Trump 19: Please Cry for Us Montenegro (and We Are so Sorry!)

[Destiny]

I can't believe Trump hasn't started rage tweeting yet. Did they steal his phone? 

One would hope that his adults did so, but tbh I expect to see the tweet storm tonight. He has to watch Faux News to get ideas first.

[fraurosena]

5 minutes ago, Destiny said:

One would hope that his adults did so, but tbh I expect to see the tweet storm tonight. He has to watch Faux News to get ideas first.

I wouldn't be suprised if he used junior's account. He was tweeting like a madman all through the testimony. 

[sawasdee]

My favourite Wapo comment of the day:

Quote

"And I moved on him very heavily. In fact, I had him over for dinner. He wanted some dinner. I said, ‘Come over, we'll have a nice dinner.’ I moved on him like a b**ch, but I couldn’t get there. And he was married to the FBI."

 

[GrumpyGran]

Wow, thanks for all the greatness here, I did a watch and wander, had to get out of the house but I saw way too much Republican side tracking. Did every single one of them ask him at least once if he told Trump that he personally wasn't under investigation? Try to stay on point guys.

And McCain, OMG! It's possible that he was the one appointed to wrap it up by screaming "But, Hillary!" but it was beyond awkward. I thought he had already announced that he won't run again but what a painful way to go out.

Later I'll amuse myself with the DJT Jr. twitter delight. But what I really really really want to know is how in the hell did they keep Trump off twitter? Maybe that was him using Junior's account. No, Junior is just slightly more literate.

[Howl]

He was off giving a speech to evangelicals, commiserating with them how awful it is be under siege. 

Quote

President Donald Trump sought comfort in the figurative embrace of his evangelical supporters Thursday as the FBI director he recently fired told Congress about their conversations, telling a religious gathering that they are “under siege”...In his remarks to the conference, Trump pledged to always support the right of evangelicals to follow their faith, which some conservatives believe is under attack by government...

...Trump also mentioned getting the Senate to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch for a seat on the Supreme Court, and keeping a campaign promise to repeal a rarely enforced IRS rule barring churches and tax-exempt groups from endorsing political candidates at the risk of losing their status.

“As long as I’m president, no one is going to stop you from practicing your faith or preaching what is in your heart,” he said.

We are all so f***ed in this regard. Here's a little something to get our minds off the dumpster fire.  Or is this photo a metaphor for current events?  Use it as your personal political Rorschach! 

 

[sawasdee]

Sorry I keep posting Wapo comments, but this one scares me, because it seems so possible.

Quote

Spoiler

I have little faith, given the political atmosphere in this country and the GOP lock on power that anything will come of this. Putin’s slow motion coup against the US is pretty complete and locked in; he read us - particularly the moral collapse of the GOP - very well indeed – congratulations Vlad! 

After all, if you wanted to weaken the US, screwing up our geopolitical position in Europe and the Middle East and saber rattling on the Korean peninsula is a great start. Then you pull out of Paris, further eroding US leadership. Next, make war against its citizens by fomenting racial divisions and repealing health care; if we can get a tax cut for billionaires into the bargain further exacerbating income inequality in the US, well, great! Then you weaken US trade policy with nationalist protectionist platforms – awesome!  
 
Slap the blame for any coming disaster on experts who are better educated, playing on the deep anti-intellectualism in US society, and voila! 
 
At some point bad things will start to happen – people will perish in greater numbers for lack of health care, or there will be a major economic meltdown (for which Caligula a L’Orange and his Romanov Dynasty will be responsible); there will be a war with, well, take your pick; climate disasters will grow more acute; a pathogen will morph at the same time the CDC is cut; there will be a terror attack to further erode liberties, or elections will be cancelled for raison d’etat. Take your pick. 

 

 

[fraurosena]

17 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

Caligula a L’Orange

    

 

This is what Camp McCain had to say of his performance today:

 

Does his pr-team really believe this explains his fatuous and incongruous conduct?

[Cartmann99]

30 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

Putin’s slow motion coup against the US is pretty complete and locked in; he read us - particularly the moral collapse of the GOP - very well indeed – congratulations Vlad! 

Just start calling them the VOP, Vlad's Own Party. 

[sawasdee]

Just been thinking of the last few US Presidents.

Carter - D Nuclear Engineer.

Reagan - R Actor

Bush Sr. R Director of CIA

Clinton  D Rhodes Scholar ( Only 24 a YEAR  are awarded for the entire US)

Bush Jr R Skull and Bones Club

Obama D  Editor Harvard Law Review

Trump R Did two years at Wharton - NOT the business school. Trump University.

Something of a pattern, with Bush Sr as the outlier.

[fraurosena]

Meanwhile, in other news:

Something bad:

House Republicans Pass Bill That Rips Up Post-Crisis Bank Rules

Spoiler

House Republicans made headway on President Donald Trump’s pledge to dismantle post-crisis financial rules by approving a sweeping bill Thursday that rips up major aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act.

House lawmakers approved the legislation in a 233-to-186 vote. But the bill -- called the Financial Choice Act -- has little chance of passing the Senate in its current form.

