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

[AmazonGrace]

Trump blocked a pussy on Twitter. 

https://t.co/zKgPKCrv9W?amp=1

[GreyhoundFan]

On a different TT topic: "President Trump’s misleading claims about new mines and ‘clean coal’"

Spoiler

“The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States. Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America, which it does. And the mines are starting to open up, having a big opening in two weeks, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand, new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years that hasn’t happened.”
— President Trump, speech announcing U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate-change agreement, June 1

“Next week we’re opening a big coal mine. You know about that. One in Pennsylvania. It’s actually a new mine. That hadn’t happen in a long time, folks. But we’re putting the people and we’re putting the miners back to work.”
–Trump, remarks in Cincinnati, June 7

Trump’s speech on the Paris accord was filled with misstatements, many of which we fact-checked immediately afterward in a roundup. This particular claim called for a deeper look, especially with the Trump administration’s insistence that coal jobs and mines are coming back. Trump then repeated the claim a week later.

Trump said the Paris agreement is hurting the development of the coal industry in America, where “mines are starting to open up,” and where the agreement is blocking the development of “clean coal.” Is that really the case?

The Facts

The new mines that are scheduled to open, including in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, are ones that will produce metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel. This coal is used to produce coke, which is then used to blast the furnace to create metal. It’s different from thermal coal, which is burned for steam to produce heat and electricity.

The “big opening” that Trump is referring to is the Corsa Coal Company’s Acosta Deep Mine in Jennerstown, Pa. Corsa began work on this mine in September — two months before the presidential election. This mine is expected to create 70 to 100 full-time jobs, according to the company.

Several factors led to newfound optimism for metallurgical coal production among U.S. coal companies.

While the domestic market has remained relatively flat, international market demands — particularly the building boom in China — have sustained the metallurgical coal industry in the United States in recent years. The average price of metallurgical export saw an uptick at the end of 2016.

The increased demand for steel and metallurgical coal from China has raised prices worldwide. U.S. coal companies are now emerging from bankruptcy, and some of them are going public with new investors. And the United States now has a coal-friendly administration, with a president looking to push for an infrastructure deal that could increase the domestic demand for steel.

And earlier this year, Cyclone Debbie damaged the supply chains in Australia, the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal. That left China, the world’s biggest producer of steel and largest importer of metallurgical coal, scrambling for new sources — including the United States. (Interestingly: The Australian Bureau of Meteorology attributed the threat of more frequent and intense cyclones to climate change, according to the Daily Beast.)

What do these metallurgical mines have to do with the Paris accord? “Not a whole lot, except that the politics get mixed in. The Paris agreement was actually working more aggressively to curtail thermal coal use for the coal plants. There is some concern about metallurgical coal, but not much. But the coal trade itself is a huge part of the Paris agreement,” said Tom Sanzillo, director of finance at the Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis, which is supported by liberal philanthropies.

All carbon emissions, including emissions from metallurgical coal, contribute to climate change. But the Paris agreement focuses on thermal coal, because electricity production can be changed without affecting economic growth. Therefore, it’s a more feasible area for change than trying to find any substitutes for using coal to make steel.

The White House did not respond to our request for comment.

The rebound in metallurgical coal demand doesn’t signal a long-term coal renaissance, analysts say. For one, the long-term projection of metallurgical coal exports by the United States through 2050 remains flat. And metallurgical coal production makes up less than 10 percent of U.S. production, according to E&E News.

Before the slight uptick in early 2017, U.S. coal jobs and production in 2016 reached the lowest level in four decades. The demand for electricity-producing coal continues to decline, while natural gas is becoming cheaper and easier to produce, thanks to the fracking boom. In fact, Gary Cohn, chairman of Trump’s National Economic Council, recently acknowledged that “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock” due to the rise of natural gas. (For more, read our colleague Steven Mufson’s great article on the industry’s challenges for achieving long-term profitability.)

Trump said the Paris agreement “effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America,” but the nonbinding, voluntary agreement allows each country to decide the method and technology it wants to use to curb carbon emissions. “Clean coal” is rhetoric often used to describe carbon capture and storage, a technique to capture carbon emissions from power plants, transport it through pipelines and inject it deep into the ground to make oil wells more productive.

Since the United States signed on to the Paris agreement in 2015, this technology has continued to develop in the United States. But it remains expensive and not viable economically without being linked to an enhanced oil recovery project. The first large-scale “clean coal” facility was declared operational in January in Texas. A second coal plant in Mississippi using carbon-capture technology was expected to open the same month, but was delayed and has not yet opened. Meanwhile, Trump’s budget proposal would shrink funding for research on carbon capture and carbon storage technology.

The Pinocchio Test

Trump’s characterization about new mines and “clean carbon” technology, both in the context of the Paris agreement, is misleading.

He referred to new mines opening up, but the projects he referred to are for a specific type of coal that is used to produce steel, not electricity. The Paris deal focuses on carbon emissions from electricity-generating coal, not metallurgical coal. Demands in metallurgical coal aren’t affected by the Paris agreement or U.S. federal policies; international market prices and fluctuations have led to the recent increased demand. Moreover, the specific factory he refers to had plans to open since September, two months before the election.

The agreement also does not block the development of “clean coal.” In fact, since the United States signed on to the Paris agreement, the first large-scale “clean coal” facility opened in 2017 and plans are underway for a second one.

Three Pinocchios

I guess it's an improvement -- usually he receives four Pinocchios, today, it's just three.

[AmazonGrace]

6 hours ago, nvmbr02 said:

And someone got his phone back...

Complete vindication? I don't think he knows what vindication means. 

Dumbo here thinks Comey perjured himself  but somehow a lying liar who lies on oath like that can still vindicate him. Totally, dude. 

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I saw Seth Myers describe Agent Orange as "your druggie cousin who can no longer surprise you."

It's about 4:50 into the video.

LOL

The Republicans who defend him by saying he's just so inexperienced, dumb and ignorant he can't help making illegal mistakes amaze me.  

I mean, if you're dumb you can't help it I guess, but that doesn't mean you should be president. 

 

[GrumpyGran]

I saw his commercial on HLN this morning. Doesn't he realize this makes him look pathetic? There's no re-election campaign right now. When you have to tell the country that you're great, maybe it's not going so well. I better not be paying for that! .

