ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [436] -- Trump Dumps Top Cop

[ Posted Friday, May 12th, 2017 – 16:49 PDT ]

We always wanted to kick off with an authentic tabloid headline, and this week just seemed like the perfect time. "Trump Dumps Top Cop" just seems somehow appropriate -- we've got a tabloid president, so why not go whole hog on the tabloid headlines?

This week will go down in American political history as the week people stopped comparing Donald Trump to Andrew Jackson, and instead began comparing Trump to a different Oval Office predecessor, Richard Nixon. If we had a dollar for every time the word "Nixonian" was written or uttered onscreen this week, we could retire tomorrow.

At this point it's hard not to call Trump Nixonian -- and that was true before today's threats about possible "tapes" made in the White House ("James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!"), and about the possibility of just ending press conferences altogether. With that thrown into the mix, it's hard to come up with any other descriptor than "Nixonian."

Even Nixon's own presidential library had the occasion to (1) troll the sitting president, (2) have some fun, and (3) boost the reputation of Richard M. Nixon's presidency. We're betting they've never seen such a trifecta before! Here's what they tweeted in the midst of all the frenzy: "FUN FACT: President Nixon never fired the Director of the FBI #FBIDirector #notNixonian."

A Republican House member went one step further, with a full-Godwin dive into the fray: "America has overcome amazing challenges that Donald Trump, as frightening as he is to some people -- small potatoes compared to Nazi Germany." Man, when that's the best defense your own party is out there making -- that you're small potatoes compared to Hitler -- then you know you've had a bad week.

As for those Trump "tapes," we will (of course) probably never get to hear any existing tapes of Trump talking privately with James Comey, for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that when Trump reviews the tapes, they'll most likely show he misremembered the conversation entirely. Trump is famous for listening to his own brain rather than objective evidence, even when his nose is rubbed in the inevitable inconsistencies. "I'm sorry, sir, but I cannot comment on ongoing investigations" becomes, in Trump's memory: "I am totally loyal to you personally, and by the way, you're not under investigation." So what's he going to do when he reads the actual transcript or listens to the actual tape? Publicly admit it? Doubtful.

The second reason Trump's tapes will never be heard is that they'd most likely just conveniently erase them. Nixon's 18-minute gap would become an 18-terabyte gap on a hard drive somewhere. Tapes? What tapes? See, Trump used quotation marks around "tapes," so they never existed. Nothing to see here, please move along....

And the third reason we'll likely never hear those tapes is that it would take an honest Congress devoted to uncovering the truth, and, well, we don't have anything like that currently. So we personally don't expect to be hearing the Trump tapes (oh, excuse us, Trump "tapes") any time soon.

It's been another whirlwind of a week in politics, so let's run through it as quickly as possible. Trump was supposed to be riding high this week, after the House passed the blazing bag of dog poop known as the "A.H.C.A." -- the Republican replacement answer to Obamacare. The more people learn what is in this bill, the more they hate it. But Trump, true to form, stomped all over his own victory lap, and tossed a grenade into the political world instead.

Monday, Sally Yates testified before a Senate committee, and revealed no enormous bombshells, but did sharpen the focus on the firing of Michael Flynn -- which took 18 days longer than it should have. On the same day, the story broke that James Comey had seriously misstated the truth in his testimony last week about his entrance into the electoral process last year.

But Donald Trump didn't take the obvious route, and fire Comey for flat-out lying to Congress, instead he manufactured a completely and utterly unbelievable reason for doing so. Astonishingly, he apparently thought everyone -- Democrats included -- would cheer this move, showing how monstrously wrong his political instincts can be, at times. Here's how the story initially broke:

President Trump fired F.B.I. Director James B. Comey on Tuesday, at the recommendation of senior Justice Department officials who said he had treated Hillary Clinton unfairly and in doing so damaged the credibility of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department.

. . .

"The president has accepted the recommendation of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general regarding the dismissal of the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters in the White House briefing room. The firing is effective "immediately," he said.

Turns out the only part of all that that was true was that Comey was fired immediately. Everything else turned out to be nothing short of moonbeams and fairy dust. Democrats didn't exactly cheer, instead they outright laughed at Trump's stated reason, because the idea that Trump would fire Comey because he was too hard on Hillary Clinton is, of course, a monstrous joke.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell both backed Trump's initial version. McConnell's wife, we'd all do well to remember, is a member of Trump's cabinet.

The day after the Tuesday Afternoon Massacre, conservatives were already questioning the rationale for the firing. By the end of the week, Charles Krauthammer had called it "a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards."

Others in the media were just as incredulous, generating headlines like: "The White House's Laughable Spin About Comey Now Lies In Smoking Ruins." This soon turned into a flood of disbelief, as story after story after story pointed out how many lies were being told from the White House Briefing Room podium, on a regular basis.

As it turns out, the guy who wrote the initial letter was threatening to quit, if the White House didn't stop pushing all the blame for Comey's firing off on him. A resignation in the middle of this mess would have only looked worse for the Trump administration, so they quickly backed off this claim. Since Sean Spicer was off in the midst of all this, the flailing and spinning was left to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who didn't exactly emerge from her trial by fire unscathed.

Trump himself generated a lot of the bad press, after doing an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, where he just went ahead and admitted that "this Russia thing with Trump" was the real reason for firing Comey, and furthermore that he had decided to do so last week and the two Justice Department letters were nothing short of the creation of a bogus narrative for Trump to hide behind.

If any more evidence of the delusional nature of how Trump sees politics were necessary, Trump quickly scheduled a stop at the F.B.I., where he thought he'd be warmly received. But then the meeting was cancelled:

The White House nixed tentative plans for Trump to visit F.B.I. headquarters today after the president was warned that he would "not be greeted warmly" at the agency, per NBC. F.B.I. officials made it clear the presidential visit would "not draw many smiles or cheers" after Trump unceremoniously fired a very popular director.

Or, in an unrelated bit of Trumpian delusion, how about Trump claiming he coined the phrase "prime the pump" in an Economist interview? Trump claimed he "came up with it a couple of days ago" and "thought it was good." Um, maybe because people have been using the expression in relation to the government and the economy for roughly 100 years?

But what truly took the prize for being politically tone-deaf this week was Trump meeting in the Oval Office with two high-ranking Russian government officials. And not letting in the American press, while allowing Russian photographers to come in (and maybe plant a few bugs while they were there).

That's the week that was. By the end of it, Trump was tweeting to Rosie O'Donnell once again (you just can't make this stuff up). Oh, and threatening Comey with "tapes," while threatening the existence of any press conferences at all. Just another week in Trump's paradise. Anyone sick of "winning" yet?

Oh, just in case everyone's forgotten -- Donald Trump has not even been in office for four months yet. We aren't even one-twelfth of the way through this long national nightmare.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have three Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, and none of them even have anything to do with Donald Trump. So let's get right to it.

Our first MIDOTW award goes out to New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who really deserves a "Profiles In Courage" award as well. Landrieu oversaw the removal of the second of four Confederate monuments in his city this week, and he explained his reasons in a column he wrote for the Washington Post:

The record is clear: New Orleans's Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and P. G. T. Beauregard statues were erected with the goal of rewriting history to glorify the Confederacy and perpetuate the idea of white supremacy. These monuments stand not as mournful markers of our legacy of slavery and segregation, but in reverence of it. They are an inaccurate recitation of our past, an affront to our present and a poor prescription for our future.

The right course, then, is to excise these symbols of injustice. The Battle of Liberty Place monument was not built to commemorate the fallen law enforcement officers of the racially integrated New Orleans police and state militia. It was meant to honor members of the Crescent City White League, the citizens who killed them. That kind of "honor" has no place in an American city. So, last month, we took the monument down.

This wasn't easy to accomplish, either. It took two years of review, legal challenges, and death threats against "nearly every heavy-crane company in southern Louisiana." The original firm hired to do the work had a car firebombed. So, like we said, a mere Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award is nowhere near enough, but it'll have to do.

Our second MIDOTW award goes to Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, for coming up with a brilliant tactical idea for House Democrats to use, from now until Election Day, 2018. Since Republicans are terrified to hold town hall meetings with their constituents to explain their vote on the GOP healthcare bill, Democrats should "adopt a district" and do it for them. A Salon story explains:

On Monday, Maloney traveled north to attend a town hall in a neighboring district represented by Republican Rep. John Faso, R-N.Y. Maloney suggested that other Democrats take up his "adopt a district" tactic with other evasive GOP colleagues.

"Maybe a Democrat ought to go into every district where a Republican who supported Trumpcare won't hold a town hall meeting and do it for them," he said. "Sit in that chair and say I'll stand here and answer your questions until your own congressman starts doing his job," he said on MSNBC on Friday.

. . .

Maloney said he came up with the idea to "adopt a district" when Faso's constituents, apparently unable to reach their representative, called his office on the day of the House vote on Trumpcare. Faso held a "tele-town hall" in March, before last week's vote to repeal and replace Obamacare but cited a scheduling conflict to explain why he skipped Monday's town hall.

"If at any time the current congressman wants to come here and do his job, well, I will pack up and I will leave," Maloney said to Faso's constituents Monday night. "If he walks in right now, I will hand him this microphone and I will go home. That's how it should be. But until he is here to answer these questions, I am going to be here answering these questions. Let him stand on his own two feet and explain this vote to you."

He pledged to the constituents of the Republican district: "As long as [Faso] keeps dodging town hall meetings, I will keep coming back."

Other Democrats are apparently beginning to use the same tactic, in districts neighboring their own. This is the most brilliant political tactic we've heard in a long time from Democrats, and we have to say we heartily encourage this trend in the hopes that it will spread like wildfire. If we're going to take back the House, this is one thing that'll help, to put it mildly. Well done, Representative Maloney!

And our third Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is a group award. Every Democrat serving in the Vermont state legislature who voted this week to legalize recreational marijuana deserves their own MIDOTW.

This is historic, because if the governor signs it, it will be the first time recreational marijuana is legalized through the legislative process rather than through a ballot initiative. Vermont politicians are doing what their constituents obviously want them to do, which shouldn't be all that unusual, really. Nevertheless, it is a clear measure of the growing acceptance of legalization that the politicians aren't terrified to act any more.

Unfortunately, Vermont currently has a Republican governor. He's being coy right now, and refusing to say whether he'll sign the measure or not. On the bright side, he hasn't just come right out and vetoed it yet, so there's still hope. The bill does not have a veto-proof majority, but if it fails this time around, perhaps next year it will.

In any case, we think that all Vermont politicians who voted for legalization in such a historic fashion deserve a group MIDOTW award for their efforts.

[Congratulate New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu on his official contact page, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney on his House contact page, and all the Vermont legislators via the Vermont legislature's webpage, to let all of them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty easy, this week. Former House member Corrine Brown of Florida was convicted of 18 counts of corruption this week. Here are the main points, from the Miami Herald story:

Former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown could spend the rest of her life in prison after being found guilty of taking money from a charity that was purported to be giving scholarships to poor students.

The Thursday verdict came after prosecutors outlined a pattern of fraud by Brown, 70, and her top aide that included using hundreds of thousands of dollars from the One Door for Education Foundation for lavish parties, trips and shopping excursions. She was convicted of 18 of the 22 charges against her, including lying on her taxes and on her congressional financial disclosure forms.

For shame, Representative Brown. For shame.

Which is why she is easily our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Hard to top that one, really.

[Ex-Representative Corrine Brown is a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for such persons.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 436 (5/12/17)

Since we've got Nixon on the brain this week, we're going to use all the talking points to list just seven of the most notable similarities between Tricky Dick and Lyin' Don. This shouldn't be seen as any sort of definitive list. After all, anything could happen tomorrow morning to create a whole new raft of such comparisons.

But because of this monomania in the talking points, we've got to use this introduction to toss out the most important talking point for Democrats to start using. Point out -- as forcefully as possible -- how Team Trump is radically undermining their own credibility on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis. Here's just one suggestion:

"How can anyone in their right mind believe one single thing Donald Trump says anymore? How can anyone take anything a Trump spokesperson says as nothing short of utter moose poop, at this point? How many lies have to be uncovered before the entire world sees Trump and all his spokespeople as nothing more than a group of boys crying "Wolf!" all the time? Why anyone would believe a single thing from the White House press briefing room podium at this point is beyond me...."

This cuts directly to the heart of their credibility, which they have been busily undercutting all week long. The only response to some farfetched explanation from the White House at this point should be: "Yeah, right -- tell me another funny story!"

OK, with that out of the way, let's go ahead and take a deep dive into the wonderful world of Nixon.

 

1
   A secret plan

How does thee compare to Tricky Dick? Let us count the ways...

"When both Richard Nixon and Donald Trump were campaigning for the presidency, they both told voters they had a 'secret plan to end the war.' In Nixon's case, it was Vietnam, and in Trump's it was a plan to beat the Islamic State. Neither plan ever appeared, because it was all nothing short of political flim-flammery designed to fool the voters."

 

2
   Before and after

Then there was the election itself....

"Both Nixon and Trump were absolutely obsessed with their election. In Nixon's case, this happened before the election, when he authorized a break-in at the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building. He wanted the inside scoop on the Democratic plans. He went on to win one of the biggest landslides in American history. In Trump's case, he became obsessed with his victory after the fact, because it was so historically small. Trump is still obsessed with rewriting history, claiming his Electoral College victory was a landslide (when it wasn't), his inaugural was the best-attended (ditto), and showing visitors county maps of the election months after he was sworn into office. Now he's just announced a blue-ribbon commission will be looking into "voter fraud" -- because Trump still has the delusion that three million illegal votes were cast, all of them for Hillary Clinton. He's still incredibly insecure because he lost the popular vote, and now he's spending government money to prove a fiction. At least Nixon's win was so big he didn't have to obsess about it after the fact."

 

3
   Call the plumbers

This one's pretty obvious, although few have so far noticed.

"The White House secret group that orchestrated the Watergate break-in was known as 'The Plumbers.' The group, which included G. Gordon Liddy, Howard Hunt, and Charles Colson, was originally formed to investigate leaks right after the Pentagon Papers scandal. Nixon was obsessed with plugging such leaks, hence: 'The Plumbers.' Donald Trump, ever since the Russia election scandal broke, has insisted that the real story everyone should be focused on is the fact that such information leaked to the press in the first place. There were reports this week that James Comey was fired in large part because he refused to dial down the Russia investigation and instead devote all his time and energy into finding the leakers. The similarities between Trump and Nixon in obsessing over leaks is notable. For both men, this obsession led them directly into trouble, too."

 

4
   Enemies list

Again, an obvious comparison.

"Nixon infamously had an 'enemies list,' and once you were on that list you didn't get off it. As John Dean wrote in a 1971 memo: 'This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly -- how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.' Team Nixon contemplated using I.R.S. audits and even litigation and prosecution against members of the enemies list. Nothing quite so blatant has surfaced from Team Trump, but can anyone doubt that Trump has his own enemies list and would stop at nothing to 'screw' people on it? Just look at his behavior over the past year or so."

 

5
   You're fired!

This one is the current favorite in the mainstream media, of course.

"Nixon was infamously responsible for the 'Saturday Night Massacre.' Trump just had his own 'Tuesday Afternoon Massacre.' Both presidents were unafraid of firing Justice Department officials when they refused to stop investigating the president. It is entirely fitting that the biggest scandal of Trump's presidency to date was the use of his signature catchphrase: 'You're fired!' The irony is rather stark, wouldn't you say?"

 

6
   Testing... 1... 2... 3...

Today, of course, Trump ratcheted things up to a whole new Nixonian level, in two different ways.

"Donald Trump just publicly threatened James Comey -- the man he just fired -- in a form of political blackmail. Comey was told bluntly to shut up and stop leaking to the press, or Trump would produce tapes of their conversations that would prove something or another (according to Trump). We leave this one as an exercise for the student, to see how easy it is to draw the lines from Trump's administration to Nixon's."

 

7
   Stonewall!

Again, Trump is just making this too easy....

"Richard Nixon's strategy for dealing with press inquiries into Watergate was a simple one: stonewall them. Give them nothing. Build a stone wall and hide behind it. Donald Trump, this morning, just threatened to end press conferences altogether, and only accept written questions. Even Nixon never went that far, it's worth pointing out. This happened after this week's press conferences had devolved into a contest to see who could tell the biggest whoppers from the podium. Trump tweeted in response: 'As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!' Boy, you can say that again, Mister President! Indeed, that may be the perfect summation of his presidency so far: 'It is not possible for Trump surrogates to say anything from the podium with perfect accuracy.' After this week, nobody's arguing that point, that's for sure."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

242 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [436] -- Trump Dumps Top Cop”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    On the same day, the story broke that James Comey had seriously misstated the truth in his testimony last week about his entrance into the electoral process last year.

    I haven't seen his testimony yet but, I would really appreciate it if you could elaborate on this ... what did Comey flat out lie about?

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    This week will go down in American political history as the week people stopped comparing Donald Trump to Andrew Jackson, and instead began comparing Trump to a different Oval Office predecessor, Richard Nixon.

    donald has never been particularly jacksonian, although it seems he'd like to be seen that way. jackson grew up poor, enlisted at age 12, fought a hundred actual duels, beat people up in the street. jackson owned slaves, killed and displaced countless nations of indians, and adopted the jackass as the mascot of his party after some opponents made a play on his name, just to show that he could take it.

    didn't you write something about this once?

    JL

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Here's a link:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/09/james-comey-just-stepped-in-it-big-time/?utm_term=.f4cd5ddee670

    Comey lied about how the emails got on Weiner's computer (an auto-backup program, not being forwarded from Huma Abedin), and other things. ProPublica broke the story originally, I think.

    nypoet22 -

    It's mostly Trump who likes comparing himself to Andy J...

    Everyone else has moved on to Nixon. Forgot to even mention Kissinger's surprise appearance this week in the White House...

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I'll readily admit that I am not very tech-savvy but, isn't Huma Abedin responsible for the auto-backup? My point being that it doesn't really matter whether she manually forwarded the emails or caused them to be auto backed up from one of her devices, right?

