It doesn't have to make sense, most often it doesn't. It's propaganda for the Republican base who don't think, but mindlessly and willingly accept this kind of crap as gospel.
The hot poker in the third eye, here, is the question of whether any of us can pretend to be a lawyer well enough to argue that your inquiry is without foundation. Truth told, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to break out the transcripts; I'm not going to try. In the end, all I mean is that I'm quite certain an attorney so daring as Kasowitz can probably talk his way around the question. That is to say, he hasn't actually lost his license to practice, yet, despite dubious unconventionality, so he's not utterly incompetent about his game.
Well damn... that is troubling to say the least... Okay, idea... lets just burn the White House to the ground, fire EVERYBODY, give it a few weeks, and restart our government from the ground up...
How fucking stupid can one possibly be? And seeing as you were, apparently, so terribly offended by a joke in which the beheading is tangential to the punch line, how do you feel about advocacy of treason? "I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30 thousand emails that are missing." And there was absolutely nothing about the context there to even suggest that that was a "joke."
It just struck me as a contradiction. Accusing him of leaking privileged information sounds like an admission that what he said is true.
A Song for America (The post-Comey version). (Slow 12-bar) You got them dogshit blues, That smell givin' you the news. You done stepped in some doggy-doos, Now you gonna have to scrape it off your shoes. You got the dogshit blues, Lord, It's like an offer you can't refuse.
I don't see how the information was "privileged". My understanding of that is legal privilege applies to discussions between a person and their legal representative. It most certainly does not apply to discussion between an employer and an employee, for example. It may have been confidential, if there was a clause in Comey's contract saying so, but otherwise I think it is just a try-on. Legal bullies often do this though: throw a huge number of alleged offences at something and hope one or two of them stick. Anyway Comey has made it clear he felt it was his constitutional duty to make this public, whatever the legal position (which I am sure he will have understood perfectly) and I have no doubt he is prepared to take the rap, if there is one.
#incompetence | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, as to that ... yeah. Lately I've been picking on the idea that the Trump administration behaves as if it is guilty as hell. Sometimes it seems like Trump wants us to bust him because that's his quickest way out of this presidency thing that is costing him dearly and screwing up his life. And, you know, it's true that if he resigned right now and cooperated with subsequent investigations, we probably wouldn't send him to prison. Indeed, by this time next year he could be comfortably back atop the game show ratings. And then there is this: Kasowitz's plan to go after Comey by way of the Justice Department's Inspector General's office is itself more troubling than Comey's actions. First, the IG's office isn't equipped to launch investigations into private citizens. And second, as Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyer in the Bush/Cheney administration, noted this morning, trying to get the Justice Department to target a material witness—in this case, the former director of the FBI—only adds to the concerns about Team Trump trying to obstruct justice. (Benen↱; boldface accent added) Kasowitz doesn't know what he's doing; like the rest of the Trump administration, he is in way over his head. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. “Trump's outside counsel gets a little desperate targeting Comey”. msnbc. 9 June 2017. msnbc.com. 9 June 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2r3mhiK
Trump says he's willing to testify under oath. Good. Then when he perjures himself before Congress or the FBI, we'll have two reasons to impeach his lying ass.
I also liked the fact that he was being so cagey about any recordings that might exist.. Nixon II... The President tweeted in May that “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations”. When giving evidence in Washington yesterday, Mr Comey said “Lordy, I hope there are tapes” because he believed they would corroborate his version of events. When asked about whether tapes existed during Friday’s press conference, Mr Trump’s answer was cryptic. “I’m not hinting anything. I will tell you about it over a very short period of time,” he said. “You’re going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Don’t worry.” At a guess, Trump is only now just learning that New York is a one party consent state when it comes to recording someone, Washington, on the other hand, is a two party consent state... Which means if he recorded anything in Washington D.C. without Comey's consent, then he broke the law. The same cannot be said for New York, where it is a one party consent state. His threat about Comey better hoping there are no "tapes" of their conversations was a hint of what was possible. The idiot clearly did not understand that recordings made in Washington without the other person's consent, is actually against the law. Now when asked about said recordings, he gets all cagey.. The best thing about Trump's declarations today, from being willing to testify under oath to accusing Comey of lying under oath? Mr Trump also heaped scorn on Mr Comey, accusing him of lying during his testimony to the Senate committee on Thursday. The President tweeted early on Friday that he felt vindicated after Mr Comey’s appearance. When asked how the testimony vindicated him, Mr Trump gave a disjointed answer. “No collusion, no obstruction. He’s a leaker, but we want to get back to running our great country: jobs, trade deficits, we want them to disappear fast, North Korea, big problem, Middle East, a big problem. So that’s what I am focused on, that’s what I have been focused on,” he said. “But yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction. “We are doing really well. That was an excuse by the democrats who lost an election that some people think they shouldn’t have lost because it’s almost impossible for the Democrats to lose the Electoral College, as you know.” Mr Trump appeared to be referring to his claim that there was no Russian interference in the US election and that the Democrats were pushing the story to explain Hillary Clinton’s loss. During Mr Comey’s evidence yesterday, he said definitively that the Russians did in fact meddle in the poll. “There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during (the) 2016 cycle … That happened. That’s about as un-fake as you can possibly get,” he said. Mr Trump finished his comments on Mr Comey by implying he had lied to the hearing. “But, we were very, very happy and, frankly, James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said and some of the things that he said just weren’t true,” the President said. Mr Comey confirmed during his testimony that Mr Trump was not personally under investigation as part of the Russia probe. So he is either lying, or he is telling the truth and somehow vindicated Trump... Trump does not appear to be sure himself of which one should apply here.