[GreyhoundFan]

Not about Agent Orange, but one of his staffers: "White House social media director Dan Scavino violated Hatch Act with tweet targeting GOP congressman"

Spoiler

White House social media director Dan Scavino Jr. violated a federal law that bars public officials from using their positions for political activity when he urged President Trump's supporters to defeat a GOP congressman, the Office of Special Counsel has concluded.

As a result, Scavino was issued a warning letter and advised that additional violations of the law could result in further action, according to a June 5 letter that the office sent to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which filed a complaint about Scavino's tweet.

Scavino's April 1 message called on the "#TrumpTrain" to take out Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan in an upcoming primary, referring to him as “a big liability." Amash is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group that President Trump blamed at the time for derailing legislation that would have repealed parts of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Even though Scavino was tweeting from his personal account, his page then listed his official White House position and featured a photo of him inside the Oval Office.

The Office of Special Counsel concluded that his tweet violated the Hatch Act, which restricts government employees from attempting to influence an election through their official authority.

"Mr. Scavino has been advised that if in the future he engages in prohibited political activity while employed in a position covered by the Hatch Act, we will consider such activity to be a willful and knowing violation of the law, which could result in further action," Ana Galindo-Marrone, chief of OSC's Hatch Act Unit, wrote in a letter to CREW.

Federal employees who willfully violate the Hatch Act can be removed from their positions or barred from federal employment for up to five years.

CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement that the rules make clear that "government officials aren’t allowed to use their position for campaign activity."

“OSC has made clear with this ruling that they are going to enforce these important rules and work to keep the government free from inappropriate politics," he said.

Neither White House officials or Scavino immediately responded to requests for comment.

In April, a White House official had said that Scavino's tweet did not violate the Hatch Act “as it clearly comes from his personal account and not his official White House account.”

But after complaints about his tweet attacking Amash, Scavino quickly altered details on his personal Twitter page, removing the reference to his current post at the White House and photos of Trump supporters at a rally holding signs. Later, he also removed a reference noting that he was director of social media for Trump's campaign.

Scavino's personal account now features a photo of him golfing, with the simple bio: "Personal Twitter Handle! I will be back."

 

Sadly, I'm sure nobody in this administration will take it seriously.

[GreyhoundFan]

Excellent op-ed: "It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Culture"

Spoiler

The first important part of James Comey’s testimony was that he cast some doubt on reports that there was widespread communication between the Russians and the Trump campaign. That was the suspicion that set off this whole chain of events and the possibility that could have quickly brought about impeachment proceedings.

The second important implication of the hearings is that as far as we know, Donald Trump has not performed any criminal act that would merit removing him from office.

Sure, he cleared the room so he could lean on Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn. But he didn’t order Comey to shut down the investigation as a whole or do any of the things (like following up on the request) that would constitute real obstruction.

And sure, Trump did later fire Comey. But it’s likely that the Comey firing had little or nothing to do with the Flynn investigation.

Trump was, as always, thinking about himself. Comey had told Trump three times that he was not under investigation. Trump wanted Comey to repeat that fact publicly. When Comey didn’t, Trump took it as a sign that Comey was disloyal, an unforgivable sin. So he fired him, believing, insanely, that the move would be popular.

All of this would constitute a significant scandal in a normal administration, but it would not be grounds for impeachment.

The third important lesson of the hearing is that Donald Trump is characterologically at war with the norms and practices of good government. Comey emerged as a superb institutionalist, a man who believes we are a nation of laws. Trump emerged as a tribalist and a clannist, who simply cannot understand the way modern government works.

Trump is also plagued with a self-destructive form of selfishness. He is consumed by a hunger for affirmation, but, demented by his own obsessions, he can’t think more than one step ahead.

In search of praise he is continually doing things that will end up bringing him condemnation. He lies to people who have the power to publicly devastate him. He betrays people who have the power to damage him. Trump is most dangerous to the people who are closest to him and are in the best position to take their revenge.

The upshot is the Trump administration will probably not be brought down by outside forces. It will be incapacitated from within, by the bile, rage and back-stabbing that are already at record levels in the White House staff, by the dueling betrayals of the intimates Trump abuses so wretchedly.

Although there may be no serious collusion with the Russians, there is now certain to be a wide-ranging independent investigation into all things Trump.

These investigations will take a White House that is already acidic and turn it sulfuric. James Hohmann and Joanie Greve had a superb piece in the Daily 202 section of The Washington Post. They compiled the lessons people in the Clinton administration learned from the Whitewater scandal, and applied them to the Trump White House.

If past is prologue, this investigation will drag on for a while. The Clinton people thought the Whitewater investigation might last six months, but the inquiries lasted over seven years. The Trump investigation will lead in directions nobody can now anticipate. When the Whitewater investigation started, Monica Lewinsky was an unknown college student and nobody had any clue that an investigation into an Arkansas land deal would turn into an investigation about sex.

This investigation will ruin careers far and wide. Investigators go after anybody they think can yield information on the president. Before the Whitewater investigators got to Clinton they took down Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, Webb Hubbell, Susan and Jim McDougal, and many others.

This investigation will swallow up day-to-day life. As Clinton alum Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an op-ed in the USA Today network of newspapers: “No one in a position of authority at the White House tells you what is happening. No one knows. Your closest colleague could be under investigation and you would not know. You could be under investigation and not know. It can be impossible to stay focused on your job.”

Everybody will be affected. Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, finally refused to mention the names of young White House employees to the investigators because every time she mentioned a name, the kid would get a subpoena, which meant thousands of dollars of ruinous legal fees.

If anything, the Trump investigation will probably be more devastating than the Whitewater scandals. The Clinton team was a few shady characters surrounded by a large group of super-competent straight arrows. The Trump administration is shady characters through and through. Clinton himself was a savvy operator. Trump is a rage-prone obsessive who will be consumed by this.

The good news is the civic institutions are weathering the storm. The Senate Intelligence Committee put on a very good hearing. The F.B.I. is maintaining its integrity. This has, by and large, been a golden age for the American press corps. The bad news is that these institutions had better be. The Trump death march will be slow, grinding and ugly.

In all the talk about Watergate, I didn't think about Whitewater. Too bad that Agent Orange is incapable of learning from other people's mistakes. I shudder to think how much this investigation is going to cost the American people.