    Anyway, here is the link to the FBI letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supplementing (not correcting) Comey's testimony. Clearly, according to the FBI explanation, Comey didn't lie about anything.
    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-05-09%20FBI%20to%20CEG%20-%20Comey%20Testimony%20Supplement.pdf

    This is just another example of how the media gets it wrong so many times and why Trump's constant claims about "fake news" resonate with so many people.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I just lost a comment ... it had one link to the FBI letter that clearly shows Comey didn't lie about anything.

    Does it matter whether emails were manually forwarded by Abedin or auto-backed up from her personal devices? I mean, seriously?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It really sounds to me, Chris, like you and a lot of the media just have it in for Comey because you believe he cost Hillary the election. I can certainly understand that deeply felt anger but, it is misguided.

    I have watched more than my fair share of government officials testifying before Congress. The public testimony given by Director Comey before any number of congressional committees consistently demonstrate his independence, integrity and candor. His last appearance was no exception.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is the link to the FBI letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to supplement (not correct) the testimony given by Director Comey on May 3rd:
    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-05-09%20FBI%20to%20CEG%20-%20Comey%20Testimony%20Supplement.pdf

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just tried to post the link again and it failed.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, further to [4], Comey was describing what led him to inform Congress that the investigation was re-opened and looking into new emails discovered on Weiner's laptop. Why is how those emails got there an issue?

    This is hardly an outright lie and it surprises me that you would call it that way.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The link that won't post here is the link to the FBI letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to supplement (not correct) Comey's testimony.

    It is quite instructive ... as is the testimony itself, which I am still trying to finish viewing.

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    I just tried to post the link again and it failed.

    Liz, if it's a link from NRO (National Review Online) that is why...

    The Left and the Leftist MSM have had it in for Comey every since he did his job in an extraordinarily self-less and courageous manner..

    That's why their hypocrisy now, claiming that Comey is their long-lost bestest buddy is so especially galling...

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    "Richard Nixon's strategy for dealing with press inquiries into Watergate was a simple one: stonewall them. Give them nothing. Build a stone wall and hide behind it. Donald Trump, this morning, just threatened to end press conferences altogether, and only accept written questions.

    Hmmmmmm What other politician do we know that sounds like that??

    What other politician made a career of stone-walling the press??

    Anyone?? Anyone???

    I'll give ya'all a hint.. She is known by the affectionate moniker, NOT-45.....

    Give up??? :D

    So, once again we see the double standard...

    For politicians with a '-D' after their name, stonewalling the press is acceptable..

    For politicians with a '-R' after their name, stonewalling the press is a grievous sin...

    Moving on....

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Why is how those emails got there an issue?

    Because it removes the question of intent. If Clinton's assistant forwarded those email to her husband for him to print out for her, then that shows intent. If those emails were simply being automatically backed up on the phone without her realizing it, then there was no intent.

    Comey's screw up is important because it demonstrates a lack of understanding for what actually occurred. If the director is making decisions without grasping the facts of the case, then that is a very BAD thing!

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    I honestly don't understand the animosity that ya'all have against Director Comey..

    Comey never lied about anything, did he?? Everything thing he said about NOT-45 in the run-up to the election was 1000% factual...

    All Director Comey did was ensure that the American people knew these facts..

    I am reminded of an old MISSION IMPOSSIBLE episode.. There was this corrupt politician (played by SWAT's Steve Forrest) with mob ties who was running for mayor or some such... The IMF's mission wasn't to kill the politician or stop him from running.. The mission was to simply make sure that the voters had all the facts about this guy before going to the polls...

    How is this any different than what Comey did?? Comey bent over backwards NOT to prejudice the election by not prosecuting NOT-45, which he should have.That there was "no intent" is laughable because NOTHING in the statute requires intent for prosecution...

    But prosecuting a candidate was, unfortunately, a step too far for Comey.. That was Comey's ONLY mistake in this whole sad affair..

    The Left Wingery should lick Comey's boots for what he did....

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Because it removes the question of intent. If Clinton's assistant forwarded those email to her husband for him to print out for her, then that shows intent. If those emails were simply being automatically backed up on the phone without her realizing it, then there was no intent.

    The relevant statute that NOT-45 and Abedin would be prosecuted under has absolutely NOTHING to do with intent..

    Intent is not a requirement to prosecute...

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    As to the alleged Russian hacking of NOT-45's campaign emails, do ya'all want to know what's REALLY funny??

    If the tables had been turned and if the Russians had hacked the Trump campaign emails and exposed them all for the world to see, ya'all would be saying the EXACT same thing I am saying. That the Russians did this country a solid by making sure that this information became public..

    Don't bother denying it because EVERYONE here knows that it's true..

    The only difference is that we would all be in complete agreement on that point...

    ALL the blame and ALL the responsibility begin and end with NOT-45.. She was a shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign...

    That and that alone is why she lost...

    Not Russians, Not Comey, Not Misogyny, Not Nuttin' but her and her alone...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    NOT-45 should be on her KNEES in front of Comey, thanking him profusely that she is still allowed to walk around free...

    Now that Comey is out, NOT-45's freedom is in serious doubt...

    If NOT-45 had more than 2 brain cells to rub together, she would be as quiet as a mouse and hope that President Trump just forgets she exists...

    Because now that we have people in the DOJ who look at the LAW first and foremost.... There is a VERY real possibility that NOT-45 WILL be be prosecuted...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Some of the emails were indeed forwarded manually by Ms Abedin. Most of them were auto backed up from her personal devices.

    Comey did not lie about that or anything else.

    This is what is at issue here.

    Read the letter sent by the FBI to the Judiciary committee supplementing Comey's testimony.

    This really does show an animosity toward Comey that is entirely misguided.

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, everybody who still cares about Clinton's emails, raise your hands. Thought so.

    You want to beat up on Hillary some more. I get it.
    It's addictive.

    But it means nothing, and does nothing to advance the current conversation. And reading it over and over again is soooooo boring.

    Hey, I heard that the Senate Intelligence Committee just got a deal from the Treasury to see records of Trump transactions. From the Money Laundering section, no less. Does Mnuchin know about this?

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Okay, everybody who still cares about Clinton's emails, raise your hands. Thought so.

    Ya'all keep bringing up NOT-45's emails by why of Director Comey...

    If ya'all wouldn't start none, there wouldn't be none..

    You want to beat up on Hillary some more. I get it.
    It's addictive.

    Of course you get it.. It's EXACTLY what ya'all did with President Bush incessantly for 8+ years... Now that it's your bitch who is getting forked, NOW all of the sudden it's annoying...

    But it means nothing, and does nothing to advance the current conversation. And reading it over and over again is soooooo boring.

    As is ya'all's incessant RUSSIANS DID IT!!! RUSSIANS DID IT!!! over and over.. It does nothing to advance the current conversation and means absolutely nothing because there are no facts to support it..

    Hey, I heard that the Senate Intelligence Committee just got a deal from the Treasury to see records of Trump transactions. From the Money Laundering section, no less. Does Mnuchin know about this?

    Hay, I heard that Odumbo and NOT-45 got caught in the broom closet sans any clothes...

    Do you think Bubba knows about this???

    See how ridiculous you sound??

    I get it.. You are a slave to your Party and don't want to discuss anything that would put your Party or your bitch in a bad light..

    Tough titties, sunshine... This is a REALITY based forum, not some HuffPoop DailyKshit where only Democrat/Left Wing "truth" is allowed...

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I'm guessing you had a good time writing this column. I know I had a good time reading it.

    Yes, the Trump administration is very Nixonian. Anybody who lived through the Nixon years as an adult can easily see the parallels. Phrases like "modified limited hang out" are being dusted off and sent into action.

    There are some key differences though, beyond the print vs electronic revolution.

    It took Nixon one whole term in office to "get his balls caught trying to sit on the folding step-ladder" (one of my father's more colorful phrases). Trump pulled this off (I'll leave that wording) in just 100 days! Now THAT's efficiency!

    Nixon was a career politician who knew how D.C. worked and where the bodies are buried. Trump has zero prior government experience and he quickly forgets where the bodies are.

    Nixon was a more polished liar, Trump is more into mass produced disposable lies. It's sort of like Sears vs Walmart, which nicely sums up the generational differences. Nixon's lies were crafted by American workers, Trump outsources them overseas, notably to Russia. I the Russians are extremely happy with the partnership.

    Which brings up the other key then/now parallel: dysfunctional government.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    The firing of the FBI director and its continuing aftermath should start the process of removing Trump from office.

    This is not the time to be throwing around unwarranted accusations about Comey lying to Congress. Comey did no such thing.

    Now is the time to get serious about Trump and the daily damage he is doing to your country.

    But, just to be clear and factual, the emails we are talking about here were BOTH manually forwarded AND auto backed up.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    But, just to be clear and factual, the emails we are talking about here were BOTH manually forwarded AND auto backed up.

    And to be clear-er and factual-er, it doesn't MATTER how those emails found their way to Weiner's laptop..

    It's still a crime...

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Can't wait to read the articles in a month or so with titles like "Here's what Trump was doing while we were busy focusing on Comey".

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    With some luck, we won't have to worry about what Trump is doing in a month or so. Or, a bit longer, if necessary.

    And, the Comey situation is the impetus for that.

  26. [26] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    delayed response to comment 69 from In Praise of Court Jesters

    "It never occurred to me that 'poverty' could be considered a straw man"

    When the discussion is about oppression of whole populations through US regime change wars, US backed coups to remove democratically elected leaders, and the US supporting oppressive regimes of all kinds, changing the subject to another topic in order to attempt to claim those things aren't central to the traditions of our establishment duopoly is indeed a straw man argument.

    "All of the countries that you listed have had both good and bad experiences with America, and America has an equally checkered history with most of them."

    None of those countries have launched regime change wars on America or caused the installation or maintenance of an oppressive government on Americans.

    Native Americans and slaves "had both good and bad experiences with America" too... but it doesn't change the fact that our oppressive policies were real. They existed. It happened. And if a journalist notes that horrible history, pointing out that slaves were provided with housing and some food doesn't make the journalist wrong.

    "The point of the Greenwald article was his presumption that embrace of dictators and abuse of other countries is 'central' to American foreign policy, to which I reply 'bullshit'."

    It's not a "presumption", it's historical fact. And it continues to this day.
    Wars and coups and support for brutal regimes don't happen over and over and over again by "mistake". And the fanciful notion that "our intentions and goals remain the very embodiment of decency" is factually inaccurate.

    Overthrowing democracies, wars, and supporting oppression are in no way, shape or form "decency".
    You literally have to be a sociopath to equate death and destruction and the resulting violations of human rights (including mass impoverishment btw) with "decency" or claim we had good intentions that went wrong due to "mistakes" when you look at the historical pattern.

    "But go on with your false equivalences, carry buckets of water for much worse regimes, and by all means, never acknowledge America as the shining city on the hill that the rest of the world looks up to."

    You are in serious denial if you think the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, or any of the other nations we unjustly attacked weren't "worse" for the people than the governments they had.

    You are in serious denial if you think the war in Iraq didn't create more human rights violations (death being the ultimate of such violations) than the oppressive regime in Iran.

    I wasn't making equivalencies... our policies are demonstrably worse... and they aren't "false" either.

    The war in Iraq, the military dictatorship we supported in Brazil, the military coup we supported in Egypt, or any number of other examples were factually worse, with more oppression and extrajudicial killings than Putin's Russia.
    Women and journalists in Iran have demonstrably more rights that those in Saudi Arabia.

    You are the one "carrying water" for a false myth of "decency" for a "shining city on a hill" that has wrought havoc around the world in the name of "national security" and "economic interests".

    And I'd note that when I called on you to substantiate your claims of "liberating billions", you didn't even attempt it.
    When I asked you to explain how wars, coups and support for oppression amount to "decency" you resorted to right wing platitudes and empty assertions and whatabouttery.
    When I asked you to substantiate that the world looks up to us, you just repeated the claim as if that makes it true.

    You aren't debating, you're dodging. And you're ignoring facts and history to do it.

    Now, if you want to change the subject and talk about whether our positive influences and actions outweigh the negative, I am game.
    Let's do it.

    But that discussion would include a lot of ugly realities too... the quantification of the lives of the Iraqis and Vietnamese, etc. that we killed, the wiping out of whole lineages by military dictators we supplied and funded and cheered on, the destruction of whole ecosystems, cities and heritage, etc... and how we decide to value those things may actually result in a net negative result... unless you only want to talk about the benefits to Americans.

    And none of the positives would make Greenwald or I wrong about the negatives from our ongoing support for oppressive regimes, the ever growing list of regime change wars, or the ever growing list of US backed coups that is a central feature of US foreign policy supported by the establishment in both parties.

    A

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Now, if you want to change the subject

    Yeah let's. Because if the subject is to be "American douchebaggery", I'm not up for it. I'm a patriot, every bit as much as Michale says he is, even if HE won't admit it. I think that, all things considered, and on the whole, America's role in the world has been positive, and I'm not in the mood to argue the point.

    Enough.

  28. [28] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Not sure why the spam filter took a dislike to you. All your comments have been restored. Sorry for the delay...

    -CW

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No problem, Chris ... patience is a virtue that doesn't come easily in my case.

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Comey testified that hundreds of thousands of emails had been sent to Weiner's phone by his wife. That was not true. The vast majority of the emails were backed up onto the system without their realizing it. The FBI sent the Senate committee a signed correction by the asst. director.

    Many of the emails that were deemed to be classified by the FBI had not been given that designation when they were sent.

    This is part of the problem with our government agencies' security protocols. Clinton can send an email to the FBI director that isn't considered classified. The FBI forwards that email to the DOD director. Some of the info in Clinton's original email is deemed classified by the DOD. So you have an email that is considered classified by some agencies on multiple servers. If I put in a FOIA request for the email with the FBI, they will release it to me. If I try the DOD, they will claim it is exempt from being released. What is worse, if I am caught with the email by someone at the DOD, I can be arrested for being in possession of classified documents. While it is unlikely to occur, this scenario is still a possibility.

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Just to be clear, I don't think Comey intentionally lied. You had asked why it mattered and I was just trying to provide you with an answer. While I think Obama could have fired Comey for giving an interview explaining why he wasn't going to press charges against Clinton, I understand why he chose not to. Comey was a good director, overall. How he was fired is disgraceful, and hopefully he will have the last laugh.

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ/CW,

    so, if what you're saying is correct, comey said a few things that later turned out not to be the case. the e-mails may have auto-forwarded instead of being consciously sent, so the FBI sent a retraction. in my book, that's pretty far from saying he lied about it.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Just to be clear, I don't think Comey intentionally lied.

    sorry, i hadn't refreshed yet when i posted. exactly, when someone unintentionally doesn't tell the truth, it's called a mistake. people make them all the time, and the FBI retracted it. in my mind, that doesn't bear negatively on comey, it's just part of the impossible situation he was in. so, claims that he lied are unfounded.

    JL

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    that doesn't bear negatively on comey, it's just part of the impossible situation he was in.

    What did bear negatively on Comey was his chattiness during the press conference when he exonerated Clinton, but publicly excoriated her to the press. Obama could have ended Comey's tenure right there, on the grounds of 'WTF?', but didn't, due to Comey's sterling reputation. Besides, we were hearing a lot of WTF things at that time, and even Comey's inability to shut up seemed minor compared to Trump's Extravaganza of Bullshit.

    But the outcome was inevitable anyway when Chatty Cathy, er, Comey, met Thinskin McPresident.

    Unfortunately for Trump, that amounts in this case to Obstruction of Justice, and even as the WH interviews replacements and pretends that everything is normal nothingtoseehere, it's certain the Blowhard Billionaire from Queens will someday have to face a reckoning on that score.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    What did bear negatively on Comey was his chattiness during the press conference when he exonerated Clinton, but publicly excoriated her to the press.

    I disagree.

    Why do you think Comey said what he said in his public statement (not a press conference, by the way)? Why do you think the FBI director felt obligated to present that public statement.

    It seems that you are forgetting something that is extremely pertinent to how the FBI handled this entire mess ...

    It's never a good idea to ignore context.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I lost another comment in response to Russ, Chris, and I failed to back it up.

    Thanks in advance for retrieving it for me!

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz,

    See here, italicized, Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing at the FBI website.

    I think, prior to going public with that news, Comey came under a lot of pressure from within the bureau by folks who wanted to see a different outcome. Perhaps he realized as he tried to convince them of the soundness of his decision that he would have to do the same publicly if he wanted to avoid a tsunami of second-guessing.

    He learned the hard way, I suppose, something that we used to tell our clients: it's a whole lot easier to talk yourself into trouble than out of it.

    In all fairness to your opinion, I'll note that Bill Maher pointed out last night correctly that all this could have been avoided if Bill Clinton had simply waved at Loretta Lynch's plane as it went by, instead of boarding it to say hello.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Comey testifed that hundreds of thousands of emails had been sent to Weiner's phone by his wife. That was not true. The vast majority of the emails were backed up onto the system without their realizing it. The FBI sent the Senate committee a signed correction by the asst. director.

    Actually, Comey did not testify to that at all - not in any way, shape or form!

    And, the letter sent to the committee by the FBI was meant to supplement Comey's testimony, not correct it.

    Here is the gist of what director Comey said in his May 3rd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

    Comey testified that FBI investigators found "thousands" (NOT hundreds of thousands) of secretary Clinton's emails in the meta data on Weiner's laptop (Comey never mentioned Weiner's phone, by the way). These emails were potentially extremely pertinent in that they could be the missing emails (which were never found) which might show if she was acting with bad intent.

    He said that, "somehow" her emails were being forwarded to Weiner's laptop by her assistant Huma Abedin and they included classified information.

    Comey did not testify any further on these issues.

    Press reports claiming otherwise are simply wrong - not terribly surprising, I hasten to add. Chalk the press confusion up to lazy media types who very often see and hear only what they wish to see and hear. :)

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In all fairness to your opinion, I'll note that Bill Maher pointed out last night correctly that all this could have been avoided if Bill Clinton had simply waved at Loretta Lynch's plane as it went by, instead of boarding it to say hello.

    That, of course, is of paramount importance.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which I may have mentioned, once or twice if not more, since this whole sorry affair began.

    If Hillary really wants to know why she lost, she need only look into the mirror and into the eyes of her campaign-sabotaging husband.

