering up a laughably false reason for the firing, Trump has assured that the investigation will remain front and center for a long time to come, and this may be the final straw that leads to an independent prosecutor looking into the whole mess. That is not exactly the outcome Trump planned, to state the obvious. If Richard Nixon were still alive, he could have told Trump that his own Saturday Night Massacre didn't really work out too well for him, either.

Now all it is going to take is three Senate Republicans to join with Democrats in demanding an independent prosecutor to force the Justice Department to take action. The next F.B.I. director has to be confirmed by the Senate, and if Democrats are smart they will vote against any candidate who does not pledge to immediately do so. If three Republicans agree, it will force the issue.

Independent prosecutors have wide-ranging powers, of course. That's their whole point, really. Ken Starr started with a land deal in Arkansas and wound up with sexual misconduct in the Oval Office. Who knows where a Trump investigation of the same caliber would lead? The possibilities really seem almost endless. Trump's taxes would obviously be the first place such an investigator would look, to see how involved Trump's businesses have been with Russia and Russian banks over the years. But that'd just be a starting point, really. The question of whether Trump was vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians would also be a key area to investigate.

Rather than dousing the smoking ashes of the Russia scandal, Trump has fanned the flames by firing Comey. Even Republicans are now shying away from even making the attempt at defending Trump's action. Far from going quietly away, the Trump/Russia scandal is now guaranteed to be around for many months to come. The cloud that already hung over the Trump administration just got darker and bigger, and isn't going away any time soon. There are many such metaphors one might use, at this point. John McCain has been using one (that I had never heard before) to describe the continuing scandal -- it's a "centipede," McCain says, because there are so many more shoes that are left to drop. He's probably right about that.

Donald Trump, by all appearances, seems to be desperately trying to hide something. After all, if there was nothing to find, why take the drastic step of firing the head of the F.B.I.? So far there's been no smoking gun uncovered (by which I mean "an impeachable offense"), but we're still in the early days of the investigation, and as McCain points out, there are other shoes yet to fall.

What will be ironic in the extreme, however, is if Trump firing Comey leads directly to a special prosecutor being named -- which leads directly to Trump's removal from office. Because then a man whose signature catchphrase (before he entered politics) was: "You're fired!" would have undone himself by uttering that very line to the wrong person at the wrong time.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

85 Comments on “Will "You're Fired" Be Trump's Undoing?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Personally, I'm glad Comey is gone. I think Comey acted in a manner not seen at the F.B.I. since the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Comey might not have "had a file on everybody" or directly threatened politicians with blackmail, but he certainly did put a rather large thumb on the scale during the election by publicly discussing the case against Hillary Clinton, while refusing to even admit there was a concurrent case against Donald Trump. That was unconscionable, which is why I am shedding no tears at Comey's departure.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, Elizabeth did not write the above comment!

    That was written by our gracious host, just to be clear. Elizabeth couldn't disagree more vehemently with Chris's thinking on this.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Personally, I'm glad Comey is gone. I think Comey acted in a manner not seen at the F.B.I. since the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Comey might not have "had a file on everybody" or directly threatened politicians with blackmail, but he certainly did put a rather large thumb on the scale during the election by publicly discussing the case against Hillary Clinton, while refusing to even admit there was a concurrent case against Donald Trump. That was unconscionable, which is why I am shedding no tears at Comey's departure.

    Chris,

    If President Clinton did not spend 30 minutes with his friend and Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a plane on a tarmac in Phoenix, while the FBI was investigating his wife, do you think Director Comey would have handled anything that you find unconscionable differently?

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Probably. But that doesn't mean Comey did the right thing. He should have issued a terse statement (not held a press conference) that said he had recommended that Hillary Clinton not be charged and that the investigation was over. Period. He does not have the power to prosecute (or even make such a decision), and he should not have editorialized publicly.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Comey arguably did the best thing he could under the extraordinary circumstances.

    And, when he first testified before Congress after his July presser, they asked him if he would commit to inform them if anything new came to light with respect to Clinton emails. He gave that commitment. Which is why he had to inform Congress when the "new" emails came to light at the end of October 2016.

    The fact of the matter is that if anyone considers that Comey did not do the right thing, they have a moral obligation to take into account the extraordinary circumstances of a former president interfering with a federal investigation into the practices of his wife and Democratic presidential nominee.

    You know, the more one thinks about the completely uncharted and politically charged territory that Director Comey found himself in, the more one must appreciate, even grudgingly, the extraordinary predicament he was in. Given the circumstances, he is the one who should have been the 2017 recipient of the JFK Profile in Courage Award.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I haven't had a chance to listen to his testimony the other day yet and I hope to have the time to devote to that over the course the next couple of days or so ...

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Nixon built his political career on red-baiting, and he was second only to Joe McCarthy in seeing Communists everywhere.

    Hey, CW, let's talk history. Nixon was second only to Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, McCarthy's chief counsel who was recommended to him by none other than FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover because of Cohn's work as a prosecutor in the espionage trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

    The biggest influence in Trump's life... outside his family... was none other than his attorney, good friend, and closest advisor... Roy Cohn. It was Roy who introduced Donald Trump to Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. Roger Stone had been the youngest staff member of President Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign: Committee for the Re-Election of the President... the notorious and infamous CREEP.

    It's beyond creepy how interconnected all these shady characters are.

  8. [8] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Just a quick layover comment...

    The real question ( coming from a person who has had no faith in the process from the beginning and wanted a SP...) is which will win out Party over the right for the people to know, no matter the outcome ?

    Sure some of the swampers GOP have come out in favor of an SP, but much like their ACA collaboration, I anticipate it will go by the wayside when it comes to doing what is right.

    If I was an SP I would simply start with a rather unglamorous investigation into the adjudicative guidelines for a security clearance, found here, https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/60321.htm.

    Investigating Trumps ability to hold a security clearance alone will take you down a rabbit hole...and can lead to much more than basic impeachable offenses.

    At the end of the day I do not anticipate an effective SP being appointed considering that we are currently under going a corporate REMO of our government, and well, all of this stuff concerns those people not one bit...

    For dead hippy on sticks sake, even I know when a sewage plant is is burning off extra methane...extra methane equals flames. We won't even mention the smell of burning fecal matter that tips you off....

    Ok... time for the nap pod and another flight to another less than savory place.

    Have fun...At least I will be in a trump free zone for a few days.

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Probably. But that doesn't mean Comey did the right thing. He should have issued a terse statement (not held a press conference) that said he had recommended that Hillary Clinton not be charged and that the investigation was over. Period. He does not have the power to prosecute (or even make such a decision), and he should not have editorialized publicly.