[GreyhoundFan]

Good freaking grief: "Trump accuses Comey of lying to Congress, says he’d be ‘100 percent’ open to talking to Russia probe special counsel"

Spoiler

President Trump on Friday accused former FBI director James B. Comey of lying under oath to Congress in the Russia investigation and called him a “leaker,” before suggesting he would be willing to give his side of the story to special counsel Robert Mueller.

“One hundred percent,” Trump said when asked by a reporter during a Rose Garden news conference if he would be open to testifying in the FBI probe that Mueller is overseeing.

“I’d be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you,” Trump added.

Trump’s declaration in the Rose Garden, where he was appearing with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, represented a dramatic new development a day after Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he believed the president had improperly attempted to influence the investigation into the Trump campaign’s communications with Russian officials.

But Trump said at the news conference that Comey’s testimony proved he had not colluded with the Russians or sought to obstruct the investigation.

“Frankly, James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said,” Trump said, “and some of the stuff he said just wasn’t true.”

As he did in a message on Twitter Friday morning, Trump called Comey a “leaker.” When asked if he had covertly recorded his conversations with Comey, as Trump had suggested in a tweet shortly after firing Comey last month, the president was coy.

“I’ll tell you about that maybe sometime soon,” he said. After reporters pressed again, Trump said he would disclose that “in a very short period of time. You’re going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer.”

Trump also denied Comey’s assertion, based on notes the former director made after a one-on-one dinner in January, that the president had asked him to declare his “loyalty.”

“I hardly know the man,” Trump said. “I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? . . .I mean think of it. I hardly know that man. It doesn’t make sense. No I didn’t say that.”

A day after he had allowed surrogates to respond for him, Trump took to Twitter on Friday morning to attack Comey directly, writing: “Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication … and WOW, Comey is a leaker!”

Trump’s statement came as surrogates fanned out to defend the president and his personal lawyer was preparing to file a “complaint” early next week over Comey’s testimony to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office and the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a person close to the legal team.

A spokesman for the Justice Department Inspector General declined to comment on the matter, which was first reported by Fox News and CNN.

On the “Today” show, former campaign aide Corey Lewandowski stated that Comey was part of the intelligence “deep state” out to undermine Trump. The president and his aides have complained about leaks, purportedly from the intelligence community, throughout the investigations by the FBI and Congress into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections and the Trump campaign’s contact with Russian officials.

“His goal is to manipulate media, manipulate the press … He’s everything that’s wrong in Washington,” Lewandowski said.

Trump’s personal legal team, led by attorney Marc Kasowitz, is said to be focusing the complaint on Comey’s disclosure during his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he asked a professor at Columbia University law school to pass on memos he wrote about his private interactions with Trump to a reporter.

Comey, who was fired by Trump last month, said he did so in hopes that the memos, which documented what the former director felt was inappropriate contact by the president amid the ongoing investigation, would prompt the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to take over the probe.

The department later appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former FBI director, as special counsel.

In a brief statement to reporters Thursday after Comey’s testimony, Kasowitz accused Comey of admitting “that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President.”

Trump’s decision to weigh in personally on Comey’s testimony represented a sharp shift in strategy for the White House and could come with political risk for Trump, who has potentially undermined himself legally on other matters through his tweets, including his attempt to impose a “travel ban” on immigrants from some majority-Muslim countries.

The Russia investigations have consumed the White House and distracted the president and lawmakers from his governing agenda. U.S. intelligence agencies have said Russia stole private emails and other documents from Democrats and released them publicly last year to embarrass Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and aid Trump.

Trump has vociferously denied suggestions that he and his subordinates coordinated with Russia, but he forced out his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, after reports that Flynn had misled administration officials over meetings he had with the Russian ambassador.

Comey said he felt uncomfortable with the nature of his personal meetings with Trump, including a private dinner at the White House. He said Trump told him he had “hope” that the then-director would “let Flynn go,” and that he took the suggestion as a “direction.”

On Thursday, Kasowitz, in a brief statement to reporters, denied that Trump told Comey to let the case wither. Rather, Kasowitz said, Trump felt vindicated that Comey told him on several occasions that the president was not personally a focus of the investigation, an assertion Comey appeared to back up in his testimony Thursday to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Earlier in the week the president had been spoiling for a fight with Comey, but he was persuaded by Kasowitz and his senior aides to stay cool and lie low, according to about a dozen White House officials and other Republicans close to Trump, some of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.

Kasowitz and White House advisers, including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Counsel Donald F. McGahn, argued to Trump that they had a rapid-response operation in place Thursday to defend him as vociferously as he would defend himself, according to people familiar with the ­discussions.

Trump agreed Wednesday not to directly engage on Comey, and by the time the ousted FBI director took the witness stand, tweeting “was not something he was considering,” one senior White House official said.

The president instead allowed surrogates to respond on Thursday, including his son, Donald Trump Jr., who posted dozens of tweets to his own account mocking Comey. In his statement, Kasowitz accused Comey of lying about his private conversations with the president and flatly denied the former director’s assertion that Trump had asked for “loyalty” during a private dinner.

Kasowitz also asserted that Trump never directed Comey “in form or substance” to stop the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials, and he said Comey’s testimony confirmed that Trump “was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference” in the 2016 election.

 

No, Corey, Comey wasn't trying to manipulate the media, you and TT are the manipulators. And the TT is confusing the Pledge of Allegiance  with asking for loyalty.

[fraurosena]

Oh my... things are heating up. I wonder what Comey told them in closed session yesterday?

(Hmmmm... was there really a recording device hidden in that grandfather clock after all?   )

[fraurosena]

 Hey, @GreyhoundFan, I think I found that missing fourth Pinocchio!

 

[sawasdee]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Trump’s statement came as surrogates fanned out to defend the president and his personal lawyer was preparing to file a “complaint” early next week over Comey’s testimony to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office and the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a person close to the legal team.

I don't understand this. 

Having been fired, Comey, as a private citizen, released unclassified information about conversations he had with the presidunce. The DOJ Inspector General only has authority over DOJ employees - which Comey no longer was. And I don't believe the Senate Judiciary Committee has authority over private citizens, either. And I do not believe that there is any law against repeating unclassified conversations with the presidunce - otherwise, anyone who ever met any president would be forbidden from repeating the conversation.