Senate Democrats, whose votes will probably be needed to pass it, have repeatedly said they have little interest in revisiting Obama-era constraints on Wall Street that were meant to make the financial system safer. Another issue: Republicans are distracted by more pressing topics such as health care and taxes.

Last month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out the difficult task ahead by saying he’s pessimistic Congress will revamp Dodd-Frank anytime soon.

The bill overhauling bank rules, which is sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, represents Republicans’ most aggressive effort to ease strictures that the president blames for stifling lending and economic growth.

The legislation is part of the deregulatory agenda that has swept through Washington since Trump’s election win. In the coming days, the Treasury Department is expected to release a report that will add to the push by laying out recommendations for cutting back what Republicans see as red tape that was wrapped around banks after the 2008 crash.

At a press conference yesterday, House Speaker Paul Ryan called Hensarling’s bill “the crown jewel” of Republican efforts to revamp regulations toward a goal of “creating good-paying jobs and getting back to real economic growth.”

But the Senate presents a formidable hurdle. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, said in an interview Thursday that he plans to craft his own legislation, and will seek input from the Trump administration and Senate Democrats.

“The Choice Act is a very solid piece of legislation that will also be a part of what we consider,” Crapo said.

Democratic Criticism

The Senate Banking Committee’s top Democrat, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, has struck a more critical tone. In a statement yesterday, he called Hensarling’s legislation a dangerous plan that will “put taxpayers back on the hook for Wall Street’s greed and recklessness.” 

Brown’s opposition likely means any deal Crapo can strike with Democrats won’t include some of the most ambitious elements of the House bill, like gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog created to shield consumers from lending abuses. Instead, making small tweaks to Dodd-Frank, such as providing relief for community banks, is more probable.

Hensarling, speaking to reporters in Washington Thursday, said Crapo could try to attach changes to Dodd-Frank to a must-pass bill, such as legislation that funds the government. Hensarling, a Texas Republican, said another option is breaking his legislation up and trying to pass specific provisions independently.

Bank Resistance

Ironically, one group that isn’t a fan of everything in Hensarling’s bill is Wall Street. To be freed from some rules, the legislation requires banks to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new capital.

Hensarling also wants to do away with what’s known as Dodd-Frank’s orderly liquidation authority, which empowers regulators to wind down banks should they run into trouble. While Republicans argue that that part of the law didn’t resolve the fact that some Wall Street lenders remain too-big-to-fail, investors appreciate that it laid out a plan to prevent a collapsed bank from spreading contagion through out the financial system.

Aspects of Hensarling’s bill that do have financial-industry backing: Its reduction in the frequency of burdensome exams that test whether banks can endure another crisis and its repeal of the Volcker Rule, which restricted banks from making speculative market bets with their own capital. The legislation also scraps the so-called fiduciary rule, which imposes tough standards on brokers by requiring them to put their customers’ interests ahead of their own when handling retirement accounts.

Plan B

Because getting a bill through the Senate is so challenging, some Republicans have discussed trying to revamp Dodd-Frank via a complicated budget process known as reconciliation that doesn’t require support from Democrats.

The strategy, which is already being used to go after Obamacare, requires Republicans to show that provisions in Dodd-Frank are a strain on federal spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that repealing the 2010 law’s orderly-liquidation authority regulators’ would save the government $14.5 billion.

The bill is H.R. 10.

And something good:

Over 100 Congressmen Are Filing A Lawsuit To Stop Trump’s Foreign Bribes

Spoiler

While Trump’s administration has been disastrous for the United States and its allies, it’s proving to be a windfall for Trump’s businesses. Money has come flooding into his establishments around the globe as corporations and foreign governments try to curry favor with the president. The Trump Organization has also admitted it won’t fulfill previous promises to track profits made off foreign governments.

Politico reports that a group of Democrats in the House and Senate are moving to file a lawsuit against Trump, alleging that he is in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

The clause forbids presidents from accepting gifts or payments from other countries. Trump has failed to sell his business interests or put them in a blind trust, instead assigning his children to run the companies. The decision has thrown the door wide open for foreign countries to directly influence the White House.

It’s now a simple matter for these nations to spend inordinate amounts of money at Trump businesses, who can then in turn inform Trump, who can then grant the customer countries preferential treatments or shape U.S. policy to benefit them. Numerous private hotels and restaurants have already filed complaints, stating that foreign governments are now ignoring their establishments in favor of Trump’s.

The Democrats banding together for the lawsuit plan to file it in the coming weeks. So far 78 Democratic Congressmen and 25 Democratic Senators have thrown their support behind the idea.

“There is almost no litigation on this since the Constitution was established…because no one has ever violated this the way we think Trump has,” Congressman Jerry Nadler – one of the Democrats spearheading the lawsuit – told Politico. “This president has huge business interests and hasn’t divested himself. And the result is if you go to a Trump hotel, you’re putting money into Trump’s personal pocket. And there’s nothing wrong with that, except if you’re a foreign government.”

Trump has brought an unparalleled patina of corruption toe 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He has absolutely no idea how to govern competently and seems to be illegally making money off his presidency. There is absolutely no excuse for such reprehensible behavior.