    I have to disagree with you..

    AG Lynch gave flintlocks to the Democrat village people.. James T Comey had to re-align the balance of power and arm the American mountain people with the exact same weaponry...

    Captain Comey's actions were the ONLY logical and rational response to the Klingon's actions...

    By meeting with Bubba, Lynch introduced an unstable element into the situation. Comey had no choice but to balance the situation by going directly to the American people.

    Comey's actions restored the faith of the American people in the process....

    The American people had a RIGHT to know exactly who they were considering electing as their President.. Comey gave the American people what they had a right to have...

    The knowledge.....

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Comey arguably did the best thing he could under the extraordinary circumstances.

    And, when he first testified before Congress after his July presser, they asked him if he would commit to inform them if anything new came to light with respect to Clinton emails. He gave that commitment. Which is why he had to inform Congress when the "new" emails came to light at the end of October 2016.

    The fact of the matter is that if anyone considers that Comey did not do the right thing, they have a moral obligation to take into account the extraordinary circumstances of a former president interfering with a federal investigation into the practices of his wife and Democratic presidential nominee.

    You know, the more one thinks about the completely uncharted and politically charged territory that Director Comey found himself in, the more one must appreciate, even grudgingly, the extraordinary predicament he was in. Given the circumstances, he is the one who should have been the 2017 recipient of the JFK Profile in Courage Award.

    Word...

    That's two extraordinary comments in just as many commentaries...

    Good job, Liz....

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Will "You're Fired" Be Trump's Undoing?

    Trump is toast??? :D

    Wouldn't it be a hoot if this was all just a big scam to expose all the traitors who are leaking info on the Trump White House... :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    There is also an aspect of the Comey saga that no one has touched on yet..

    It's entirely likely that the ONLY thing standing in the way of NOT-45 being prosecuted was Director James Comey....

    With a gung-ho DOJ and an FBI Director more willing to enforce the law and let the chips fall where they may, it's entirely likely that NOT-45's days of freedom are numbered...

    Locking her up might be the ONLY way to force NOT-45 to step out of the limelight...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Bangladesh prime minister says Clinton personally pressured her to help foundation donor
    http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor

    It's stuff like this that the American people have a RIGHT to know when they are selecting a POTUS...

    James Comey did this country a GREAT service by exposing NOT-45's actions and lies...

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    To answer your titular question,

    Yes, I sincerely believe that the firing of James Comey will indeed be the undoing of Trump. It appears only a matter of time before he either resigns or is forced out of office.

    And, I have to say that, it is indeed a classic example of poetic justice that Trump's downfall will come at the hands of a patriot like Director Comey.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    And, for whatever reason you have not been around here as much lately, I have missed you.

    It's good that we have both cut down our comments to a more endurable pace - for us and for others.

    I'm liking the new atmosphere!

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    "One is honored to be of service."
    -Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN

    :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, I sincerely believe that the firing of James Comey will indeed be the undoing of Trump. It appears only a matter of time before he either resigns or is forced out of office.

    I disagree...

    If Trump "confessing" to "pussy grabbing" didn't bring Trump down, I honestly doubt that firing an FBI Director, a director that the vast majority of Democrats have been clamoring for said director's head will cause any issues for Trump..

    Maxine I-Have-No-Faith-In-Director-Comey-But-He-Shouldn't-Be-Fired Waters epitomizes perfectly the Democrats' problem..

    They were against Director Comey before they were for Director Comey....

    Typical of politicians..

    Talking out both sides of their asses...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Comey firing could spur new review of Clinton case, immunity deals, ex-agent says
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/11/comey-firing-could-spur-new-review-clinton-case-immunity-deals-ex-agent-says.html

    I have a feeling that many MANY on the Left would be pleased as punch if NOT-45 was prosecuted...

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have a feeling that many MANY on the Left would be pleased as punch if NOT-45 was prosecuted...

    probably true. it would be disastrous politics, but excellent entertainment.

    JL

  20. [20] 
    Paula wrote:

    Hmm, the day starts with 45 claiming he invented the phrase "priming the pump"; we find out he allowed ONLY Russian photographers into the Oval Office to take pictures during his meeting with Russian folks yesterday -- no doubt the better for the Russkies to figure out where to place their "wiretaps" -- and we learn he thinks "digital" is too complicated for aircraft carriers, which should run on steam:

    It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be—"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/president-trump-wants-steam-dammit-not-newfangled-digital-stuff

    Separately we learn Comey asked for more money because they're getting so much damning info in the door they need more people to work on it and his replacement says the investigations will continue. Rod Rosenstein is mad at being hung out to dry for writing his little memo; Josh Marshall says that's what you get for doing 45's bidding -- those who aid 45 always end up damaged. When will they learn?

    Comrade Michale never answered whether he agreed Comey done her wrong -- the first of the administration's lies for why Comey was fired -- but then I didn't expect him to. There is no squaring that circle so all the little Trumpies will pretend they never heard it.

    Ellizabeth clocks in with a new crush: James Comey is now the man who sets her heart aflame -- poor Joe Biden and Tim Geithner will feel abandoned. Comey has the double-value of being dreamy while having absorbed a lot of blame for landing us all with the Orange Man by screwing over HRC, and Elizabeth loves having reasons to diss HRC! Gee, just by not being guilty of a crime, Hillary manages to make Comey-do-something-foolish. But its Hillary's fault because she SHOULD have been guilty, but wasn't. Sad.

    Comrade Michale clings to the idea Hillary will still land in jail someday, while desperately ignoring the fact that his beloved is: demented (clinically), a Liar, a Criminal, and a Traitor.

    America's Third Reich DT Administration lumbers on with Dems doing some damn good resistance while Repubs search their souls to determine just when, if ever, they will put Country before Party. 45's hit 36% approval and the most popular word used to describe him in the Quinnipiac poll is "idiot".

    Perfect.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    probably true. it would be disastrous politics, but excellent entertainment.

    I disagree..

    Many MANY on the Left have stated unequivocally that NOT-45s return to the Party is "disastrous"...

    This might well just be the solution the Party needs...

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Paula,

    You just can't handle the fact that NOT-45 is the PROBLEM with the Democrat Party...

    Not it's solution...

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    [22] Comrade Michale -- actually, I'm thinking it's time for a new name. "Comrade MIchale" worked well during the early stages of our national nightmare, when the possibility existed that 45 would be dangerously powerful rather than dangerously insane-but-utterly-incompetent and you were getting off on the idea of being a jack-booted-thug and licking Putin's toes.

    But now, I think a more accurate moniker would be: Sargent Schultz of Hogan's Heroes fame.