  41. [41] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    In all fairness to your opinion, I'll note that Bill Maher pointed out last night correctly that all this could have been avoided if Bill Clinton had simply waved at Loretta Lynch's plane as it went by, instead of boarding it to say hello.

    No, it could have been avoided had Lynch refused to meet with him because of her position and the on-going investigation into Hillary's emails. Everyone blames Bill, but he was just being friendly by saying hello to someone who had worked for him. It was on Lynch to protect the integrity of the investigation if she thought meeting with him would be inappropriate. I still think people made a mountain out of a mole hill regarding this event, but blaming Bill is even a bigger joke!

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    [40] Listen: No, it could have been avoided had Lynch refused to meet with him because of her position and the on-going investigation into Hillary's emails. Everyone blames Bill, but he was just being friendly by saying hello to someone who had worked for him. It was on Lynch to protect the integrity of the investigation if she thought meeting with him would be inappropriate. I still think people made a mountain out of a mole hill regarding this event, but blaming Bill is even a bigger joke!

    Yep.

    The notion that "all this could have been avoided" if Bill Clinton didn't talk to Lynch is nonsense. Which part? The Witch-hunting had been going on and on; the endless fuss about the emails had been going on and on. So WHAT would have been avoided? Comey doing his editorializing? Are you saying Comey wouldn't have felt inclined to editorialize? No one can possibly know that. Nor can we know what OTHER nonsensical bullshit the repubs would have hung their hat on -- they have never needed their scandals to be legitimate -- all they have needed is to be able to repeat them and get enough other people to repeat them, for them to have impact.

    What makes anyone think Comey would have been any less afraid of the pubbies giving him a hard time if Bill/Lynch hadn't happened? You can't seriously think it would be because there was one-less-fake-scandal for them to froth at the mouth over -- they froth in the face of nothing at all. They froth because frothing is what they do, its got NOTHING to do with facts on the ground.

    Comey was afraid of being seen a partisan for not finding HRC guilty of a crime. The Bill/Lynch episode didn't cause that -- what caused it was the scandal factory operated by the GOP and their media machine, which has been running 24/7 for 30 years. He was afraid of the GOP because they've shown they will use their power-of-offices to go after Democrats and anyone seen to not-hate Democrats. He was afraid of the GOP bullies who would be aided and abetted by media figures who carry water for them.

    How many times have you heard: "Can you imagine what would be happening if Hillary Clinton had done (insert crime by Trump)? People say that because it is utterly true, not just of her but of all top Dems. But especially her. It's a quadruple standard Dems are held to -- where every misstep is elevated to a dire mistake or a crime. Meanwhile we literally don't have time to keep track of 45/GOP crimes and lies.

    To say Comey did what he did because Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch is to engage in the classic GOP formulation: "I wouldn't have hit you if you hadn't made me mad." That is the thinking abusers use.

    Comey is responsible for the choices he made, not Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, Comey.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    The notion that "all this could have been avoided" if Bill Clinton didn't talk to Lynch is nonsense ... WHAT would have been avoided?

    The Clinton/Lynch meeting was a very consequential event.

    If that meeting had not occurred, then the AG would not have had to recuse herself from making decisions about the Clinton email investigation and publically defer to the recommendation of the FBI director.

    Comey does not have the kind of professional history that would tend to give any credence to your assessment of his behavior. In other words, there is no basis upon which one can suggest that Comey's actions would not have been different in the absence of Bill Clinton's destructive interference with the FBI investigation of his wife's emails.

  44. [44] 
    dsws wrote:

    Ok, here's the plan for next week: We'll get audio of Trump exonerating himself, supposedly from an illegal Obama wiretap, uploaded to WikiLeaks by Serbian hackers. Trump fans will believe it. The MSM and their experts will regard it as an obvious fake, produced on the cheap by the hackers who posted it on WikiLeaks and bearing clear indications of how it was made.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [40] Hell, maybe Lynch was looking for an excuse to shove the email investigation off onto Comey, and Bill helped her to do that. I don't know, but it makes more sense than that he, of all people, didn't realize the controversy that could follow a private meeting with the AG in a private jet on a Tarmac in full view of national reporters during a political campaign.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [41]: They froth because frothing is what they do.

    That might be my favorite line, ever.

    I agree with you in this sense: the Clinton-Lynch meeting had no impact except to take Lynch out of the picture. What Comey did, he did of his own volition.

    It does provide a handy go-to example to use when talking about Trump's inappropriate harassment of Comey. As you say, if Hillary had done this...

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's a pretty big exception there, Balthasar.

    If there was no Clinton-Lynch meeting there would be no perception of, if not actual, wrongdoing and she wouldn't have had to recuse herself from the investigation and Comey wouldn't have had to do what he did. So, aside from all of that, the meeting had no impact. :)

    Don't ignore context!

  48. [48] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Trump, Pence and war as a way out of the mess

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19088:Wilkerson%3A-Trump-%27Needs-a-Good-War%27-and-Pence-is-Waiting-in-the-Wings-to-Lead-It

    Dems?
    Bueller?

    A

    PS- a warning to the resistance

  49. [49] 
    altohone wrote:

    delayed response to comment 29 from In Praise of Court Jesters

    "I realize that you are criticizing Balthy and neoliberal Dems for being how you THINK I am.."

    Please do elaborate.
    Do you oppose US support for coups against democratically elected governments?
    Do you oppose regime change wars?
    Do you oppose US support for oppressive governments?

    Which part are you saying I got wrong, or are you just pretending in order to argue everything?

    A

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    Can't wait to read the articles in a month or so with titles like "Here's what Trump was doing while we were busy focusing on Comey".

    I know, right..

    One of the reasons I have sworn off of Weigantia is the OH MY GODS!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! hysterics every time Trump farts...

    ****OH MY GODS!!!!!!! TRUMP JUST FARTED!!!!! CALL OUT THE RESISTANCE!!!!!*****

    It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sadly pathetic...

    I said it in the weeks after the election and it is still true today..

    The downright hysterical PTDS is going to become a detriment to the Left Wingery in general and Weigantia in particular...

    Because if SHRILL HYSTERICAL is the only level that Lefties and Weigantians can converse at, they will simply be ignored when something thru SHRILL HYSTERICAL worthy happens..

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Because if SHRILL HYSTERICAL is the only level that Lefties and Weigantians can converse at

    Notable Exceptions Noted....

  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy

    In comment 66 from In Praise of Court Jesters you wrote-
    "Democrats ARE Patriotic Americans, and a lot of them don't see a lot of patriotism in the current administration, who would rather collude with Russians than bargain with Democrats. It isn't the least bit patriotic to let the air and water get polluted, to hand our children's education to mercenary corporations, or to force our sick and elderly to spend their savings on healthcare. Take the Right's faux patriotism and stick it where the flag don't wave"

    I'm still waiting for any actual evidence of collusion with Russia before I join that parade, and I still worry that Dems are serving the needs of the military industrial complex with that narrative that is being used against Trump for attempted political gain.

    Concerns about pollution getting worse under Trump are certainly valid, but Obama's All Of The Above energy policy included opening the Arctic, East Coast, and national forests to drilling and fracking and inaction by his EPA on the issue. Obama's funding for overseas fossil fuel projects by the Export-Import bank are also expected to completely wipe out the gains made by his higher auto emission standards on fuel economy.

    Obama and his Education Secretary supported the privatization/charter school "mercenary corporations", the weakening of teachers unions, and the austerity that greatly reduced the number of public school teachers and their wages... but no doubt Republicans are worse there too.

    Obamacare was a right wing, corporate subsidies approach to health care that continues to force the sick and the elderly to spend their savings and go bankrupt... but DonTcare is inarguably worse.

    And I certainly think fighting for better on all those issues is patriotic, but better than Trump is an extremely low standard.

    In comment 27 you wrote-
    "I'm a patriot, every bit as much as Michale says he is, even if HE won't admit it. I think that, all things considered, and on the whole, America's role in the world has been positive, and I'm not in the mood to argue the point."

    In this discussion, you began by denying the bipartisan reality of the negatives, and I acknowledge your unwillingness to argue the positives, but I'm going to respond anyway.

    I believe a convincing case can be made to support your perspective "on the whole" going back to the founding of our great country, or just going back to WWII when we did indeed liberate hundreds of millions and the Marshall Plan helped spread prosperity.

    But, if you start in the 1950's, or even after 2001, the case becomes a little more difficult to make despite the very real positives resulting from our policies and actions.

    The wording of your response is sufficiently ambiguous to deny it, but if you are implying that questioning the US policies (wars, coups, support for oppressive governments) that violate stated American values is unpatriotic, that supporting those policies is a requirement for patriotism, or even just that remaining silent is patriotic, I would have to disagree.

    Patriotism was used by the Bushies to help sell the illegal war of aggression in Iraq for example, and I think that falls into the faux patriotism category you mentioned.

    The acceptance or silence for the US backed coup in Ukraine, the regime change war in Libya, the regime change war by proxy in Syria, the regime change war in Yemen, US support for the military coup in Egypt, support for Saudi Arabia, etc. all have a faux patriotism tinge.

    Patriotism has been used and is being used to maintain the failing Global War On Terror despite the evidence that it has created more than a 1000% increase in the number of terrorists, increased instability and our risk, decreased our national security, weakened our economy through the misallocation of trillions of dollars that could have been used to strengthen our country, and of course harmed millions of people worldwide.
    And I think that too falls into the faux patriotism category you mentioned.

    I know you don't want to debate it, but in my opinion, patriotic Americans should debate these things. We shouldn't pretend they are positive when they violate our stated values over and over again.

    And again, better than Republicans doesn't mean Dems aren't involved in maintaining and advancing these policies too.
    And I think it would be positive for our country if Democrats separated themselves from support, tolerance or silence on those policies... and it would be politically, economically, and morally beneficial as well.

    A

  53. [53] 
    altohone wrote:

    51
    part two

    And the same conclusion would hold true if Repubs did too... as Trump sort of claimed he would but hasn't.

    A

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    "I'm a patriot, every bit as much as Michale says he is, even if HE won't admit it.

    And yet, you voted for a person who wants OPEN BORDERS and who wants to make the USA simply another cog in a global machine, no better than the worse dictatorship...

    You have a funny definition of "patriotism"...

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    [42] Elizabeth:

    Comey does not have the kind of professional history that would tend to give any credence to your assessment of his behavior. In other words, there is no basis upon which one can suggest that Comey's actions would not have been different in the absence of Bill Clinton's destructive interference with the FBI investigation of his wife's emails

    That entire statement is one gob of speculation.

    And your assertion that BC was "interfering" with the investigation is pure, 100% speculation and projection on your part. Are you now joining Sgt. Schultz in believing you can read minds and KNOW what went on in meetings you didn't attend?

    It is also belied by other articles about Comey that indicate he tended to bathe himself in righteousness (as a guy talking to Politico put it); and that he was extremely concerned about his reputation. Indeed, his behavior seems very much a part of a pattern. He found Hillary innocent of criminal behavior -- that is because she was and we'll give him full marks for following the facts to their inevitable conclusion -- but he was afraid of the Repubs' response so he added his little homily, breaking norms if not downright rules of behavior. Comey liked to be "defiant" occasionally, per what I've read, but not, apparently, to the GOP -- they made him nervous. He then decides to send his stupid letter to Head-Witch-Hunter Chaffetz about what turns out to be the Huma Abedin automated back-up, which has been reported to have been the result of him either fearing internal FBI leaks from HRC-haters AND/OR due to fear the GOP would go ballistic if something was found out later. Bill Clinton doesn't arise at all in these scenarios, does he? It's ultimately about HRC-haters trying to do damage and Comey wanting to be seen as non-partisan.

    [46] Lynch having to recuse herself. -- so you're saying Comey needed a babysitter, and without her he did something dumb? If she's been in charge she'd have stopped him? That's how impressed with him you are?

    Context? How about the context I mentioned: the years long bullying by Repubs which made Comey afraid of simply presenting his conclusion without needing to add his two cents as a sop to the rabid right?

    How about this: Comey is a big boy who's done a hard job with overall distinction, but with the occasional lapse in judgement. You know, like normal human beings who are unable to rise to perfection every minute of every day. Due to the level of his job, his lapses are more consequential than most, just like 45 being a raving criminal loon is more consequential with him as President than with him as a run-of-the-mill Real Estate Money Laundering private citizen.

    In any case, your Clinton-hatred aside, Comey doesn't have to be flawless for you to admire him.

  56. [56] 
    Paula wrote:

    [45] Balthasar: Thanks!

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    And your assertion that BC was "interfering" with the investigation is pure, 100% speculation and projection on your part.

    No, it's 100% fact....

    One can argue that it may not have been Bubba's INTENT to interfere.. Even THAT must be taken with a HUGE dose of salt...

    But it is simply undeniable that Bill Clinton DID interfere with the investigation...

    In any case, your Clinton-hatred aside, Comey doesn't have to be flawless for you to admire him.

    And NOT-45 is as flawed and corrupt as they come..

    And yet you admire her..

    Pot, kettle....

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But it is simply undeniable that Bill Clinton DID interfere with the investigation...

    @michale,

    that's not entirely accurate. what bill did do is give the APPEARANCE of interfering with the investigation, which compelled comey to take the unusual step of explaining the bureau's decisions publicly, in order to combat that perception. i think we're on the same page here that comey was completely ethical in his conduct, irrespective of the political ramifications.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    You have a funny definition of "patriotism"...

    So says the guy, who walked into the voting booth and pulled the leaver for a DRAFT dodging, philandering, non disclosing, misogynistic, money owing to foreign powers idiot who fired the guy investigating him and is totally ineligible to hold a security clearance...

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And yet, you voted for a person who wants OPEN BORDERS and who wants to make the USA simply another cog in a global machine, no better than the worse[sic] dictatorship...

    1. you voted for him too.

    2. obama made plenty of mistakes, but border security wasn't one of them. the 'open borders' accusation just plain isn't accurate. obama deported more illegals than bush, he just forced agencies to focus on felons, not hunt for the lowest hanging fruit.

    3. hyperbole about the 'worst dictatorships' does not acknowledge just how horrible those dictatorships were, and are. globalization has had some disastrous effects, but it's not even in the same universe of awful as fascism, communism, baathism, etc.

    JL

  61. [61] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, my comment at [27] has gotten a response from both the right and the left. That's progress, of a sort.

    I have a particular set of life experiences that have defined 'patriotism' for me. My father was a military officer, an artilleryman. For 27 years, we traveled around the country and overseas while he fought with superiors, attended schools, tried to help local communities, jumped out of planes and helicopters, guided troops, learned languages, taught military history, and dodged bullets in four tours in Vietnam. He attended the Command and General Staff School, the Army War College, and had a masters in National Security Management.

    Then he retired, and became a 'storefront' lawyer, and I (by then able to form basic sentences) was his paralegal/assistant for 25 years until his death. Together, we challeged the system from district courts to apellate courts, representing clients ranging from Muslims denied religious practice in prisons to a working mother of four being unfairly evicted for being too 'noisy'. We sued cops for being overzealous, and fought for equitable retirement for state troopers all the way to the Supreme Court.

    On this mother's day, I miss my dad, who I admired tremendously, and who taught me alot about what patriotism looks like at ground level, from both a military and civilian perspective.

    So when you, Al, talk about atrocities in Vietnam, I think about the dedication that my dad and others had to helping that country, and the box of toys that I organized my fourth grade class to send to the orphans there, and the film that dad took of those kids enjoying them. When you, Michale, talk about Open Borders and global machines, I think about the Vietnamese officer that dad helped in Minnesota, who would have been summmarily shot for colluding with Americans if he hadn't put his family on a sanpan and rowed to Malaysia over open seas, and Germans who told me that they feared the Russians like Kansans fear tornadoes and thanked Gott every day that the Americans stood in the way of that.

    "You talk about this stuff like you read it in a book."
    - Ward Abbott, The Bourne Supremacy

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    that's not entirely accurate. what bill did do is give the APPEARANCE of interfering with the investigation, which compelled comey to take the unusual step of explaining the bureau's decisions publicly, in order to combat that perception. i think we're on the same page here that comey was completely ethical in his conduct, irrespective of the political ramifications.

    I'll take it.. :D

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    So says the guy, who walked into the voting booth and pulled the leaver for a DRAFT dodging, philandering, non disclosing, misogynistic, money owing to foreign powers idiot who fired the guy investigating him and is totally ineligible to hold a security clearance...

    I didn't vote for Bill CLinton...

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    1. you voted for him too.

    Trump ran on a platform of border security and damn sure if he hasn't kept that promise..

    2. obama made plenty of mistakes, but border security wasn't one of them. the 'open borders' accusation just plain isn't accurate.

    I wasn't talking about Obama. NOT-45 made it perfectly clear that she was going to open the borders..

    I dream of open borders...

    3. hyperbole about the 'worst dictatorships' does not acknowledge just how horrible those dictatorships were, and are.

    Do we REALLY want to discuss hyperbole about worst dictatorships?? :D

    globalization has had some disastrous effects, but it's not even in the same universe of awful as fascism, communism, baathism, etc.

    Except that the former could lead to the latter...

  65. [65] 
    Paula wrote:

    [57] NYpoet: "compelled Comey to..." No.

    You're talking about "perceptions". Well there's a lot of perceptions involved in all of this, including the perception that Comey was a weasels scaredy-cat who was afraid the GOP would call him names for finding HRC innocent.

    You can assert Comey was "compelled" until the cows come home but it's just your opinion and, as with so many of you, taking that position relieves Comey for actual responsibility for his acts and the consequences.

    Comey could just as easily have released his decision and said "done here". He didn't HAVE to editorialize. He chose too because he succumbed to the tantrums of rightwing scandal-mongers.

    You, like Elizabeth, are talking about "context" without acknowledging the context. The only reason there might be a perception of wrongdoing by BC is because the rightwing made it so. They jumped all over this event because they could -- because they knew they just needed to feed the new allegations into the scandal-machine it would be duly spit out into the world and treated as serious, automatically.