'Did he say hello to you?'

'I'm not allowed to say.'

Yeah. Ridiculous.

Scraping the barrel and spinning madly.

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I don't understand this. 

Having been fired, Comey, as a private citizen, released unclassified information about conversations he had with the presidunce. The DOJ Inspector General only has authority over DOJ employees - which Comey no longer was. And I don't believe the Senate Judiciary Committee has authority over private citizens, either. And I do not believe that there is any law against repeating unclassified conversations with the presidunce - otherwise, anyone who ever met any president would be forbidden from repeating the conversation.

'Did he say hello to you?'

'I'm not allowed to say.'

Yeah. Ridiculous.

Scraping the barrel and spinning madly.

We had a heated discussion at the dinnertable tonight (don't worry, heated discussions are a thing in our house, we enjoy it that way ) and we spoke at length about this very subject. Opinions were very divided, moreso because as foreigners we don't have enough knowledge about American law pertaining to this issue. 

The most contentious part was the fact that, yes, Comey released unclassified information about conversations he had with the presidunce, and he did that when he was a private citizen. However, the conversations themselves were had when he was still in office. This fact muddies the water. In essense, were the memo's, that were made by him in his capacity as FBI Director, free for him to release as a private citizen?

There are three options here:

- Comey the FBI Director is owner of the memo's, and Comey the private citizen is also owner of the memo's

- Comey the FBI Director is owner of the memo's, but Comey the private citizen is not

- Comey the FBI Director is not owner of the memo's (the FBI is), and Comey the private citizen is not owner either

Depending on what American law says on this matter is what defines if Comey the private citizen was owner or not, and therefore could or could not legally release the information.

Personally, from what I've seen Comey, he's a pretty principled guy (for NOTW fans, he reminds me of an Amyr). He knew full well what he was doing, and he did what he thought was the right thing to do. And if he had to break the law to do it, so be it, if it were for the greater good.

[GreyhoundFan]

I think Comey was smart enough to write the memos a way that the information would not be classified. I read an article sometime in the last 24 hours that indicated that there would be different rules depending on whether the leaked memo was an original or the author's personal copy. I think Agent Orange's lawyer is just trying to muddy the waters. I can't see Comey risking being sued, arrested, or both. I'm sure he has his ducks in a row.

 

"Did Trump just acknowledge (in a tweet, of course) that he told Comey to back off Michael Flynn?"

Spoiler

The president is tweeting, and perhaps tweeting himself into more trouble, about James B. Comey, the FBI director he fired in May.

In his second tweet before lunchtime Friday, President Trump potentially undermined his private lawyer's statements denying key parts of Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee the day before.

Here's the tweet:

...

And here's what Trump's private lawyer for all things Russia, Marc Kasowitz, said less than 24 hours ago:

...

In the Fox News article Trump retweeted, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued that the president didn't obstruct justice in speaking with Comey about “letting go” of the FBI investigation into fired national security adviser Michael Flynn. Dershowitz said it's the president's prerogative to stop the FBI's various investigations. (That's one legal expert's opinion; the final decision will ultimately fall on special counsel Robert Mueller III.)

Trump just tweeted an argument of why it would be okay if he did tell Comey to back off the Flynn investigation. Is the president tacitly acknowledging that he did tell Comey to do that?

...

Trump appears to be using two parallel arguments: I didn't tell Comey to back off Flynn. Or maybe I did — and that would be okay, too.

Both cannot be true. Trump either talked to Comey about Flynn (whether it was in a way that made Comey feel he was being directed by the president to drop the FBI investigation is another matter). Or he didn't.

This is actually a pattern for Trump. He often muddies the waters on negative news stories about him in a way that gives him mutually exclusive avenues of defense. Just a few examples off the top off my head:

On Jared Kushner:

When The Washington Post reported that Russia-to-Russia communications claimed that presidential adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner tried to set up a back channel with the Russians, White House aides went on TV immediately to defend Kushner.

The next day, Trump tweeted a Fox News article (yet another pattern) that reported Kushner did not attempt to create such a back channel. Trump later deleted the tweet, according to FactBase, which archives his tweets and other communications.

...

On the firing of Comey

When Trump suddenly fired Comey in May, his administration — including Vice President Pence — said it was because of the way the FBI chief had handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. But then Trump went on TV and said: Nah, it was because of this “Russia thing.”

...

On the travel ban

Trump's White House asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its much-maligned travel ban. Then Trump proceeded to completely undermine his team's legal case for the ban in four tweets.

...

Trump, to put it mildly, is really, really bad at staying on his administration's message. When he's on the defensive, he's really, really good at confusing that message — to the point where voters can kind of choose their own adventure about what to believe.

The problem is that, to have it both ways, Trump sometimes ends up admitting things he probably didn't want to. And, thanks to his rush to defend himself, it's now fair to ask whether the president is acknowledging that he told Comey to back off Flynn, 24 hours after Trump's lawyer denied it.

 

[HeathenBlondie]

20 hours ago, JMarie said:

IT'S ONLY BEEN SEVEN MONTHS, AND LOOK AT THE CONFUSION HE'S MANAGED TO CREATE!!!!!!!

I can't believe it's been just seven months because it feels like seven years! Can you imagine what the next (hopefully not) seven months are going to feel like?

 

12 hours ago, nvmbr02 said:

Complete vindication? I don't think he knows what vindication means. 

Apparently I wasn't watching the same Comey hearing yesterday if Agent Orange thinks he was vindicated. You could just tell how pissed Trump was at his news conference today while talking about Comey. It made me laugh when Trump said he hardly knew the guy, would never demand loyalty and would testify under oath. Congress should take him up on that offer of testifying!

[Penny]

If Cheeto was to go testify under oath, he would still lie. I do not believe he is capable of telling the truth. 

[GreyhoundFan]

I don't think this Jennifer Rubin article has been posted: "Trump feels ‘vindicated,’ but what about the assault on our democracy?"

Spoiler

For months, President Trump has been calling the Russia investigation “fake news.” He has insisted that China or some other country could have been behind the hack of Democratic Party organizations’ computers and the effort to meddle in our elections. In his eyes, it’s all a plot to undermine him, and he is “vindicated” when it was confirmed that at the time former FBI director James B. Comey left the FBI, there was no investigation with his name on it.

