Jump to content
IGNORED

Trump 17: James Comey and the Goblin of "You're Fired"


Destiny

Recommended Posts

"Why President Trump can’t win

Quote

“Trump is grappling with the harsh reality of governing and media scrutiny, which he has told friends he hoped would eventually abate,” my colleague, Robert Costa, reported on Wednesday afternoon. What President Trump had misunderstood, and what seems to have only dawned on him slowly and incompletely, is that capturing the presidency isn’t the final battle for respect and prestige. Instead, it’s a chance to compete in a much tougher arena, where the struggle for victory is governed by different rules.

Unfamiliarity with the job doesn’t necessarily doom the person who holds it; after all, there’s no job or experience that can actually prepare you to be the most powerful person on the planet and to run one of the world’s most complex bureaucracies. But Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey is a perfect illustration of the specific reasons why the wins Trump promised and craves seem so elusive — and why, without a personality transplant, even the presidency can’t deliver Trump the respect and affirmation he do desperately needs.

Let’s work backwards, shall we?

One of Trump’s most persistent problems as president is his administration’s persistence in treating the media, colleagues in Congress and the general public in a way that suggests they believe we are fools, or at least possessed of dog-like attention spans. While it’s true that the constantly-roiling news cycle means that some of Trump’s worst acts have shrunk against the enormity of the whole, certain items inevitably stick in a way that Trump doesn’t seem to understand and has little tolerance for.

The official rationale for Comey’s dismissal was that Trump was troubled by the former FBI director’s treatment of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, during the election. The accompanying attempt at “House of Cards”-style spin was that the White House was surprised at the negative reaction, theoretically because Democrats blamed Clinton’s loss on Comey and would be happy to see him gone. This gossamer-thin bit of schtick asks those of us who are the targets of it to forget Trump’s inconsistent positions on Comey’s treatment of Clinton, the churn in other sensitive sectors of the administration and Comey’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election. It’s insulting to be told to ignore the man behind the curtain when the performer isn’t even doing the basic work of making the illusion compelling or convincing.

...

The president wanted Comey to confirm his speculations that the Obama administration had wiretapped him, an allegation Comey actively refuted. And while Trump’s letter terminating Comey alluded to three occasions on which Comey apparently informed Trump that he was not personally under investigation, there was nothing Comey could have done to clear the persistent speculation about what Russia might have done to put Trump in the White House and why.

Rich people in private live can surround themselves with sycophants who can tell them soothing lies without consequence. The director of the FBI is not the president’s valet, nor someone eager to broker a business deal by pretending friendship with him. The Post is not Page Six, eager for Trump-related tips to fill column inches. The Secret Service’s job is to protect the president’s body, not his peace of mind. There is no one in the United States who has an obligation to make the president feel good about himself, except perhaps the first lady, and even she has no official job description.

Finally, Trump doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between an ephemeral victory and a substantive one.

Ramming a health-care bill that hasn’t even been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and that is unlikely to be passed by the Senate, through the House of Representatives is technically a victory for Trump in that it’s something he wanted to happen and that did happen. But if the House vote hasn’t been greeted as the equivalent of the passage, signing and implementation of the Affordable Care Act it’s because those two events are not in fact the same thing. And however good the bill’s passage in the House made Trump feel, there is a vast gulf between that momentary glow and the actual impact the law, if passed, could eventually have on Americans’ health care and Republicans’ electoral prospects. Trump’s quest for short-term wins has a tendency to set him up for long-term frustrations.

Perhaps Trump’s wildly unusual campaign for the presidency convinced him and his advisers that they could take a similarly radical approach to governing. Even on the campaign trail, though, Trump performed the basic functions it takes to win an election: he gave stump speeches, showed up to debates, cultivated surrogates and held a convention. Now, it turns out that you can’t replace the basic functions of government with the law of attraction: no matter how rich you’ve been in the past, or how powerful you are in the present, wishing doesn’t make it so. And insulting the intelligence and integrity of the people you need to turn fantasy into reality, as much as that’s even possible, doesn’t help.

I hope he loses...bigly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Re: the thread title:

5 hours ago, Destiny said:

It was going to be Death Eaters First in honour of the healthcare vote, but I have no doubt that I will be using that one in future so this one made better sense for now

In my wildest fantasies, the thread title will someday be "Trump: Prisoner of Guantánamo"

Yeah, I don't just want him impeached. I want him arrested, indicted, and convicted of treason (among other things). And where better to lock up Agent Orange and his comrades than the now mostly empty Gitmo? It even has waterboarding facilities! They're such fans of torture, and no one should be able to support it unless they've tried it. . . [Note to NSA: I'm not actually advocating for torture. Your overlord, however, has, until someone he liked said it was ineffective. I wish I was making this up, but, well . . . ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Only Republicans can stop Trump right now. History suggests they won’t."

Quote

...

The most important lesson for the situation now facing the country is the reason Cox’s position was created: The opposition demanded it. In 1973, Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. When Nixon nominated Richardson to run the Justice Department in May 1973, Senate Democrats refused to confirm Richardson until he chose a special prosecutor. Democratic control of the legislative branch, in other words, was essential to creating the investigation that proved Nixon’s involvement and led to his resignation.

Democrats don’t have that leverage now. They can try to block Comey’s replacement or even grind the entire Senate to a halt unless Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appoint an independently-minded special prosecutor. (That may seem highly unlikely, but after Bork fired Cox, he picked Leon Jaworski, who saw the Watergate investigation through to Nixon’s resignation.) But without a majority, they will need at least three Republicans to publicly stand with them. At first glance, the odds of that may seem good. GOP senators such as Jeff Flake (Ariz.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) have all publicly questioned the firing. So has Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (N.C.).

History is not so encouraging. For months after the Watergate burglars were arrested in June 1972, Republicans continued to defend the president. Sen. Bob Dole described the first stories of The Post’s now-famous reporting as “a barrage of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations.” Ronald Reagan described the burglars as “well-meaning individuals committed to the reelection of the president.” The Senate did vote unanimously to create the Senate Watergate Committee, but Republicans tried unsuccessfully to shift the committee’s focus to the 1964 and 1968 elections, and they harshly criticized the committee. Minority Leader Hugh Scott called the resolution “wild” and “unbelievable” while Ted Stevens predicted the committee would be “nothing but a political witch hunting body.” It wasn’t until a series of “smoking guns” emerged in criminal trials and Democrat-controlled hearings that some Republicans began to turn on the White House in earnest. Even then, many stayed loyal to Nixon: In July 1974, less than half of the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted for the articles of impeachment. Given Republicans’ rhetoric at the time, it seems unlikely that had they been in the majority they would have supported a select committee or demanded a special prosecutor.