    You want to both ways. You want to say Comey behaved "ethically" by inserting himself into the political process without, presumably, caring what the political consequences would be, but then you absolve him of any responsibility for the political consequences. The notion of "perception" means this wasn't about facts or findings, it was about appearances. Comey had plenty of choices and he chose the most explosive option that had horrifying results.

    You don't know what Comey's motives were. I don't know what Comey's motives were. We do know what the results were. Comey is responsible for those results because he was the ACTOR. Your defense of him is like saying the drunk driver wasn't responsible for running over Granny, the store that sold him the whiskey was.

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    "You talk about this stuff like you read it in a book."
    - Ward Abbott, The Bourne Supremacy

    Exactly...

    Without exception ya'all have read your ideology in a book... Or heard it as a war story...

    Until ya'all have BEEN THERE and DONE THAT, ya'all don't have ANY foundation to lecture..

    ESPECIALLY since ya'all's lectures vary from day to day based on what ya'all's so-called "leaders" have said and/or done...

    Lying is bad.. Except when a Democrat does it..

    Rape and sexual harassment are bad.. Except when a Democrat does it...

    "I suggest you pick up a weapon... And stand a post.. Either way, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN what you think you are entitled to!!!"
    -Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    You don't know what Comey's motives were. I don't know what Comey's motives were.

    and yet....

    He didn't HAVE to editorialize. He chose too because he succumbed to the tantrums of rightwing scandal-mongers.

    Your refute your own argument....

    Bubba and Lynch put Comey in an impossible position..

    Comey made the BEST decision possible, given the circumstances..

    It's a not a decision I would have preferred but I am objective enough to know that it WAS the best decision...

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    nobody forced bill clinton and loretta lynch to have a private meeting days before the FBI was due to conclude its investigation. yes, it is my opinion that this event "compelled" comey to publicly reveal the opinions and inner workings of the fbi investigators. my opinion is that comey was dragged into the political fray by others, and that he was making the best decision he could on behalf of the bureau.

    You want to say Comey behaved "ethically" by inserting himself into the political process without, presumably, caring what the political consequences would be, but then you absolve him of any responsibility for the political consequences.

    this part is not just my opinion, that's what ethical conduct IS. in doing one's job, an ethical public servant is not allowed to consider the possible consequences, only what one must do under the given circumstances. comey did not make his decisions in a bubble; clinton and lynch forced his hand.

    JL

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [65]-Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Those words were actually written by Aaron Sorkin, Hollywood liberal, to come from the mouth of an overzealous character in a screenplay. It doesn't depict what actual military officers say.

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    [67] JL: You continue to skate the point.

    Comey's editorializing can be seen several ways. You choose to view as him doing his "ethical" duty even though reportedly many fellow FBI personnel disagreed with his choice. Meanwhile, I can view it as an act of rank partisanship -- he basically said "I wanted to find her guilty too, but she just wasn't. But, by gum, I'm going to make her pay just the same. I'm going to essentially stand here, with all the majesty of the FBI behind me, and smear her because I can." How is that ethical?

    "Ethical conduct is doing one's job." Yes, he headed the team that looked into the situation and determined there was no criminal activity or intent. That was his job. Throwing in his own personal opinions was not his job. He was supposed to be the reporter, not the pundit.

    Clinton/Lynch forced his hand. Bullshit. "I wouldn't have hit you if you hadn't made me mad." That is what you are saying.

    Comey made a series of bad choices. It wasn't his job to placate the GOP. It wasn't his job to pronounce judgement on HRC beyond the FBI's determination there was no criminal intent/wrongdoing. It wasn't his job to jump to any conclusion about BC and Loretta Lynch. He went outside the lines of his job.

    And if he can't be held responsible for his actions then he has no business in the job. Is it ONLY Democrats that are ever accountable for anything? BC's meeting with Lynch caused her to recuse herself. That was the "accountability. That's where it should have ended. Comey was given control and the FBI reached their conclusions. He should have announced it and let the "perception chips" fall -- THAT would have been ethical. Instead he tried to AFFECT the perceptions beyond the facts specifically in an effort to give Repubs red meat to make up for the findings of not-guilty. That isn't ethical or admirable.

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    60

    My father was an intelligence officer in Vietnam, and Germany, etc.

    If you are attempting to make or refute a point about my comment, please try again.

    I believe an accurate definition of patriotism can include what you wrote as well... but certainly wouldn't be limited to just that perspective.

    A

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    My father was an intelligence officer in Vietnam, and Germany, etc.

    I was Army MI during Desert Storm.. Neither of ya'all have the required PERSONAL experience, training or expertise to render a relevant or intelligent opinion with regards to that particular subject..

    Unless you have worn the uniform, both of ya'all are simply relaying war stories..

    And *ALL* war stories are bullshit.. Even the true ones...

    ESPECIALLY the true ones...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Comey made a series of bad choices. It wasn't his job to placate the GOP. It wasn't his job to pronounce judgement on HRC beyond the FBI's determination there was no criminal intent/wrongdoing. It wasn't his job to jump to any conclusion about BC and Loretta Lynch. He went outside the lines of his job.

    Ultimately, Director Comey doesn't work for the AG or even the POTUS... Ultimately, Director Comey works... worked.. for the American people..

    And Comey did right by them..

    THAT is all that matters...

    BC's meeting with Lynch caused her to recuse herself

    Bullshit.. Lynch didn't recuse herself.. She was still involved in the day to day administration of the investigation... Right up until and even past the time that Director Comey went public...

    Lynch could have stopped Comey at ANY point in the aftermath to her private meeting with Bubba...

  74. [74] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [65] Without exception ya'all have read your ideology in a book... Or heard it as a war story.

    nope. You don't get to do that - to dismiss my father's wise guidance as 'war stories'. nope. foul. Red card.

    I have my own history as well, as everyone else here has, that informs my opinion. It's been many years since I got my politics from a book.

    You want to dismiss everyone else's opinions as 'ideology', but remain sanctimoniously glued to your own party line. Don't tell me you don't - we can read plain english.

    Go back and re-read the Charlie Sykes piece that Paula posted about. Tell me if you see yourself and others being described, and if not, why not?

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    Unless you have worn the uniform, both of ya'all are simply relaying war stories..

    And *ALL* war stories are bullshit.. Even the true ones...

    ESPECIALLY the true ones...

    And your respective fathers would tell ya'all the EXACT same thing...

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    You want to dismiss everyone else's opinions as 'ideology', but remain sanctimoniously glued to your own party line. Don't tell me you don't - we can read plain english.

    I know you can't admit it, but I have no Party line...

    Because, to admit that would be to admit you have absolutely NO argument..

    To a Left Wing Party zealot, I am a Right Wing nut.. To a Right Wing Party zealot, I am a Left Wing nut...

    Which is perfect for me. :D

    nope. You don't get to do that - to dismiss my father's wise guidance as 'war stories'. nope. foul. Red card.

    It's still second hand hearsay.. Unless you have been there and done that, you can't claim knowledge...

    It's not offensive.. It's fact...

    Go back and re-read the Charlie Sykes piece that Paula posted about. Tell me if you see yourself and others being described, and if not, why not?

    And there you go again.. YOu want me to read Left Wing Zealot propaganda and accept it as gospel... You make my argument for me...

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Clinton/Lynch forced his hand. Bullshit. "I wouldn't have hit you if you hadn't made me mad." That is what you are saying.

    @paula,

    that analogy makes even less sense than the last one. it was supposed to be lynch's job to decide whether or not to prosecute, and to justify that decision publicly. due to the appearance of impropriety of the bill clinton tarmac meeting, lynch stated publicly that she would abide by the decision of the fbi, explicitly putting both the decision and the public justification for it in comey's purvue.

    lynch explicitly obliged comey to do both of those jobs, and he did them both ethically and to the best of his ability. we may not be happy with the consequences; for that matter comey himself didn't seem too happy with the consequences. however, absolutely none of them can be legitimately blamed on his decisions.

    JL

  78. [78] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I have no Party line.

    So I have to assume that the Administration and Fox News just happen to agree with you. But aren't they the Party? And isn't that their line?

    To a Right Wing Party zealot, I am a Left Wing nut

    To an anarchist, Lenin was an establishment lackey.
    That doesn't define him.

    It's still second hand hearsay

    So is Trump's business acumen. But you believe it.

    It's not offensive

    Sorry, not your call.

    You want me to read Left Wing Zealot propaganda and accept it as gospel

    No, I want you to read this piece by an established conservative commentator and give me your opinion of it.

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    So I have to assume that the Administration and Fox News just happen to agree with you. But aren't they the Party? And isn't that their line?

    The Administration and Fox News can't agree with EACH OTHER!!

    So is Trump's business acumen. But you believe it.

    Bullshit.. It's demonstrable and well validated.. DEMOCRATS even said so.. Before Trump put an R after his name..

  80. [80] 
    Paula wrote:

    [76] JL: first of all, "where do you get "public justification" of his decision? He was tasked with the decision, this is the first time I've read he was mandated with giving a "public justification". I'm not saying he wasn't but it's the first time I've heard of it. Do you have a link?

    Second: my point is that you cannot absolve Comey from the results of his decisions by saying "everything bad that happened re: the election etc. was the result NOT of Comey's actions, but of something BC did that FORCED Comey to take actions which then had the bad results."

    Comey had a number of choices -- you are asserting he had only one: to go on TV and smear Hillary Clinton while "exonorating" her. He ALSO did not HAVE to send his incendiary latter to Chaffetz whom any idiot on earth should have known would instantly leak it to the public. Finally, Mr. Ethics completely FAILED to have another Press Conference to explain that Huma Abedin's emails had been backed up automatically onto the laptop, and oops, I guess I made a boo boo. No, he just wanted that little nugget to go away.

    It is perfectly possible to believe Comey was actuated throughout with the purest of motives but that's not my point. My point is his actions had devastating consequences and they are consequences he is responsible for.

    Making excuses for Comey, blaming Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch is a dodge, plain and simple.

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's demonstrable and well validated

    It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
    Signifying nothing.

    One of these is true, surely. Trump does everything he can to hide the documentation, so, so far, it's heresay.

    The Administration and Fox News can't agree with EACH OTHER

    Inside baseball to the rest of us. Trump isn't making it easy, I'll grant you. Every time he reverses himself, I see Fox commentators doing backflips to bring the 'new truth' into line with the 'old truth'. Cirque du Soleil doesn't twist themselves up like that.

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It is perfectly possible to believe Comey was actuated throughout with the purest of motives but that's not my point. My point is his actions had devastating consequences and they are consequences he is responsible for.

    That is a factual statement.

    Lynch couldn't help Hillary. It's a good thing that she found a way to get out of the way, and let Comey, a Republican, take the heat, because even with everything that happened later, he got far less blowback than she would have, and made the campaign far uglier than it was already.

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Finally, Mr. Ethics completely FAILED to have another Press Conference to explain that Huma Abedin's emails had been backed up automatically onto the laptop,

    What part of IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THE CLASSIFIED INFO WAS LEAKED INTO THE WILD do you not understand???

    The crime is that it happened..

    HOW it happened is not relevant...

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    no excuses need to be made for comey, because he did nothing wrong. here's the times story about AG lynch's statement on july 1, in which she laid out a public narrative and then left it in the hands of the fbi:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html

    she said she would leave abide by the decision of the FBI, and added, “People have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business... My meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”

    therefore, she said both that public justification for the decision was necessary, and that she was leaving the recommendation in the hands of the FBI. comey responded fully and professionally to both her requests, so it's unfair to hold him responsible for the consequences.

    JL

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    It is perfectly possible to believe Comey was actuated throughout with the purest of motives but that's not my point. My point is his actions had devastating consequences and they are consequences he is responsible for.

    That is a factual statement.

    No...

    It's a politically bigoted opinion...

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Which would have made the campaign far uglier than it was already.

    That is, the GOP had to buy it from Comey, even if they disagreed, because he was undeniably one of them.
    Even if Lynch had used the exact same words as Comey, she'd have been accused of putting her thumb on the scale on Hillary's behalf.

    I have no tears for Comey. He made his bed when he decided not to stop after 'she's not guilty'.

    But Trump went beyond the annoyance that Democrats feel toward Comey when he started demanding loyalty oaths and assurances that he wasn't being investigated. That's getting into the realm of obstruction of justice. Again.

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's a politically bigoted opinion

    It's actually four factual statements:

    1. It is perfectly possible to believe Comey was actuated throughout with the purest of motives

    2. that's not my point

    3. My point is his actions had devastating consequences

    4. they are consequences he is responsible for.

    So none of those is political, bigoted, or opinionated, and all have been said by folks on both sides of the aisle. Did you slip into default?

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Comey responded fully and professionally to both her requests, so it's unfair to hold him responsible for the consequences.

    Getting the ball, and running successfully with it are two different things. In this case, Comey got the ball to the goal line, but then did such an ostentatious touchdown celebration that it enraged both teams.

    He then later threw a false flag onto the field, which ate up time on the clock and (in the eyes of Hillary's supporters) cost her the game.

    Ask Seattle if a bad late call is ever forgiven or forgotten.

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    He then later threw a false flag onto the field, which ate up time on the clock and (in the eyes of Hillary's supporters) cost her the game.

    based on that analogy, it sounds like comey was asked to be both a player and a referee at the same time. we can blame the refs for their mistakes all we like, but they are still doing their jobs honestly and to the best of their abilities, so it's unfair to tar the ref for the situation the players put him in by their own in-game strategy.

    speaking as someone who supported hillary both in the primaries and the general election, my assessment is that comey is the wrong scapegoat, and it wouldn't be an issue if she had played better.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Paula wrote:

    Balthasar, JL: I have no tears for Comey. He made his bed when he decided not to stop after 'she's not guilty'.

    Yep.

    Comey was tasked with presenting the findings. The "right" think to do would have been exactly that: present the findings and take questions about the findings. It was his decision to say "wink, wink, yes, I have to say this because its true but I wish it wasn't true so I'm going to get my pound of flesh for all of us Hillary-haters." That's when he crossed the line. He put her in yet another box, wherein she couldn't be found "innocent" even when found innocent and I don't think that was ethical, admirable or justifiable at all.

    There was a firestorm of protest after each of his actions precisely because they ended up appearing so partisan, precisely because they occurred at such politically sensitive moments. None of this is helped by learning, after the fact, that Hillary's opponent was under active investigation but Comeo chose not to share that knowledge with the rest of us.

    Comey, when you think about it, appeared to have operated from lapses in judgement similar to 45 and gang's assumption that firing Comey would be greeted happily by Democrats.

    {87} Balthasar: exactly.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Making excuses for Comey, blaming Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch is a dodge, plain and simple.

    Ah, no ... it's actually not ignoring context. Which is what most people do when they are discussing complicated issues such as the Hillary Clinton email situation.

    And, Comey actually didn't go nearly as far as he could have in pointing out how careless she was. Consider the fact that she lost a laptop and thumb drive when they were in transit between offices. Ponder that for a moment.

  92. [92] 
    altohone wrote:

    71, 74

    Actually, war stories have nothing to do with my comments at all. They're about decisions made by politicians, not the military.

    But, going by your "logic", you don't have the personal experience or training to comment on politics, movies, minorities, women, etc., etc., etc... and most Republican politicians and pundits including Trump don't have the personal experience to comment on patriotism.

    Your argument is obviously false... as anybody with access to a dictionary well knows.
    Which is why nobody here resorts to such foolishness and dismisses your arguments on that basis.

    A

  93. [93] 
    Paula wrote:

    [88] JL:
    speaking as someone who supported hillary both in the primaries and the general election, my assessment is that comey is the wrong scapegoat, and it wouldn't be an issue if she had played better.

    What you are doing by making that statement is accepting the terms of the playing field as dictated by the GOP.

    Here are the rules:

    Republicans are always granted the presumption of Innocence, until proven otherwise.

    Democrats labor under the presumption of guilt until proven otherwise.

    BUT!

    In most cases, no amount of evidence is enough to prove a Republican Guilty and no amount of evidence is enough to prove a Democrat Innocent.

    Additionally:

    Republicans are allowed to accuse Democrats of anything, no matter how unjustified, far-fetched, obviously malicious or factually absurd.

    Democrats are allowed no justifiable defense against Republican accusations -- their role is to accept the harm.

    The Republican is allowed to beat the Democrat with a stick; the Democrat's job is to bruise and bleed.

    Finally, Republicans are responsible for NOTHING -- not their actions, nor the actions of others.

    Democrats are responsible for EVERYTHING, including the malicious acts others perform against them.

    Now, in that world, it is Hillary Clinton's fault that Republicans used the powers of their office to conduct ongoing investigations of her, characterized by illegal leaking and even evidence tampering, for doing something her predecessors did, for doing something that resulted in no harm anywhere, and for which no one ever lodged a sufficient negative motive. Even Sgt. Schultz had to scream about "security!!!!" even though the server wasn't hacked, even though nothing marked "classified" at the time landed on it, etc. (And of course, Schultzie is noticeably silent when it comes to the constant stream of security lapses by 45. But I digress.)

    In this world, the abusive nature of the GOP investigations is accepted as "normal" and HRC is castigated for giving them a reason to launch one. In this world it isn't enough for the FBI, headed by a partisan-Republican, to conclude their was no criminal intent. In this world HRC can never be fully exonerated and can never escape blame for "inciting" republicans. In this world there was something she COULD have done to cause Republicans to cease carrying out actions they were determined to carry out, that had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with their ability to do damage. In this world they beat her because she made them mad.

    You are enabling abusers. You are enabling abusers. You are enabling abusers.

    Cut it out.

  94. [94] 
    Paula wrote:

    [90] Elizabeth: see [92].

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That doesn't make any sense, Paula.

    If you have something to say to me, then say it!

  96. [96] 
    Paula wrote:

    [94] I am saying that you believing Comey's condemnation of HRC was "justified" in his Press Conference is an example of someone who is playing by the rules as defined by the GOP:

    Republicans are always granted the presumption of Innocence, until proven otherwise.

    Democrats labor under the presumption of guilt until proven otherwise.

    BUT!

    In most cases, no amount of evidence is enough to prove a Republican Guilty and no amount of evidence is enough to prove a Democrat Innocent.