 

 

[sawasdee]

Politico has a very good article on today's testimony.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/james-comey-russia-trump-hearing-indictment-239310

This  paragraph struck me during the hearing, and even more in reading it afterward.

Quote

In an answer to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), about whether Trump had ever expressed serious concern about the underlying issue at hand — the deliberate Russian interference in last year’s election — Comey turned passionate, displaying more emotion than in any other response.

“The reason this is such a big deal,” he said. “We have this big messy wonderful country where we fight with each other all the time. But nobody tells us what to think, what to fight about, what to vote for except other Americans. And that's wonderful and often painful. But we're talking about a foreign government that using technical intrusion, lots of other methods tried to shape the way we think, we vote, we act. That is a big deal. And people need to recognize it. It's not about Republicans or Democrats. They're coming after America, which I hope we all love equally.

And that's the bottom line. It was the Democrats that they came after this time - but if, under a different Republican President, the foreign policy of the US does not align with Russian wishes - it could be them.

And the US cannot reply in kind - because Russia does not have democratic elections. This is a one sided war.

[fraurosena]

Yes, this is indeed about the Russian interference in the elections. But what I don't think is that they exclusively went after the democrats. It has bothered me for some time that so many republicans are defending the presidunce, and seem to be doing so even if it is utterly detrimentalj to their own reputation and they don't even seem to believe what they are saying. Why are they acting this way? They can't all be complete and utter fools. So what is compelling them?

Well, here's my theory on that. If the Russians broke into the DNC, what's to say they stopped there? They could just as easily also have broken into the RNC, and are using the information they gathered to blackmail the individual repubs into acting as they are right now.

This doesn't explain everything, and I believe there is a lot more at play than just this, but I do think it could be a possible contributing factor. 

 

[VixenToast]

Re: The quote about the priest.

It is very perfect for this situation. However as a big buff of English Royal history and Shakespeare, I must make a complaint.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!"

Just sounds more bad ass.

[Cleopatra7]

11 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

It has bothered me for some time that so many republicans are defending the presidunce, and seem to be doing so even if it is utterly detrimentalj to their own reputation and they don't even seem to believe what they are saying. Why are they acting this way? They can't all be complete and utter fools. So what is compelling them?

There's a saying that Democrats fall in love whereas Republicans fall in line when it comes to candidates. Different factions of the Democratic Party are still arguing about the primaries and election, while the "Never Trump" Republicans now embrace Trump as their "Dear Leader." Republicans are ride or die when it comes to their leaders, and it will take a lot for them to abandon Trump. When Trump inevitably crashes and burns, they'll simply pretend he never existed, sort of like how they are with GWB now.

[GreyhoundFan]

I had to be away all day, so I missed most of the testimony. I also missed sharing it with my fellow FJers. I was just catching up and saw this interesting article in the WaPo: "Team Trump’s official response to the Comey testimony — now, with context"

Spoiler

Following the testimony of former FBI director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, President Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz released a statement in response. It is below in its entirety, slightly edited for typos.

Sections not in bold represent context we’ve added to Kasowitz’s comments.

I am Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference.

Here, Kasowitz is referring to a report from CNN on Wednesday in which the network predicted that Comey would contradict Trump’s claim that the FBI director had told him on three occasions that he himself was not under investigation. Comey’s prepared testimony did make that point.

Update: It’s also worth noting, as an emailer did, that Comey didn’t say no vote changed as a result of interference. He said that there was no evidence votes were altered — meaning that no votes were changed after the fact. It’s clear, though, that the leak of information from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman — attributed to Russia — affected at least some votes.

Mr. Comey’s testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the President told Mr. Comey “it would be good to find out” in that investigation if there were “some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong.”

Kasowitz is taking advantage of the blurry boundaries of “the investigation into Russian interference” — which he describes as “attempted,” apparently to bolster Trump’s long-standing insistence that the role of Russia in hacking his political opponents was still an open question. Comey never testified that Trump asked him to impede the entire investigation. Instead, he says that the president strongly suggested that he wanted inquiries into former national security adviser Michael Flynn curtailed.

Comey’s prepared testimony did include that comment from Trump about finding out if others were involved — which, of course, runs contrary to Trump’s flat statements in the past that there was no collusion.

Consistent with that statement, the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey “let Flynn go.” As he publicly stated the next day, he did say to Mr. Comey, “General Flynn is a good guy, he has been through a lot” and also “asked how is General Flynn is doing.” Admiral Rogers testified that the President never “directed [him] to do anything . . . illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate” and never “pressured [him] to do so.” Director Coats said the same thing. The President likewise never pressured Mr. Comey.

This comes down to a he-said, he-said. Comey, testifying under oath, described notes he made contemporaneously in which he recorded what Trump had said to him. He also testified that he told Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the days after that conversation that he didn’t want to be left alone with Trump, out of concern that the president would make improper requests.

Kasowitz (and Trump) dispute that contention, though neither is under oath while doing so.

The statement about Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats is interesting. The Post reported this week that Trump asked Coats and the director of the CIA to try to intervene with Comey to curtail the Flynn investigation. In a Senate hearing this week, Coats did not deny that this happened.