Recent history also justifies fears that Republicans will not stand up to Trump. Flake, McCain, Sasse and other senators have all clashed publicly with the president before. But those are just words, and talk is cheap. With the occasional exception when Republicans have been able to spare one or two votes, GOP senators have marched in lockstep with the Trump White House. McCain in particular has continued his years-long pattern of tut-tutting Republican leaders and then voting with his party anyway.

If Flake, McCain and others want to show us they are truly troubled, then they will need to do more than put out a statement. They need to join with Democrats and refuse to vote for a new FBI director (and perhaps even other Trump appointees or legislation) until a special prosecutor is appointed. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

All is not lost if Republicans continue to cower as they have. The power still lies with the American people to vote more Trump critics into office and make it clear that toadying to Trump is political suicide. But the 2018 midterms are 18 months away, with a tough Senate map for the Democrats, and 2020 is even farther. A few Republicans can save the country from a whole lot of trouble if, against the odds, they finally grow a backbone.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for a single DOHer to actually grow a backbone and/or cojones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good opinion piece: "Trump has crossed a once-unthinkable red line"

Quote

Since President Richard Nixon forced the resignations of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in 1973 in protest to his order to dismiss a special prosecutor investigating the White House, all senior Justice Department officials have known that there could come a time when they would stand before history and face a defining test: Would they have the courage to say no to a president determined to subvert the bedrock independence of federal law enforcement?

On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein failed this test. By providing President Trump with the cover to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, they betrayed the Justice Department’s long-standing tradition of independence. In doing so, they sent a message to every career prosecutor and investigator working beneath them that they put the president’s personal and political interests ahead of the department’s integrity.

According to the White House’s initial version of events, Comey’s firing was initiated by Rosenstein, who decided — of his own accord, during his first two weeks on the job — to launch a review of the FBI director, concluded that review and made a determination that Comey had to go. This version was implausible, and the White House offered a new accounting today.

In this revised version, Trump gradually lost confidence in Comey, while Sessions and Rosenstein independently came to the same conclusion, which they shared with the president after it “came up” at an unrelated meeting on Monday. The president then supposedly requested an explanation in writing, which Rosenstein supplied on Tuesday.

But nothing about Rosenstein’s memo comports with a typical Justice Department finding. It quotes extensively from public comments made by former department officials, in a manner more akin to a political research document than an official review. It provides no citations of the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual — the governing document for all Justice Department officials. And despite making judgments about Comey’s conduct, there is no indication that Rosenstein actually asked Comey for his version of events.

The timing here is also highly suspect. As multiple media outlets have reported, Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources for the Russia investigation just last week. Comey was also set to testify about that probe on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

...

To accept this timeline is also to accept that Trump was deeply disturbed by Comey’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign, despite Trump’s repeated public statements to the contrary. In fact, Politico reported that what actually incensed Trump was Comey’s public statements about the probe of potential ties between Russian hacking and Trump’s campaign team, which prompted the White House to reverse-engineer a process by which Comey could be fired — decision first, justification second.

Let’s be clear: Comey made grave mistakes in his handling of the Clinton email investigation, and I have been as critical of him as anyone. The rules he violated are important to preserving the FBI’s credibility and protecting the rights of individuals under investigation. But one principle must take precedence over every other Justice Department rule or regulation: Prosecutors and agents must be free to make decisions without interference from the White House. Without that, everything else fails.

Trump has now trampled on that independence — with the willing support of the leaders of the department. Where we go from here is uncertain. To start, there can be no remaining question that an independent prosecutor must be appointed to lead the Russia investigation. The attorney general has already recused himself because of his role in the Trump campaign, and the deputy attorney general has now irretrievably stained his own integrity. Both should immediately appear before congressional committees to explain, under oath, their role in Comey’s firing, how the process began and what they discussed with the White House in pursuing it.

But beyond even the Russia investigation lie troubling concerns about the rule of law. The president just fired an official investigating his campaign and associates, crossing a red line once unthinkable in this country. The attorney general quiescently went along. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said that critics should “suck it up and move on.” The Senate majority leader excused it all in a speech on the Senate floor.

The institutional checks necessary to constrain a president such as Trump are failing before our eyes. If we can no longer count on an independent Justice Department or legitimate oversight from Congress, we are left with one overarching question: Who will stand up to Donald Trump?

Yes, he has crossed a major line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through the NYT and the WoPo is giving me a migraine. One story says this might bring down the TT, another says the Republicans will stonewall and block any attempt. I don't know what to think or how to feel anymore.  The checks and balances aren't working.  What can we do?  Who will stop this madness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Reading through the NYT and the WoPo is giving me a migraine. One story says this might bring down the TT, another says the Republicans will stonewall and block any attempt. I don't know what to think or how to feel anymore.  The checks and balances aren't working.  What can we do?  Who will stop this madness?

I agree. It's crazy.

 

I would cheer if this ended up taking out Bitch McTurtle too: "Mitch McConnell may be making the most important mistake of his career"

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of the shrewdest politicians of his generation. But by speaking Wednesday on the Senate floor in defense of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey, McConnell made what is likely to stand as the most important mistake of his long political career.

McConnell (R-Ky.), who is measured and calculating about everything, should have known better. He chose to ally himself with a man who becomes unhinged whenever the subject of his campaign’s possible collusion with Russian interference in our election arises.

Removing the leader of the nation’s top law-enforcement agency while he was in the middle of an investigation that could touch the president should — no matter what your view — call forth seriousness, sobriety and thoughtfulness. When critics can legitimately wonder if it is part of an effort to obstruct justice, a president would do well to treat the matter in a reflective way.

But as an empty, unserious man who thinks only of himself and knows only how to deride opponents, Trump began a series of Wednesday tweets at 7:10 a.m. with a puerile assault on Democrats who now “play so sad” over Comey’s firing.

...

Is McConnell really sure he wants to stand with a man who will spew out attacks on anyone and everyone who gets in his way?

By contrast, many of McConnell’s Republican colleagues have begun disentangling their party from a presidency that is likely to end in a train wreck. Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) said he spent “several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey’s firing. I just can’t do it.” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (N.C.) said he was “troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey’s termination.” Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) joined in calling the timing “very troubling.”

Someday, McConnell will wish that he sounded more like Flake, Burr, Sasse and similarly minded Republicans. All of them are aware of how absurd it is for Trump to pretend that a concern over Comey’s behavior in the Hillary Clinton investigation — the very behavior the president once praised as demonstrating Comey’s “guts” — is the actual reason for the firing.