    Additionally:

    Republicans are allowed to accuse Democrats of anything, no matter how unjustified, far-fetched, obviously malicious or factually absurd.

    Democrats are allowed no justifiable defense against Republican accusations -- their role is to accept the harm.

    The Republican is allowed to beat the Democrat with a stick; the Democrat's job is to bruise and bleed.

    Finally, Republicans are responsible for NOTHING -- not their actions, nor the actions of others.

    Democrats are responsible for EVERYTHING, including the malicious acts others perform against them.

    You are blaming the victim for the abuse done by the perp. Since you hate Hillary you are prepared to do it. But the same lopsided rules are used against Dems all the time and the result is we have a criminal lunatic as POTUS.

    It is time for all Dems to recognize the abuse syndrome they've been participating in and refuse to participate in it anymore. It is time for all Dems to say "we won't play by your rules anymore GOP."

    You say Comey didn't go far enough -- look a the thumbdrive! That is Exhibit A. for "no amount of evidence is enough to prove a Dem's innocence AND Dems are responsible for the malicious things done TO them."

    In the case of the emails, the whole thing never justified the hysterical and malicious attacks and investigations carried out by the GOP. You talk about context. To ignore the sheer injustice of the investigations in the first place is to ignore context. But you do so, and then blame HRC for being found innocent, which screws up your preferred view. So then you victim-blame. You enable the abusive behavior by blaming the victim instead of the abuser.

    Of course, the bottom line for you is you hate HRC and will find a way to justify anything that is done to hurt her. The larger issue of enabling is really beside the point with respect to you and HRC. But it is still valid and is applicable beyond Hillary. Hillary just gets hit with it more than anyone else.

  97. [97] 
    Paula wrote:

    Of course, the bottom line for you is you hate HRC and will find a way to justify anything that is done to hurt her. The larger issue of enabling is really beside the point with respect to you and HRC. But it is still valid and is applicable beyond Hillary. Hillary just gets hit with it more than anyone else.

    To clarify, you ARE victim-blaming HRC. I'm saying YOU DON'T CARE if you are because you hate her. But if everything done to Hillary by the GOP had been done to Joe Biden, you'd damn well object, and you'd be willing to see what was being done to him.

  98. [98] 
    Paula wrote:

    But if everything done to Hillary by the GOP had been done to Joe Biden, you'd damn well object, and you'd be willing to see what was being done to him.

    Acknowledge is a better word than "see" -- you'd be willing to acknowledge what was being done to him, both by enemies (GOP) and enablers (much of the media and other Dems).

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What does any of that have to do with me?

    You don't seem to understand what I said. I didn't say "look" at the thumb drive! I said Hillary LOST a thumb drive AND a laptop. Where might they be today? Who knows?

    If that ain't careless and reckless, I'm damn sure I don't know what is, given the context and what is on those drives ...

    Hillary is hardly innocent, just to be clear.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary Clinton is no Joe Biden!

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She ain't no James Comey, either.

  102. [102] 
    Paula wrote:

    The Benghazi Witch hunts were perfect emblems of the GOP rules of engagement in action. They started out in an effort to hurt Obama and morphed into an effort to hurt HRC. But they were created out of whole cloth because that's what republicans do. They make assertions about crimes, then, if they have the power to do it, launch investigations with the intent to do harm. And they succeed.

    And Dems need to stop allowing it.

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Comments posted to this blog can be a kind of mirror into the poster's tendencies.

    Projecting ones own tendencies onto others is usually not a wise course of action.

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Benghazi? What has that got to do with anything? I think Hillary handled herself very well through those hearings as I recall watching some of it.

    She has also handled herself very well when she has participated in panel discussions such as the one I watched at Brookings.

    But, her performance with regard to her email situation was handled poorly as was her 2016 presidential campaign.

    I will never forgive her for giving us Trump!

  105. [105] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth:

    Hillary is hardly innocent, just to be clear.

    Thank you for proving my point.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dems need to seriously smarten up and expose most congressional republicans for the dangerous pols that they are.

    I won't be holding my breath ...

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thank you for proving my point.

    That's pretty juvenile, Paula.

  108. [108] 
    Paula wrote:

    [106} Juvenile?

    On the contrary, this is what I wrote, and then deleted:

    "Hillary ain't no Joe Biden or James Comey, but sadly, neither of them are going to show up at your house and make you glad you're a woman, LIzzie."

    Now that was juvenile.

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whoa daddy! You're right about that, Paula! :)

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I think you and I can agree on at least one fundamental truism ... the Republican party of today and its adherents are a very dangerous group of individuals who care more about party and ideology than they do about protecting the fragile democracy they help to oversee.

    We can agree on something else, too ... given the 2016 presidential choice, Hillary was by far the superior candidate for POTUS and her loss may take your country a very, very long time to recover from.

    In other words, I don't hate Hillary Clinton, or her husband, for that matter. I am just deeply, deeply disappointed in how she handled many aspects of her campaign and I put the bulk of the blame for her loss on the candidate herself.

  111. [111] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    An interesting take from Andrew Levine originally published at Counterpunch.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/379-andrew-levine/3141-deplorability-now

    He touches on a lot of the issues being discussed in this thread... but not by me.

    A

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    You are enabling abusers. You are enabling abusers. You are enabling abusers.

    this argument is supposed to convince.. whom exactly? hillary made a mistake by exposing top-secret e-mails on an unsecured server. she compounded that mistake by publicly dissembling about it instead of owning up to it. unlike benghazi or other manufactured 'scandals' these were real errors in judgment.

    these errors, among others, led to donald trump being elected. that is not comey's fault for pointing it out when AG lynch bestowed that role upon him, and it is certainly not mine for pointing that out now.

    JL

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who is Andrew Levine, Al?

    Do you want to know what I like best about knowing who Joe Biden is?

    Knowing who Joe Biden is provides me with my very own personal barometer with regard to judging a person's character. If I come across someone - like an Andrew Levine, for instance - and I don't know who they are, whether they can be trusted to provide reliable information, and, most importantly, what caliber of person they are in terms of character, I give them the Biden test.

    I try to find out what their view of Biden is, what they have said about him in the past and present. If that view does not in any way comport with my own view of who Joe Biden is, then they have no credibility with me, on any issue, and I ignore them.

    Andrew Levine, by that test, is not to be trusted.

  114. [114] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [83],

    she said she would leave abide by the decision of the FBI, and added, “People have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business... My meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”

    therefore, she said both that public justification for the decision was necessary, and that she was leaving the recommendation in the hands of the FBI. comey responded fully and professionally to both her requests, so it's unfair to hold him responsible for the consequences.

    Comey giving a press conference to list all the things that Clinton did wrong was in no way Comey responding "fully and professionally" to Lynch's requests! If he had simply explained how the evidence showed that while Clinton did some things wrong, it was not enough to warrant prosecution; then that would have been fine. But Comey chose to lecture Clinton for how poorly she handled things, which did nothing to help alleviate concerns and questions about how how government handles these types of investigations -- and may have only served to cause people to have less trust in our justice system!

    Comey choosing to announce so close to the election that Clinton was being investigated while refusing to acknowledge that Trump was also being investigated made one party look bad and protected the other. Comey knew that would be the result, but chose to do it, none the less.

  115. [115] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [92]

    Well said! Very good points!

  116. [116] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al [110] You're right, Al. That's some piece of work. I'm sorry to play directly into its conceit, but it reads like a piece of Russian propaganda.

    The Author spends the first half of the essay addressing, apparently, "anti-imperialists" who voted for Trump, and laments that more Trump voters, whom he calls "Clinton's deplorables", haven't yet felt "buyers' remorse" because Trump "delivered" for them by attacking vulnerable populations. His intention is clearly to equate Trump and Clinton, and he's not shy about it, writing, "by voting against Clintonism, what Trump voters got is an exceptionally nasty Clintonite".

    Having tied Trump and Clinton at the hip rhetorically, the author begins the second part of his essay with the words, "Clinton’s inveterate Russophobia" and works outward from there. He says Trump's views toward Russia "seemed less dangerous" because he seemed to 'see' that there was "no reason why the United States had to infringe upon Russia’s legitimate security interests".

    Like subjugating Ukraine, I assume.

    After that he launches into an exotic defense of extralegal hacking. "Does it matter?" he asks.

    Why, yes it does, I reply. It does matter when a foreign country blatantly interferes in an American election.

    He ends by 1) rehashing the scandal, 2) accusing the US of interference in other elections, 3) accusing Obama of 'interference' in the French election by speaking well of Macron, 4) calling for Trump's impeachment.

    Oh, and he accuses Israel of hacking elections too. Because this has zip to do with either Hillary or Trump, I assume that he's just playing to latent anti-semitism.

    "interesting take"? Naw, I can get this from RT any day of the week.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    the russia investigation was not at the same stage back in october - that investigation is still in early stages, and hasn't even worked itself up to investigating trump himself. the timing was certainly unfortunate, but comey wasn't "protecting" trump, he was informing a congressional committee as he'd promised he would, when it looked like additional evidence had been found. the committee leaked the information, but that wasn't comey's doing.

    comey may have known what the results of his actions might be, but that doesn't mean he intended those consequences, nor that the actions themselves were unjustified. your argument and paula's are ultimately about the ends justifying the means. if comey had compromised his professional judgment, he might have had less of an impact on the election. if he had, would they have yielded results that i preferred? probably. but that doesn't mean his actions would have been right or ethical.

    JL

  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

    1. It is perfectly possible to believe Comey was actuated throughout with the purest of motives

    You call that a FACTUAL statement!???

    3. My point is his actions had devastating consequences

    That is an opinion, totally borne of political bigotry..

    A Trump supporter would say that Comey's actions had GLORIOUS consequences.. And THAT statement would ALSO be borne of political bigotry..

    You see, that's the problem here.. Your "facts" are nothing but ideologically based opinions..

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    1. It is perfectly possible to believe Comey was actuated throughout with the purest of motives

    You call that a FACTUAL statement!???

    3. My point is his actions had devastating consequences

    That is an opinion, totally borne of political bigotry..

    A Trump supporter would say that Comey's actions had GLORIOUS consequences.. And THAT statement would ALSO be borne of political bigotry..

    You see, that's the problem here.. Your "facts" are nothing but ideologically based opinions..

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    Which is why nobody here resorts to such foolishness and dismisses your arguments on that basis.

    And does so loudly and constantly... :D

    Ergo, it would seem that my arguments really hit the spot..

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    What you are doing by making that statement is accepting the terms of the playing field as dictated by the GOP.

    Did the GOP or Director Comey tell NOT-45 to set up an illegal private bathroom closet insecure email server??

    No...

    Did the GOP or Director Comey tell NOT-45 NEVER to set foot in Wisconsin during the general election??

    No...

    Did the GOP or Director Comey tell NOT-45 ignore battleground states in an effort to win GOP strongholds??

    No...

    Did the GOP or Director Comey tell NOT-45 to listen to focus groups and ignore a seasoned hand who had won 2 presidential elections??

    No..

    Did the GOP or Director Comey tell NOT-45 to totally ignore working class Americans in favor of special interest identity-only groups??

    No..

    Did the GOP or Director Comey tell NOT-45 to completely and utterly denigrate and insult tens of millions of Americans??

    No...

    Face the facts.. NOT-45 was, is and always will be a shitty candidate...

    Her loss is hers and hers alone... No one else is to blame...

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya simply got to marvel at Trump's ability to force the Democrats to dance to Trump's tune..

    The current hysterical dance from the Democrats are over tapes that probably don't exist...

    "Dance, Democrats!! Dance!!"
    -President Trump

    :D

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    Face the facts.. NOT-45 was, is and always will be a shitty candidate...

    Her loss is hers and hers alone... No one else is to blame...

    And if the gods smile on Trump, the GOP and this country, NOT-45 will try for a tri-fecta in 2020...

    Then she can REALLY jack up her prices for being a 3-time luser...

    "We can REALLY jack up our prices if we're two-time galaxy savers!!"
    -Rocket, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL 2

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump’s critics need more than vague insinuations to stop him
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/12/trumps-critics-need-more-than-vague-insinuations-to-stop-him/?utm_term=.6c32fa40f492

    Like the proverbial broken watch, WaPoop gets one right....

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    The Irrationals: Trump’s Opponents Are His Greatest Asset

    It wasn’t a good week for President Donald Trump, but it could have been a lot worse. For all his faults – and there are many – the president is blessed with one important thing: opponents so unhinged, so irrational, that even when compared to him, he comes off better.

    Luckily for the president, “worse than amateurish” is the perfect way to describe his opponents.

    Democrats who days or even hours earlier had been hyper-critical of Comey spun on a dime to proclaim his firing an affront to justice. They declared he had no credibility, then expressed outrage at his no longer “leading the investigation into President Trump.”

    Of course the head of the FBI was not “leading the investigation” any more than the CEO of a car company leads the investigation into a faulty brake pad. But why let the facts stand in the way of a good freak-out?

    Nearly every Democrat, journalist, and cable news personality clutching their pearls over Comey’s firing has a trail of pronouncements expressing disgust at one or more of his actions in the recent past.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/05/14/the-irrationals-trumps-opponents-are-his-greatest-asset-n2326570

    Like I said... The Left Wingery hysterical freak-outs every time Trump farts is now a complete detriment to their stated mission to take down President Trump..

    "Hoo-hum... Democrats and the MSM (redundant, I know) are all up in arms because Trump had TWO scoops of ice-cream and everyone else only had one.. Yaaawwwwnnn"
    -The American People

    One would think that I made up such a lame "scandal" as "ICE CREAM GATE" to illustrate how ridiculous the MSM is..

    Sadly, I did not make it up. That was a REAL Anti-Trump news story on CNN... How utterly LAME is THAT headline

    BREAKING NEWS!!! PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 2 SCOOPS OF ICE CREAM WHILE OTHERS ONLY HAD ONE!!! 'IMPEACHMENT TALKS SHOULD BEGIN IMMEDIATELY!!!!!' SAY DEMOCRATS PELOSI AND SCHUMER

    There comes a point when Weigantians who have more than two brain cells to rub together (you few know who you are) have just GOTS to shake yer heads and think, "Is THIS what our 'resistance' has sunk to?? THIS is what we have been reduced to?? Complaining about 2 scoops of ice cream vs 1 scoop??"

    If Democrats, the Left Wing and Weigantians REALLY want to take on President Trump....

    Ya'all *SERIOUSLY* need to up yer game....

    I'm just sayin'...

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb051117dAPC20170511104645.jpg

    With regards to the hysteria of the Left Wingery....

    This says it all perfectly..

    And it's hilarious to boot!! :D

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy

    One of these is true, surely. Trump does everything he can to hide the documentation, so, so far, it's heresay.

    “[Americans have] a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don't make it, my children will.”

    Do you know who said that about Donald Trump?? Do you know who was equating Donald Trump with success??

    Barack Obama...

    Like I said, Donald Trump's business acumen is well documented and has been held up by DEMOCRATS as something to aspire to..

    This is fact...

    But you can't acknowledge that fact because it destroys your hysterical and fact-less arguments against Trump in the here and now...

    Donald Trump is the epitome of American Business Success...

    This is fact....

    Deal with it....

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    For those keeping score..??

    Point To Michale.... :D

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    If we had a dollar for every time the word "Nixonian" was written or uttered onscreen this week, we could retire tomorrow.

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb051117dAPC20170511104645.j

    hehehehehe

  130. [130] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    112

    Well, dismissing the views of anybody who disagrees with Biden is one approach to life.

    A

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald Trump is the epitome of American Business Success...

    This is fact....

    You see, that's ya'all's (NEN) problem...

    FACTS and REALITY are not consistent with the Party ideology so the facts and the reality are simply ignored..

    Donald Trump *MUST* be a complete and utter failure for the entire span of his existence, so his successes are completely ignored and denied...

    And ya'all complain that I write most of ya off as nothing but Party slaves or drones...

    Quit ACTING like Party slaves and drones and I'll quit writing most of ya'all off as such....

    It's really that simple.....

  132. [132] 
    altohone wrote:

    119

    "Which is why nobody here resorts to such foolishness and dismisses your arguments on that basis."

    "And does so loudly and constantly... :D"

    Huh?
    Not on that basis.

    There are plenty of valid reasons to do so.

    A

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    Huh?
    Not on that basis.

    Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru the day... :D

    There are plenty of valid reasons to do so.

    And you have LOTS of support in email, too!! :D

  134. [134] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    115

    Ha.
    Too funny.

    A Clinton defender trotting out the "Kremlin stooge" argument and being unaware of the irony is rich. The (formerly) Red Menace wingnuttery to avoid facts and rely on assertion to criticize a piece about the rabid embrace of such tactics by Hillary and too many Dems is proving the point.

    Are you seriously in denial about the US meddling in the elections of countries around the world?
    US support for coups to overthrow democratically elected governments is exceptionally well documented, but slightly more subtle efforts are too.
    I happen to agree with you that Obama endorsing his rabid neoliberal banker buddy Macron pales in comparison though.

    And, no.
    Levine did not accuse Israel of "hacking" our elections.
    Slow down.
    Take a couple of deep breaths.
    A tizzy is not conducive to comprehension.

    A

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    A tizzy is not conducive to comprehension.

    Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying since 10 Nov 2016....

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    132

    "Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru the day... :D"

    Again... huh?
    Show us a single example of someone dismissing your views on politics because you've never held elective office.

    "And you have LOTS of support in email, too!! :D"

    Huh?
    Are you feeling OK?

    Seriously... your train of thought seems to have derailed.

    A

  137. [137] 
    altohone wrote:

    134

    "I already said you dirty rat"

    "Yeah, but I say it better."

    - My Blue Heaven

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    Show us a single example of someone dismissing your views on politics because you've never held elective office.

    Having a bit o comprehension problem there, my friend??

    I was referring to your claim that my arguments don't have merit and I point out that for arguments that don't have merit you, amongst MANY others, sure go to great lengths to refute them... :D

    If my arguments weren't accurate, ya'all wouldn't have to go to such lengths to try and refute them...

    Balthy's bonehead claim about Trump's business success is simply one of the more recent examples...

    But I understand if it went over your head... Must not have had yer morning coffee yet, eh?? :D

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, dismissing the views of anybody who disagrees with Biden is one approach to life.