The President also never told Mr. Comey, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty” in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, it is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.

Again, he-said, he-said. The president is certainly entitled to request loyalty, but that doesn’t make it appropriate, particularly given that Trump knew that Comey’s agency was investigating his presidential campaign.

Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.

What Comey admitted was that he had asked a friend to release details from one of those contemporaneous memos to the media. The material in that memo, detailing a conversation between Comey and Trump, was not classified. Note the wording that Kasowitz uses: “selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.” He’s conflating “selective” with “illegal” and “classified” with “privileged.” Comey’s was a selective leak of privileged conversation — not anything illegal. He’s lumping in Comey with those who leaked classified information, for rhetorical effect.

Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting. Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to “prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

Kasowitz here makes it seem as though Comey leaked information about his conversations back in March, before he was fired — but appears to be referring to Comey describing those conversations with friends. That, too, is not illegal.

Comey testified that some of the contents of one or more memos was classified, but also that he didn’t give any classified information to anyone else. “My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded,” he told Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). He did give all of the memos to the special counsel.

Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated.

Kasowitz is referring to this Times article about Trump’s alleged request for loyalty from Comey. It includes quotes from the conversation with Trump and Comey, but doesn’t refer to the memo.

That Kasowitz indicates he will leave it to the authorities to determine if Comey’s leaks should be investigated suggests that he thinks they will not be. The net effect of this focus on leaks is, of course, to undermine Comey’s testimony.

In sum, it is now established that there the President was not being investigated for colluding with the or attempting to obstruct that investigation. As the Committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events.

The use of “was not” is important here. Comey did testify that, as of the day he was fired one month ago Friday, Trump was not personally under investigation. Comey also indicated that he didn’t say that publicly because that status might change. The nature of an investigation, after all, is to turn up new information.

Finally, it did “leak” that Trump wasn’t under investigation — Trump said it himself, publicly, in the letter firing Comey.

The context is helpful, since Agent Orange's spin-meister is trying to muddy the waters.

[sawasdee]

@fraurosena I understand completely what you are saying, and to some extent I agree with you. I do believe the RNC was hacked as well.

But I don't think they have yet needed to deploy that weapon. The self interest of the Repugs in getting their agenda through has made them ignore all warning signs. That was one of the things I loved about Comey today - his emphasis that this was an American problem, not a partisan one. Maybe some are aware of how vulnerable they are if said hacking is ever made public, but I don't think they are in thrall to Russia - yet.

But I think one day Russian hacking will bite the Repugs in the butt.

@VixenToast It's not Shakespeare! It's an old oral tradition - and the original would have been in Norman French anyway. Jean Anouilh used it - back in French - in his play "Becket" in the late 1950s.

The only contemporary record we have is by Edward Grim, and he says that the words were (translated)

"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?"

Doesn't have the same ring...

And Grim was at the murder, not the outburst by the King.

[GreyhoundFan]

For some much-needed levity, Alexandra Petri wrote a good article: "Tell us again about your uncomfortable dinner with The Important Man, Mr. Comey"

Spoiler

I watched the James Comey hearings completely sober so that you did not have to, and here is what was said:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): Hello, Mr. Comey. I am excited for you to testify today, but I am more excited for your real, hard-core testimony behind closed doors, of which this is only a preview. First off, I would like to say that I read your prepared statement. It had a lot of, uh, texture. You seem to be a very awkward man.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): Before we start, just to be clear, this is not a witch hunt. If it were a witch hunt, I would have a big white wig, and we would have also called your demon familiar to the stand. Now, take it away.

Comey: Boy golly gosh, thank you! I am deeply troubled. I am quite troubled all the time. I knew I could be fired, but I was confused and concerned by the way it happened. Then the reasons shifted, and I was troubled. The president kept telling me that I was doing a good job and that everyone loved me, which did not trouble me, but then when he fired me he said it was the Hillary Clinton thing, and at that, I was VERY troubled. Then I was told that the FBI workforce was in disarray and that the administration had lost confidence in my leadership. And that was a LIE! The FBI has never been in disarray a day in its life. It is the one shining beacon of light that remains to us in this mess of a country. It is the only beautiful thing in this broken world. I just — I miss it so much.

Burr: Was the president trying to obstruct justice when he said that thing to you about seeing your way clear to letting Michael Flynn go?

Comey: I don’t think it’s for me to say, but I found it quite disturbing and concerning. Then again, I find most things disturbing or concerning, including skinny ties, the word “covfefe” and when someone stands behind you when you’re trying to type.

Burr: I don’t know how to ask this. But, uh, the Steele dossier. You know, that thing. With the —

Comey: In this case, I do know what you mean by “that thing”! I can’t talk about that.

Burr: So why did you come out publicly with the results of the Clinton investigation?

Comey: Well, there was the tarmac meeting, which was weird. And also, the attorney general told me not to call the Clinton thing an “investigation” but a “matter.” I thought maybe it was a fun Gilbert and Sullivan thing, but then it became increasingly apparent that it wasn’t, and that confused and concerned me. As everything does.