    So, Sargent Schultz: if Not-45 is another word for HRC, you are dealing with another phantom idea (naturally) that you project onto me and then tell me I'm wrong about. I'll leave now and you can get on with your conversation between you and your version of me.

  24. [24] 
    Paula wrote:

    Everyone who has repeated it knows it’s false. They have knowingly lied on the President’s behalf and about a matter of grave national importance. That includes the Vice President. So in the extreme scenario that the President leaves office and is succeeded by the Vice President, the sitting President will still be directly implicated in this lie and this cover-up.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theyre-trapped-in-his-lies

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "One thing we've learned from the last two years of Donald Trump, is that what it seems like he's doing - is exactly what he's doing. There's no grand strategy. He's not some puppet-master, he's not some wizard playing three-dimensional chess. He's playing 'Hungry, Hungry Hippos' - he's just slapping 'til he gets all the marbles. There's nothing deeper going on. He's a baby pool - you could not get your ankles wet in Donald Trump." - Stephen Colbert

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    he's not some wizard playing three-dimensional chess. He's playing 'Hungry, Hungry Hippos' - he's just slapping 'til he gets all the marbles.

    no, he's playing blackjack, and putin is counting the cards.

    JL

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    But now, I think a more accurate moniker would be: Sargent Schultz of Hogan's Heroes fame.

    Probably would help if you actually SPELLED it right.. :^/

    Like I said.. Low brow... Minimal intelligence... Party drone...

    [22] Comrade Michale -- actually, I'm thinking it's time for a new name.

    Says the person who whines about 'Bitch'...

    I guess name-calling is only for "enlightened" and "tolerant" Left Wingers, eh? :D

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    "One thing we've learned from the last two years of Donald Trump, is that what it seems like he's doing - is exactly what he's doing. There's no grand strategy. He's not some puppet-master, he's not some wizard playing three-dimensional chess. He's playing 'Hungry, Hungry Hippos' - he's just slapping 'til he gets all the marbles. There's nothing deeper going on. He's a baby pool - you could not get your ankles wet in Donald Trump." - Stephen Colbert

    And yet, he is a highly successful businessman..

    He beat 19 highly qualified, highly experienced and well-funded GOP candidates.

    And he totally DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    So, who am I to believe??

    The facts???

    Or your sour-grapes, sore loser whinings???

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    no, he's playing blackjack, and putin is counting the cards.

    Oh puulleeeezze... That Trump Is Putin's Bitch meme has been totally and completely refuted...

    There are absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim..

    NONE.... ZERO.... ZILCH..... NADA.....

    Even Odumbo officials have stated as much...

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    . 45's hit 36% approval and the most popular word used to describe him in the Quinnipiac poll is "idiot".

    Perfect.

    As opposed to NOT-45 and the most popular word to describe her was "CROOK"....

    Yea, nice hero ya got there.. :^/

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh puulleeeezze... That Trump Is Putin's Bitch meme has been totally and completely refuted...

    that's c*ckholster. donald's only event the day after firing comey was a meeting with lavrov and kislyak, from which american press were banned but russian press were not. reports of that meme's demise may be greatly exaggerated.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    9. What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump?

    idiot 39
    incompetent 31
    liar 30

    Source: https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us05102017_U392prfb.pdf/

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    One thing that we may have forgotten is that everybody was absolutely convinced 45 had no chance to win the election, but 45 was claiming that he'd only lose if it was stolen from him (he still hasn't let the total voting number loss go).

    Comey probably knew he was putting his thumb on the scale, but that Hillary was so likely to win he'd be helping heal the nation after the election by bending over backwards to not only be fair, but if anything prove he was leaning in a Republican direction.

    I'm not condoning what he did, but I'll bet he got a bigger sense of foreboding when the results started coming in than most people. I'll bet he really did feel sick knowing that he was partially responsible for the clown show that is this administration.

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    i think comey did exactly what he felt was required of his job, no more and no less. whatever his personal feelings might have been, he had professional responsibilities and carried them out.

    in this, i agree with senator mccain's assertion that comey is "probably, arguably, the most respected person in America"

    JL

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    Jayne Miller with WBAL-TV in Baltimore is reporting that the FBI is currently conducting a search of a GOP Fundraising firm in Baltimore. All we know is that “the investigation is being run out of Washington, not locally, the I-Team has learned.”

    Quote from this: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/11/1661321/-Local-News-Reporting-FBI-Search-Warrant-Underway-at-GOP-Fundraising-Firm but have read about it several places.

    Drip, drip, drip.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    in this, i agree with senator mccain's assertion that comey is "probably, arguably, the most respected person in America"

    We'll just have to disagree on this one JL.

  37. [37] 
    Paula wrote:

    I'm not condoning what he did, but I'll bet he got a bigger sense of foreboding when the results started coming in than most people. I'll bet he really did feel sick knowing that he was partially responsible for the clown show that is this administration.

    The profile of Comey in Politico yesterday tries to make that point: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/09/the-political-isolation-of-jim-comey-215120

  38. [38] 
    Paula wrote:

    This tweet is great:

    Patrick Monahan
    @pattymo
    16h
    RUSSIAN NON-SPY: Mr. President, businessman. Art of deal. Please carry special gold Russian pen everywhere. Replace battery. TRUMP: Terrific

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Corrine Brown convicted of 18 felonies, could be sentenced to decades in prison
    http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2017-05-08/corrine-brown-convicted-18-felonies-could-be-sentenced-decades-prison

    Democrats... :eyeroll:

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And yet, he is a highly successful businessman..

    He's the classic example of the guy born on third base who thinks he hit a triple. His father Fred built an empire of government projects. When that got him into trouble, young Donald switched the company into resorts and hotels, and built what he surely must believe is his actual phallus - Trump Tower. He then promoted his properties by hobnobbing with as many rich folk as he could manage, and by becoming the virtual star of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, made his own name so synonymous with wealth that he could later earn a lucrative income from just slapping his name on other people's resorts.

    Nothing he's done otherwise, except the Apprentice, worked out very well - his adventures in Atlantic City turned into a disaster, costing him millions, for example. He's spent more time defending himself in court than some gangsters, and paid more in settlements than Fox News.

    But the question there is, if he's so cocksure of his business bona fides, why won't he let the world see his tax returns?

    He beat 19 highly qualified, highly experienced and well-funded GOP candidates.

    True, but he did it by activating the very bottom feeders of the right. His very first speech called Mexicans 'rapists and murderers', and his rhetoric went downhill from there. His opponents could have fought Trump by rallying around Cruz or Kasich or anyone else early on, but their egos apparently froze their brains in place. Eventually the GOP surrendered to Trump like a young lass in a rape fantasy, closed their eyes and pretended he was Reagan.