McConnell repeated White House talking points justifying Comey’s firing by noting that Democrats had eviscerated Comey’s handling of the Clinton matter. What this misses is that many who thought Comey was wrong in the Clinton case were also strongly opposed to his being fired. Since readers have every right to question whether columnists are being consistent, this is what I said on a radio show in January:

“However angry liberals and Democrats might be at Comey for what he did, I think the worst outcome might be for Donald Trump to name a director of the FBI and that, at least in Comey’s case — and I’m very critical of him on what he did here — we know he has a history of independence. And I would really not be comfortable with Donald Trump having even more influence on the FBI.”

In light of all that has happened in the intervening four months, the idea of Trump naming a new head of the FBI is even more disquieting. And it is beyond belief that anyone in the White House could think that the memo criticizing Comey on the Clinton probe from Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, would be persuasive to Trump’s foes.

Most disturbing are signals that Trump’s interest is in shutting the Russia investigation down altogether.

It has now emerged that days before he was fired, Comey had asked Rosenstein for more resources to investigate Russia’s role in the election. That seems a more credible reason for why Comey was fired than Trump’s solicitude for the woman he called “Crooked Hillary.” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Fox News after the firing that the “bigger point” on the Trump/Russia inquiry was “when are they going to let that go” since “there’s nothing there.”Yes, getting us to let go of any hope that Trump will be held accountable is the real agenda.

Maybe McConnell figures he can reposition himself on Trump at the right time. But he missed his chance to stand up when it mattered.

Yeah, I wouldn't shed a tear to be rid of McTurtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump hired a law firm to send a letter to the Senate saying he has no ties to  Russia.  He just keeps digging that hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Trump hired a law firm to send a letter to the Senate saying he has no ties to  Russia.  He just keeps digging that hole.

But will it be a CERTIFIED letter?   :confusion-confused: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Because he's a dumbass: "Why Trump expected only applause when he told Comey, ‘You’re fired.’"

Quote

Donald Trump has always acted in the moment, with little regard for the past and proud contempt for the way things are usually done.

For half a century, he has believed that by refusing to be weighed down by precedent or procedure, he is liberated to come across as the brash truth-teller that the public craves. He has long said that he doesn’t care whether people believe he is dumb, ill-informed or a nasty rule-breaker; if his actions built up his bottom line, they were justified, he’d say.

Trump appears to have expected that his sudden and dramatic sacking of FBI Director James B. Comey on Tuesday might be greeted the way audiences relished his ritual firings of job applicants on his hit TV show, “The Apprentice” — as a sign of power serving truth, and in this case as a politically incorrect roundhouse punch that Republicans and Democrats alike would welcome.

If the president didn’t see that his precipitous firing of the man in charge of investigating the Trump campaign’s connections with the Russian regime might instead alienate some of his allies and outrage much of the public, that’s no anomaly. Rather, it’s an illustration of several of the president’s core character traits — a belief that the past doesn’t matter, a penchant to act swiftly and unilaterally, and a conviction that even the most unpopular actions can help build his brand.

No one on either side of the aisle in Congress seemed to take seriously the administration’s argument that the president, who through much of last year led crowds in chants of “Lock her up,” was now suddenly sympathetic to the idea that Comey had inappropriately torpedoed Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

...

“I think it’s startling that Democrats aren’t celebrating,” White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday. She dismissed recitations of Trump’s praise for Comey last fall as irrelevant because he said those things last fall: “The president was wearing a different hat at that time,” Sanders said. He “was a candidate, not the president.”

Confronted with his past statements that stand in direct conflict with his current positions, Trump has always reacted not with remorse or embarrassment. Rather, a look of almost innocent surprise sweeps over his face and he says, as he has to reporters who remind him that he once promised to release his tax returns but then decided that he never would, “Nobody cares about this except you.”

“I’m just not interested in the past,” Trump has said. “I’m interested in the present.”

So when federal judges repeatedly reject Trump’s travel ban because of his campaign statements calling for a prohibition on Muslims coming into the United States, the president sounds angry but also flummoxed, as if those past statements don’t matter because they were said in the past.

Similarly, Trump has a long history of viewing larger issues through the prism of how they affect him. His letter to Comey dismissing the director made only one reference to a reason for the decision, a sentence that questioned Comey’s ability to lead the bureau but noted that “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”

Trump’s persistent focus on himself, which he has characterized as “narcissism,” a trait he believes is vital for success in the business world, was an enduring source of humor and eye-rolling through his decades as a celebrity entrepreneur. But during his campaign, Trump said that as president he would turn the focus from himself to the American people.

Conceding that many of his vendors, employees and bankers suffered considerable losses when his businesses went through six corporate bankruptcies, Trump said that “for myself, these were all good deals. I wasn’t representing the country. I wasn’t representing the banks. I was representing Donald Trump. So for myself, they were all good deals. . . . When I was representing myself, even deals that didn’t work out were great deals because I got tremendous tax advantages. . . . I would walk away.”

As president, Trump promised, he would flip his priorities and represent the people. How would he make that pivot? “I’ll just do it,” he said.

Now, Trump faces a crisis in which Republicans and Democrats alike are questioning whether he is seeking the best possible management of the FBI or is instead trying to protect himself and his campaign staff from the prying eyes of investigators.

...

In moments of crisis, presidents tend to revert to the traits that got them to the pinnacle. Nixon, stubborn and righteous, dug in as the Watergate morass deepened. “Stonewalling,” it was called, and he repeatedly refused to give up the tapes and documents that investigators and the public demanded.

...

Echoes of that strategy resounded right after the Comey firing as the president’s aides tried to brush aside concerns about the Russia investigation.

“It’s time to move on,” Sanders said late Tuesday. “Frankly, it’s time to focus on the things the American people care about.”

Bill Clinton faced his crises by flitting from anger and denial to deeply personal confessionals — going on TV to concede “terrible moral error,” admitting to “causing pain in my marriage.”

That’s never been Trump’s style. Throughout his business career, and now in the presidency, he has proudly lived by simple mottos: Never look back. No regrets. When you’re hit, hit back 100 times harder.

Often, he would try to position a defeat as a victory, or he’d argue that he lost because he wasn’t really trying to win. In the last phase of his business career, Trump rented his name to products such as steaks, bottled water and mortgages. When some of those ventures went under, Trump said he bore no responsibility for any mismanagement.