Warner: So, what’s this about telling President Trump that he wasn’t being investigated?

Comey: Well, that was technically true, although one of my colleagues would say it wasn’t, because if we’re investigating his campaign, then he’s the head of that campaign. But I was a stickler for literal truth in that, as I am in all things.

Warner: So what’s this about creating a patronage relationship? Did he mistake you for an Italian artist of the 15th century?

Comey: Well, you saw that uncomfortable interaction we had where he held me close in the blue room and whispered, and what he whispered was, “I look forward to working with you.” And then I sort of got the vibe at dinner that he was expecting more from me than I was willing to give him.

Warner: And this was February 14.

Comey: Yes.

Warner: You know that’s a special day.

Comey: I have been made aware of that fact.

Warner: Don’t you think it would have been right for him to have had an expectation? And for everyone else to have left the room?

Comey: Yeah.

Warner: And he didn’t ask about any of the tens of thousands of other ongoing investigations?

Comey: No, but to be fair, they did not have his name anywhere near them, and you know how he loves to see his name.

Senator James Risch (R-Idaho): Have you considered that when Trump said he hoped you would stay on, he just genuinely meant that he hoped you would stay on?

Comey: What?

Risch: Is HOPE a crime?

Comey: I’m sorry.

Risch: You know who used to hope a LOT? Barack Hussein Obama.

Comey: I’m not really sure if I’m—

Risch: If someone says, “It would be a shame if something were to happen to your job,” what sort of LOW-MINDED CYNIC thinks that he means it would actually NOT be a shame?

Comey: Well—

Risch: If I went up to you right now and said, “It would be very unfortunate if Mrs. Comey were to be troubled in any way,” would you think that was a threat?

Comey: Well—

Risch: Because it wouldn’t be a threat. It would be a well wish. Is well-wishing a CRIME in your America, Mr. Comey?

Comey: I’m troubled by this—

Risch: Donald Trump is full of hope. He is a simple man who just wants the best for people. Wouldn’t you agree?

Comey: Uh …

Risch: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE RESTS!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): Hello there. I am RESPLENDENT IN SEERSUCKER because the fact that this hearing will be televised is of no concern to me, whereas seersucker Thursday is SACROSANCT. Why do you think you were fired?

Comey: Definitely not because I was bad at my job. I was great at my job.

Feinstein: Talk about this loyalty request.

Comey: “I think it was — first of all, the relationship didn’t get off to a great start, given the conversation I had to have on January 6. This didn’t improve the relationship because it was very, very awkward. He was asking for something, and I was refusing to give it. Again, I don’t know him well enough to know how he reacted to that exactly.

Feinstein: We can agree that it is apparent from your testimony that you are an incredibly awkward man.

Comey: Thank you, I think.

Feinstein: But I have to ask this. Look, you’re a big, strong man. Why didn’t you stop him?

Comey: Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in.

Feinstein: What about those phone calls?

Comey: He was just really upset about his personal cloud, and he wanted me to tell people he was not personally under investigation. Listen, by golly, nobody likes to have a little cloud over their head. That is for cartoon characters, not real people.

Feinstein: You said you’d see what you could do. What did that mean?

Comey: It meant “no,” but it seemed like a politer thing to say.

Feinstein: Did you tell anyone?

Comey: I told the FBI, and we were all very concerned. We decided to do a little move I call the Comey and hold it, keep it in a box, document it, figure out what to do with it down the road. It was our word against his.

Feinstein: And do you think your word is BETTER than his?

Comey: Well, no, not until the tapes came up. Look, I’ve seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): So when he said let it go, did it not occur to you that he could just have been referencing a popular song from “Frozen”?

Comey: No.

Rubio: Why didn’t you say, “THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE” and put a stop to it, if it made you so uncomfortable?

Comey: Uh …

Rubio: Maybe it was because it DIDN’T make you uncomfortable, deep down.

Comey: No, I was definitely uncomfortable. I am always uncomfortable, at all times.

Rubio: Why didn’t you tell the White House counsel to tell him to stop? Why didn’t you report him?

Comey: Uh …

Rubio: Why not, huh? Why did you allow yourself to be alone in the room with him if you knew that was what he wanted? You knew it would be your word against his. Why didn’t you report it to your boss? Why did you wear that elegant blue suit that looked like a curtain? You know that curtains are mean to be pulled aside.

Comey: I was stunned. I am not Captain Courageous. Captain Courageous is a Kipling hero, whereas I am just an ordinary man who says “Lordy” a lot. I decided I could safely agree that Flynn was a good guy, so I did that. It was just all very weird.

Rubio: So when Trump talked about “that thing” you had, could it have been a reference to somebody whose wife had gotten money from Terry McAuliffe?

Comey: Honestly, to this day I still have no idea what that thing was. To be honest, my upbringing was quite sheltered, and I never know what anyone is referring to at any time. But I am someone who would never rid ANYONE of a meddlesome priest even if that priest really were darn meddlesome!

Rubio: So why didn’t you lift the cloud?

