Donald Trump and the Fellowship of the Alternative Facts (Part 14)

[onekidanddone]

26 minutes ago, Penny said:

My sister was at the NIH a year and a half ago. I was able to go with her and was thoroughly impressed. Very knowledgeable people nice facility and great doctors and nurses. These people are doing great work and I cannot believe they are cutting funding.  I a very pissed.

If he can't gain financially or he can't put his 'brand' on it, it  won't get funded

[JMarie]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

Where are they going to send the boy to school?  Not Sidwell Friends School as Obama did.  Oh I hope not. I mean I know Nixon was a Quaker, but oh hell can you imagine a Trump in that school?  Maybe they will send him away to boarding school.  I mean orange man really can't be bothered to spend any time with his kids as children.  I'm also surprised the current Mrs. is moving.  I would have figured he would have been working on wife number four by now. Or at least have a revolving bedroom door of ladies. Ewww.

I can't see him being involved in Barron's everyday school life.  If it's a photo op, like a fundraiser or recital, he'll be there, but not an ordinary Tuesday.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is quite possibly one of the most amusing articles I've read in the last few weeks. I like Dana Milbank's writing, but this one takes the cake: "Lincoln was a Republican, slavery is bad — and more discoveries by President Obvious"

Quote

Seeking and winning the presidency has been a magical voyage of discovery for Donald Trump.

Tuesday night, he divulged a most remarkable finding: Abraham Lincoln was — are you sitting down for this? — a Republican.

“Most people don’t even know he was a Republican,” Trump told a group of Republicans. “Right? Does anyone know? A lot of people don’t know that.”

It’s possible that somebody doesn’t know that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a member of the Republican Party, also known as “the Party of Lincoln.” But it has not been for lack of effort on Trump’s part. He has repeatedly tried to educate the populace on this little-known fact.

August 2016: “Most people don’t know this. The Republican Party is . . . the party of Abraham Lincoln.”

September 2016: “A lot of people don’t realize that Abraham Lincoln, the great Abraham Lincoln, was a Republican.”

October 2016: “A lot of people don’t know that it’s the party of Abraham Lincoln.”

...

Later, touring the new African American history museum in Washington, Trump discovered that slavery was bad. Spying a stone auction block, Trump said, according to Alveda King, a part of his entourage: “Boy, that is just not good. That is not good.” King also told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that upon seeing shackles for children, Trump remarked: “That is really bad. That is really bad.”

Who knew?

Trump’s discoveries of seemingly obvious things raise two possibilities: 1) He thinks people are awfully stupid, or 2) he is discovering for himself things the rest of us already knew. Which is true? Nobody knows. But we do know that there are many other things Trump thinks people don’t know about.

Sunday school: “I talk about Sunday school and people don’t even know what I’m talking about anymore. It’s true.”

...

That war is expensive: “People don’t realize it is a very, very expensive process.”

That the country is divided: “People don’t realize we are an unbelievably divided country.”

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Trump, in his bid to educate the public about things he has learned, takes on a professorial tone. Talking about the Johnson Amendment on church-state separation, Professor Trump told an audience that it’s something “people don’t know in the kind of detail and depth that I have explained it to you today.” Trump had just explained to them the Johnson Amendment’s provenance: “This was Lyndon Johnson in the 1970s.”

The Johnson Amendment was passed in 1954. Johnson retired in 1969 and died in 1973.

...

Trump may be correct when he says most people don’t know how much he’s worth and don’t know that he’s a “nice person.” But he’s surely wrong when he says people don’t know how bad things are.

“A lot of people don’t know it, but our country’s in trouble,” he has said.

If we didn’t know it before, we do now.

Captain Obvious, another good name for Agent Orange.

[RoseWilder]

Have we talked about this yet? 

When the fuck are we going to get a special investigator?

[GreyhoundFan]

7 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Have we talked about this yet? 

When the fuck are we going to get a special investigator?

Not while the Repubs are in charge.

 

To go with that, here's a good article about the Russia connection: "Here’s why the latest Trump-Russia revelations are so important"

Quote

Today brings yet another shocking revelation in the ever-widening Trump-Russia scandal, and Democrats are growing increasingly frustrated that this controversy isn’t an even bigger deal than it is. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants a delay in the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court while the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is ongoing, but no one seems to take the idea seriously.