    Al,

    Of course, that is not what I wrote. I disagree with Biden on some important issues.

    I was talking about people who dismiss and otherwise denigrate the former senator and vice president.

  140. [140] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [117-128],

    12 straight posts? i think we can safely say that you're officially back!

    :D

    JL

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    12 straight posts? i think we can safely say that you're officially back!

    :D

    Hehehehehe Well, I gotta admit, this morning was a target rich environment.. :D

  142. [142] 
    Paula wrote:

    [111] JL:

    Hillary made a mistake by exposing Top Secret emails on an unsecured server…

    Oh, but she didn't. That was the allegation. What they determined in the end was that a handful of emails on her server were retroactively marked as classified by some agency -- and, as I think Listen noted early in the thread, that was a ongoing problem -- different agencies deciding at different points in time that something was classified.

    In actual fact it was determined that she was highly conscious of security and the real serious stuff was done on the protected servers. The private server was for convenience and for un-serious stuff and it wasn't hacked. I'm not denying she broke a rule. I am saying the rule was broken for reasons that are understandable, that were shared by her predecessors. The working situation regarding the secured computers, her mobile phone, etc. was unwieldy and made getting work done harder.

    There were a lot of ways this could have been handled. Look at the situation NOW. Repubs won't even touch the fact that DT is running around with his own phone and blah, blah, blah. Their fears about security are very "contextual" aren't they? When they're in charge, anything goes. When Dems hold power they start manufacturing scandals out of whatever they can find.

    Point is, it was Republicans who took a broken rule and turned it into the crime of the century. They did it because they had the power to do it, and they did it maliciously. And when you buy into their frame, you help them in their malicious activity.

    But the topic at hand was James Comey and his choice to step into the election and damage HRC's campaign by his extremely negative way of announcing that he wasn't going to press charges.

    We've been around this twice. You think it's ethical and forgivable for him to do what he did. I don't.

    I think he's responsible for the fallout for what he did. You seem to be trying to say he isn't -- it was "ethical" for him to drop the bomb, but not his problem that the explosion occurred. I think your reasoning is circular.

    You keep saying "Lynch TOLD him to handle it" -- which no one is denying. But you keep insisting that he had no other choice than to come out and be as hurtful as he was in the process. He had all kinds of choices there.

    You also skip the part where it is discovered that the Huma Abeden email debacle was a DEBACLE, turned out to be a nothingberger, and Comey -- Mr. Ethical -- tried to jump right over that part in his testimony last week. Comey's announcement exonerating HRC affected the election, but it was the Wiener-laptop announcement that broke it. We can't know if it literally lost her the election but it is clear it had a devastating impact. And it was completely without merit.

    To summarize: the entire email "scandal" is an example of life under GOP rules. They set the framework wherein they act as the batterer and the Dems are assigned the role of beaten wife. For too long Dems have gone along with it. In your defense of Comey you are siding with the batterer and blaming the beaten wife.

  143. [143] 
    Paula wrote:

    [114] Listen: Thanks!

  144. [144] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh, but she didn't. That was the allegation. What they determined in the end was that a handful of emails on her server were retroactively marked as classified by some agency

    that's simply not the case. from comey's july 6 presser:

    "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

    Point is, it was Republicans who took a broken rule and turned it into the crime of the century. They did it because they had the power to do it, and they did it maliciously. And when you buy into their frame, you help them in their malicious activity.

    that's incorrect as well. a fact like "classified top secret at the time they were sent," is not a "frame." what makes facts factual is that they can at least in theory be proven 100% true or 100% false. hillary's error may not have been a "crime of the century," but failing to acknowledge that it happened does not help her cause any more now than it did then.

    Comey's announcement exonerating HRC affected the election, but it was the Wiener-laptop announcement that broke it.

    there are many factors that affected the election. yes, this was blown out of proportion by conservatives, but it was still a self-inflicted wound by the clinton camp. the leak of comey's letter to the house committee was not his doing and was misrepresented in the press, for which it's therefore inappropriate to blame comey himself.

    In your defense of Comey you are siding with the batterer and blaming the beaten wife.

    that analogy is so far out of bounds it's in the parking lot. hillary is not a beaten wife, and comey is not a batterer. these are very serious crimes against women that happen in real life, and it demeans the real victims of domestic abuse to reduce them to a series of mistakes in a political campaign.

    JL

  145. [145] 
    altohone wrote:

    137

    Ah.
    It seems you are the one with the comprehension issues again.

    You are arguing against a point I didn't make.

    Our discussion began with patriotism... your false reasoning in order to wrap yourself in the flag by claiming only those who have served in the military can comment on the topic... my pointing out that that's an obviously false argument that doesn't match any definition of the word, and is like saying only those who have been elected can comment on politics, and that nobody has used that argument to dismiss your opinions on politics... blah blah blah.

    I am well aware that the merit of your arguments is challenged regularly and often correctly, but that is a generalized overview. I was arguing against the specific approach you used above in order to dismiss the patriotism of Balthy and myself.

    A

  146. [146] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    138

    So, disagreeing with anybody who dismisses Biden is one approach to life?

    Switching the words does make a profound difference... not that I'm dismissing you by disagreeing or disagreeing by dismissing your argument.

    A

  147. [147] 
    Paula wrote:

    [143] NYpoet: You repeating yourself and I'm all done now.

    the leak of comey's letter to the house committee was not his doing and was misrepresented in the press, for which it's therefore inappropriate to blame comey himself.

    If Comey sent that letter to Chaffetz thinking Chaffetz would not use it to his advantage, Comey was a moron. It's quite possible that he was. But there it is. I notice you aren't really talking about Chaffetz's role in this either -- you are still blaming HRC for actions taken by Comey and Chaffetz.

    I use the batterer comparison because that's exactly what's going on.

    By refusing to recognize the abuse the GOP engages in you help continue it. By placing the blame on the victims rather than the perps you are enabling the perps.

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    I am well aware that the merit of your arguments is challenged regularly and often correctly, but that is a generalized overview. I was arguing against the specific approach you used above in order to dismiss the patriotism of Balthy and myself.

    I respect ya'all's opinion but it is just that. An opinion...

    Our discussion began with patriotism... your false reasoning in order to wrap yourself in the flag by claiming only those who have served in the military can comment on the topic... my pointing out that that's an obviously false argument that doesn't match any definition of the word, and is like saying only those who have been elected can comment on politics, and that nobody has used that argument to dismiss your opinions on politics... blah blah blah.

    Simply not factual..

    I was pointing out that ya'all's claim to know military style patriotism because ya'all's respective fathers were military was complete and utter felgercarb...

    I further pointed out that Balthy's idea of patriotism is supporting Open Borders and globalization which means making the US no different than any third rate banana republic...

    Which lead into the discussion that ya'all know military style patriotism because your father's served..

    blaa blaaa blaaa...

    Anyone who supports the Left Wingery's idea of Open Borders and the US just being another cog in the Globalization wheel simply cannot lay claim to the patriotism...

    It's like claiming that "by and large, illegal immigrants obey the law"

    The very statement refutes the point that the statement is claiming...

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    [143] NYpoet: You repeating yourself and I'm all done now.

    Oh come on.. I want to hear you weasel out of the fact that you got caught in a stone cold lie when you claimed "Oh, but she didn't. That was the allegation. What they determined in the end was that a handful of emails on her server were retroactively marked as classified by some agency"

    Because, as the FACTS clearly show, MANY documents that NOT-45 sent thru her private insecure hackable bathroom closet email server were, in fact, classified at the time they were sent...

    So you should address this egregious lie you just told..

    You owe us that much at least.. :D

    "I think I'm entitled to the truth"
    -Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    By refusing to recognize the abuse the GOP engages in you help continue it. By placing the blame on the victims rather than the perps you are enabling the perps.

    That pre-supposes that there WAS abuse... The facts clearly show that the ONLY abuse came from NOT-45 and her attitude that the laws didn't apply to her..

    As the facts CLEARLY prove beyond ANY doubt, NOT-45 was the perp and the victim was the American people...

  150. [150] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    http://www.bbc.com/news/39923510

    Macron selects Republican as PM.

    "President Macron faces crucial parliamentary elections next month and may need the support of the centre right to push through his planned economic reforms."

    In case you didn't know, his "reforms" are attacks on workers rights and wages, and giveaways to corporations.

    No wonder Obama supported him.

    A

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Which lead into the discussion that ya'all know military style patriotism because your father's served..

    I'm gonna get my wee wee slapped for that one, ain't I? :D

  152. [152] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    JL [143] Okay, let me have a go at this.

    The trouble with making the case that Hillary's email dust-up mattered, is that everything that's happened since makes that case look like puny potatoes.

    Michale's protests notwithstanding, Trump has so many legal questions that an entire wing of the Justice Department could be opened just to investigate them.

    Pre-presidency questions range from sexual assault to lying under oath to tax evasion, and that just scratches the surface. There's an entire Wikipedia page devoted just to lawsuits filed against Trump.

    Post-inauguration charges could stem from conflicts of interest, international money laundering, collusion with a foreign power to affect the election, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few areas of interest already opened.

    The longer that we maintain the fiction that Hillary's email dustup is in any way equivalent to the tsunami of legal problems that Trump's corruption machine brings to the table, the more folks like Al and Dan can draw their false equivalencies.

    The flaws of Hillary and the Crimes of the Donald are not equivalent. If every charge against Hillary were proven true, it would still be kids stealing candy compared to the corruption and blatant disregard for the law that Trump has demonstrated.

  153. [153] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm gonna get my wee wee slapped for that one, ain't I?

    With a brick bat if I had my way.

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    The trouble with making the case that Hillary's email dust-up mattered, is that everything that's happened since makes that case look like puny potatoes.

    Which is 10000% totally and completely irrelevant because, at the time, all of your "happened since then" hadn't happened..

    Comey was making decisions based on the there and then, not the here and now..

    Michale's protests notwithstanding, Trump has so many legal questions that an entire wing of the Justice Department could be opened just to investigate them.

    That's your opinion and, as I have aptly proven beyond any doubt, it's the opinion of a Party ideologue...

    The flaws of Hillary and the Crimes of the Donald are not equivalent. If every charge against Hillary were proven true, it would still be kids stealing candy compared to the corruption and blatant disregard for the law that Trump has demonstrated.

    So, your argument is that NOT-45's a crook, but Trump is worse so NOT-45 should get a pass...

    Nice argument... :D That was sarcasm, in case you missed it...

    With a brick bat if I had my way.

    Yer just pissy because I totally decimated your TRUMP IS NOT A BUSINESS SUCCESS claim... :D

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    that analogy is so far out of bounds it's in the parking lot. hillary is not a beaten wife, and comey is not a batterer. these are very serious crimes against women that happen in real life, and it demeans the real victims of domestic abuse to reduce them to a series of mistakes in a political campaign.

    That needed to be said, Joshua.

    I wonder what things Paula had to say about Biden before he was chosen to be Obama's running mate ... ? I'm just sayin ...

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump to light White House blue to honor police
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333424-trump-to-light-wh-blue-to-honor-police

    President Trump... Making America Great Again....

  157. [157] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    hillary's e-mails mattered in terms of damaging her campaign. criminally speaking, we're in agreement that it's small potatoes. we share the view that donald's mistakes have been much worse than hillary's, and that the public tends to draw a false equivalency between them. so in that sense we agree as well.

    however, my point was that it's not the job of law enforcement to anticipate and adjust for the political consequences of their investigations. comey did his job and presented the public with his factual findings on clinton's e-mails (and his team's evaluation of them) without respect to any ends justifying his means.

    irrespective of their severity, investigations of trump and his allies are still in the early stages, and are therefore not ready for public consumption. the implication of criticisms against comey is that he should have made his decisions and released the results of both investigations at the same time, based on the potential political ramifications. as bad as the political consequences may be, my belief is that this expectation is not merited, since the investigations were in different stages.

    JL

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    "You take any cop on the force, cream or no, ninety-nine percent of the time they're doing their job, aren't they?
    So he or she, cream or no, is doing more good out there every day than any lawyer or stockbroker or president of the United States can ever do in their lifetime. Cops are the chosen people."

    -Denzel Washington, FALLEN

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    these are very serious crimes against women that happen in real life, and it demeans the real victims of domestic abuse to reduce them to a series of mistakes in a political campaign.

    Emphasis mine...

    That's true for EVERY shrill and hysterical accusation that the Left hurls at the Right.. And vicie versie...

    Terrorist... Arsonist... Racist... and so many more...

    Any time those slurs are hurled in and solely for a POLITICAL context, it cheapens and demeans the victims of those vile and disgusting actions...

    I can pin point the EXACT moment that Left/Right relations hit the shitter and our political dialogue became open warfare...

    It was when Democrats referred to Republicans are "terrorists".....

  160. [160] 
    altohone wrote:

    147

    You are now just making stuff up.

    Before you chimed in with your nonsense, Balthy went off on a tangent that wasn't relevant to my comment. So lumping us in together when we weren't even agreeing doesn't make any sense in the first place.
    "Military style patriotism" was never written by anyone, including you, and has nothing to do with our discussion. You are also trying to create a differentiation that doesn't exist. The word patriotism has one definition and there isn't a requirement for military service.

    As for your debate on globalization with Balthy which is also irrelevant to my comment, Trump just signed a trade deal with China to benefit frackers (and increase US LNG exports thus driving up our domestic costs by reducing the supply... yay!!! higher electricity bills AND more water and air pollution) and US credit card companies (expanding the reach of unethical exploiters of the masses), and which opened the US market to Chinese banks (like we need more corrupt bankers) and, of all things, Chinese cooked chicken (like that won't harm US workers and anybody that eats it)... and today promised American farmers they would have all the immigrant labor they needed because his crackdown wouldn't be targeting their workers.

    At some point, you're going to realize that you were conned... just like with Obama... and just like Dems would have been with Hillary.

    Trump is serving Wall Street too.
    Andrew Levine (link above) was absolutely correct.
    Balthy took issue with it, but it's true.
    "by voting against Clintonism, what Trump voters got is an exceptionally nasty Clintonite"

    The 2016 election was heads they win, tails we lose.

    A

  161. [161] 
    Paula wrote:

    [151] Balthasar: I appreciate your points but they are two step removed from mine.

    First: it is true that Hillary's email is small potatoes compared to DT crimes.
    But it is equally true that DT is getting away with his crimes because the GOP is allowing him to.

    The GOP is co-equally responsible for every horrible thing DT does because they have the power to stop him and won't, as yet, use it. So it isn't just a matter of DT versus HRC. It's a matter of DT and the GOP vs. HRC (and Dems in general).

    Second: another step back, the fact that there ever was an emailgate is an example of republican abuse. It was a non-scandal turned into a scandal by republicans.

    While Joshua and Elizabeth pass the smelling salts back and forth I stand by my contention: arguing about Comey's stupid presser means you are accepting the GOP frame, which was that emailgate was a gigantic crime rather than a questionable decision. I don't accept the frame. And I am pointing out that so long as Dems DO allow the GOP to dictate completely unfair terms of engagement Dems will always lose.

    Finally, the GOP has abused their powers for years. ABUSED their powers. The damage they cause through that abuse is real. It is serious. Every time a Dem makes excuses for GOP abuses or plays along with GOP abuses they are "enabling", and every time they blame Hillary or Obama for inciting GOP abuse they are playing into the batterer's mantra: "I wouldn't have hit you if you hadn't made me mad."

  162. [162] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Trump to light White House blue to honor police stop his bleeding poll numbers

    after the backlash over the comey firing, is it cynical to think this was calculated? i don't think so.

    JL

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    At some point, you're going to realize that you were conned... just like with Obama... and just like Dems would have been with Hillary.

    And, IF that point comes, IF the facts support it, then I will concede the point.. Just like I did with Obama..

    But I am not going to concede the point just on the basis of some Party fanatic's say-so...

    If it ever comes to pass, I'll concede the point based on facts and reality.. Not conjecture, supposition and hysterical Party zealotry....

    As I mentioned above, it's hard to take ya'all seriously when the Left Wingery screams hysterically about President Trump getting two scoops of Ice Cream and those that DON'T scream hysterically about it lets such irrational hysteria pass un-condemned...

    Silence gives assent

    Until such time as the Left has logical and rational arguments against Trump, we'll be where we are right now...

  164. [164] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    arguing about Comey's stupid presser means you are accepting the GOP frame, which was that emailgate was a gigantic crime rather than a questionable decision.

    but comey's presser, after laying out the facts, said exactly the opposite, that it was a poor decision rather than a crime. this is why your argument about it makes no sense.

    JL

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    While Joshua and Elizabeth pass the smelling salts back and forth I stand by my contention:

    That doesn't make any sense, Paula ...

  166. [166] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump to light White House blue to honor police stop his bleeding poll numbers

    after the backlash over the comey firing, is it cynical to think this was calculated? i don't think so.

    Once upon a time, the Left congratulated Obama for doing the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons...

    I guess that only applies to Presidents with -Ds after their names.. :D

    but comey's presser, after laying out the facts, said exactly the opposite, that it was a poor decision rather than a crime. this is why your argument about it makes no sense.

    It makes PERFECT sense when one applies the NOT-45 CAN DO NO WRONG zealotry.....

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    You consistently ignore the facts of this matter, particularly the role of then AG Lynch, or non-roll as the case may be.

    Ignoring facts can tend to make ones contentions nonsensical.

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Non-roll? Just a little Freudian slip, perhaps? Heh.

  169. [169] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Once upon a time, the Left congratulated Obama for doing the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons...

    guilty as charged, and point conceded.

    JL

  170. [170] 
    michale wrote:

    guilty as charged, and point conceded.

    Oh shit... NOW what do I do!!??? :D heh

    Thank you....

  171. [171] 
    michale wrote:

    Just for that, I'll let you have the last word...

  172. [172] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    of course, we more frequently criticized obama doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

    A+ values, F- policies, so to speak...

  173. [173] 
    Paula wrote:

    [163] JL:
    but comey's presser, after laying out the facts, said exactly the opposite, that it was a poor decision rather than a crime. this is why your argument about it makes no sense.