Comey: Well, he also said he wanted to be sure his satellites hadn’t done anything wrong, and at that point the metaphor was so mixed that I was concerned, confused and agog. Lordy.

Rubio: You said you’d be loyally honest.

Comey: Honestly loyal.

Rubio: That is a weird thing to say to a human being.

Comey: Believe me, I am quite aware of what an awkward and strange thing that was to say.

Rubio: I hope you think about it a lot.

Comey: I do.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): Did Vice President Pence know anything at any time about anything?

Comey: Who can say?

Wyden: Who do you think fired you? Was Jeff Sessions behaving oddly?

Comey: No more than usual.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): So tell me about the briefing times.

Comey: Well, I was just trying to tell him about the, er, salacious materials, not to be in any kind of J. Edgar Hoover situation, because not only is that creepy and menacing, but also if the movie “J. Edgar” was accurate, you’re in love with Clyde Tolson, your right-hand man, and that takes up a lot of your emotional energy, whereas my wife and I are quite happy.

Collins: So, I’m still confused by every word that came out of your mouth according to your memos.

Comey: So am I, senator.

Collins: You could have stopped him. Why didn’t you tell him it was inappropriate? Why didn’t you tell anyone? And why did you take a memo?

Comey: Because I was uncomfortable.

Collins: Did you share it with anyone?

Comey: Yes, because I thought if there were tapes, that memo should be in the public square.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.): Think back to that dinner. Do you have any regrets?

Comey: Uh …

Heinrich: Why were you alone with him? Was that unusual?

Comey: It was super unusual, and I literally assumed it could not possibly be happening.

Heinrich: Don’t you think you could have behaved differently and stopped him?

Cotton: Why didn’t you quit your job? You threatened to quit before for something that wasn’t anywhere NEAR as bad as this.

Comey: Uh …

Cotton: If this was so bad, why didn’t you resign and report it?

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.): What were you wearing?

Comey: Just a suit, I think.

Lankford: Very interesting. Very. Interesting.

Comey: I feel uncomfortable.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): So you’re one of those LEAKERS we keep hearing about.

Comey: Uh …

Blunt: It seems like your word is bad, wouldn’t you agree?

Comey: Well—

Blunt: Are you trying to ruin this young man’s bright presidential career?

Comey: Uh …

Blunt: Let us relive that night one more time. It is possible that you will spend the rest of your life reliving the events of that one night. Tell us again everything that happened, in full awareness that you were probably at fault. Why didn’t you tell the media directly?

Comey: Because I hate the media! They are like evil seagulls. I did not tell them anything because I was about to go on vacation with my wife. My greatest regret in life is that I did not spend 100 percent of my time as FBI director on vacation with my wife.

Manchin: Did Trump ever ask about Russian involvement in the election?

Comey: No, he didn’t, and that hurt me. Listen, I believe in America, and I believe that children are the future. That is why I worked for the FBI, an institution that embodies the American creed that anyone can grow up to be anything! We are a city on a hill! One nation, under the Lordy.

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.): This is a little strange, but inspiring, I guess. God Bless America.

Comey: HOOrah!

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.): Here’s a great question: Let me take you back to the Clinton email investigation.

Comey: Yes, certainly, absolutely, by golly, this seems like a great use of our time. Let’s discuss it at LENGTH!

Cornyn: And now let me remind you that the words “honest loyalty” came out of your mouth at one point.

Comey: I am constantly, cringingly aware of this fact.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): I think the real concern here is, why did the Russians collude with the Clinton campaign, wouldn’t you say, general?

Comey: I’m sorry, what?

McCain: Why didn’t Clinton campaign in Russia?

Comey: Usually you are much more “on” than this.

Burr: Oops, looks like we are OUT OF TIME! See you in the secret room, gents, where we will really get to the bottom of this and tell no one!

Okay, now I'm singing, "Let It Go".

[GreyhoundFan]

Okay, in my mind, this wins the day:

[JenniferJuniper]

30 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

There's a saying that Democrats fall in love whereas Republicans fall in line when it comes to candidates. Different factions of the Democratic Party are still arguing about the primaries and election, while the "Never Trump" Republicans now embrace Trump as their "Dear Leader." Republicans are ride or die when it comes to their leaders, and it will take a lot for them to abandon Trump.

I think it's far more insidious than this.  They all know he's a dangerous, dimwitted clown, but to the extent that they can use him to support or even just distract the media from their agenda of taking from the poor and the middle class everything that isn't nailed down, they won't move against him.  They are not loyal to him and once the clock ticks closer to late 2018 and Trump's approval rating stays in the low 30's for awhile, they'll be only too happy to ditch him for Pence. Who is just as scary, but in a non-flashy way.

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo did an interesting comparison of how CNN, MSNBC, and Faux reacted to the hearing. The differences in the chryons is quite telling. I can't quote, since it's a series of visuals, but it's worth a look. My major in college was radio/TV/film, and seeing this type of analysis just revs me up.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an excellent op-ed from the NYT: "James Comey and the Predator in Chief"

Spoiler

As I listened to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about his personal meetings and phone calls with President Trump, I was reminded of something: the experience of a woman being harassed by her powerful, predatory boss. There was precisely that sinister air of coercion, of an employee helpless to avoid unsavory contact with an employer who is trying to grab what he wants.