“The mortgage business is not a business I particularly liked or wanted to be part of in a very big way,” he said after Trump Mortgage closed in 2007, leaving some bills unpaid.

At his darkest moments, such as when Trump faced financial ruin and a very public battle over his divorce, some business associates wondered how he managed to come to work each morning. But Trump showed no signs of distress: He “showed up every morning at 8 a.m.,” one of his top executives said, “tie tied, suit pressed, focused and moving forward.”

His family coat of arms, a regal symbol featuring a lion and a knight’s helmet, carries this Latin motto: “Numquam Concedere.”

“Never Concede.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more before bedtime... "How Trump’s isolation is making the Russia scandal worse"

Quote

As the clichéd movie poster says, “This time, it’s personal.” But with President Trump, every time is personal. And it’s that focus on himself — as opposed to his party or his government or an agenda he’s pursuing — that is causing this president to dig himself deeper into scandal.

This is a broad issue that was evident during the 2016 campaign and has wide-reaching implications for all kinds of issues. But it seems obvious that Trump’s obsessive focus on himself drove his decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey and will continue to propel the Russia scandal forward.

Let’s look first at what’s happening right now. Trump has plainly gotten used to a particular dynamic among his staff and many Republicans in Congress, in which he blurts out whatever inane thing that pops into his head — I had the best-attended inauguration in history! — and then his aides have no choice but to go out and insist that he was right, no matter how much mockery and abuse they take in their efforts to defend the indefensible. There was no better example than Trump’s ludicrous allegation that Barack Obama tapped his phones during the campaign, which everyone in the administration continues to pretend has some basis in reality.

...

Or as the New York Times reports:

Mr. Trump has been furious with news stories about his campaign’s ties to Russia. The White House has been critical of the leaks at the heart of those stories and tried unsuccessfully to enlist Mr. Comey in an effort to rebut the stories.

And now we have just learned that just days before he was fired, Comey asked for more resources to pursue the Russia investigation, a clear signal to the White House that he was not trying to protect the president.

When Comey was sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign and doing a service for Trump, Trump loved him. As soon as he stopped serving Trump, Trump fired him.

Now let’s step back for a moment. During 2016, Trump convinced many voters that he was a good choice for president because he was outside the system, supposedly untainted by politics and partisanship. While a typical politician arrives at a presidential campaign with a series of commitments and ideological beliefs built up over years, Trump proudly said that the focus of his life had been himself.

“My whole life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy,” he said. “I’ve grabbed all the money I could get. I’m so greedy. But now I want to be greedy for the United States.”

The trouble is that when you arrive in the White House without that network of commitments and without that ideological ballast, not only are your decisions unpredictable, but they’re likely to turn back again and again to what’s good for you. This is particularly true with Trump, who plainly suffers from a pathological narcissism. We may have never seen any human being, let alone any president, who spends as much time proclaiming his personal greatness and striking back at every inconsequential slight he receives from anywhere. It may be possible to imagine a president as independent of traditional political ties as Trump, but who wasn’t as juvenile about it and had more of an ability to restrain his impulses. But this is the president we’ve got.

Which means that as every issue or scandal plays out, Trump has no real considerations other than what’s good for Trump as he sees it. He isn’t thinking about an ideological agenda or broad goals for the country. He’s asking questions like, Am I winning? Who’s being loyal to me and who isn’t? Did someone criticize me on TV? Why won’t this scandal go away?

And as has become all too clear, not only does Trump have no commitment to a party or an ideology; he also has no commitment to the institutions and norms of democracy. That’s another thing that gets inculcated in politicians as they spend time in politics and government, even if some feel it more deeply than others. While Republicans have certainly spent the past few years breaking down many of those norms, Trump not only doesn’t pretend to care about them; he apparently isn’t even aware of them. A different president would at least pause before firing an FBI director who’s investigating his campaign, if for no other reason than that he’d realize that it would bring up echoes of Watergate and only add fuel to the scandal.

People from both parties sometimes argue that “politics” is an inherently corrupting force that takes individuals who start out with integrity and poisons them, degrading everything it touches. There are ways in which that can be true. But it’s also true that politics in its various manifestations can put up barriers to corruption and malfeasance, restraining the worst instincts of the worst actors. It can keep politicians occupied with substantive policy goals and make them hesitate to use their office to enrich themselves and their families. It provides a set of rules and norms that govern how they treat their opponents. It shows them that there can be costs to doing things that are technically legal but terribly problematic.

Trump is showing us what happens when you have a president who feels blissfully free of those constraints, and who thinks about nothing but himself. If this scandal gets deeper and wider — as it looks like it will — things will only get worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian National Post has weighed in with a comprehensive panning of Trump.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Ffull-comment%2Fandrew-coyne-the-risk-is-too-great-donald-trump-must-be-removed-from-office

And from the same source, some very interesting poll numbers - apparantly even some of his base is deserting.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/more-very-bad-news-for-trump-his-poll-numbers-just-hit-a-bunch-of-new-lows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the New Yorkers op-ed:

How Comey's Firing Accelerates The Russia Investigations

Quote

The official explanation for James Comey’s firing did not survive the night. Aides to President Donald Trump initially claimed that he fired the director of the F.B.I. for mishandling an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server. But that flatly contradicted Trump’s public praise of Comey’s decisions in the Clinton case. Moreover, Trump had repeatedly decried the F.B.I. investigation of his associates for potential collusion with Russia, calling it a “witch hunt,” “fake news,” and a waste of money. By nightfall, aides to Trump were conceding to reporters that Trump was infuriated that Comey would not back up his false accusation that President Obama wiretapped him, and that the aides had been trying to “come up with reasons” to justify the firing for more than a week. It emerged that Trump had taken to shouting at the television when he saw reports on the Russia investigation.

Last week, I published a story on the mounting risks to Trump’s Presidency, in which Trump’s friends and Republican strategists told me that the President is increasingly insulated from anyone who can check his impulses. (“Where is the ‘What the fuck’ chorus?” the consultant Steve Schmidt asked.) Comey’s firing confirmed that isolation. Trump has entered a legal and political maelstrom that he does not fully understand. In a sign of his seclusion, he was stunned by the volcanic reaction not only from Democrats but also from Republicans. Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who campaigned for Trump and now chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing the Russia probe, said, “I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey’s termination.” Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who is a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, tweeted that he would introduce a bill supporting the creation of an independent commission to investigate Russian involvement in the election.