    As I have said, and Balthasar has said repeatedly, it was NOT the decision it was how the decision was delivered. Had Comey limited himself to announcing the results without accompanying editorializing, he would not have been subjected to the well-merited criticism he received from Dems. He WOULD have been hammered from the right because they wanted a guilty verdict -- there was no escaping their disappointment or rage. But in an effort to soften it, or because he's just a pompous twerp, he tried to soften rightwing anger by telling America HRC was irresponsible, etc.

    Try grasping the difference between:

    "She's not guilty." and "She's not guilty BUT! slur, slur, slur, slur."

    It was his job to deliver the "no charges." It was not his job to deliver the accompanying lecture. Several people around him, reportedly, advised him not to do that. He did it anyway. He is responsible for the outcry that followed.

    As a Republican, his behavior was going to be scrutinized closely for any appearance of partisanship. He provided that appearance in spades.

  174. [174] 
    Paula wrote:

    [151] Balthasar: But you DO make my point that GOP is held to be "not guilty" as the default while Dems are held to be "guilty" as the default, perfectly. Thanks!

  175. [175] 
    Paula wrote:

    [166] No, Elizabeth: YOU consistently ignore my point about accepting the GOP frame. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with your version of my argument.

  176. [176] 
    michale wrote:

    It was his job to deliver the "no charges." It was not his job to deliver the accompanying lecture.

    That's your opinion borne solely and completely of Party zealotry... Comey saw his job and his obligation to the American people differently...

    Thank the gods...

    Several people around him, reportedly, advised him not to do that.

    Because it was THEIR job to protect NOT-45.. At the expense of the American people...

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is a clear sign of hyper-partisanship that would seek to chalk everything up to the GOP frame.

  178. [178] 
    Paula wrote:

    JL: you also reiterate that FBI investigations against DT and gang "weren't ready for public consumption".

    And neither was the stupid fucking Anthony Weiner email backup. But Comey informed Chaffetz -- a known hack with an axe out for HRC -- and then wants to be off the hook for the fact that Chaffetz immediately leaked it. 2 weeks before the election.

    Now, who's to blame there? Comey? Chaffetz? Both?

    No, you and Liz and all the other enablers blame Hillary. Which.Is.Bullshit.

  179. [179] 
    Paula wrote:

    [176] Elizabeth:

    It is a clear sign of hyper-partisanship that would seek to chalk everything up to the GOP frame.

    This is what's known as a "dodge". It doesn't address the argument, it attempts to stop the argument by insulting it. But it fails.

    Are you channeling Sgt. Schultz now?

  180. [180] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now, who's to blame there? Comey? Chaffetz? Both? No, you and Liz and all the other enablers blame Hillary.

    chaffetz obviously, since he leaked it. but also abedin, since she should reasonably have been aware enough of the forwards beforehand to make them available for the initial investigation. if she had done so, comey wouldn't have discovered them and chaffetz wouldn't have leaked them.

    JL

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you channeling Sgt. Schultz now?

    Thanks for making my point about the correlation between hyper-partisanship and nonsensical arguments. I'm out of time for non-serious contentions.

  182. [182] 
    Paula wrote:

    but also abedin, since she should reasonably have been aware enough of the forwards beforehand to make them available for the initial investigation. if she had done so, comey wouldn't have discovered them and chaffetz wouldn't have leaked them.

    You are continuing to do the same thing. You let Comey off the hook for his decision to inform Chaffetz when any sentient being should have known what Chaffetz would do (2 weeks before the election!!!), AND you blame the victim -- in this case Huma -- for what? She was the one being persecuted via this unnecessary witch-hunt in the first place. There is no evidence to suggest she was hiding this information. Shouldn't the FBI have checked Wiener's laptop previously? Didn't they?

    You continue to illustrate my point: you have accepted the GOP's terms of engagement, allowing them to turn non-scandals into scandals and then blaming every Dem they catch in their net.

  183. [183] 
    Paula wrote:

    [180} Elizabeth:

    Thanks for making my point about the correlation between hyper-partisanship and nonsensical arguments. I'm out of time for non-serious contentions.

    This is what's known as a dodge. It doesn't address the argument, it attempts to stop the argument by insulting it.

    Adios!

  184. [184] 
    Paula wrote:

    Josh Marshall has an interesting take on Comey, past, present and about-to-testify-in-public: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/how-to-understand-james-comey

  185. [185] 
    altohone wrote:

    162

    So, you don't view Trump's trade deal with (non-currency manipulating) China as another example of the globalization he campaigned against, nor his sop to corporate farmers about their workers violating his campaign promises either?

    Why are you railing against a left wing pundit and ignoring the real life examples I offered? As in the facts and reality, not hysteria.

    And, you've been very good recently about not lumping us all in together here, but you slipped up in this comment.

    As for the previous discussion, your silence has been noted.

    A

  186. [186] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    nobody is letting comey off the hook, because he should never have been on any hook. it was not his job to gate-keep information based on how or when politicians might or might not use it.

    abedin on the other hand was in a position to release all the information she had at a time when it would have been less damaging, and somehow didn't. it's understandable that one wouldn't want to provide the opposition with extra ammunition at any point in the campaign, but they had to know the possibility existed that it might come out before the election. therefore, abedin is not the victim, she's a political operative who made a political calculation, which ultimately cost her candidate.

    your own framing of this as "domestic abuse" is just as irrational as the GOP frame of it as "crime of the century," possibly even moreso.

    JL

  187. [187] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yikes! if reports are accurate, trump shared top secret intel with the russian ambassador in the oval office the day after firing comey...

    *sigh*

    JL

  188. [188] 
    Paula wrote:

    JL: You ARE letting Comey off the hook. You refuse to address the editorializing portion of his announcement. You just keep skipping that part, and everything that resulted from it.

    Secondly, you are speculating about Huma Abedin -- were you there? Do you know "what they had to know?" You don't. You're just opining and, once again, skipping over the point which is that the entirety of emailgate was an overhyped creation of the GOP. You wanna point the finger at HRC, you can. You might also say to yourself: Gee, all these SOS's keep doing the same thing with their emails. Could it be there's a technological/institutional problem that needs handling? Maybe we should say: "HIllary, you shouldn't have done this. Nor should have the last two SOS's. Stop doing it. Meanwhile, how can we make your life easier with respect to email and classified materials?"

    There was a continuum on which the email snafu could have been viewed. The GOP, as always, took it to eleven.

    And there is nothing irrational about my comparison. I am saying the GOP has been abusive in their misuse of power. Can you deny that? Or do you think its just AOK that they do 7 fucking Benghazi investigations? Do you really believe Obama or HRC had something to hide with that? That they had any malicious intent?

    If you don't think the GOP has been abusing their power then we have nothing further to say.

    If you agree they have been abusing their power then take the next step and look at what they did to HRC through that lens. If you don't want to, fine, we're done.

  189. [189] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You refuse to address the editorializing portion of his announcement. You just keep skipping that part, and everything that resulted from it.

    that is incorrect. AG lynch's statement both left the decision up to the fbi and put forth that the decision should be publicly explained. comey's "editorializing" was little more than the judgment that setting up the private server to handle government e-mails was a bad decision - as if that were even in doubt.

    Secondly, you are speculating about Huma Abedin -- were you there? Do you know "what they had to know?" You don't.

    of course i don't know, but as a professional political operative, it was her job to know about potentially damaging information. if she didn't know then she should have, and therefore shares responsibility for the damage either way.

    And there is nothing irrational about my comparison. I am saying the GOP has been abusive in their misuse of power. Can you deny that? Or do you think its just AOK that they do 7 fucking Benghazi investigations? Do you really believe Obama or HRC had something to hide with that? That they had any malicious intent?

    what does any of this have to do with james comey? what's irrational is not being able to tell the difference between different situations and different people.

    JL

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Another important aspect to all of this is the fact that Comey made a commitment to congress when he testified about the email investigation.

    They asked for and he gave them a commitment that he would inform them if any new information came to light.

    This was a perfectly reasonable commitment to make, by the way, given all of the circumstances involved.

    But, I have a general question for you. Why is it that you are unable to attach any blame for this unfortunate string of events to the Clintons?

  191. [191] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula: "She's not guilty." and "She's not guilty BUT! slur, slur, slur, slur."

    You always write something that makes me chuckle. This was today's. Yes, you're right. That's the part that enraged Democrats.

    But now, the same Republicans who chided Hillary because someone might hack her private emails (which nobody ever did, by the way) now have to answer for Trump, who has apparently blurted out top secret information to the Russians. Let's see if their concern for National Security is real or not this time. I'm guessing they'll weasel on it.

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I wonder if US intel agencies are telling the president everything they know because they don't trust that Trump knows how to handle the intel.

    What frustrates me about all of this is that, as usual, we're missing the forest for the trees. Meaning what is needed is an intelligent discussion
    about what an effective US foreign policy in the greater Middle East looks like. Because what is being done now and what has been done since 9/11 is not working.

  193. [193] 
    Paula wrote:

    [190] Balthasar: Thanks!

    [188] what does any of this have to do with james comey? what's irrational is not being able to tell the difference between different situations and different people.

    It was another example of GOP abuse. As emailgate isn't the only one.

    And my question stands: do you believe the GOP has abused their powers?

  194. [194] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    after the news of trump blurting out sensitive information to the russian minister, it would not be surprising to find out intelligence professionals started limiting the scope of the presidential briefings.

    @paula,

    in my opinion, asking if a political party has abused its powers is like asking if the pope is catholic or if a bear defecates in the woods; that's the way things have been since politics were invented. hillary abused her authority by setting up the private server to begin with. chaffetz abused his authority by leaking comey's letter to the press. comey did not abuse his authority, period, full stop.

    JL

  195. [195] 
    Paula wrote:

    [193] JL: You have just given a perfect example of FALSE EQUIVALENCY (chased by "Comey is not accountable" but HRC IS, ie. "I beat you because you made me mad.")

    You are part of the problem.

    All done now.

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, you are, Paula!

  197. [197] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    "I beat you because you made me mad."

    this accusation is still inaccurate and still an insult to victims of domestic violence. there's no equivalency, real OR imagined. hillary shares responsibility for the damage done to her campaign by her e-mail scandal, while director comey does not.

    comey is NOT accountable because his job was to investigate and decide whether or not to prosecute, and that's what he did. the AG put the additional role of public explanation on his plate, so he did that too. in no way shape or form did he abuse his power as director.

    hillary IS accountable because she made a series of poor decisions to keep her communications out of the public domain. it may not have been illegal, but it was certainly a poor decision. this isn't some fabricated mistake like benghazi. there were seven benghazi investigations and not one of them bore fruit because there was no substance to the accusations. in the case of the e-mails, the accusations did have substance.

    i voted for hillary clinton twice, and i am certain she would have made an excellent president. however, hillary was not the victim of domestic violence, she was the victim of her own secretiveness. that she lost is not james comey's fault, and it's not mine.

    JL

  198. [198] 
    Paula wrote:

    Comey IS accountable because his job was to deliver the results of the investigations, not function as judge, jury and pundit. Comey IS accountable for throwing HRC under the bus 2 weeks before the election because he was afraid of GOP witch hunters and rogue FBI agents.

    I did not say HE was an abuser, that is you misunderstanding or mischaracterizing my position. I have said the GOP is the abuser. Comey was inept and sanctimonious and cowardly. But he, too, was a victim of GOP abuse.

    And it was abuse. And HRC was abused by the GOP. And GOP abuse of power is lightyears beyond anything Democrats do or have ever done. And your refusal to recognize that places you in the camp of FALSE EQUIVALENCY purveyors. And FE purveyors contribute to the continuation of GOP abuse by excusing it on the grounds that "both sides do it". That is false and it is enabling.

    But hey, it's true. HRC had a private email server and it was against the rules. By your logic that means everything that happened once the republican worms discovered it is justified. You know, like it really doesn't matter when prostitutes get raped by cops, or some black guy stole some cigarettes so it was fine that the cops shot him to death, or an illegal alien is exploited by an employer since he/she was already breaking the law.

    What HRC was subjected to was disproportionate to the offense. She was subjected to it because the GOP had the ability to abuse her and used it. They are the cops who rape/beat/torture people in their custody.

    They also subjected Obama to non-stop abuse throughout his administration. They stole a Supreme Court seat. And they are now ripping the country to shreds. They got to this point because too many people for too long kept pretending that the ratfuckers didn't fuck rats. Well they do. The rats don't deserve it. HRC didn't deserve it. Barack Obama didn't deserve it. America doesn't deserve it.

    And when Comey did his stunts, he helped the GOP ratfuckers. Intentionally, unintentionally, unconsciously, doesn't matter. He had any number of choices about HOW he could carry out his assignment. The approach he chose was as damaging as he could make it under the circumstances. You keep skipping that part. You keep pretending he "just did his job". You refuse to acknowledge he had options.

    I didn't say it was your fault HRC lost the election. I am saying it is your fault that you refuse to include in your assessment the fact that HRC was on the receiving end of ratfucking of the highest order, some of which was delivered via Mr. Comey.

  199. [199] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Maybe it would be helpful if you set out Comey's options ...

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She was subjected to it because the GOP had the ability to abuse her and used it.

    Unfortunately, she was unable to effectively fight back. I, for one, don't understand why.

  201. [201] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    hillary IS accountable because she made a series of poor decisions to keep her communications out of the public domain

    JL: I think that what is vexing for Paula, and she isn't alone, is that the republican frame of this story is false from the outset: it wasn't illegal for Clinton to either own a personal server, nor to conduct non-classified work on it.

    There was a State Dept. rule that stated that all classified communications should be conducted on a government server. By all accounts, Hillary dutifully followed that rule.

    In 2014, when State Dept. officials asked for her work related emails (printed out on pages), she had her lawyers deliver 30,000 of them to the State Dept. Similar requests were made of previous Secretaries of State Madeline Albright, several of whom had similar personal servers and archived emails.

    In Feb. 2016, the State Dept IG announced that his office had found classified material in 10 emails in the personal email accounts of members of former Secretary Condoleezza Rice's staff and in two emails in the personal email account of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was the only other SoS to have a personal server. Clinton's campaign manager told the press that Clinton's predecessors had, retroactively, been victims of the same "over-classification" that she had.

    After an extensive investigation that included retrieving and examining thousands of emails, including searching for emails from previously wiped files, Comey finally concluded that a total of three email attachments that would have been contemporaneously deemed 'classified' were found buried within. Those attachments - prior emails far down in an attachment chain - were poorly marked, and could have been easily missed. Their classifications were of the lowest order, one that approximately a million workers in the DC area are entitled to see.

    I repeat all of this to emphasize the extremely trivial nature of the facts, compared to the firestorm that the GOP whipped up about it.

    Although Clinton was finally berated into calling her use of a private server a 'mistake', there's no evidence that she did anything wrong. She did not, after all, deliberately conduct classified business on her private server, made all of her work-related emails available to anyone who wanted to investigate them, and complied with the law.

    What did she do wrong? Nothing. To say otherwise is to accept the Republican party line, which is 1) Hillary is always wrong, and 2) Republicans are always right. It's just not so.

    It was not 'secretiveness' that vexed Hillary, it was the press's decision to cynically chase a story that they knew was being hyped by her political opponents, and ultimately dissolved into vapor before all of our eyes.

  202. [202] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I just don't get it...

    To use some sailor parlance... litigating HRC and any issue surrounding the past election is simply falling into the GOP trap of going BUT...BUT...BUT... It does nothing but divide. In other words it is like slamming ones genital appendages in a hatch repeatedly and hoping it will eventually feel good.

    It should give pause that left center, center left, and left folks are busy still litigating the election and are fighting each other once a good loyalist has baited them ... does it need to be discussed and a way forward found? Most certainly... However, I would posit now is not the time.

    EVERYONE, be they center, center left, center right, left, or right, should be demanding a SP be named that BOTH parties agree upon to get to the bottom of this spiraling fecal fountain.

    At the end of the day I feel like I am back in Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, where someone has lit off a trash fire with a sousant of shit...or perhaps in ODS on shit burning day, nothing is better than the smell of burning oil fields and shit... it smells like victory or bullshit. In both cases I can smell the smoke but I can't see the flames and the lung infection is mighty...

    It is long past time for EVERYONE to start calling out those who do not support a SP on why they do not and refuse to discuss anything else until they definitively lay out why they do not....and they should be LOUDLY stating "I don't give two fucks about the past (I myself am out of fucks to give and am waiting on my Amazon Prime order of fucks to be filled) I am interested in the present."

    Until we start standing up and demanding our elected "reps" start answering to the people and as long as the electorate engages in infighting... guess what, we are doomed to being stuck with living under the thumb of those who bought them... and that my friends is just insanity.

    At the end of the day, this is America and EVERYONE is entitled to their point of view, but, they should also be held accountable in precise terms that require answering hard questions about why they do not support the right maneuvers to get to the bottom of the matter in a nonpartisan fashion.

    Surely, it can be agreed upon that Congress is not up to the job...and as such an SP is the only way forward.

    Setting soap box to "off" mode... The problem of the moment is certainly more important than assessing blame or victory of the past...

  203. [203] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Eh, I suppose you're right, gt. It's arguing angels on the head of a pin in the middle of a hurricane.

    So easy to get distracted...

    I hope an SP is enough. Trump's lawyers will surely argue that impeachment is the only way to remove a sitting president, and Republicans hold all three branches.

    Until the midterms, it's all up to Paul effin Ryan.

  204. [204] 
    michale wrote:

    There was a State Dept. rule that stated that all classified communications should be conducted on a government server. By all accounts, Hillary dutifully followed that rule.

    That's your problem, Balthy..

    You out and out LIE to make your case..

    "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

    Further, it's NOT a "State Dept Rule", it's US LAW...

    Although Clinton was finally berated into calling her use of a private server a 'mistake', there's no evidence that she did anything wrong.

    There is PLENTY of evidence that proves NOT-45 broke the law and "did something wrong"..

    But you don't accept those facts because they go against your ideology...

    It was not 'secretiveness' that vexed Hillary, it was the press's decision to cynically chase a story that they knew was being hyped by her political opponents, and ultimately dissolved into vapor before all of our eyes.