And now on the issue of "loyalty".. He also denied that he told Mr Comey “I need loyalty”. “I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, ‘I want you to pledge allegiance’. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance … It doesn’t make sense.” Seems that Trump has forgotten what his own staff were trotting out to declare to the media, when Comey was fired.. Defending the sudden firing of FBI director James Comey, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Thursday that President Donald Trump “expects people who are serving in his administration to be loyal to the country and to be loyal to the administration.” Conway, in an interview with Fox News, largely stuck to White House talking points to explain why Trump fired Comey unexpectedly on Tuesday, arguing that Trump’s opinion of Comey has been on the decline for a while. But she also confirmed what has been widely reported but little acknowledged by the White House: that Trump wanted Comey to be loyal to him. “I think this is an all of the above answer, that the president has been watching,” Conway said. “And the president expects people who are serving in his administration to be loyal to the country and to be loyal to the administration.” My favourite though, was this doozy.. Said today, in Trump's press conference.. In press conference at the White House on Friday afternoon, Mr Trump denied that he asked Mr Comey to drop the probe investigating Mr Flynn’s ties to the Russians. “I didn’t say that … and there’d be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I’ve read today, but I did not say that,” he said. Oooh look, Trump has again forgotten his own words, back when he had fired Comey.. "And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won." Later on, in that same Holt interview, on the subject of the Russia 'thing'.. "When I did this now, I said I probably maybe will confuse people. Maybe I'll expand that -- you know, I'll lengthen the time because it should be over with. It should -- in my opinion, should've been over with a long time ago because it -- all it is an excuse." I give him a week, to switch everything around again, that he did say it because there is nothing wrong with his having said it.
The whole "are there tapes?" thing astounds me. I mean it isn't like Trump is the only one who would know if there are tapes. Others would surely have come forward by now. But Trump just makes up some shit about tapes in a tweet to try to scare Comey. We all know its bullshit. And it's symptomatic of the sort of sleazy blackmailing mentality of a slimy casino boss trying to manipulate people thru scare tactics . And then his narcisstic reality TV show host self takes over. "Now everybody watch me as I keep you in suspense about these "tapes". Are they real or not? Only I know the answer. Stay tuned America and the world." Total douche.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep no tapes... he made that sht up so he woud sound innocent to his Dum-Azz supporters... an sinse thers no tapes hes willin to continue the show by sayin he will testify under oath... an he knows hes golden cause its his word aganst Comeys... an even his supporters wit more than 2 brain cells dont care when he lies... just like the repugs in congress as long as they can still squeeze some Fug-America-douche-juice out of him.!!!
That's weird. The ellipsis is extraordinarily important: REPORTER: Under oath? TRUMP: I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, "I want you to pledge allegiance." Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean think of it, I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No, I didn't say that and I didn't say the other. The ellipsis omits the sleight; that's Donald Trump's wiggle room. When the reporter tried to confirm that the president would be "one hundred percent" willing to speak "under oath", Donald Trump changed the subject: "Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?" What does that even mean? Mr. Trump is right: It doesn't make sense.
I think it's funny that Trump keeps bragging about winning an election that "you" should have won. The Democrats held the office for 8 years so the only reason that they "should" have won is because he was such a lousy candidate. That's hardy something to brag about.
NEWS FLASH.!!! Trump has just agreed to testify under oath... about Russia an the comments Comey made under oath... wit-in 24 hours after he releases his Taxes.!!!
Yes, it was interesting, wasn't it? I noticed it when I heard his conference on the news. What it means is that he changed the subject entirely. It's not wiggle room that he was after. It was the size of a Mack truck.
Can someone expatiate a bit more on that "Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?" remark by Trump? I am still finding it hard to understand why he said it and what it apparently might imply. Is there a meaning /significance in it above his usual static noise/bullshit ?
Why Trump Fired Comey By Andrew C. McCarthy He believed that the FBI director misled the public to think that the president was under investigation. At last, at least for your humble correspondent, this week’s big hearing brought clarity. I now believe President Donald Trump fired Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey because he believes Comey intentionally misled the public into believing Trump was under investigation by the FBI. There is enough support for this theory that, had the president been forthright in explaining it when he dismissed Comey on May 9, there might have been considerably less uproar. Instead, Trump dissembled, as he seems hardwired to do. He thus bought himself a debilitating special-counsel investigation, despite its being increasingly patent that there is no crime to investigate. http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-russia-investigation-fired-misleading-public Apparently this unbiased former prosecutor believes it was Comey’s responsibility wipe from the public record the trove of suspicious elements that might contribute to reasonable speculation about Trump’s unethical ties to Russia. It seems Comey was supposed to preform a Jedi mind trick and make the public unhear Trump’s praises of Putin during the campaign, unsee the numerous articles detailing Trumps business connections to Russia, and forget about Trump’s campaign associates with personal ties to Russia. No credible reason to investigate a possible link to Trump and election manipulation by Russia. Just move along.