That Trump believed he could fire the person leading law enforcement’s Russia investigation without a meaningful response from another branch of government is a sign of his unfamiliarity with the separation of powers, and, most perilous to himself, an enduring notion of impunity. Before entering the White House, Trump operated by a principle that, as he put it in a moment of “locker room” candor, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” The Constitution disagrees, and, by firing Comey and making a baldly contestable claim to his motives, Trump has invited a new investigation into why he took that step, how he described his reasoning, and whether it represents an abuse of office.

This is not the first time that Trump’s words have exposed him to judicial risks that he did not appreciate. In a case that stalled his travel bans against visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries, a federal judge in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, ruled that Trump’s campaign comments “include explicit, direct statements of President Trump’s animus towards Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States.” Chuang added that Trump’s attempts to disavow those statements could “not wipe them from the ‘reasonable memory’ of a ‘reasonable observer.’ ”

As Congress meets to plot its next steps, several other questions are emerging about the legal and political risks to Trump and his Administration: Will Comey’s firing kill the Russia investigations—or widen them?

Firing Comey may have accelerated the fire, not extinguished it. It’s easy to compare Trump to Richard Nixon, but another apt comparison lies in the path that brought Bill Clinton to impeachment. The lesson: one investigation leads to another.

Four separate congressional committees are looking into potential collusion, and, several hours before Comey was fired, federal prosecutors told CNN that they had issued grand-jury subpoenas to associates of the former national-security adviser Michael Flynn, requesting business records. The Times reported today that Comey had recently asked the Department of Justice for more resources to conduct the Russia investigation. Comey is the third person Trump has fired for investigating his associates’ connections to Russia, including the former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and the former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Representative Adam B. Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, made clear that he intends to expand his probe into the role that the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, played in Comey’s firing. Schiff said, “The decision by a President whose campaign associates are under investigation by the F.B.I. for collusion with Russia to fire the man overseeing that investigation, upon the recommendation of an Attorney General who has recused himself from that investigation, raises profound questions about whether the White House is brazenly interfering in a criminal matter.”

Will Republicans in Congress check Trump? This is the core question: How many members of the Republican caucus find Trump’s over-all approach a threat to their political futures? As early as last month, the approval of the Republican Party had already dropped seven points in three months, to forty per cent. Then Trump pushed for the passage of an unpopular health-care bill, which caused the nonpartisan Cook Report to increase its estimate of the risk that Republicans would lose the House in midterm elections to as high as fifty per cent. How many Republican members of Congress are offended by the news that Trump did not deliver his letter of dismissal through the usual chain of command but dispatched his longtime bodyguard, Keith Schiller, to hand-deliver it to F.B.I. headquarters? How many will conclude, like Amash, of Michigan, that an independent commission, immune to Presidential interference, is the only answer? For men and women who pride themselves on serving the government, the taint of humiliation is becoming harder to justify. As Michael Hayden, the former head of the C.I.A. and the N.S.A., put it, “I’m trying to avoid the conclusion that we’ve become Nicaragua.”

The creation of a special committee, or a special prosecutor, would require that three Republican senators choose to side with forty-eight Democrats, to create a majority. Senator John McCain said that Comey’s firing “only confirms the need and urgency” for a special committee to investigate the 2016 election. In addition to McCain, others are showing growing political reasons to consider that. Jeff Flake, of Arizona, who is up for reëlection in 2018, said, of the Comey decision, “I’ve spent the last several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey’s firing. I just can’t do it.” But converting that sentiment to action is a step they have not yet taken. For that, it will take public pressure.

How will the public respond? This part is often overlooked. It should not be. Richard Nixon only resigned because his popularity had dropped so far that congressional Republicans abandoned him. Trump begins at a lower base because he has a lower approval rating than any newly elected President in the history of polling. It is easy to mock nonbinding resolutions by city councils in Los Angeles; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and other liberal provinces that call for a congressional investigation of potentially impeachable offenses.

But these resolutions serve as more than empty symbolism. They are a systematic effort to prime the public and, ultimately, to force members of Congress to introduce a formal resolution (a step that the Democratic leadership has so far avoided). “The more that these communities take these actions calling on their members of Congress to take action, I think there will come a point when one member will break away from the Democratic leadership,” John Bonifaz, the president of Free Speech for People, which is circulating an impeachment petition, told me. “When that happens, it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle.”

Conclusion: Keep on applying pressure on your reps. Keep up the protests. Keep up the resistance. You, the people, have the power. Keep on exerting it, in any which way you can. Get that genie out of that lamp!

Magic-Genie.gif.15ae404c25a94dcf56b04a5372f19ff7.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fired FBI Director Comey Tells Colleagues: ‘It Is Done, and I Will Be Fine’

Quote

Fired FBI Director James Comey said in a letter to colleagues that he's not going to dwell on the manner of his departure and they shouldn't either.

"I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all," Comey said in the letter, which was first reported by CNN on Wednesday and later confirmed to NBC News by three law enforcement officials.

"I'm not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed. I hope you won't either. It is done, and I will be fine, although I will miss you and the mission deeply," Comey wrote.

Comey's abrupt firing sent shock waves through Washington and beyond, with some Democrats and other critics calling the move "Nixonian" and an attempt to interfere with investigations into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and whether there was any collusion with the Trump campaign.

The White House has denied that, and it said Comey was fired over leadership issues; a letter from the deputy attorney general cited his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The White House said the president had considered firing Comey since the election. Trump said Wednesday that Comey was fired because "very simply, he was not doing a good job."

Some have been skeptical of the reasoning, and there have been calls for a special prosecutor in the Russia investigation. Trump has repeatedly said he has no ties to Russia.

n Comey's letter, the former FBI director said, "My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution."

"I have said to you before that, in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence. What makes leaving the FBI hard is the nature and quality of its people, who together make it that rock for America," Comey said in the letter.

"It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing. My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution. If you do that, you too will be sad when you leave, and the American people will be safer."

Comey concluded: "Working with you has been one of the great joys of my life. Thank you for that gift." [...]

Dare I take the bolded as a veiled way of telling us that the FBI investigation may not be in jeopardy and will continue on undiminished even though he has been fired?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing. My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.

Yes, this seems like a veiled way of saying that they aren't going to bow down to Trump or any Trump controlled person who is put in charge. This is bound to send him into a massive tantrum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New York Times wrote an open letter to Rod Rosenstein. I wonder if he'll take the advice?

An Open Letter to the Deputy Attorney General

Quote

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein:

It’s rare that any single person has to bear as much responsibility for safeguarding American democracy as you find yourself carrying now. Even before President Trump’s shocking decision on Tuesday to fire the F.B.I. director, James Comey, a dark cloud of suspicion surrounded this president, and the very integrity of the electoral process that put him in office. At this fraught moment you find yourself, improbably, to be the person with the most authority to dispel that cloud and restore Americans’ confidence in their government. We sympathize; that’s a lot of pressure.