    And he totally DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet.

    Wow. To make your boy look good, you've just described your opponent as Hillary, God of Politics. Come back to earth: he lost the popular vote by three million.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    i think comey did exactly what he felt was required of his job, no more and no less. whatever his personal feelings might have been, he had professional responsibilities and carried them out.

    in this, i agree with senator mccain's assertion that comey is "probably, arguably, the most respected person in America"

    Completely, unequivocally, 10000% total agreement...

    that's c*ckholster. donald's only event the day after firing comey was a meeting with lavrov and kislyak, from which american press were banned but russian press were not. reports of that meme's demise may be greatly exaggerated.

    OH MY GODS!!!!!

    The President Of The United States meets with the Russian Ambassador!!!!!

    "OH MY GOD, what a fucking nightmare!!!!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Get a rope, let's just hang 'im now!!!!

    If the sarcasm was too subtle, let me know.. :D

    There are absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim...

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    But the question there is, if he's so cocksure of his business bona fides, why won't he let the world see his tax returns?

    If he had anything to prove, he would..

    But he has absolutely nothing to prove... His success in business is well documented. Only political bigots deny that success...

    His very first speech called Mexicans 'rapists and murderers',

    No it didn't.. But why let FACTS intrude on a good hysterical rant... :D

    Come back to earth: he lost the popular vote by three million.

    And if the vanity vote had any relevance in a US election, you would have a point to make.

    But it doesn't, so you don't..

    See, this here is EXACTLY the problem around here..

    There is NOTHING but bullshit, bigotry and totally irrelevant arguments...

    No wonder the Democrat Party is in the worst hole it's been in over a century...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Come back to earth: he lost the popular vote by three million.

    And in a subsequent election held by WaPoop, Trump WON the Election **AND** the vanity vote..

    Face the facts, sunshine..

    Yer biatch, NOT-45 just sucks purple panther piss.....

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:

    [40] Balthasar, Note: my understanding is there's very much a question as to whether DT's casino bankruptcies were the result of business incompetence OR actual criminal activity, i.e. laundering Russian money. So with the Orange One it's always this teeter-totter of: incompetence or criminality, incompetence or criminality?

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    There was NOTHING WRONG with the AG having contact with an old friend simply because they are the spouse of someone the FBI was investigating! The DOJ doesn't conduct the investigations, the FBI does. If the Clintons wanted a secret meeting with Lynch, they could have easily arranged such a thing: call her home phone number, show up at her kids ballgame, send a candy-gram, or mail her a freakin' postcard....
    So Bill choosing to say hello on the tarmack with plenty of witnesses doesn't seem like the best place to try to bribe a gov't. official if you want to get away with it!

    Democrats have a weakness when it comes to giving in to the imaginations of others who claim to see corruption at every turn (and those that just want others to believe that corruption is occurring!)

    Does anyone here believe that Trump should not have any contact with AG Sessions right now? Should AG Sessions be allowed to have any contact with his second in command, Rod Rosenstein? Sessions was a key member of Trump's campaign, so he would be investigated by the FBI to determine his involvement. The AG isn't conducting the investigations...the FBI is.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Does anyone here believe that Trump should not have any contact with AG Sessions right now? Should AG Sessions be allowed to have any contact with his second in command, Rod Rosenstein?

    There are valid reasons why a sitting President has contact with his AG...

    Bubba was ONLY the spouse of a person under investigation... He has absolutely NO REASON to meet in private with the AG..

    The AG isn't conducting the investigations...the FBI is.

    And the AG is the FBI's boss....

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    official if you want to get away with it!

    If it wasn't pure happenstance that a small town reporter happened to be there and caught the meeting, Bubba WOULD have gotten away with it...

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    And, if the serial sexual assaulter and rapist HADN'T met with AG Lynch, it's entirely likely that we would have President NOT-45 now...

    Bubba scrooed the pooch... Plain and simple...

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If he had anything to prove, he would..

    But he has absolutely nothing to prove... His success in business is well documented. Only political bigots deny that success...

    You are correct, Michale. Trump successfully filed for bankruptcy on six different occasions, which are well documented.

    No one is asking for Trump's tax returns because they want to show he isn't as rich as he claims. Trump's success is well documented, as are his failures. The tax returns would show where the money he uses for his businesses come from. It is well known that no US bank would give Trump a line of credit after his multiple bankruptcies. His own son has stated more than half of Trump's portfolio were funded by Russian and Chinese backers. How much he owes foreign agents is definitely something that we deserve to know.

  50. [50] 
    Paula wrote:

    Here's a hell of a graphic: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/kim-albrecht-trump-data-viz/

    Astoundingly Complex Visualization Untangles Trump’s Business Ties

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Face the facts, sunshine..
    Yer biatch, NOT-45 just sucks purple panther piss.

    I will consider that one of your high points, rhetorically.

    Over the last few days, I've noticed that the Hillary Obsession on the right hasn't receded as much as I'd thought. I mean the election was, what, seven months ago? That the White House thought that a seven-month old grudge would keep the Dems from noticing blatant obstruction of justice says alot about their own inability to just let go of the recent past.

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    There are valid reasons why a sitting President has contact with his AG...

    So what? Your entire argument is on the "appearance of wrongdoing", not that any wrongdoing actually occurred. If having direct contact with the AG is wrong for anyone related to someone the FBI is investigating, then there are no valid reasons for someone being investigated to have contact! The possibility for corruption that exists in one scenario is just as possible in any other!

    So what if the AG is over the FBI, they aren't involved in the investigation!

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [49]: Thanks. That just stole an hour. ;)

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump just admitted in a live interview with Lester Holt today that he personally met with James Comey for dinner and asked him whether or not he was under investigation. Trump says Comey told him "no" at that dinner meeting and also on two other occasions on the telephone.

    You have a sitting President of the United States who admits he asked the Director of the FBI whether or not he was under investigation. Trump's campaign is under investigation, and he's chatting it up with Comey in person and on the phone about it.

    Trump has admitted speaking with Comey about investigations regarding himself on multiple occasions. Someone please tell me how this isn't exponentially worse than the ex-POTUS meeting with the AG for 30 minutes and no one really knows if they discussed any investigation of his spouse?

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    You are correct, Michale. Trump successfully filed for bankruptcy on six different occasions, which are well documented.

    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
    -Michael Jordan

    Funny how this quote from MJ *ALWAYS* shuts down ANY logical or rational response to the TRUMP IS NOT A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MAN debate... :D

    So what if the AG is over the FBI, they aren't involved in the investigation!