So why is it that this scandal hasn’t yet risen to the level occupied by Watergate, Iran-contra and Monica Lewinsky? I have an explanation, but first let’s look at what we learned today, from Jeff Horwitz and Chad Day of the Associated Press:

President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

This raises far more questions than I have space to ask at the moment, but among them are: Did Manafort’s $10-million-a-year contract to advance Russian interests ever end, and if so, when? He took no salary to run the Trump campaign, so who was paying him at that time? What was his role in removing tough language on Russia’s aggression in Ukraine from the Republican platform? How did Trump come to hire Manafort in the first place?

...

Still, scandals sometimes take a long time to unfold. The Watergate break-in happened in June 1972; it would be two more years before Nixon finally resigned. George McGovern spent much of the 1972 campaign trying to convince people that it was a big deal, without much success.

What separates truly monumental scandals from the more mundane ones that most administrations experience is the personal involvement of the president. We don’t yet know exactly what the extent of Trump’s involvement in this scandal is, or what his motivations were. All of this might end up amounting to very little, or it could prove to be enormously consequential. Whatever it is, hopefully we’ll be able to figure it all out.

 

[RoseWilder]

Why is this man still president: 

 

[Cartmann99]

Latest Keith Olbermann video:

 

[RoseWilder]

John McCain calls for a select committee to investigate Trump/Russia: 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/mccain-calls-for-select-committee-on-trumprussia-probe-no-longer-does-the-congress-have-credibility/

Quote

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Wednesday called for a select committee to investigate Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian officials, telling MSNBC’s Greta Van Susteren that Congress lacks the credibility to “handle this alone.”

McCain was reacting to revelations that House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) met with Trump on Wednesday to brief him on new information suggesting the president may have been monitored—legally—through “incidental collection.”

Nunes informed the president and the press before sharing the details with fellow members of of the House Intelligence Committee, prompting Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) to blast the House Intel chairman’s decision.

In an interview with Van Susteren, McCain called the situation “bizarre,” arguing, “no longer does the Congress have credibility to handle this alone.”

“I don’t say that lightly,” McCain added.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

57 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

John McCain calls for a select committee to investigate Trump/Russia: 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/mccain-calls-for-select-committee-on-trumprussia-probe-no-longer-does-the-congress-have-credibility/

 

Okay, that restores a little bit of McCain's reputation in my eyes. Hopefully he won't fold when pressed.

 

 

"Manafort is gone, but his business associate remains a key part of Trump’s operation"

Quote

The White House on Wednesday sought to again distance itself from President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who is under increasing scrutiny over his connections to Russian business interests.

But even as Trump officials downplay Manafort’s role, his ­decade-long business associate Rick Gates remains entrenched in the president’s operation. Gates is one of four people leading a Trump-blessed group that defends the president’s agenda. As recently as last week, he was at the White House to meet with officials as part of that work.

Through Manafort, Gates is tied to many of the same business titans from Ukraine and Russia, including Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with strong ties to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. On Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that Manafort had a multimillion-dollar contract with Deripaska between at least 2005 and 2009 that was aimed at helping the political interests of Putin.

...

 

[RoseWilder]

Did anyone else watch The Rachel Maddow Show tonight? 

She mentioned that Rep. Adam Schiff (who is on the House committee that is investigating Trump's ties to Russia) went on another MSNBC program earlier today and dropped a bombshell. Just two days ago, he was on The Rachel Maddow Show and he said they only had circumstantial evidence of the Trump campaign having ties to Russia. Today he said they have more than just circumstantial evidence. He said he couldn't elaborate beyond that. But this is big news.

[GreyhoundFan]

4 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Did anyone else watch The Rachel Maddow Show tonight? 

She mentioned that Rep. Adam Schiff (who is on the House committee that is investigating Trump's ties to Russia) went on another MSNBC program earlier today and dropped a bombshell. Just two days ago, he was on The Rachel Maddow Show and he said they only had circumstantial evidence of the Trump campaign having ties to Russia. Today he said they have more than just circumstantial evidence. He said he couldn't elaborate beyond that. But this is big news.

I didn't watch Rachel -- new episode of Major Crimes was on -- but I'll catch the rerun at midnight. Thank for the heads up. That's interesting about Schiff. The WaPo had an article about him this week, saying he was quickly becoming a star. I don't know if I'd go that far, but he's certainly making a name for himself.

[RoseWilder]

Damn it. Why does big news always drop on the night when I have to get to bed early. 

This story seems to be blowing up all over the news sites I read: 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/fbi-investigating-information-alleging-trump-associates-coordinated-with-russia-during-2016-election-cnn/

Quote

 U.S. officials have information that suggests associates of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign communicated with Russian operatives in a coordinated effort to release damning info on Hillary Clinton, CNN reports.