Contrast that with this line of questioning from Thursday’s hearing:

SEN. RICHARD BURR (R-N.C.): Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?

COMEY: None.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the D triple-C systems [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.

BURR: Do you have any doubt the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?

COMEY: No.

BURR: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?

COMEY: I’m confident. When I left as director, I had seen no indication of that whatsoever.

In that same vein, Comey explained how definitive was the information:

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-N.M.): The president has repeatedly talked about the Russian investigation into the U.S. — or Russia’s involvement in the U.S. election cycle as a hoax and fake news. Can you talk a little bit about what you saw as FBI director and, obviously, only the parts that you can share in this setting that demonstrate how serious this action actually was and why there was an investigation in the first place?

COMEY: Yes, sir. There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It’s not a close call. That happened. That’s about as unfake as you can possibly get. It is very, very serious, which is why it’s so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. This is about America, not about a particular party.

HEINRICH: That is a hostile act by the Russian government against this country?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

One simply cannot square the president’s persistent public assertions that the Russia investigation was “fake news” or a “hoax” with such a definitive assessment from the former FBI director and the rest of the intelligence community. This raises the question as to why Trump kept suggesting that the Russians couldn’t be fingered.

Perhaps Trump knew that Russia was responsible (everyone in the intelligence community told him it was beyond dispute) but lied to the American people so as to convince them that he really, really won. Maybe Trump is unable to process facts or think logically, preferring rumors, conspiracy theories and the like. In other words, maybe he honestly did not understand what was going on.  Then again, Trump — if he was trying to remain in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s good graces — could have simply been covering for the former KGB lieutenant colonel. Whatever the reason, he persistently told the public an obvious falsehood, pretending that there had been no assault on American democracy. He needs to explain this disparity.

It is also possible that Trump and the intelligence community were talking past one another. Trump thinks of the Russia investigation as a “cloud” over him. If the story was that Trump personally colluded with Russia, then it had to be “fake news.” That, after all, was the reason he was frantic to have Comey clear his name. This truly is a case in which Trump considered the “Russia investigation” to be only about him.

The intelligence community and Comey, specifically, were of course definitive about an attack on American democracy. Comey declared:

The reason this is such a big deal. 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. They want to undermine our credibility in the face the world. They think that this great experiment of ours is a threat to them. So they’re going to try to run it down and dirty it up as much as possible. That’s what this is about and they will be back. Because we remain — as difficult as we can be with each other, we remain that shining city on the hill. And they don’t like it.

That entire concept — the threat to democracy, the danger to our system of government, the violation of American self-government by a hostile power — seems to mean nothing to Trump. It’s a non-issue. What more evidence do we need that Trump cannot fulfill his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? Trump’s psyche is geared to “preserve, protect and defend” Trump. A president who could care less about an attack on American sovereignty is by definition incapable of performing the most fundamental part of his job: acting as commander in chief.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No kidding: "President Trump cares more about himself than his country"

Spoiler

From former FBI director James B. Comey’s account this past week of his conversations with President Trump, a very clear, if disturbing, picture emerged of what the president worries most about. It’s not broader questions of law, government or national security. He’s got one paramount thing on his mind: himself.

In written remarks submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as testimony before the panel Thursday, Comey painstakingly described meetings and phone calls in which the president didn’t focus on threats from terrorism, crime or Russian hackers. Rather, according to Comey, Trump continually tried to explain that the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s interference in last year’s election was causing difficulty for Trump.

This preoccupation colored the much-discussed private dinner at the White House to which Trump invited Comey in January, a week after Inauguration Day. “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,” Trump insisted, in Comey’s retelling. The president did not say “the country,” “this democracy” or even “this administration” needed the FBI chief’s loyalty. Similarly, in their third and final meeting, Comey said the president pushed him to close down the bureau’s investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The profound consequences of a foreign government tampering with our elections did not seem to come up — only the potential ramifications for a close ally of the president.

Comey testified to Trump’s apparent lack of care for larger geopolitical and national security issues. “I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign,” he wrote in his prepared remarks, summarizing one meeting. Similarly, Comey said the president later worried about the “cloud” hanging over his head because of the investigation — but made no mention of Trump appearing concerned about what the investigation, or the Russian interference that the former director said he had “no doubt” about, might mean for the country.

When Comey tried to defend the need for a thorough investigation on the grounds that it might even reveal that no wrongdoing had occurred, he wrote, the president “reemphasized the problems this was causing him.” Trump implored Comey to “get out” the fact that he wasn’t under investigation, no matter what that might mean for the integrity of the probe overall. He apparently wasn’t concerned about what Russian interference might mean for the national security of the United States or the integrity of the democratic process.

Compare that self-absorbed, personalized conception of government with the way Comey behaved during his testimony. As if to show by example the failings of his former boss, Comey continually referred to his role as a protector of the institutions of justice and the rule of law. “I worked every day at the FBI to help make that great organization better, and I say help, because I did nothing alone at the FBI,” Comey said. “ … The organization’s great strength is that its values and abilities run deep and wide … The FBI’s mission will be relentlessly pursued by its people, and that mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

Even when asked about his decision to present his findings on the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, Comey fell back upon his determination to “protect the justice institution, including the FBI.” Leaving a lasting impression for the public, he invoked the image of “the statue of justice” and its blindfold: “You’re not supposed to be peeking out to see whether your patron is pleased or not with what you’re doing.” When it came to the deeper substance of the hearing — the investigation into Russian interference with the election — Comey portrayed his role as a protector not just of justice but of the country itself. “They’re coming after America, which I hope we all love equally.”

And given a chance by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) to praise himself in answer to the question, “Do you want to say anything as to why we should believe you?” Comey replied, “My mother raised me not to say things like this about myself, so I’m not going to.” The comparison with Trump was implicit. And it wasn’t flattering to the president.

It’s hard to imagine packing more lessons into one hearing than Comey did Thursday. Chief among them was that justice, however embroiled with politics, does not exist to subsidize a cult of personality. It exists to honor the rule of law and the processes upon which our democracy is built. For that to happen, the country needs a president who can see beyond himself to the larger mark he is making upon our democracy. Without that vision, Comey’s appearance seemed to suggest, the country’s hallowed institutions are in peril.