After reading Mr. Comey’s earlier statement, I tweeted about this Wednesday night, and immediately heard from other women who had seen that narrative emerge. How recognizable it was that Mr. Comey was “stunned” to find himself in these potentially compromising positions. His incredulity, mixed with President Trump’s circling attempts to get his way, were poignant. For a woman who has spent a lifetime wrestling with situations where men have power they can abuse, this was disturbingly familiar.

On Jan. 27, Mr. Comey received a last-minute dinner invitation from the president, and then learned it would be “just the two of us.” On Thursday, Mr. Comey revealed that he had had to break a date with his wife in order to dine with Mr. Trump. Already, something about this “setup” made him “uneasy.”

The central business of this intimate dinner was Mr. Trump’s insistence: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Mr. Comey immediately recognized that this was a press for something he did not want to give. He froze: “I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.”

That reaction — the choice of stillness, responses calculated to neither encourage nor offend that characterized so many of his dealings with Mr. Trump — is so relatable for any woman. During his testimony, Mr. Comey was asked why he had not responded more robustly, why he had not told Mr. Trump that he, the president, was acting inappropriately or reported his behavior immediately to others in authority.

Mr. Comey expressed regret that he had not been “stronger” about it, but explained that it was all he could do to focus on not saying the wrong thing. In other words, he wanted to avoid granting any favor while avoiding the risk of direct confrontation — a problem so deeply resonant for women.

During that interminable, awkward dinner, Mr. Comey struggled to convince Mr. Trump of the danger of “blurring” boundaries. But Mr. Trump was not deterred and returned to the subject of the loyalty he must have. There you hear the eternal voice of the predatory seducer: the man who knows how hard he can make it for a woman to refuse his needs.

Mr. Comey tried to wriggle out of the trap being set for him. He offered his “honesty,” hoping this would appease his insatiable host. Mr. Trump countered with a demand for “honest loyalty.” Mr. Comey acquiesced. Yet as he documented this “very awkward conversation,” his concession of this phrase troubled him. He hoped he had not been misunderstood by the president.

The victim of sexual harassment is constantly haunted by the idea that she said or did something that gave her persecutor encouragement. Serial harassers, of course, have an intuitive sense of this, and are skilled at manipulating and exploiting it.

Mr. Comey, you are not alone. How many of us have played over and over in our minds an encounter that suddenly took a creepy, coercive turn? What did I say? Were my signals clear? Did I do something ambiguous? Did I say something compromising?

At a White House ceremony on Jan. 22, Mr. Comey reportedly tried to blend in with the curtains, so that he would not be noticed by the president. Mr. Trump called to him and pulled him, unwilling, into a hug. What woman has not tried to remain invisible from an unwelcome pursuer’s attentions?

To this series of bizarre interactions, in which he faced escalating pressure, Mr. Comey reacted with rising anxiety and distress. Time after time, Mr. Trump reverted to his questionable agenda, and Mr. Comey, at each pass, tried to parry the president’s unwanted advances.

This dynamic with the president became so disturbing to Mr. Comey that, after an Oval Office meeting in February, he implored the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, “to prevent any future direct communication between the president and me.” Mr. Comey did not want to be left alone with his boss again. We’ve been there, Jim.

In their final exchange, on April 11, Mr. Trump told the F.B.I. director, “I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” On May 9, having rebuffed the president, Mr. Comey was fired.

“We had that thing.” Once more, the seducer asserts a shared intimacy that was not really there, attempting to ensnare his victim with an imputed complicity.

In the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, Mr. Trump said of any woman he wanted: “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” And he added: “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” With the power of the presidency at his disposal, Mr. Trump thought that he could use the psychology of coercive seduction on the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

Victims of sexual harassment often face skepticism, doubts and accusations when they tell their story. That’s part of the predator’s power. But I’m here to tell James Comey, and all the women and men who have suffered at the hands of predators, I believe you.

I hadn't thought about this dynamic, but it is true.

[Howl]

59 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

For some much-needed levity, Alexandra Petri wrote a good article: "Tell us again about your uncomfortable dinner with The Important Man, Mr. Comey"

  Hide contents

 

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): So when he said let it go, did it not occur to you that he could just have been referencing a popular song from “Frozen”?

Okay, now I'm singing, "Let It Go".

Finally, some people get the "Let it Go" angle!  I wish people would have burst into "Let it Go" during the hearing, or at least there would have been a choir singing it outside the hearing room. 

Wonderful, wonderful satire, or golly, I think it was satire.  Lordy, I hope I'm not wrong about that, but it confuses me.  First you think it's one thing, and then the other thing.  Anyway, Alexandra Petri.  She's not Russian, is she?

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, Howl said:

Finally, some people get the "Let it Go" angle!  I wish people would have burst into "Let it Go" during the hearing, or at least there would have been a choir singing it outside the hearing room. 

Wonderful, wonderful satire, or golly, I think it was satire.  Lordy, I hope I'm not wrong about that, but it confuses me.  First you think it's one thing, and then the other thing.  Anyway, Alexandra Petri.  She's not Russian, is she?