The FBI is currently reviewing the information, which was partially referenced by FBI Director James Comey on Monday, when he testified before Congress that the Bureau is investigating “a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

According to a source, “people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready,”

I can't seem to find the article they're referencing on CNN, but so far multiple websites are reporting on this story. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief. I need to go to bed, I'm getting too annoyed. The tangerine toddler hasn't Tweeted about London, but Tweedle_Dumb stepped up: "Donald Trump Jr. Criticizes London Mayor After Deadly Attack"

Quote

It has become something of an online custom in the social media age to react to tragic news stories — like Wednesday’s attack in London — with well-meaning if sometimes rote messages like “thoughts and prayers.” But that does not appear to be Donald Trump Jr.’s style.

“You have to be kidding me?!” Mr. Trump said Wednesday afternoon on Twitter, as details of the episode — which left at least five dead, including the assailant, and 40 injured — continued to unfold. The message continued, “Terror attacks are part of living in big city, says London Mayor Sadiq Khan.”

Mr. Trump, the oldest son of President Trump, was calling attention to an article from September in The Independent, a British newspaper, that described Mr. Khan’s reaction to a bombing then in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City.

Mr. Trump mischaracterized the London mayor’s remarks. Mr. Khan did not describe terrorism as “part of living in a big city,” as if bombings and shootings were an inescapable fact of life. He said that terrorism preparedness, including providing sufficient support to the police, was “part and parcel of living in a great global city.”

“That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities; it means the security services being ready, but it also means exchanging ideas and best practice,” Mr. Khan said in a video interview published by The Evening Standard, another British paper. (For the record, Mr. Khan did say the victims of the Chelsea bombing were in his “thoughts and prayers.”)

“Nothing is more important to me than keeping Londoners safe,” Mr. Khan added. “I want to be reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked.”

Mr. Trump’s tweet was not well received by Britons, who were still learning details of the attack when he weighed in. On Twitter, Wes Streeting, a member of Parliament from the Labour Party, accused Mr. Trump of capitalizing on the attack in London and called him “a disgrace.”

...

There are multiple Tweets in the article, calling out the smug prince for his stupid comments. There is also a nauseating picture of his smug-ass face that made my headache worse.

[PreciousPantsofDoom]

3 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The tangerine toddler hasn't Tweeted about London, but Tweedle_Dumb stepped up: "Donald Trump Jr. Criticizes London Mayor After Deadly 

I was just getting on fj to see if anyone had posted this.  I guess the Jr piece of shit didn't fall far from the old orange asshole.  (Ugh,  now I've grossed myself out with that image,  but that whole family disgusts me.)

[GreyhoundFan]

Aw, Agent Orange wanted a parade of tanks, but didn't get them. My heart bleeds... "Trump’s Team Said It Didn’t Ask For Military Vehicles At Inauguration. Emails Show It Did."

Quote

WASHINGTON ― The month after Donald Trump won the presidential election, his staff asked the Pentagon to send photographs of military tactical vehicles that he could include in his inaugural parade, emails obtained by The Huffington Post show.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee “is seriously considering adding military vehicles to the Inaugural Parade,” a Pentagon official wrote in an internal email dated Dec. 13, 2016. “The conversation started as ‘Can you send us some pictures of military vehicles we could add to the parade,’” the official wrote.

The emails, which were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, corroborate HuffPost’s January report that Trump, who has spoken favorably of public displays of military prowess, looked into deploying heavy military equipment in his inaugural parade. Asked in December about plans to use military equipment during the occasion, a Trump aide refused to address the matter on the record but offered a vehement off-the-record denial. It’s not clear whether the aide was aware of the conversations referenced in the Pentagon emails, and he did not respond to a request for an explanation.

The author of the the Dec. 13 email, whose name was redacted, appeared uncomfortable with the request from the Trump team. “I explained that such support would be out of guidelines, and the costs associated with bringing military vehicles to the [National Capital Region] would be considered reimbursable.”

The Pentagon typically works closely with presidential inaugural committees to plan the parades. But the military usually provides support in the form of musical groups and color guards rather than heavy military equipment. When Trump’s team floated the idea of sending tanks and missile launchers down Pennsylvania Avenue, some worried it might resemble the massive military parades in North Korea, a source involved in inaugural preparations told HuffPost in January. They were also concerned that the heavy tanks could damage D.C. roads.