 

[onekidanddone]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Not about Agent Orange, but one of his staffers: "White House social media director Dan Scavino violated Hatch Act with tweet targeting GOP congressman"

Sadly, I'm sure nobody in this administration will take it seriously.

You know what would happen to any ebil average Government employee who violated Hatch Act?  They would be out on their ear in a New York minute.

[GreyhoundFan]

@onekidanddone -- you are so right. Anyone who wasn't part of Agent Orange's inner circle would have been gone in an instant.

 

"The Daily 202: What would it take for the Republican base to stop trusting Donald Trump?"

Spoiler

THE BIG IDEA: A Washington Post/ABC News poll in late April found that 81 percent of Republicans think President Trump is honest and trustworthy – compared to 38 percent of Americans overall and 34 percent of independents. In the spring of 2016, not long before he secured the GOP nomination, just 46 percent of self-identified Republicans said Trump is honest and trustworthy. Immediately after the convention in Cleveland, that popped to 69 percent and continued to rise after his November victory.

Besides becoming their party’s standard bearer, what specifically has Trump done in the past 15 months to persuade one in three Republicans who thought he was dishonest that he can now be trusted?

The knee-jerk reaction to James Comey’s very credible and very serious allegations yesterday, which the former FBI director made under oath and has contemporaneous notes to back up, is the strongest proof point yet of the rising tribalism that has infected our politics.

We saw a similar dynamic two weeks ago when many GOP apparatchiks rallied to the defense of Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte after he physically assaulted a reporter.

And it has not stopped at the water’s edge. When Barack Obama was president, a Post-ABC poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. After Trump did it, 86 percent of Republicans supported strikes for the exact same reason.

It’s easy to forget amidst the donnybrook, but Comey has been a card-carrying Republican virtually all of his life. George W. Bush appointed him as a U.S. attorney and, later, deputy attorney general. He was a hero on the right when he rebuked Hillary Clinton as “extremely careless” last summer, but attitudes have shifted now that he’s going after Trump. A Post-ABC poll conducted this week found that just 27 percent of Americans believe Trump fired Comey “for the good of the country.” But 71 percent of Republicans did.

We’ll know soon if the hearing moves the numbers, but don’t hold your breath. Joe Heim interviewed a couple from Florida watching in the bar at Trump’s D.C. hotel. “I’m sticking by his side to the end,” said Scott Cowpland, 61. “If he wants loyalty, he’s got our loyalty,” added Ann Mytnik, 56.

-- Trump this morning reacted to Comey’s testimony by calling him a liar:

...

-- Sometimes it feels like the president’s M.O. is: I know what you are, but what am I? When someone attacks him for something, he quite often lobs the same charge right back at who he perceives to be the accuser. Recall how Trump started talking about Bill Clinton’s infidelity last October after he got caught on tape boasting about being able to get away with groping women because he’s a celebrity. Then he appropriated the term “fake news” after the election.

-- Comey – fired one month ago today – repeatedly called the president a liar as he fielded questions for more than 2 ½ hours from senators on the Intelligence Committee.

• On why he agreed to testify: “The administration … chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.”
• On why he took detailed notes: “I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document.”
• “Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” Comey said in the most memorable sound bite of the day. “If there are tapes, it's not just my word against his … All I can do is hope. The president surely knows whether he taped me. … Release all the tapes!”

-- Trump has long been adept at muddying the waters by employing the crisis management playbook that he learned from Joseph McCarthy’s protégé Roy Cohn. The difference this time: He can count on the official Republican Party apparatus to do his bidding.

The Republican National Committee deployed a whopping 60 staff members as part of its rapid-response “war room” effort to counter-punch at Comey, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“The RNC’s output was punchy, snarky and at times contradictory,” David Weigel reports. “It neatly captured the fog of confusion that the president’s defenders wanted to churn.”

Even Trump’s former political opponents, including Marco Rubio and John McCain, acted sort of like his political defense team, Paul Kane writes.

Many other Republican lawmakers simply dismissed Comey’s testimony as a nothing-burger. The best quote illustrating this comes from Politico’s Burgess Everett: “I never did think it was going to amount to much, because first of all there’s nothing there,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told reporters. “But people around here just love to make something out of nothing and that’s basically what you have there. Tell me otherwise.” Then Hatch added: “Of course, I haven’t been in the hearing.” Let that sink in: Hatch did not watch the hearing, yet he said it proved “there’s nothing there.”

-- Rather than directly challenge Comey’s version of events, the Republican leadership team in Congress decided to defend what he described as the mere fumbling of an inexperienced politician. “The president’s new at this,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said at a press conference. “He’s new to government, and so he probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between the DOJ, FBI and White House. He’s just new to this.” (Mike DeBonis rounds up several quotes like this.)

That defense just doesn’t pass the smell test. Trump, 70, has been dealing with the federal government since the Justice Department came after him four decades ago for allegedly discriminating against African Americans at his rental properties. He’s also earned a reputation as one of the most litigious people in the business world. (The Boston Globe’s Matt Viser has more illustrations of why “Trump is no naif.”)

-- Legal experts, meanwhile, said Comey’s testimony clarified and bolstered the case that the president obstructed justice, Matt Zapotosky reports.

-- But sitting presidents do not get indicted on obstruction-of-justice charges. It is Congress that must ultimately determine if his behavior deserves impeachment.

-- There is a chicken-egg dynamic at play. Most rank-and-file Republicans look to their party leaders for cues about what to believe, but these same lawmakers are waiting on the base of the party to turn on Trump before they find the “courage” to say publicly what many of them already believe privately.

-- This window-dressing is unlikely to change until members of Congress conclude that the cost of standing with Trump exceeds the risk of defending him. Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) said during a private appearance last week that the president could cost her party the House. “Any Republican member of Congress, you are going down with the ship,” McSally warned, according to the Tucson Weekly. “And we're going to hand the gavel to (Nancy) Pelosi in 2018. They only need 28 seats and the path to that gavel being handed over is through my seat. And right now, it doesn't matter that it's me, it doesn't matter what I've done. I have an 'R' next to my name and, right now, this environment would have me not prevail."