    They have final say over any investigation and prosecution resulting from said investigation..

    Look, Listen.... :D

    You can argue the definition of 'is' until the cows come home.. But it's clear that Bubbas private meeting with AG Lynch was COMPLETELY improper and it directly lead to Director Comey going above AG Lynch's head directly to the American people...

    Which, in turn (according to ya'all) DIRECTLY lead to President Trump....

    Argue shoulda, woulda, coulda all you want..

    But it won't change the facts...

    Trump is President and NOT-45 is a pariah....

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."

  56. [56] 
    Paula wrote:

    [52] You're welcome!

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    Sgt. Schultz will argue Bill/Lynch excuse til the cows come home, while keeping his yap SHUT about the miles-long string of crimes and abuses committed by his beloved, and all his beloved's criminal associates.

    Because, for Republicans, Dems are supposed to be perfect and Republicans are allowed to do anything at all to "win". Like lie, cheat and steal.

    Doesn't bother Sgt. Schult that 45's team all lied all day long yesterday to explain Comey's firing and 45 went on TV today and said, "nope, I've been wanting to get rid of Comey all along. It was MY decision."

    See, because Sarge KNOWS what Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked about, telepathically, and so therefore Trump can hand the WH to Putin and it is AOK because why not? It was GREAT the Comey torpedoed Hillary's campaign and EQUALLY GREAT that 45 fired Comey over it. Except he didn't. But who cares? All that matters is DT is in the WH and Hillary isn't and little things like treason are just the price Republicans are willing to pay.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    28

    And yet, he is a highly successful businessman..

    So was Al Capone. Oh, come on... that's not a "fact"... that's an opinion that depends on one's definition of "highly successful businessman." Most people who've paid millions to the government for breaking the law and landed in court as many times as Trump for violations of federal law and paid millions of dollars to people in restitution for breaking their contracts or taking their money in fraudulent scams aren't considered "highly successful businessmen;" they are what the majority refers to as "cons."

    He beat 19 highly qualified, highly experienced and well-funded GOP candidates.

    You keep typing this over and over as if it's a "fact." It's not a fact for many reasons:
    * First off, you keep typing "19" over and over. Trump didn't beat 19 GOP candidates. Check your math; it's wrong.
    * Second, someone should tell Scott Walker he was well-funded. He dropped out early because he actually wasn't. There are other candidates who weren't remotely well-funded, but you already know that.
    * "Well-qualified"... ROTFLMAO. Another opinion. Besides, beating "well-qualified" candidates when you're an unqualified ignorant con artist just means you knew what Party contained a plethora of "easy to snow" flakes.

    Typing that utter nonsense over and over doesn't magically make it become a "fact."

    And he totally DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    The biggest, meanest, and most-well funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet is in Russia and run by one Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin... who didn't exactly run against Trump.

    So, who am I to believe??

    The facts???

    It's painfully obvious that who you believe is Fox News and the other alt-right nonsense which is spoon fed propaganda spewed back near verbatim here. Your deflection and whataboutism to HRC doesn't change the facts about President Pathological, and your hypocrisy and dearth of actual facts is hysterical. *LOL*

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    54

    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
    -Michael Jordan

    Funny how this quote from MJ *ALWAYS* shuts down ANY logical or rational response to the TRUMP IS NOT A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MAN debate... :D

    Only a moron wouldn't realize that this quote from Michael Jordan gives every person on the planet cover for whatever they've failed at. Based on that quote, even the people you hate and call names in repetitive fashion are equally successful. Duh! *LOL* :)

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Donald Trump: "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly. Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago."

    Y'all got that? Trump's not trying to impede the Russia investigation, he wants a bigger one. *LOL*

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Poor Donald. I guess Trump didn't realize that him saying publicly that Comey had told him three times that the FBI wasn't investigating him, Trump just waived executive privilege regarding anything that he discussed with Comey.

    Roy Cohn is spinning in his grave. :)

  62. [62] 
    Paula wrote:

    People are tweeting about DT's "certified letter" -- if it wasn't horrifying that the current POTUS is succumbing to dementia it would be funny -- he seems to think saying "I'm not guilty" and sending it to someone "certified" is all he needs to do.

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Will Sean Spicer still be the White House Press Secretary when Melissa McCarthy hosts SNL?

    It's looking kinda iffy. :)

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    61

    Certified letter. *LOL* ;)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    TRUMP: I was going to fire Comey. I — there’s no good time to do it by the way.

    HOLT: Because in your letter you said “I accepted their recommendation,” so you had already made the decision.

    TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.

    HOLT: So there was …

    TRUMP: He made a recommendation, he’s highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy, the Democrats like him, the Republicans like him, he made a recommendation but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey.

    HOLT: Let me ask you about your termination letter to Mr. Comey. You write “I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation.” Why did you put that in there?

    TRUMP: Because he told me that. I mean he told me it.

    HOLT: He told you weren’t under investigation regardless …

    TRUMP: Yes and I’ve heard that from others I think …

    HOLT: Was it in a phone call, did you meet face to face?

    TRUMP: I had a dinner with him. He wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on. We had a very nice dinner at the White House.

    HOLT: He asked for the dinner?

    TRUMP: A dinner was arranged, I think he asked for the dinner. And he wanted to stay on as the FBI head. And I said I’ll consider and we’ll see what happens. But we had a very nice dinner. And at that time he told me “you are not under investigation.”

    HOLT: That was …

    TRUMP: Which I knew anyway.

    HOLT: That was one meeting. What was it, what were the other two?

    TRUMP: First of all, when you’re under investigation you’re giving all sorts of documents and everything. I knew I wasn’t under and I heard it was stated at the committee, at some committee level, that I wasn’t. Number one.

    ___________

    Poor Donald has confused civil case disclosure with a criminal investigation. All those 3,500+ lawsuits in civil court are enough to confuse a guy... particularly a guy like President Pathological.

    Listen to that conversation between Trump and Comey. That sounds an awful lot like a quid pro quo, Trump asking for loyalty in exchange for Comey's job. It's a shame Comey lost his job just as the investigation was ramping up... because now it looks like that's why Comey was fired.

    I believe Roy Cohn would agree. :)

  66. [66] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump's claim that Comey told him three different times that he was not under investigation is comical.

    IF Trump was not being investigated by the FBI, Comey, if asked, would have answered, "No, you aren't being investigated."

    IF Trump was being investigated by the FBI, Comey, if asked, would have answered, "No, you aren't being investigated."

    I cannot figure out if Trump is saying this in the hope that he can convince others that he did nothing wrong....or to convince himself that he did nothing wrong.