Given the sterling reputation you brought into this post — including a 27-year career in the Justice Department under five administrations, and the distinction of being the longest-serving United States attorney in history — you no doubt feel a particular anguish, and obligation to act. As the author of the memo that the president cited in firing Mr. Comey, you are now deeply implicated in that decision.

It was a solid brief; Mr. Comey’s misjudgments in his handling of the F.B.I. investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server were indeed serious. Yet you must know that these fair criticisms were mere pretext for Mr. Trump, who dumped Mr. Comey just as he was seeking more resources to investigate ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

You must also know that in ordering you to write the memo, Mr. Trump exploited the integrity you have earned over nearly three decades in public service, spending down your credibility as selfishly as he has spent other people’s money throughout his business career. We can only hope that your lack of an explicit recommendation to fire Mr. Comey reflects your own refusal to go as far as the president wanted you to.

In any case, the memo is yours, and that has compromised your ability to oversee any investigations into Russian meddling. But after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from these matters, because of his own contacts during the campaign with the Russians, the power to launch a truly credible investigation has fallen to you, and you alone.

You have one choice: Appoint a special counsel who is independent of both the department and the White House. No one else would have the standing to assure the public it is getting the truth. While a handful of Republican senators and representatives expressed concern at Mr. Comey’s firing, there is as yet no sign that the congressional investigations into Russian interference will be properly staffed or competently run. And Americans can have little faith that the Justice Department, or an F.B.I. run by Mr. Trump’s handpicked replacement, will get to the bottom of whether and how Russia helped steal the presidency for Mr. Trump.

In theory, no one should have a greater interest in a credible investigation than the president, who has repeatedly insisted the suspicions about his campaign are baseless. Yet rather than try to douse suspicions, he has shown he is more than willing to inflame them by impeding efforts to get to the truth.

Given your own reputation for probity, you must be troubled as well by the broader pattern of this president’s behavior, including his contempt for ethical standards of past presidents. He has mixed his business interests with his public responsibilities. He has boasted that conflict-of-interest laws do not apply to him as president. And from the moment he took office, Mr. Trump has shown a despot’s willingness to invent his own version of the truth and to weaponize the federal government to confirm that version, to serve his ego and to pursue vendettas large and small.

When Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes, for instance, he created a Voter Fraud Task Force to back up his claim that the margin resulted from noncitizens voting illegally (the task force has done nothing to date). When there was no evidence for his claim that President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, Mr. Trump demanded that members of Congress put their work aside in order to dig up “facts” to support it.

Firing Mr. Comey — who, in addition to leading the Russia investigation, infuriated Mr. Trump by refusing to give any credence to his wiretapping accusation — is only the latest and most stunning example. The White House can’t even get its own story straight about why Mr. Trump took this extraordinary step.

Few public servants have found themselves with a choice as weighty as yours, between following their conscience and obeying a leader trying to evade scrutiny — Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, who behaved nobly in Watergate, come to mind. You can add your name to this short, heroic list. Yes, it might cost you your job. But it would save your honor, and so much more besides.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! That's some letter!

If he really has the integrity his career so far suggests, it will be difficult for him to ignore. Let's hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KZK said:

Re: the thread title:

In my wildest fantasies, the thread title will someday be "Trump: Prisoner of Guantánamo"

Yeah, I don't just want him impeached. I want him arrested, indicted, and convicted of treason (among other things). And where better to lock up Agent Orange and his comrades than the now mostly empty Gitmo? It even has waterboarding facilities! They're such fans of torture, and no one should be able to support it unless they've tried it. . . [Note to NSA: I'm not actually advocating for torture. Your overlord, however, has, until someone he liked said it was ineffective. I wish I was making this up, but, well . . . ]

YES! I want to see the Orange Menace WEARING orange! Every hour, every day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Comey asked to testify before Senate Intelligence Committee

Quote

Democrats have asked ousted FBI Director James Comey to testify on Capitol Hill, a day after he was fired by Donald Trump.

Reports said Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, a Republican, and Democrat ranking member Mark Warner, said they had asked Mr Comey to appear before the committee next Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr Comey would accept the invitation, or if the testimony would be public or closed.

Sen. Mark Warner says he and Chmn. Burr have invited James Comey to testify before the Senate Intel Committee on Tuesday. — via @MSNBCpic.twitter.com/4zmnh8vQWs

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 10, 2017

"[We sent out the invitation. We've not heard back yet, we just sent out the invitation this morning," he said, according to CNBC.

“He was due to appear tomorrow with all the other heads of the intelligence community. My hope is that he’ll take advantage of this opportunity.” 

News of the invitation came as Mr Trump defended his decision to get rid of Mr Comey, a move that was widely criticised by Democrats and at least a dozen Republicans. 

Mr Trump said that the FBI Director “was not doing a good job”. The president did not explain more about the manner and timing of Mr Comey’s ousting. [...]

I so hope he says yes!

Also, how good to see that Republican Richard Burr asked for it, along with his Democratic colleague.
Goes to show not all repubs are DOH's and some of them have a sense of righteousness left, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rather enjoyed this part of the latest Quinnipiac poll:

9. What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump? (Numbers are not percentages. Figures show the number of times each response was given. This table reports only words that were mentioned at least five times.)

idiot 39

incompetent 31

liar 30

leader 25

unqualified 25

president 22

strong 21

businessman 18

ignorant 16

egotistical 15

asshole 13

stupid 13

arrogant 12

trying 12

bully 11

business 11

narcissist 11

successful 11

disgusting 10

great 10

clown 9

dishonest 9

racist 9

American 8

bigot 8

good 8

money 8

smart 8

buffoon 7

con-man 7

crazy 7

different 7

disaster 7

rich 7

despicable 6

dictator 6

aggressive 5

blowhard 5

decisive 5

embarrassment 5

evil 5

greedy 5

inexperienced 5

mental 5

negotiator 5

patriotism 5

I'm surprised corrupt isn't in there.

That's 13 positive or neutral words,  and 31 negative....:whistle:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"James Comey’s farewell letter to his FBI colleagues, annotated". I can't copy the annotations, but they are quite interesting.

 

"Trump’s ‘you’re fired’ message to Comey broke this basic rule of management"

Quote

There are plenty of big questions about President Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey: What does this mean for the investigation into the ties of Trump associates to Russia? How will this affect the likelihood of a special prosecutor being called in?