-- Erick Erickson warns his fellow Republicans that their blind loyalty to Trump is going to damage the party bigly in the long-term. “If your goal is to stop the left, all Trump is doing is both emboldening them and driving independent voters to them,” he explains in a new piece for The Resurgent. “Soon he will be a catalyst for a leftwing resurgence if Republicans do not sort this out themselves.” 

-- The challenge for the politicians who would like to make a break is that Trump supporters who dwell in the alternative-reality fever swamps of the Internet were thrilled by the hearing, which they believe somehow offered total vindication of their president. This, for example, was posted unironically by a leading purveyor of pro-Trump conspiracy theories:

...

WHY THE CREDIBILITY GAP MATTERS:

-- Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement after Comey’s testimony saying that the president “never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone.” He also denied that Trump ever asked Comey for “loyalty” in “form or substance.” But Kasowitz refused to answer any questions.

-- “I can definitely say the president is not a liar,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders added during her afternoon briefing.

This quote is certain to become infamous. “Such protestations from any White House are never a good thing,” Todd Purdum writes for Politico Magazine. “See Richard Nixon's, 'I am not a crook,' and Bill Clinton's, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,' just for starters.”

Analysts are ridiculing Sanders’s declaration. From GOP messaging guru Frank Luntz:

...

-- The problem for the president is that he shortsightedly chose to squander his credibility on both mountains and molehills, from falsely accusing Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower to inflating the size of his inauguration crowd. And now it’s lost.

-- The Post’s nonpartisan Fact Checkers have documented 623 false and misleading claims made by Trump during his first 137 days in office. (See them all here.) The team has just produced a video juxtaposing Comey and Trump’s conflicting public statements about their interactions. Watch it here: 

...

-- In the eyes of every serious journalist covering the White House, Trump and his team lost the presumption of truthfulness long ago. There has been a near-weekly cycle of Trump shifting his story and contradicting his own staff:

• When he fired Comey, of course, the White House announced that it was because of the director’s mishandling of the Hillary email investigation and based entirely on a memo that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had written. “It was all him,” Sean Spicer said. Then Trump went on TV to say, actually, the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey and volunteered that he was going to fire Comey before asking Rosenstein to draft a justification.
• When The Post reported that the president divulged highly classified material to the Russians, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster categorically denied it: “I was in the room. It didn't happen.” The very next morning, Trump admitted the story was true and said he had “the absolute right” to share whatever he wants.

-- Before he became president, Trump himself even boasted about playing fast and loose with the truth. “The final key to the way I promote is bravado,” he explained in “The Art of the Deal.” “I play to people’s fantasies. … A little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.”

HOW THE COMEY NEWS IS PLAYING:

This is the cover of one of Trump’s hometown newspapers:

<The cover of the NY Daily News -- WORTH A LOOK!>

-- “For his performance of a lifetime, [Comey] decided to play two roles at once: The prototypical G-man, always on the straight and narrow, dedicated only to truth and justice, and the aggrieved victim of an undisciplined, line-crossing president,” our Marc Fisher observes in a thoughtful review. “In both roles, the play ends with Comey … in a new and uncomfortable place — as the whistleblower, warning the nation about a president who schemes, lies and seeks to corrupt public servants under the guise of loyalty...

“Comey was a little bit Jimmy Stewart, sprinkling his answers with aw-shucks modesty,” Marc adds. “And he was a little bit John Dean, not quite declaring a cancer on the presidency but pronouncing himself very much ‘shocked and troubled’ by what he perceived as Trump’s repeated efforts to get him to ease off the FBI’s investigation … As in the legendary ‘Saturday Night Live’ bit about the miracle product Shimmer, which turns out to be both a floor wax and a dessert topping, Comey decided to play both roles.”

-- “It has been many years since a witness appeared on Capitol Hill and put a president in such potential jeopardy,” writes Dan Balz, The Post’s chief correspondent, in a smart take. “The investigation is far from its conclusion and, as with so much about the probe, the evidence is murky or disputable. But for the president and his White House … this was not a good day."

On the front page of the New York Times, Peter Baker calls it “the most damning j’accuse moment by a senior law enforcement official against a president in a generation.”

“Comey emerged as a superb institutionalist, a man who believes we are a nation of laws,” adds columnist David Brooks. “Trump emerged as a tribalist and a clannist, who simply cannot understand the way modern government works.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

-- “This is nowhere near the end of the investigation,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said after the hearing.

-- “The most important takeaway from Comey’s testimony may be what he didn’t say,” Eugene Robinson writes in his column. “Topics he scrupulously avoided may give a hint of where the investigation is headed. He declined, for example, to answer a question in open session about Vnesheconombank (VEB), a Russian government-owned development bank linked to President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met last year with VEB executives.”

-- The Senate Intelligence Committee expects Jared Kushner to meet with committee staffers this month, two sources familiar with the planning told NBC News last night. A third source familiar with the conversations added that discussions about timing are still ongoing.

-- Members of both parties want to see copies of Comey’s contemporaneous memos.

-- Whether there are tapes has become more significant than ever. “I have no idea,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during the White House briefing when asked if there are tapes. Asked to look into it, she was flip: “Sure, I’ll try to look under the couches.”

-- If it turns out there were tapes, and Trump destroyed them, that could constitute a smoking gun of obstruction. It would also represent a tacit confession that Comey’s testimony is accurate.

JEFF SESSIONS MAY BE IN REAL TROUBLE:

-- Yesterday’s hearing raised a host of new questions about the sitting attorney general’s truthfulness, judgment and contacts with the Russians.

This was very cryptic: “Comey said that the bureau had information about Sessions — before he recused himself from overseeing the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election — that would have made it ‘problematic’ for him to be involved in the probe,” Sari Horwitz reports. “Comey would not provide details of what information the FBI had.”

Based on Russian-to-Russian intercepts, Comey told members of the Intelligence committee during a classified afternoon session that Sessions may have had a third unreported interaction with Sergey Kislyak, per CNN. (The AG’s spokeswoman denies such an encounter, but remember that they were not forthcoming about the first two meetings...)

Comey said during the open portion of the hearing that it is “a reasonable question” as to why Sessions, who has recused himself from the Russia investigation, was involved in his firing when Trump admits publicly that he acted because of the Russia investigation.

The fired director also said he believes Sessions knew better than to leave him alone with Trump in the Oval Office on Feb. 14. “My sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn’t be leaving, which is why he was lingering,” Comey said.