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TRUMP: First of all, when you’re under investigation you’re giving all sorts of documents and everything. I knew I wasn’t under and I heard it was stated at the committee, at some committee level, that I wasn’t. Number one.

    WOW! He really has no clue just how much trouble he could be in if he is shown to have colluded with Russia to help his campaign. He has no clue that he would be facing CRIMINAL charges. Think of how panicked he will become once he discovers that little tidbit!

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Listen
    66

    He has no clue that he would be facing CRIMINAL charges. Think of how panicked he will become once he discovers that little tidbit!

    In case you don't recognize what you're seeing, Trump is panicked. :) He has made the calculation that he'll ditch Comey now and slow things down a little and take his chances with another Captain.

    What Trump doesn't seem to realize is that that ship has sailed, and he just pissed off 95% of the guys on board... and the little monkey.

    Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
    We extort, we pilfer, we filch, and sack,
    Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.
    Maraud and embezzle, and even high-jack,
    Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho.

    It's looking more and more like a RICO case.

  69. [69] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Thanks for all the responses.

    In comment 28 from A Stupid proposal you wrote

    "I still think the public option could solve a whole lot of Obamacare's problems. And New York is currently debating a single-payer program for the whole state"

    I agree that a public option would solve many problems. It would be an effective first step to Single Payer, because the insurance companies wouldn't be able to compete due to their need for greed... thus the public insurance plans would grow exponentially and cost effectively spread the risk over a huge pool of people, and demonstrate that people actually are happy with government plans just as they love Social Security.

    That said, NY will discover what Vermont discovered about Single Payer... it can't be done successfully at the state level. Replicating the already existing Medicare infrastructure (the start up costs are huge), while needing to pay for both (as in not retaining the Medicare taxes for use by the state), and not having the federal level bargaining power with providers and pharma essentially prevents most of the savings that makes Single Payer the most effective approach.

    And, sorry about inadvertently ganging up against you with your wife... if I had known...

    In comment 18 from Paul Ryan, Then and Now you wrote

    "Thanks for the link. About what I'd expect from the DNC..."

    You and Don and Kick (after some debate) have now all responded that way.

    I get the cynicism, but there's an implied tolerance for their actions in that response.
    The rules established by the party apparatus that manages the process for choosing a candidate that is currently the only logistically viable alternative to the Republicans are important.

    Democrats in particular shouldn't be tolerating a "legal" argument that dismisses the need to follow their own rules.

    If you can't trust them to follow the rules, you wouldn't want to play Monopoly with them... let alone let them play a role in choosing our president.

    The reactions about the issue here remain disappointing.

    A

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    68

    You and Don and Kick (after some debate) have now all responded that way.

    I get the cynicism, but there's an implied tolerance for their actions in that response.

    You're still equating legal arguments with moral ones... please stop doing that. :)

    If you can't trust them to follow the rules, you wouldn't want to play Monopoly with them... let alone let them play a role in choosing our president.

    Wrong. It would be much better to play Monopoly with them because that is fake money. The fact that the Plaintiffs in the case are seeking millions of real dollars is exactly the reason the lawyers are required by law to argue the way they are or they could be sued for damages themselves by their clients. It's not complicated, and it's not about morality. It's their legal obligation.

    The reactions about the issue here remain disappointing.

    Ms. Peacock in the law library with a revolver. ;)

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Only a moron wouldn't realize that this quote from Michael Jordan gives every person on the planet cover for whatever they've failed at.

    And only a moron AND a bigot would think that I am trying to say that MJ's quote is an excuse for "every person on the planet" to frak up...

    Based on that quote, even the people you hate and call names in repetitive fashion are equally successful. Duh! *LOL* :)

    It's is an undeniable fact that, business-wise, President Trump has a LOT more successes then he has failures.. He wouldn't be President if he hadn't..

    Take your bitch, NOT-45.. She has failed at EVERYTHING... She doesn't have ONE SINGLE success, ONE SINGLE accomplishment to her name. Her tenure at State was one disaster after another.... Libya is a hell-hole thanks to NOT-45... Our relationship with Russia that Obama touted is in shambles because of NOT-45..

    Of course, your Party bigotry simply cannot allow you to acknowledge these facts, but that doesn't change the fact that they are facts...

    And NOT-45's BIGGEST and MOST SPECTACULAR frak-up gave us President Trump..

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That's why the Democrat Party is in the biggest hole it's been in almost a century..

    Because of people like NOT-45 and bigots and Party zealots who support them..

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yesterday's lester holt interview was a head scratcher. the president basically said that he did fire comey because of the russia investigation.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/transcript-donald-trump-nbc-news/

    there's the partial transcript, so you can see what he said in black and white.

    JL

  73. [73] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    69

    Once again you are confusing the effect of the legal argument with the legal argument.

    Your blaming of those who filed suit against the DNC for seeking redress for the cheating doesn't absolve the cheaters.
    You are wrong.
    It is nonsense that the DNC lawyers "are required" to argue that the cheating is legally justified in order to win the case. If they could prove that there was no cheating, they would win... but they can't, and thus the "we don't need to follow our own rules" argument is all they have.
    They've boxed themselves in. Trying to shift the blame for the circumstances they themselves created onto the people who are calling them out makes no sense at all.

    It's just like Hillary blaming Comey for the effects of her decisions.

    A

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    70

    And only a moron AND a bigot would think that I am trying to say that MJ's quote is an excuse for "every person on the planet" to frak up...

    Obviously, what you were "trying to say" is that the Michael Jordan quote about failing that you frequently post is proof that Trump is a successful businessman and *ALWAYS* shuts down any argument to the contrary, and obviously I pointed out that a quote that could equally apply to anyone who has ever failed at anything -- which is obviously everyone on the planet -- doesn't exactly prove what you says it does about Trump. You might want to retire that nugget because it obviously doesn't meet your stated goal of shutting down debate about Trump being a successful businessman.

    It's is an undeniable fact that, business-wise, President Trump has a LOT more successes then he has failures.. He wouldn't be President if he hadn't..

    Obviously, that is yet another one of your opinions and relies on your definition of "success" and "failure" and doesn't remotely qualify as an "undeniable fact."

    Take your bitch, NOT-45.. She has failed at EVERYTHING... She doesn't have ONE SINGLE success, ONE SINGLE accomplishment to her name. Her tenure at State was one disaster after another.... Libya is a hell-hole thanks to NOT-45... Our relationship with Russia that Obama touted is in shambles because of NOT-45..