The military wasn’t sure how to respond to the Trump team’s December inquiry, the emails show. “I’m extremely reluctant to produce an improvised list of military vehicles that we might be held to,” the Pentagon official wrote. “Also concerned that we as a command need an opportunity to staff this request and to make deliberate decisions about vehicle choice and configuration, paint scheme, uniform for crew members, etc. before we start providing pictures which might be regarded as binding.”

Conversations with Trump’s inaugural staff were still in the preliminary phase and “completely off the record” the official wrote. “But the establishing guidance has come from the highest level. I do believe they will be making the request.”

Requests for the use of military equipment in inaugural parades have to be approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Ultimately, the Trump team decided against filing a formal request for military vehicles. Instead, they asked for multiple flyovers of fighter aircraft.

“Great news,” one Pentagon official wrote on Dec. 27, responding to an email confirming that the Trump team had abandoned its efforts to procure “military tactical vehicles” for the parade.

Trump’s inaugural planning committee asked for a flyover from each military service and an additional flyover from “one of the demonstration teams” ― a possible reference to the Navy’s Blue Angels, the Air Force’s Thunderbirds, or the Army’s Golden Knights Parachute Team. The military rejected the demonstration team but approved four aircraft each for the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, the Marines and the Coast Guard.

Trump specifically told his staff he wanted to see an F-35 and an F/A-18 Super Hornet flying overhead during his parade, a Pentagon official wrote in a Jan. 11 email. That request may have been part of Trump’s bid to pit defense manufacturing giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing against one another. Weeks earlier, Trump tweeted:

The Pentagon approved the use of both aircraft, but Trump never got to see his fighter jets in action on his inauguration day. The military canceled all flyovers on Jan. 20, citing poor weather conditions.

Good grief. He really is a toddler.

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Did anyone else watch The Rachel Maddow Show tonight? 

She mentioned that Rep. Adam Schiff (who is on the House committee that is investigating Trump's ties to Russia) went on another MSNBC program earlier today and dropped a bombshell. Just two days ago, he was on The Rachel Maddow Show and he said they only had circumstantial evidence of the Trump campaign having ties to Russia. Today he said they have more than just circumstantial evidence. He said he couldn't elaborate beyond that. But this is big news.

Thank you for heads up, @RoseWilder! I'm fixing to watch it, here's the link for anybody else who is interested:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/rep-schiff-trump-russia-case-now-more-than-circumstantial-904386115990

[fraurosena]

Apparently I am not the only one that thinks it's rather suspicious that Nunes starts what essentially boils down to discrediting the intelligence agencies on the very day that the investigative committee apparently gets definitive (ie. non-circumstantial) evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Here's a link to the Palmer report on the subject:

https://www.palmerreport.com/news/russia-devin-nunes-donald-trump/2019/

Quote

House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes went to extraordinary – and possibly illegal – lengths today when he announced that he had learned from unnamed “sources” that the Donald Trump transition team had been picked up on U.S. intel wiretaps, and that it all had nothing to do with Russia. Nunes is clearly trying to cover for Trump in a manner which goes beyond mere Republican Party lines. It turns out Nunes has his own personal financial ties to Russia which may be motivating him.

[...]

Let’s talk about the financial business that Nunes conducts with Russia. In addition to being a Congressman, he’s part owner of Alpha Omega Winery LLC. According to the Los Angeles Times he has $50,000 of his own money tied up in the winery, which is remarkable considering that the same report lists his total net worth at just $51,002. In other words, the winery is all Nunes has.

According to Scott Dworkin of the respected Democratic Coalition Against Trump, the Nunes’ winery has a Russian distributor who is close to Vladimir Putin. This means Nunes has the vast majority of his small net worth tied up in a business venture which partially relies on sales in Russia. At the least, Nunes benefits greatly if Trump remains in office long enough to continue repealing Russian sanctions. Is this why Nunes is so desperate to protect Trump?

How many GOPpers have ties to Russia? It seems the list of those who don't will be very short indeed...

[Howl]

Re: The case for Trump team collusion with Russia during the election is still circumstantial at this point, correct?  There's a lot of slavering going on, excited speculation, but I haven't seen any indictable offenses exposed.  

I don't have words for Nunes, or at least I can't settle on just one;  I started out with WTF?  Inept?  Lap dog?  Loose cannon?   Idiot?  Poor impulse control? Crazy like a fox?  Crazy like a fox with a meth problem?

And Comey?  He has no credibility in my eyes.  Zip. Nada. Zero.  This is the guy who dropped the trash-Hillary-fake-email bomb the week before the election, remember that? Against established FBI policy.  Who is investigating him? So who was colluding with who to sabotage Hillary's chances?