Yes, she usually writes in a satirical or snarky fashion. I don't believe she's Russian. She's been with the WaPo for years. I think the best was when she wrote a snarky article about Agent Orange and he ended up referring to the article in a positive manner because he obviously only saw the headline, not the actual body.

[apple1]

25 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is an excellent op-ed from the NYT: "James Comey and the Predator in Chief"

  Hide contents

As I listened to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about his personal meetings and phone calls with President Trump, I was reminded of something: the experience of a woman being harassed by her powerful, predatory boss. There was precisely that sinister air of coercion, of an employee helpless to avoid unsavory contact with an employer who is trying to grab what he wants.

After reading Mr. Comey’s earlier statement, I tweeted about this Wednesday night, and immediately heard from other women who had seen that narrative emerge. How recognizable it was that Mr. Comey was “stunned” to find himself in these potentially compromising positions. His incredulity, mixed with President Trump’s circling attempts to get his way, were poignant. For a woman who has spent a lifetime wrestling with situations where men have power they can abuse, this was disturbingly familiar.

On Jan. 27, Mr. Comey received a last-minute dinner invitation from the president, and then learned it would be “just the two of us.” On Thursday, Mr. Comey revealed that he had had to break a date with his wife in order to dine with Mr. Trump. Already, something about this “setup” made him “uneasy.”

The central business of this intimate dinner was Mr. Trump’s insistence: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Mr. Comey immediately recognized that this was a press for something he did not want to give. He froze: “I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.”

That reaction — the choice of stillness, responses calculated to neither encourage nor offend that characterized so many of his dealings with Mr. Trump — is so relatable for any woman. During his testimony, Mr. Comey was asked why he had not responded more robustly, why he had not told Mr. Trump that he, the president, was acting inappropriately or reported his behavior immediately to others in authority.

Mr. Comey expressed regret that he had not been “stronger” about it, but explained that it was all he could do to focus on not saying the wrong thing. In other words, he wanted to avoid granting any favor while avoiding the risk of direct confrontation — a problem so deeply resonant for women.

During that interminable, awkward dinner, Mr. Comey struggled to convince Mr. Trump of the danger of “blurring” boundaries. But Mr. Trump was not deterred and returned to the subject of the loyalty he must have. There you hear the eternal voice of the predatory seducer: the man who knows how hard he can make it for a woman to refuse his needs.

Mr. Comey tried to wriggle out of the trap being set for him. He offered his “honesty,” hoping this would appease his insatiable host. Mr. Trump countered with a demand for “honest loyalty.” Mr. Comey acquiesced. Yet as he documented this “very awkward conversation,” his concession of this phrase troubled him. He hoped he had not been misunderstood by the president.

The victim of sexual harassment is constantly haunted by the idea that she said or did something that gave her persecutor encouragement. Serial harassers, of course, have an intuitive sense of this, and are skilled at manipulating and exploiting it.

Mr. Comey, you are not alone. How many of us have played over and over in our minds an encounter that suddenly took a creepy, coercive turn? What did I say? Were my signals clear? Did I do something ambiguous? Did I say something compromising?

At a White House ceremony on Jan. 22, Mr. Comey reportedly tried to blend in with the curtains, so that he would not be noticed by the president. Mr. Trump called to him and pulled him, unwilling, into a hug. What woman has not tried to remain invisible from an unwelcome pursuer’s attentions?

To this series of bizarre interactions, in which he faced escalating pressure, Mr. Comey reacted with rising anxiety and distress. Time after time, Mr. Trump reverted to his questionable agenda, and Mr. Comey, at each pass, tried to parry the president’s unwanted advances.

This dynamic with the president became so disturbing to Mr. Comey that, after an Oval Office meeting in February, he implored the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, “to prevent any future direct communication between the president and me.” Mr. Comey did not want to be left alone with his boss again. We’ve been there, Jim.

In their final exchange, on April 11, Mr. Trump told the F.B.I. director, “I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” On May 9, having rebuffed the president, Mr. Comey was fired.

“We had that thing.” Once more, the seducer asserts a shared intimacy that was not really there, attempting to ensnare his victim with an imputed complicity.

In the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, Mr. Trump said of any woman he wanted: “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” And he added: “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” With the power of the presidency at his disposal, Mr. Trump thought that he could use the psychology of coercive seduction on the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

Victims of sexual harassment often face skepticism, doubts and accusations when they tell their story. That’s part of the predator’s power. But I’m here to tell James Comey, and all the women and men who have suffered at the hands of predators, I believe you.

I hadn't thought about this dynamic, but it is true.

I had those thoughts - and I have not personally experienced sexual abuse, but certainly the powerless feeling and the attempt to neither encourage nor offend in a variety of situations is completely familiar - and I suspect, familiar to all who find themselves in situations of lacking power or control, many kinds of those situations.

[sawasdee]

@GreyhoundFanThat article resonated. I hadn't thought about it in quite that way, even though I posted a parody of his pussy grabbing tape earlier.

Yes, all too familiar - he really was using his tried and true techniques.