But there's another question -- less weighty but still important -- that many people have asked since Comey's startling dismissal: Why did it happen this way?

According to reports, the man who built a reputation for firing people across a boardroom table on reality television did not make his most high-profile termination as president in person. Instead, Comey was reportedly caught by surprise when the news flashed on a television in a room where he was speaking to FBI employees.

In doing so, the real estate billionaire who said he'd bring a business executive's acumen to the White House didn't follow what experts call one of the most basic rules of management: Don't catch people by surprise when they're getting the axe, and deliver bad news in person or, if needed, by phone. Management experts say Trump's approach to the firing not only raised risks that a surprised Comey could have spoken openly about the firing to the press, but could have a negative effect on career FBI employees or his successor.

"That’s pretty basic as a management principle," said Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. "When you let someone go, it’s a basic organizational concept that they ought to know it’s coming, that they've been communicated with before."

...

According to reports, Comey was speaking to FBI employees in Los Angeles when a television in the room flashed news about his dismissal. A report in the New York Times said Comey laughed in response, saying he thought it was a prank. His staff then asked him to step into a nearby office where the news was confirmed. "At this point, he had not heard from the White House," the Times reported. "Shortly thereafter, a letter from Mr. Trump was delivered to the FBI's headquarters." A report in the Los Angeles Times described him as being caught "flat-footed."

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, according to the Post's Jenna Johnson, told reporters Tuesday night that an email had also been sent to notify the FBI around 5 p.m. As to why Comey wasn't given the news in a personal phone call, Spicer said “I think we delivered it by hand and by email and that was — and I get it, but you asked me a question and that's the answer."

Then on Wednesday, when asked in the daily press briefing whether Comey "deserved a personal phone call or face-to-face meeting, deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump "followed the proper protocol in that process, which is handwritten notification." She said that "no matter how you fire someone it’s never an easy process and he felt like following protocol was the best thing to do."

Trump has not been a conventional president, and any private conversations that may have occurred between the two men are not clear. But experts said in most cases, high-profile political appointees are first given the chance to resign. "Most presidents don’t fire appointees in such a visible display of disaffection," said Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University. "They lead their appointees forward to resignation. Ordinarily, you give them an ounce of dignity when they walk out of the office."

Before Bill Clinton fired William Sessions amid an investigation into unethical behavior and expense-account padding -- the only other time a president has fired a FBI director -- he was first given multiple chances to resign. According to a 1993 story about the firing from The Post, Clinton also telephoned Sessions to deliver the bad news.

Light said that while a surprise firing like the one Comey reportedly experienced is highly unusual in any realm, the approach is particularly hard-hitting for government executives. "These are public servants," he said. "No matter how misguided or inept their leadership may have been, you don't summarily fire them and you don't do it this way."

It doesn't just hit the person making the exit, but could have lasting aftershocks both with the organization and Comey's successor. "The firing process itself sends a signal to potential FBI directors that they could be subject to the same humiliation," Light said.

Others suggested Trump's impersonal dismissal of Comey could also have an impact on the FBI itself. Management research has shown that survivors of job cuts work harder when they perceive that their colleagues were treated with dignity.

Stier notes that the FBI, in particular, is composed of employees with particularly long tenures and an agency that's traditionally been above political whims: "This has all kinds of implications, not the least of which is for the FBI itself. It is a traumatic event to lose your leader, and it’s made more traumatic by the way in which it was done." (In the press briefing Wednesday, Sanders said Trump would be discussing morale with the FBI's new acting director, Andrew McCabe, and would offer to speak to employees at headquarters.)

Stier notes that it doesn't have to be the president himself delivering the bad news or urging a high-ranking executive's resignation, and that sometimes it isn't. But it should still be delivered by a pretty high-ranking individual. "The messenger has import in terms of the perception of how it’s viewed," Stier said. "If not the president, maybe the White House chief of staff. It’s not a good way to learn the news from a TV monitor."

Peter Cappelli, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania who studies human resources, says that when people aren't given the news in a personal way that gives them an opportunity to absorb it first, it also creates an unintended risk. "If the press catches the guy off guard, and they start asking him questions, and he reacts and says things he might not have had he had time to get himself prepared," Cappelli said, "there can be political damage."

Of course, management experts weren't the only ones who questioned or commented on how Comey learned the news. On Twitter, some noted the irony that a president who had fired people on television "kinda fired the FBI director via TV." Others, including GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), said the way Comey found out, "if true, that's poor form and plain unprofessional." Meanwhile, New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who has covered Trump since the early 2000s, had a simple explanation: "He doesn't like interpersonal conflict."

...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KZK said:

Re: the thread title:

In my wildest fantasies, the thread title will someday be "Trump: Prisoner of Guantánamo"

Yeah, I don't just want him impeached. I want him arrested, indicted, and convicted of treason (among other things). And where better to lock up Agent Orange and his comrades than the now mostly empty Gitmo? It even has waterboarding facilities! They're such fans of torture, and no one should be able to support it unless they've tried it. . . [Note to NSA: I'm not actually advocating for torture. Your overlord, however, has, until someone he liked said it was ineffective. I wish I was making this up, but, well . . . ]

I was reading the old Star Wars book Isard's Revenge and the heroes were gonna send Imperial leader Isard to a very secure and isolated prison where she would have minimal human contact and cared for by droids.  That terrified Isard more than anything, being isolated in a place like that, alone and forgotten.

I think the US and other world powers should build a prison somewhere on Antarctica for detaining former world leaders who try to subvert democracy.  Have it be a very secure and isolated, with minimal human contact. 

It doesn't have to be a supermax on the inside.  Hell it would hardly need to be minimum security conditions on the inside.  Just these things: totally isolated with only a few people knowing where the prison is, and with prisoners having minimal human contact.  I think no matter how comfortable the prison is, being isolated in a place literally in the middle of nowhere and away from their devoted followers would be the absolute worst punishment for such people.  They feed off ass kissing and if there's no one around to kiss their asses and there's no way to communicate with their followers then they can't feed off ass kissing and cause problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article149898107.html

On another front (Voter Suppression) he's about to tap that weasel Kris Kobach of Kansas for something on voter suppression (link above)  

Quote

Trump to name Kobach to voter fraud, suppression commission

BY JONATHAN SHORMAN

jshorman@wichitaeagle.com

BY LINDSAY WISE

lwise@mcclatchydc.com

 

President Donald Trump will name Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to a commission to examine voter fraud and voter suppression, the White House said Thursday.