    Your concern for Russia is duly noted, comrade, and your deflection to HRC is a complete shocker! *LOL*

    No problem, though, as I can actually conclude my point using your favorite object of whataboutism and deflection in order to get back on the original topic. All you've proven in your rant there is that HRC is a total success. Stop me if you've heard this one, but:

    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
    -Michael Jordan

    Funny how this quote from MJ *ALWAYS* shuts down ANY logical or rational response to the HRC is a complete failure debate. Pravda! :) Tovarishch, budem molit'sya za Rossiyu.

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    All you've proven in your rant there is that HRC is a total success.

    Yes, I know.. That is your truth...

    But the facts clearly say otherwise..

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Funny how this quote from MJ *ALWAYS* shuts down ANY logical or rational response to the HRC is a complete failure debate.

    Your problem (one of many) is that NOT-45 would have to have SOME successes to off-set the failures.

    Like Michael Jordan...

    Like President Trump...

    But NOT-45 doesn't have ANY successes...

    She has been one big failure after another...

    Oh wait. There was one "success".. The bitch successfully dodged sniper fire in Bosnia..

    BBBAAWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    72

    Once again you are confusing the effect of the legal argument with the legal argument.

    No, I'm actually not. I'm telling you that it's the lawyers job to mitigate their client's damages using settled law and that the object of the exercise of the practice of law may or may not necessarily please those sitting in judgment in the peanut gallery.

    Your blaming of those who filed suit against the DNC for seeking redress for the cheating doesn't absolve the cheaters.

    I'm neither blaming the filers nor trying to absolve the cheaters... that is the job of their lawyers.

    It is nonsense that the DNC lawyers "are required" to argue that the cheating is legally justified in order to win the case. If they could prove that there was no cheating, they would win... but they can't, and thus the "we don't need to follow our own rules" argument is all they have.

    I didn't say they were obligated to argue a particular argument. I just said they were obligated to defend their clients using settled law and tried (unsuccessfully) to explain that the practice of law isn't meant to please the onlookers in the peanut gallery. They might lose their case arguing settled law. I really don't care whether they lose or not or how they sound in the winning or losing.

    They've boxed themselves in. Trying to shift the blame for the circumstances they themselves created onto the people who are calling them out makes no sense at all.

    I really haven't looked at the merits of the case because I don't care who wins or loses... or how the lawyers sound in the exercise of their obligation to argue settled law in order to mitigate their client's damages.

    It's just like Hillary blaming Comey for the effects of her decisions.

    It actually has nothing to do with Hillary and Comey.

    This "debate" we're having is not unlike the "debate" that you sometimes have with Michale regarding law enforcement. You're correctly arguing the optics of how horrible something appears and how it appears morally reprehensible to an onlooker on its face while Michale is rightly arguing that methods used by law enforcement are meant to achieve stated goals that don't generally include how they appear to onlookers while exercising their duties.

    I'm going to borrow one of Michale's sayings here and say "thank the gods" that our military are not hauled into "regular" courts for the manner in which they accomplish their sworn duties... hanc defendemus. :)

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    e while Michale is rightly arguing

    There you go again, always.....

    wha??? whatsawhosits???

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    75

    Your problem (one of many) is that NOT-45 would have to have SOME successes to off-set the failures.

    Your problem (one of many) is that you conflate and equate your dearth of knowledge with actual "facts" and have a tendency to believe the BS you are spoon-fed by Fox News Entertainment, other right-wing venues, and obviously the ever changing and frequently fabricated drivel of 45. Obviously, if "NOT-45" had no successes, there would have been no need for her to become the object of your constant deflection and whataboutism. :)

    Besides, your orange idol has been friends with her and her husband for decades and had nothing but nice things to say about her and/or her husband until he found himself in the unenviable position of having to run against people he considered friends. There's a long list of people whom Trump has praised one week and then burned the next... Comey being his latest victim whether merited or not... air kisses James... the lies about you are nothing personal... just Trump looking out for Trump above all others... nothing new. Sure, all politicians and presidents lie, but Donald Trump is in a class of liars all by himself; the sheer volume and frequency of his lies has no precedent.

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Obviously, if "NOT-45" had no successes, there would have been no need for her to become the object of your constant deflection and whataboutism. :)

    I am open to being corrected as I see the logic of your position..

    By all means.. Enlighten me to NOT-45's "successes"...

    Besides, your orange idol has been friends with her and her husband for decades and had nothing but nice things to say about her and/or her husband until he found himself in the unenviable position of having to run against people he considered friends.

    That can also be turned around (as I have often done, only to see it ignored) that when Donald had a '-D' after his name, he as the Democrat's meow...

    <Sure, all politicians and presidents lie, but Donald Trump is in a class of liars all by himself; the sheer volume and frequency of his lies has no precedent.

    Yea.. Left Wingers always think think that Right Wing Liars are in a class by themselves...

    But it doesn't change the fact that, from an NPA's POV, liars from the Right AND Left are the same...

    That's kinda my point...

  81. [81] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    76

    "I'm telling you that it's the lawyers job to mitigate their client's damages using settled law and that the object of the exercise of the practice of law may or may not necessarily please those sitting in judgment in the peanut gallery."

    Of course that is their job.
    Of course that is their job.
    Of course that is their job.
    Does writing it three times let it sink in that I am NOT debating that issue and never was?
    I am arguing correctly that doing their job in that manner does have an effect on public opinion.
    Should that concern the lawyers? No.
    Should it concern the DNC and Dem voters? Yes.

    "We don't have to play by the rules we established" is a horrible message to send, even if it's legally viable in this court case.

    "I didn't say they were obligated to argue a particular argument."
    from comment 69
    "The fact that the Plaintiffs in the case are seeking millions of real dollars is exactly the reason the lawyers are required by law to argue the way they are or they could be sued for damages themselves by their clients."

    Note the "the lawyers are required by law to argue the way they are"... as in, not arguing the case using different arguments.
    You are clearly contradicting yourself.
    "The fact that the Plaintiffs in the case are seeking millions of real dollars" is the reason you gave for the necessity of the argument.
    And that is indeed shifting the blame onto the actions of the plaintiffs and away from the actions of the DNC which caused the lawsuit and necessitated the argument by the DNC lawyers.

    But, since you are now claiming you did not mean what you wrote, there isn't much point in dwelling on it.
    Somehow, I think you will keep dwelling on it though.

    "I don't care who wins or loses... or how the lawyers sound in the exercise of their obligation"

    Obviously, I do care how the lawyers argument sounds, because that is what my initial comment and all the following comments I made were about.

    And, once again, rather than your own opinion of the questions I raised, you were muddying the waters by arguing a point you don't care about and against a point I wasn't making.