    And here you are contradicting yourself..

    On the one hand, you claim that the story caused NOT-45 to lose the election. On the other hand, you now claim that the story "dissolved into vapor" IE there was nothing to it...

    Make up your mind....

    This is just like your claim about Donald Trump's business success..

    Out and out bullshit... Easily exposed...

    It's funny how those who are now screaming FOR an SP for Donald Trump were the EXACT SAME ONES who were screaming **AGAINST** an SP when it was NOT-45..

    Party zealotry and bigotry... At it's finest...

  205. [205] 
    michale wrote:

    How far did the DNC and NOT-45 go to win the election???

    Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death
    http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story

    If this story came out about Trump and Russia, ya'all would be all over it like stink on rice...

  206. [206] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    yikes! if reports are accurate, trump shared top secret intel with the russian ambassador in the oval office the day after firing comey...

    It's from WaPoop...

    You can bet the report is bullshit, but the retraction will be accurate...

    'Sides.. The only info President Trump relayed was what he found on NOT-45's email server..

    According to Paula, Balthy, et al, NONE of it was classified.. :D

    And the Russians already had the info after hacking NOT-45's server anyways.. heh :D

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    Two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton officially launched a new organization on Monday, “Onward Together,” with the stated goal of “advancing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.” Put more bluntly, the group’s mission is to advance Clinton’s agenda, which was unable to defeat Donald Trump.

    But buried on the donation page is this nugget:

    Contributions or gifts to Onward Together, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.
    http://ntknetwork.com/hillary-clinton-launches-unlimited-dark-money-group/

    Of course, with NOT-45, it's all about the money....

    Who in their right mind would back this TWO TIME Luser???

  208. [208] 
    michale wrote:

    It is a clear sign of hyper-partisanship that would seek to chalk everything up to the GOP frame.

    This is what's known as a "dodge". It doesn't address the argument, it attempts to stop the argument by insulting it. But it fails.

    Actually, it's not a dodge, but a logical and rational assessment of the facts.

    When it comes to NOT-45, you and Balthy are simply incapable of any rational or logical discussion.. In ya'all's eyes, NOT-45 is perfect and can do absolutely NO WRONG...

    Any discussion with ya'all on NOT-45 must take that FACT into account..

    Are you channeling Sgt. Schultz now?

    One has to wonder if you and Balthy can appreciate the irony here..

    When it comes to NOT-45, it's you and Balthy who are Sgt Schulz..

    Ya'all see nothing, ya'all hear nothing, ya'all know nothing...

    I love the smell of irony in the morning.. :D

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:
  210. [210] 
    michale wrote:

    That line was crossed earlier this month when a Tennessee woman began chasing Representative David Kustoff as he drove away from an appearance. Fearing for his safety as the woman tried to force his car off the road, the GOP congressman pulled off and was then confronted by 35-year-old Wendi Wright, who struck his vehicle and then reached into a window, all the while expressing her anger about his vote on the Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill. She was ultimately charged with felony reckless endangerment but only after she had bragged on Facebook about running Kustoff to ground and giving him a piece of her mind.
    -N R O

    Democrats... :eyeroll:

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    I have a brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.

    At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on the record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen.
    LT. GEN. H.R. McMASTER
    National Security Advisor

    Like I said.. They only thing accurate about WaPoop "journalism" is when they print the retractions...

  212. [212] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [203]: By quoting the Comey briefing, you make my case, because he goes on to say:

    "..no charges are appropriate in this case."

    If she had intentionally done ANY of the things that her accusers said she'd done, she'd be in court today. She didn't. Certified by the F-B-I.

    So it all dissolved into vapor. At a political cost to Hillary, of course. That damage was done.

    Then Comey resurrected the ghost of emailgate for a few days very late in the campaign. According to Nate Silver, that's when Hillary's numbers slipped enough in key districts to cost her the election.

    Trump, on the other hand, revealed valuable ultra-top secret information directly to the Russians while bragging about the great information he gets. In the process, he trolled an ally, and might have set back the war on Isis. This while breaking every protocol about Oval Office meetings with the Russians and grinning and gripping for the Russian media, who were invited in while the America Press was kept out.

    Have fun defending this guy.

  213. [213] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [210]: Breaking news: Trump admits sharing classified information, says it was for 'humanitarian' reasons. You can't make this stuff up.

    https://twitter.com/i/moments/864446064639848448

  214. [214] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "The president has the power to declassify our intelligence," said Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia. "He does not have the authority to declassify unilaterally intelligence provided to us by other countries."

  215. [215] 
    michale wrote:

    If she had intentionally done ANY of the things that her accusers said she'd done, she'd be in court today. She didn't. Certified by the F-B-I.

    And as I have pointed out and provided facts to support and NO ONE has been able to refute...

    Comey was wrong.. INTENT is not required to be prosecuted under the statute...

    So it all dissolved into vapor. At a political cost to Hillary, of course. That damage was done.

    Which is it??

    Vapor or political cost..

    It can't be both...

    If it were the vapor you WANT it to be, then the American people would have voted for Hillary above and beyond just the sickos in California (Present company excepted, of course.. :D)

    So, it sounds like yer full of kaa-kaa and it wasn't just "vapor" but rather a really meaningful problem for tens of millions of Americans..

    Trump, on the other hand, revealed valuable ultra-top secret information directly to the Russians

    WHich has already proven to be complete and utter bullshit.. AS I have provided the facts to support...

    Something YOU don't have..

    Michale [210]: Breaking news: Trump admits sharing classified information, says it was for 'humanitarian' reasons. You can't make this stuff up.

    Apparently, YOU can.. As you have done throughout this entire commentary.. Like when you made up that Trump WASN'T a successful businessman when even your bozo said he was..

  216. [216] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump, on the other hand, revealed valuable ultra-top secret information directly to the Russians

    WHich has already proven to be complete and utter bullshit.. AS I have provided the facts to support...

    Something YOU don't have..

    Where are your facts to support your claim, Balthy??

    Anonymous sources from WaPoop, a rag that has had to print HUNDREDS of retractions of bullshit they have printed...

    On the other hand, *I* have a statement from a respected eyewitness who's integrity is above reproach, even amongst Weigantians..

    All you have is anonymous sources and a willingness to believe ANYTHING, as long as it is against President Trump..

    I win. You lose...

  217. [217] 
    michale wrote:

    Once again... Point to Michale

    :D

  218. [218] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Comey was wrong.. INTENT is not required to be prosecuted under the statute...

    that's incorrect. two forms of law bear on prosecutorial decisions, statute and case law. ask any attorney and they'll tell you case law is by far the more important of the two. comey didn't say the statute required intent, he said the case law required intent. in order to indict, you need to navigate both. the relevant portion of comey's statement is as follows:

    In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

    i.e. bringing charges on these facts would have been abnormal and unjustified based on FBI practice and precedent.

    anyhow, why make russia go through all the trouble of hiring hackers when it's so much easier to just share all that top secret information in person? tillerson and mcmaster were very detailed in explaining the specific types of intel that trump didn't share. donald himself contradicted their implication that nothing sensitive was shared, by saying that he has the right to share intel if he wants to. while technically true, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

    JL

  219. [219] 
    michale wrote:

    Violence And Intimidation Against Republicans Are Becoming The New Normal
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/14/violence-and-intimidation-against-republicans-are-becoming-the-new-normal/

    And the condemnation from the "tolerant" and "non violent" Left???

    {{cccchhhhirrrrrrpppppppppp}} {{cccchhhhiiiiirrrrrrrppppppp}}

    Crickets... Nuttin' but crickets...

  220. [220] 
    michale wrote:

    that's incorrect. two forms of law bear on prosecutorial decisions, statute and case law. ask any attorney and they'll tell you case law is by far the more important of the two. comey didn't say the statute required intent, he said the case law required intent. in order to indict, you need to navigate both.

    So, I am correct when I say that UNDER THE STATUTE, intent is not required to prosecute...

    while technically true, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

    NOTHING about Trump fills you with confidence..

    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail :D

  221. [221] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, I am correct when I say that UNDER THE STATUTE, intent is not required to prosecute...

    about as correct as saying that based on the POPULAR VOTE, hillary won the election. equally interesting for academic purposes, equally irrelevant to the outcome.

    NOTHING about Trump fills you with confidence.

    with the exception of his response to the chemical attack in syria, yes, that is accurate.

    JL

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    about as correct as saying that based on the POPULAR VOTE, hillary won the election. equally interesting for academic purposes, equally irrelevant to the outcome.

    Touche' :D

    "You're right. You do listen, but you only hear what you want to hear."
    "So, I'm right.."

    -TWO AND A HALF MEN

    :D

    with the exception of his response to the chemical attack in syria, yes, that is accurate.

    So, I'm right?? :D hehehehehehe

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    Further, using your argument of "intent" General Patraeus was not guilty because it wasn't his intent to release classified intelligence..

    His intent was to get laid..

    Ergo, there should not have been any chargers..

    NOT-45 didn't have the intent to release classified intelligence. She just wanted to evade FOI requests and keep everything she did private...

    Viola' No charges...

  224. [224] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Patraeus was not guilty because it wasn't his intent to release classified intelligence..
    His intent was to get laid..

    you know full well that intent doesn't just mean your main motivation, it means that whatever you did wrong, you were trying to do it. whatever else he was trying to accomplish, patraeus was trying to get the intelligence and give it to someone. hillary was not trying to expose classified documents, it happened by accident. based on his twitter statements, donald was trying to share intel with the russians.

    "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. metting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety,
    "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

    now THAT is intent.

  225. [225] 
    michale wrote:

    now THAT is intent.

    Now all you have to prove is that any of that intel was classified and your home-free...

    According to General McMasters, a person who is respected even amongst Weigantians, the hysterical Left is barking up the wrong tree....

    AGAIN....

    Ya'all can only cry WOLF!!! so many times before the American people just turn ya'all off..

    And THAT time has long past...

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    YOu know WHY President Trump did what he did, right??

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb051117dAPC20170511104645.jpg

    And, right on cue, Left Wingery heads start exploding...

    President Trump... Puppetmaster... :D

  227. [227] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now all you have to prove is that any of that intel was classified and your home-free...According to General McMasters,

    mcmasters did not actually deny that the information was classified. what he said was that it was not, "intelligence sources or methods," or "military operations that were not already publicly known." fine, great, but that's not what the post reported.

    what the post DID report was that trump discussed an IS plot, the city where it happened, and the fact that it was found out and shared by allied intelligence. none of this was actually denied by either mcmasters or tillerson.

    JL

  228. [228] 
    michale wrote:

    none of this was actually denied by either mcmasters or tillerson.

    No???

    The story that came out tonight as reported is false.
    -General McMasters

    I dunno...

    Sounds like a denial to me.. :D

    And WHO reported this to WaPoop...

    Ahhh yes... ANONYMOUS sources... In other words made up fake news...

  229. [229] 
    michale wrote:

    And WHO reported this to WaPoop...

    Ahhh yes... ANONYMOUS sources... In other words made up fake news...

    ANONYMOUS sources who are leaking classified intelligence...

    Seems no one here has a problem with that...

    Ahh yes... As long as it hurts President Trump, it's perfectly acceptable to ya'all...

    Double standard much.... :^/

  230. [230] 
    Paula wrote:

    [200] Balthasar: Thank You! Exactly!

    [201] Goode Trickle: You are right in the sense that going over and over the election and all that is a waste of time and effort at this point. The rolling disaster that is the DT presidency should occupy us -- BUT-- and this is critical to what happens AFTER he implodes/dies/goes to jail, it cannot be stressed enough that DT remains in power only because the Republican Party is supporting him. This is not a battle between DT and America, this is a battle between DT/GOP and America (and the world's good guys. Bad guys like 45).

    And, as I have been emphasizing, the GOP has devolved into a powerfully harmful entity. They have a deep bag of tricks. Defeating them starts with knowing how they play the game. One of their tricks is to ensnare Democrats in lose/lose scenarios and then milk them for all they're worth. And my point is Democrats need to become self-aware and recognize when they are being maneuvered into one of these boxes, and call a halt. Refuse to engage on GOP terms. Stop pretending GOP is acting in good faith when they demonstrably are not. Stop giving the GOP any benefit of the doubt.

    We don't have to talk about Hillary or Obama ever again, but the next round of Dem leaders needs to start resetting the terms of engagement. They need to cease putting up with abuse. They need to stop enabling the GOP. And so do we.

  231. [231] 
    michale wrote:

    For example..

    No one here seemed to mind when the Obama Administration leaked the identity of the CIA Chief Of Station in Afghanistan...

    No one here seemed to mind when DiFi leaked classified drone intel in '09....

    No one minded when Obama leaked crucial intel on the STUXNET, intel that was ISRAELI intel... Or when Obama gave away classified secrets when he bragged about taking out Obama Bin Laden....

    Apparently, releasing classified intel is *ONLY* a problem or an issue for ya'all when someone with a -R after their name does it..

  232. [232] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No???

    no.

    "The story that came out tonight as reported is false."

    and if he had stopped there, i might be more inclined to believe him. however, mcmasters then denied numerous specifics that were not reported, and did not deny any of the specifics that were reported. i don't blame him for trying to do some damage control, but it's a pretty non-denial denial.

    JL

  233. [233] 
    Paula wrote:

    [200] Balthasar: Excellent summary! Just have to say it again!

  234. [234] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [232, 229]: Glad you liked it.

    While Michale presumes to know the law regarding Intent better than Comey and certainly several dozen Justice Dept. lawyers, it's an unassailable fact that none was found in this case. Case closed, but damage done. (see also [211]}

    Meanwhile, inquiries into Trump's many conflicts, gaffes, and subterfuges has barely begun. He's provided a full menu for investigators and it's not even that far into the new administration.

    When Dems get the House & Senate back in 2018, it will be like when, on the old Lucy show, when Ricky would finally come home:

    "You've got a lot of 'splainin' to do!"

    And the look on GOP faces will be the same that Lucy made as he said it: 'uh oh!'

  235. [235] 
    Paula wrote:

    [233] Balthasar: I love the Ricky/Lucy comparison!

    The other day I was thinking that the sentient Republicans are like Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens. Did you ever see it -- it was the second Ripley movie? Rough plot: Ripley gets dragged into rescue mission to the planet where the Aliens are. She keeps trying to get the folks in charge to stop underestimating the Aliens but they're "military", have nifty weapons, think she's overstating the danger, etc.

    So the gang are all suited/weaponed up and are confidently sent into the compound to hunt for survivors. Lieutenant Gorman is back in the spaceship, monitoring events via radio. I've never forgotten his face -- his performance -- as he listens while all hell is breaking loose on his troops. He tries to communicate with them, he's trying to understand what they're screaming. Its that look of dawning comprehension and utter dismay as he realizes he's sent the troops to slaughter.

    A lot of Republicans are making those faces, I suspect.

  236. [236] 
    michale wrote:

    and if he had stopped there, i might be more inclined to believe him. however, mcmasters then denied numerous specifics that were not reported, and did not deny any of the specifics that were reported. i don't blame him for trying to do some damage control, but it's a pretty non-denial denial.

    It's a denial pure and simple...

  237. [237] 
    michale wrote:

    While Michale presumes to know the law regarding Intent better than Comey and certainly several dozen Justice Dept. lawyers, it's an unassailable fact that none was found in this case. Case closed, but damage done. (see also [211]}

    No, but I have the luxury of being able to state the FACTS and reality without worrying about being politically correct.

    Director Comey did not have that luxury..

    And the FACTS clearly show that INTENT has nothing to do with prosecuting the relevant statute...

    Now, do you want to continue to LOSE when arguing FACTS???

    "Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
    -Ensign Sulu

    When Dems get the House & Senate back in 2018, it will be like when, on the old Lucy show, when Ricky would finally come home:

    If you HONESTLY believe that the Dims will be able to get the Senate back in 2018, you are so far down the delusion rabbit hole that there is simply NO WAY you can carry on ANY sort of rational conversation..

    It's this EXACT sort of Party zealotry that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to take anything you say seriously..

    Dems take the Senate in 2018???

    BBBWWWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  238. [238] 
    michale wrote:

    Seriously, Balthy..

    If you had just said, "Dems will win the House" it would have shown you have at least a SMALL tenuous grasp on reality... Because the Dims do have slight chance of taking back the House..

    VERY slight..

    But the Senate!!???

    The Dims have to defend 25 seats, and almost HALF of those seats are in states that Trump won, most of them, won handily...

    Democrats taking back the Senate is nothing but fantasy and if you honestly and truly believe that it will happen, you are in such a far gone, far off DEM HAPPY SAFE PLACE that you have lost ALL contact with reality...

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

  239. [239] 
    michale wrote:

    Once again.... Point to Michale....

  240. [240] 
    michale wrote:

    and if he had stopped there, i might be more inclined to believe him. however, mcmasters then denied numerous specifics that were not reported, and did not deny any of the specifics that were reported. i don't blame him for trying to do some damage control, but it's a pretty non-denial denial.

    See, here is where you are exactly wrong..

    The POTUS can declassify *ANY* intelligence the US possess but he CAN'T reveal methods and sources..

    Once you understand this FACT, then you *should* see the WaPoop BS in it's proper light..

    McMasters was simply a step ahead of WaPoop in their NEXT claim that President Trump divulged methods and sources since any "intel" that the President shares, he has the RIGHT to share...

    So, once again, ya'all are left with absolutely NOTHING but a nothing-burger w/ extra hysterical sauce and a side of crispy anonymous sources....

  241. [241] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/12/ftp436/#comment-100000

    Looks like I got the 100000th comment here!! :D

    How apropos that it dealt with Seth Rich being murdered by Democrats to stop him from leaking more Democrat baggage to Wikileaks... :D

    I have as much "proof" of that as ya'all have of President Trump colluding with Russians... :D

  242. [242] 
    michale wrote:

    since any "intel" that the President shares, he has the RIGHT to share...

    A point ya'all made ABUNDANTLY clear when Odumbo was caught sharing classified info with the Russians...

    Sharing ya'all didn't have a SINGLE PROBLEM with then...

    All because of the all-powerful -D after Odumbo's name...

Comments for this article are closed.