Vice President Mike Pence will serve as chair of the commission. Kobach will serve as vice chair, the White House said.

A spokeswoman for Kobach didn’t immediately respond to an email. ABC News first reported news of the commission.

Kobach has previously said he advised Trump to investigate voter fraud and played a role in the early writing of expected executive orders on immigration policy.

Kobach’s anticipated appointment to the commission comes as he weigh a run for governor, and after he ruled out taking any kind of position within the Trump administration.

His appointment to the commission also takes place as he contemplates how to respond to a federal judge’s order on Wednesday that he turn over a document he took into a November meeting with Trump that contained his plan for the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson gave Kobach until Friday to produce the document.

The plan, which was partially captured by a photographer, includes a reference to voter rolls.

2
2

This paired with this news related to Kobach is 'interesting'

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article149757479.html

Quote

Federal judge rejects appeal, orders Kobach to hand over documents from Trump meeting

BY BRYAN LOWRY

blowry@kcstar.com

 

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has lost his appeal and has been ordered to turn over documents from his meeting with President Donald Trump to the ACLU by Friday.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson on Wednesday upheld an earlier order from a federal magistrate judge requiring Kobach to hand over the documents to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an ongoing voting rights lawsuit against his office.

Robinson, who is based in Kansas City, Kan., was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Kobach met with Trump in November and was photographed carrying a document labeled as a strategic plan for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The photograph revealed a reference to voting rolls. The ACLU has sought access to the documents, contending that if Kobach lobbied Trump on changes to federal voting law, it would be relevant to the case.

“When somebody fights this hard to keep documents away from us, it leads us to believe there’s something there and we need to see it,” said Doug Bonney, chief counsel for the Kansas chapter of the ACLU.

“The amount of energy that has gone into this fight is quite extraordinary, in my experience,” said Bonney, who noted that standards for discovery in lawsuits are lenient.

Kobach has argued that the documents are protected by Trump’s executive privilege. The judge rejected that argument, saying that “no court has ever recognized that this privilege applies before a president takes office.” Trump also did not assert his privilege in this case.

Samantha Poetter, Kobach’s spokeswoman, said the office is reviewing the ruling and has no further comment. Under the order, Kobach will be able to redact portions of the documents not relevant to voting law.

The judge’s order also will require Kobach to hand over a draft of a proposed amendment, which he has crafted and shared with employees in his office, that would make changes to the National Voter Registration Act. The court rejected Kobach’s claim that this document was protected by attorney-client privilege because he shared it with an attorney in his office.

 

The ACLU’s lawsuit centers on a Kansas law that requires voters to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport. Robinson temporarily blocked Kobach from enforcing the requirement for people who had registered while getting a driver’s license under the federal motor voter law for the 2016 election.

The ACLU is seeking to make that exemption permanent. Bonney said that once the discovery issues in the case are resolved, the focus will shift back to that goal.

The case could have national ramifications because Kobach has served as an informal adviser to Trump on voting issues.

Bonney said that Kobach could theoretically file an extraordinary motion with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, but “the bar is very high” for such motions.

“I’ve never had anyone file one on a discovery order,” Bonney said. “I’ve been practicing for 32 years, and it’s never even occurred to me that I might want to take a discovery order up (with the appeals court) or that my opponent might.”

 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

snip

I think the US and other world powers should build a prison somewhere on Antarctica for detaining former world leaders who try to subvert democracy.  Have it be a very secure and isolated, with minimal human contact. 

It doesn't have to be a supermax on the inside.  Hell it would hardly need to be minimum security conditions on the inside.  Just these things: totally isolated with only a few people knowing where the prison is, and with prisoners having minimal human contact.  I think no matter how comfortable the prison is, being isolated in a place literally in the middle of nowhere and away from their devoted followers would be the absolute worst punishment for such people.  They feed off ass kissing and if there's no one around to kiss their asses and there's no way to communicate with their followers then they can't feed off ass kissing and cause problems.

If you ever get a chance, watch Michael Moore's documentary, "Where to Invade Next". Towards the end, he visits Iceland. He examines how having a balance of power there (no company boards can have more than 60% of either gender) makes things better and how having women have an equal say improves life for all. He then goes into their financial meltdown from 2008, where all but one bank failed. The only bank that survived was run by women. He talked to the prosecutor who prosecuted the bankers who precipitated the crisis. They were tried and convicted in criminal court and sentenced to a prison in the middle of nowhere. That's what we need for people like Agent Orange. He would be so devastated, especially if he couldn't have Faux News and his cell phone.

 

This is a good analysis: "With Comey’s dismissal, the Russia investigation will soon be run by Trump allies". There are too many links and graphics to quote, but it's an interesting read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many more people will have sold their souls (and their former respectability and morality) on the Trump altar before Trump is out.

Add Rosenstein (I didn't know him, just going by news reports) to this list.

 

Other topic: Apologies for typos in my previous post(s). I'm pretty critical of my own spelling and grammar and sometimes after I have quickly posted, especially if I use my phone, I cringe. (I'm sorry).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How very true: "‘Saturday Night Live’ sure has a lot to work with this week"

Quote

Wait. It’s Wednesday. How is it only Wednesday? That can’t be right. There are already so many eye-popping details emerging out of this chaotic news cycle, and you’re telling me there’s three more days left before “Saturday Night Live” airs?

SNL, like the rest of late-night comedy, has gone super heavy on the biting political humor (and unlike in prior seasons, they’ve amped it up since Election Day). And in case you haven’t watched TV or opened a newspaper or been online in the past 24 hours, this is an exceptionally dramatic moment for the Trump administration and journalists covering the White House — meaning NBC writers and onscreen talent have a lot of their go-to material to work with.

Add in this week’s host, Melissa McCarthy of Sean “Spicey” Spicer fame, and, oh, buddy, talk about expectations. The show released its promo for this week’s episode, with McCarthy showing her transformation into the White House press secretary.

But all this news doesn’t mean it’ll be easy for writers to write outlandish topical sketches. Like, how do they amp it up more than these real-life reports? A sampling:

From The Washington Post’s Jenna Johnson:

Spicer had wanted to drop the bombshell news in an emailed statement, but it was not transmitting quickly enough, so he ended up standing in the doorway of the press office around 5:40 p.m. and shouting a statement to reporters who happened to be nearby. He then vanished, with his staff locking the door leading to his office….

After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind [outdoor TV sets], Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this. … Can you just turn that light off?”

...

 

Lots of videos and tweets in the article. I especially love the Melissa video "I Feel Pretty"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.