If I were a betting person, I'd be looking at the odds of Trump's approval numbers sinking into  the 20s in the next six months. I'm not a betting person, but I did find people who are:  SportsBetting's  Donald Trump Proposition Betting Odds, is updated weekly.  It's probably the most detailed web site to check out if you want to know who is doing what in the administration and which policies are being considered.  I didn't ya know that people are betting on whether the White House will back Taiwanese independence, did ya?  Have you lying awake at night wondering about this:  Will carried interest be taxed as ‘ordinary income’ by 12/31/17 at 11:59 PM Eastern?  Yes: +350  No: -500

These are the sections, with a YUGE number of categories in each one.  Really the best categories.  Good categories.  Most people don't know how good these categories are: 

• DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSITION BETTING ODDS FOR WEEK OF 3/20/17
• DONALD TRUMP TWITTER PROPS
• DONALD TRUMP MISCELLANEOUS PROPS
• TRUMP ECONOMIC POLICY PROPS
• TRUMP POLLING AND PUBLIC OPINION PROPS
• AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)/OBAMACARE PROPOSITIONS  There’s several European sportsbooks offering prop bets on the repeal of ‘Obamacare’ aka the Affordable Care Act. The problem with this is that it’s highly unlikely that the entire ACA will be repealed in ‘one fell swoop’. For that reason, we’ve divided it up into its various components with odds for each. 

RealClearPolitics has current poll results on Trump's job approval ratings, in aggregate from a variety of sources. 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Re: The case for Trump team collusion with Russia during the election is still circumstantial at this point, correct?  There's a lot of slavering going on, excited speculation, but I haven't seen any indictable offenses exposed.  

I don't have words for Nunes, or at least I can't settle on just one;  I started out with WTF?  Inept?  Lap dog?  Loose cannon?   Idiot?  Poor impulse control? Crazy like a fox?  Crazy like a fox with a meth problem?

And Comey?  He has no credibility in my eyes.  Zip. Nada. Zero.  This is the guy who dropped the trash-Hillary-fake-email bomb the week before the election, remember that? Against established FBI policy.  Who is investigating him? So who was colluding with who to sabotage Hillary's chances?

If I were a betting person, I'd be looking at the odds of Trump's approval numbers sinking into  the 20s in the next six months. I'm not a betting person, but I did find people who are:  SportsBetting's  Donald Trump Proposition Betting Odds, is updated weekly.  It's probably the most detailed web site to check out if you want to know who is doing what in the administration and which policies are being considered.  I didn't ya know that people are betting on whether the White House will back Taiwanese independence, did ya?  Have you lying awake at night wondering about this:  Will carried interest be taxed as ‘ordinary income’ by 12/31/17 at 11:59 PM Eastern?  Yes: +350  No: -500

These are the sections, with a YUGE number of categories in each one.  Really the best categories.  Good categories.  Most people don't know how good these categories are: 

• DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSITION BETTING ODDS FOR WEEK OF 3/20/17
• DONALD TRUMP TWITTER PROPS
• DONALD TRUMP MISCELLANEOUS PROPS
• TRUMP ECONOMIC POLICY PROPS
• TRUMP POLLING AND PUBLIC OPINION PROPS
• AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)/OBAMACARE PROPOSITIONS  There’s several European sportsbooks offering prop bets on the repeal of ‘Obamacare’ aka the Affordable Care Act. The problem with this is that it’s highly unlikely that the entire ACA will be repealed in ‘one fell swoop’. For that reason, we’ve divided it up into its various components with odds for each. 

RealClearPolitics has current poll results on Trump's job approval ratings, in aggregate from a variety of sources. 

Rep Adam Schiff said on CNN that they have proof that is NOT circumstantial, but he couldn't elaborate at this time. His office verified to Rachel Maddow that is what he meant to say, it wasn't a misquote.

 

[fraurosena]

When the Parasitic Presidunce tweets on the attack in London yesterday, he says this:

Note that nothing is said about the real victims, he only offers condolences to May. You'd think May was personally attacked herself or something.

Compare that to what former president, Barack Obama tweeted:

 

[Howl]

OK, FINALLY, fucking FINALLY someone is taking on Comey in a NYT op-ed titled Birth of the Biggest Lie

Quote

...to me this is the biggest, Comey confirmed that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to the Russians who tampered with our election is not “fake news” manufactured by Democrats stewing over a bitter loss but a legitimate investigation that has been underway for months and has no end in sight.