It was during the subsequent conversation that the president allegedly said this:

...

“I took it as a direction,” Comey explained yesterday. “I mean, this is the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, ‘I hope’ this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do.” If there was nothing improper about it, Comey wondered, “Why did he kick everyone out of the Oval Office?”

After that meeting, Comey said he told Sessions that he did not want to be alone anymore with Trump and “it can’t happen that you get kicked out of the room and the president talks to me.” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked Comey how the attorney general responded. “I have a recollection of him just kind of looking at me,” he replied. “I kind of got — his body language gave me the sense like, ‘What am I going to do?’ . . . He didn’t say anything.” Ian Prior, the Justice Department spokesman, disputed that account and said that Comey told Sessions that he “wanted to ensure that he and his FBI staff were following proper communications protocol with the White House.”

-- Sessions will appear next Tuesday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to discuss his department’s budget request – and will be pressed by Democrats to clear things up under oath. But the real test will be when he next appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of his agency.

-- To be sure, Loretta Lynch also came off very badly yesterday. But she’s no longer the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. “At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me,” Comey said, adding that this wording “gave the impression that (she) was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way the campaign” was messaging about it. “That was inaccurate,” he added. “That gave me a queasy feeling.”

IS THERE ANY CHANCE THIS IS ACTUALLY A COINCIDENCE?

-- Comey’s timeline is problematic for Trump in many ways that we plan to unpack in coming editions of the 202, but here’s an important angle that has not gotten enough attention yet:

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates disclosed under oath last month that, on the morning of Jan. 26th, she unambiguously warned White House Counsel Donald McGahn that the national security adviser was “compromised by the Russians” and “could be blackmailed.” Worried about the danger from within, Yates said she moved with great “urgency.” In a secure room, she revealed that Vice President Pence and other White House officials were making false statements to the public. She said she does not know what McGahn did with that information, and McGahn has declined to answer.

Yesterday, Comey testified that Trump called him up at his desk around lunchtime the very next day and asked him to come over for a one-on-one dinner a few hours later. Comey recalled that he needed to break a date with his wife in order to swing it. Trump then began the meal by asking if he wanted to remain as FBI director, which Comey found odd because the president “had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to.” “The dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship,” Comey said, explaining why this was concerning.

Flynn stayed on for 17 more days.

-- Comey said he has “no doubt” Russian government officials were directly behind the hacking of the DNC and others – something Trump remains reluctant to take seriously or, frankly, even acknowledge. “There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever,” the fired director said. “The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active-measures campaign driven from the top of that government.” “It’s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey added.

-- Now the question is: Will Republicans ever believe him?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes! "New York attorney general ‘looking into’ Eric Trump’s foundation"

Spoiler

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is “looking into” a charitable foundation founded by Eric Trump, a spokesman for Schneiderman said, after Forbes magazine raised questions about whether President Trump's son had made misleading statements about how the foundation spent its money.

The New York attorney general has jurisdiction over charities in the state, where Eric Trump's foundation is registered. Schneiderman's office would say little about this new inquiry, other than to report that it was at an early stage and could not be considered a formal investigation.

“The attorney general's office is looking into issues at the Eric Trump Foundation raised by the Forbes report,” said spokesman Eric Soufer in a written statement.

One item at issue, the attorney general's office said, was that the Eric Trump Foundation has rebranded itself “Curetivity” and held a fundraiser under that name. But, after a query from The Washington Post on Friday morning, the attorney general's office said the charity had not officially changed its name with New York charity regulators.

The main impetus for this inquiry was the Forbes story, published earlier this week. It examined the Eric Trump Foundation's tradition of holding fundraiser golf tournaments at Trump-owned courses. Although Eric Trump had asserted repeatedly that his father's company allowed him to use the courses free, Forbes found evidence that the Eric Trump Foundation has actually paid the Trump Organization to use them.

Eric Trump did not respond to a request for comment from The Post on Friday afternoon.

Schneiderman's office is already investigating the president's own name-branded foundation, the Donald J. Trump Foundation. A series of stories in The Post last year revealed instances in which Trump had used his charity's money to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses or to buy portraits of himself. That investigation is ongoing, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman said Friday.

 

[SilverBeach]

23 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

@Cartmann99 I was thinking the same thing while watching the testimony today. I was also on twitter and there were many republican reporters who were like "well why did he keep calling him if he didn't want to be alone with him?" 

Comey wasn't calling Trump, it was the reverse!

[Destiny]

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/873245481488535554

I am so deeply offended at this one. I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in your god (the separate issue of does he actually believe in that god notwithstanding), so how fucking dare you? HATE!

[JMarie]

9 minutes ago, Destiny said:

 

I am so deeply offended at this one. I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in your god (the separate issue of does he actually believe in that god notwithstanding), so how fucking dare you? HATE!

Says the president not affiliated with any church.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-hunt/12-biblical-principles-yo_b_5571511.html

I'd especially like to see him follow #1 and #11.

Quote

1. Are you living a life of poverty? We all know about the time Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything and give it to the poor. And we all remember Jesus’ famous saying about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. So, obviously Jesus isn’t big on being rich. But do you remember when he said not to store up treasures for yourself on earth? You know what money and material possessions are? Treasures. Put all of those teachings together and you’ve got a pretty clear biblical principle — we need to live in poverty.
 

11. Do you give anything to anyone who asks? This biblical principle found in both Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:30 is great because it’ll go a long way in helping you live out that poverty principle. It might even help a few need folks along the way. Who knows? Oh, and just think how this will help lower crime rates if we eradicate the word “no” from our vocabulary!! “Give me your wallet!” Sure. “And you’re car!” Here are the keys. “Well, while we’re at it, I want your house too!” As you wish.
 

[fraurosena]

Well, any scientist seeking refuge from the anti-science sentiment in America has place to go now:

 

[IrishCarrie]

Guys, just to let you know how this is playing out on the media in Ireland - basically all the news reports are about how credible Comey is and how professionally he presented himself. Followed by pieces on how the White House is scrambling frantically to do damage control by blurring the issues but not really succeeding, because no one's THAT stupid!

Now I know from Twitter that sadly, plenty of Trumpettes actually are that stupid, but I thought it might cheer y'all up to know that the rest of the world is totally Team Comey!