    You don't care about the case.
    You don't care about the effect the case has on public opinion.
    Those are the answers I was seeking.
    That should have been your initial response if that is how you personally feel.
    And I continue to think it's a shame you don't care.

    "It actually has nothing to do with Hillary and Comey"

    The case has nothing to do with Hillary and Comey. It's a cause and effect comparison using an issue debated here thoroughly... Hillary's actions caused Comey's actions in exactly the same way that the DNC's actions caused the lawsuit.
    Their actions triggered a reaction, and if they hadn't pursued those actions, there wouldn't have been a reaction.

    And no, our resident defenders of police brutality despite the supposed legal restrictions and limitations is nothing like my comparison. In those cases, I am arguing the actions do not justify the reactions... in other words, I am challenging the legality of the reactions.
    Very different.

    A

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    79

    I am open to being corrected as I see the logic of your position..

    By all means.. Enlighten me to NOT-45's "successes"...

    You mean that quote of Michael Jordan's isn't enough to prove that someone is a success? Oh, snap!

    Although I'm quite capable of enlightening you to the successes as well as failures of several historical figures including Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, you and I both know that you're not stupid and are cognizant of the obvious successes that exist regardless of your rants to the contrary. I'm okay with you continuing to insist that it is a "fact" that she has no successes because every time you do it, you undercut your claim that "facts" are important to you.

    But it doesn't change the fact that, from an NPA's POV, liars from the Right AND Left are the same...

    That's kinda my point...

    Really? You mean you've bought "all in" to the false equivalency argument that liars from the Right and Left are the same... who knew?!? *LOL* It's pretty much your single argument on this board, and just when you think it's your only argument on this board, you will make a point every now and then while you're busy calling everyone but yourself a Party bigot.

    I don't give a shit about what letter is after Donald Trump's name and never have. He was a shit when he had a "D" after his name, he was a shit when he ran for President of the Reform Party, a shit when he had an "I" after his name, and he's a shit now that he has an "R" after his name... and when posters on this board discuss the facts about Trump, there is no amount of deflection to HRC nor calling those posters Party bigots that will change the facts about Trump... doesn't matter what letter the shit is sporting today.

    That's kinda my point...

    I have always believed that Trump was a "Benedict Donald" and the biggest threat to our democracy, I think time will bear that out, and I am patient. I believe the process that will end with Trump's resignation or impeachment has begun. Time will tell.

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    80

    Of course that is their job.
    Of course that is their job.
    Of course that is their job.
    Does writing it three times let it sink in that I am NOT debating that issue and never was?

    I like you a lot, and I don't know what has come over me today... I seem to be having these moments of candor that insist on getting out. Yes, writing it three times helped. :)

    Should it concern the DNC and Dem voters? Yes.

    Oh, candor... maybe that's why I don't care about the outcome. Whatever happens, happens and you move forward from there. Life is messy and complicated, etc.

    "We don't have to play by the rules we established" is a horrible message to send, even if it's legally viable in this court case.

    Oh, candor... I concede the point that legal arguments don't translate into good public relations, and then you keep moving forward from there.

    "The fact that the Plaintiffs in the case are seeking millions of real dollars is exactly the reason the lawyers are required by law to argue the way they are or they could be sued for damages themselves by their clients."

    I still didn't choose the argument they chose. Oh, candor... perhaps they should have chosen more wisely... Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. They chose their argument, and to be honest... oh, candor... I really don't even know what their argument is... and to be more honest... I really don't care.

    And that is indeed shifting the blame onto the actions of the plaintiffs and away from the actions of the DNC which caused the lawsuit and necessitated the argument by the DNC lawyers.

    I'm not taking sides.
    I'm not taking sides.
    I'm not taking sides.
    Third time is a charm?

    But, since you are now claiming you did not mean what you wrote, there isn't much point in dwelling on it.
    Somehow, I think you will keep dwelling on it though.

    No, I meant what I wrote. I'm not taking sides on this. I have nothing against the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' lawyers or the defendant(s) {is there more than one?} or the defendant's lawyers. I'm not blaming anybody because I don't care who wins or loses or what argument they're making that is going to piss everybody off.

    Now, I fully expect to be judged about not caring so fire away.

    Obviously, I do care how the lawyers argument sounds, because that is what my initial comment and all the following comments I made were about.

    Well, Punk, if it will make you happy, I hope you get the outcome you desire. Whatever happens will happen and we'll move on from there.

    And, once again, rather than your own opinion of the questions I raised, you were muddying the waters by arguing a point you don't care about and against a point I wasn't making.

    Well that was certainly not my intention. I was sympathizing with the lawyers. Maybe I should have sympathized with the lawyers on both sides!?!

    You don't care about the case.
    You don't care about the effect the case has on public opinion.
    Those are the answers I was seeking.
    That should have been your initial response if that is how you personally feel.
    And I continue to think it's a shame you don't care.

    Well, to be completely honest... in this rare moment of bleeding candor... I didn't actually realize I didn't care until we had discussed it the way we did, and I'm not proud of the fact that it turns out that I don't care who wins the case or whether it makes them look bad.

    And no, our resident defenders of police brutality despite the supposed legal restrictions and limitations is nothing like my comparison. In those cases, I am arguing the actions do not justify the reactions... in other words, I am challenging the legality of the reactions.
    Very different.

    Well, I'm just comparing the fact that lawyers and law enforcement officers and those in other professions who have taken oaths to protect and/or defend have a job to do and sometimes it gets brutal, and it ain't always going to look nice from a public relations perspective. Oh, the humanity... and we're all of us human, including the oath keepers. :)

  84. [84] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick

    You rock.

    Literally.

    You are a rock solid individual, even if you don't care about the case.

    Thank you for your responses, and I apologize for feeling the need to go on and on until I was satisfied.

    I think it was Popeye who first said-
    I am what I am.

    And I like you too.
    And I particularly love your generous spirit for saying you wouldn't kill me.

    A

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    84

    You rock.

    Literally.

    It's true. A couple years ago, I had to have extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to remove a large stone from my kidney. I spent my entire life making it, and a rock that size simply cannot be passed on one's own.

    You are a rock solid individual, even if you don't care about the case.

    I'm not following it, but please let me know what happens in it since you are. Hey, does that count as caring at least a wee bit?!

    Thank you for your responses, and I apologize for feeling the need to go on and on until I was satisfied.

    No apologies... this time. ;)

    I think it was Popeye who first said-
    I am what I am.

    Popeye sounding a lot like God... Exodus 3:14 KJV.

    And I particularly love your generous spirit for saying you wouldn't kill me.

    LOL :D

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]