Individuals who were associated with the president of the United States’ winning campaign are under criminal investigation. That is an extraordinary sentence and one that no American can allow to be swallowed up by other news or dismissed by ideologues.

Depending on the outcome of this investigation, we could be facing a constitutional crisis. Oddly, it is likely that the reason Trump is even in the Oval Office is Comey’s original, extraordinarily inappropriate and unprecedented action. The Trump machinery then used that action to scare Americans about Clinton, in one of the most astonishing acts of deflection and hypocrisy in American history.

The op-ed goes on to discuss exactly how tweeting and retweeting and the Trump campaign seizing Comey's big reveal to amplify the Crooked Hillary narrative helped sink her chances in the election.  I've been waiting for a long time for someone to make this connection.  It's the elephant in the room.  So again, my question is, who will investigate Comey for deliberately taking action to sway the election toward Trump?

[47of74]

38 minutes ago, Howl said:

OK, FINALLY, fucking FINALLY someone is taking on Comey in a NYT op-ed titled Birth of the Biggest Lie

The op-ed goes on to discuss exactly how tweeting and retweeting and the Trump campaign seizing Comey's big reveal to amplify the Crooked Hillary narrative helped sink her chances in the election.  I've been waiting for a long time for someone to make this connection.  It's the elephant in the room.  So again, my question is, who will investigate Comey for deliberately taking action to sway the election toward Trump?

If had my way any kind of interferenece by the FBI in elections would get the director and the entire senior leadership of the FBI sent to prison for life in a supermax institution without any possibility of reprieve or parole.  We can't take chances with elections.  They have to be aboveboard and honest, with no interference in legitimate elections by anyone, foreign or domestic.  Otherwise what the fuck is the point of having them?

[fraurosena]

I have a theory for you. What if Comey deliberately did his big reveal, precisely to get the toddler into office, in order to then better be able to get more information on who exactly is in on the Russian connection? Because let's be honest, all these cronies in the administration, all these cronies in the GOP, all have ties to the Russians; just look at the news, more ties and connections are outed daily. We know all this because the toddler is in office and the GOP in in power now. Would this have become known if he wasn't? Would the depth of the GOP involvement with Russia have been this easy to find out as it is now, if Hillary had won? 

I realize this thinking reaches right in to the realm of conspiracy theories, but hey, it's one explanation that might clarify Comey's weird behavior. 

 

----------- two posts got merged again, so this is my artificial break --------- 

 

They really know how to go low, don't they? I mean, really, really low. 

We have a saying in my language: he who digs a hole for another, will fall into it himself. So, keep digging GOP, keep going lower and lower, and lower. Who knows, you just might fall in and end up in the pits of hell, where you all belong.

[sawasdee]

@HowlI very definitely hold no brief for Comey.

But I seem to remember an idea being floated at the time of his Hilary email revelations 1 week before the election, that Comey's hand was forced. By the NY FBI office, who had the information, and were close to Giuliani. That they threatened to leak the info in the most damaging way possible if Comey didn't go on record.

This would explain a lot, including the almost frantic speed at which those emails were shown to be irrelevant, and Giuliani's seeming knowledge of a coming 'bombshell'.. Comey may have been in a no win situation.

In which case, as an honourable public servant, he would be absolutely furious at being so compromised, and equally absolutely determined that any case he brought against those behind the forcing of his hand be airtight.

The above scenario actually explains most of Comey's behaviour.

[GreyhoundFan]

14 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

@HowlI very definitely hold no brief for Comey.

But I seem to remember an idea being floated at the time of his Hilary email revelations 1 week before the election, that Comey's hand was forced. By the NY FBI office, who had the information, and were close to Giuliani. That they threatened to leak the info in the most damaging way possible if Comey didn't go on record.

This would explain a lot, including the almost frantic speed at which those emails were shown to be irrelevant, and Giuliani's seeming knowledge of a coming 'bombshell'.. Comey may have been in a no win situation.

In which case, as an honourable public servant, he would be absolutely furious at being so compromised, and equally absolutely determined that any case he brought against those behind the forcing of his hand be airtight.

The above scenario actually explains most of Comey's behaviour.

I agree with that assertion. I know the NY FBI field office is rabidly Repub and the employees there despise the Clintons. They certainly could have forced Comey's hand.

 

Gotta love this one: "President Trump’s cascade of false claims in Time’s interview on his falsehoods". It goes through each of the many lies and fact checks them. It's just incredible that he still spews so much shit.