Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[KLB]

I don't like the whole idea of memos written about conversations. The only reason I have heard of someone doing this is in an attempt to use the conversations against someone else because they don't like them. The fact that he had never bothered to create a record of his dealings with anyone else shows that he has a clear bias against Trump. This calls in to question the validity of his testimony.

Also Kut we both know that these type of reports done afterwords can easily be slanted to make the person writing them look better Than they should.

Did he say that he did not create records of other conversations? A lot of people take notes on conversations. It is not always easy to remember what you or others said in a meeting.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't like the whole idea of memos written about conversations. The only reason I have heard of someone doing this is in an attempt to use the conversations against someone else because they don't like them. The fact that he had never bothered to create a record of his dealings with anyone else shows that he has a clear bias against Trump. This calls in to question the validity of his testimony.

Also Kut we both know that these type of reports done afterwords can easily be slanted to make the person writing them look better Than they should.

If your boss is publicly lambasting you on Twitter, it's probably wise to start building a case for when he decides to come after your job (and/or lie about you.)

 

[jamil]

Did he say that he did not create records of other conversations? A lot of people take notes on conversations. It is not always easy to remember what you or others said in a meeting.

Yes. That was his testimony. He made it a point that he had never felt he had to document his conversations with other presidents, but that because of the nature of this conversation, and what he was perceiving was the nature of Trump, he felt it was important to write everything down that happened.

 

[KLB]

Yes. That was his testimony. He made it a point that he had never felt he had to document his conversations with other presidents, but that because of the nature of this conversation, and what he was perceiving was the nature of Trump, he felt it was important to write everything down that happened.

Interesting. Sounds like one way or another.

 

[jamil]

If your boss is publicly lambasting you on Twitter, it's probably wise to start building a case for when he decides to come after your job (and/or lie about you.)

I think there are a lot of things to criticize about Comey. But I can't blame him for anticipating the need to cover his ass. You have the president excusing Comey's boss from the Oval Office, to speak to Comey alone, and then he talks about wanting an investigation to end, that is very improper. I wouldn't say that what Trump said rises to the level of obstruction, but it is improper. And documenting that conversation was a wise move from Comey's perspective.

 

[Dddrees]

I don't think it's a "leak" if you are sharing unclassified recollections. But good luck getting Trump's "LEAKER" talking point to change. Really misleading.

I agree I don't see it as leaking. Heck one of Trumps surragates just called Comey a one man walking swamp. It's not really amazing that either side will go one way or another but the terms or catch phrases they both use even when they don't really apply, But if you spin it enough, if you say it enough then for whatever reason it becomes true.

 

[Dddrees]

I think there are a lot of things to criticize about Comey. But I can't blame him for anticipating the need to cover his ass. You have the president excusing Comey's boss from the Oval Office, to speak to Comey alone, and then he talks about wanting an investigation to end, that is very improper. I wouldn't say that what Trump said rises to the level of obstruction, but it is improper. And documenting that conversation was a wise move from Comey's perspective.

If you agree that it's improper how do you not see this as not potentially rising to the level of obstruction of justice? What do you think Trump was trying to do? I mean he excused everyone but Comey and then he suggested that Comey let that investigation go. Why do you think Trump did and said what he did?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't like the whole idea of memos written about conversations. The only reason I have heard of someone doing this is in an attempt to use the conversations against someone else because they don't like them. The fact that he had never bothered to create a record of his dealings with anyone else shows that he has a clear bias against Trump. This calls in to question the validity of his testimony.

Also Kut we both know that these type of reports done afterwords can easily be slanted to make the person writing them look better Than they should.

I will certainly concede that point. However, I don't think Comey keeping a written record of his conversations of Trump is indicative of a clear bias. His failure to record previous individuals may be based on how rare his interaction was, and of which the subject matter was based during their conversations. Comey interacted with Obama, I believe, 2 or 3 times in 3 years. He interacted with Trump 9 in less that 6 months.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And at the end of day, Trump has a credibility problem. When compared to Comey, he almost certainly would be considered the less truthful. The "He said, he said" narrative clearly tilts towards Comey. This doesn't give Comey a pass for his narcissism and bad decisions, but I have yet to see a person ever question his truthfulness. Trump clearly has an issue with telling the Truth.

 

[Alpo]

Based on the interchange as related by Comey, I doubt any reasonable person believes that the Trump remarks in question rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

Sheesh. Fuggedaboudit.

 

[indiucky]

If you agree that it's improper how do you not see this as not potentially rising to the level of obstruction of justice?

You may be on to something...I believe they got Clinton for obstruction of a urethra via a Cuban cigar......It's possible I suppose....

 

[Kutnupe14]

Based on the interchange as related by Comey, I doubt any reasonable person believes that the Trump remarks in question rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

Sheesh. Fuggedaboudit.

That's being debated... but for the sake of argument, let's assume you're completely right. Well now, we have Trump accusing Comey of perjury during a congressional hearing. And as such, and investigation should be opened up into Comey, and the truthfulness of his statements. Does anybody disagree with that? If Comey has lied to a congressional hearing, he should be jailed. So let's get the president on record, and under oath, repeating these claims.

 

[Dddrees]

That's being debated... but for the sake of argument, let's assume you're completely right. Well now, we have Trump accusing Comey of perjury during a congressional hearing. And as such, and investigation should be opened up into Comey, and the truthfulness of his statements. Does anybody disagree with that? If Comey has lied to a congressional hearing, he should be jailed. So let's get the president on record, and under oath, repeating these claims.

Not to mention any tapes, that is if they actually exist.

 

[Alpo]

That's being debated... but for the sake of argument, let's assume you're completely right. Well now, we have Trump accusing Comey of perjury during a congressional hearing. And as such, and investigation should be opened up into Comey, and the truthfulness of his statements. Does anybody disagree with that? If Comey has lied to a congressional hearing, he should be jailed. So let's get the president on record, and under oath, repeating these claims.

If Trump testifies UNDER OATH about a topic, then you might have reason to investigate his claim. Otherwise, I assume he is full of **** and move on to important stuff. I don't trust Trump. I don't like him. I think he's an embarrassment as our president. But, he was elected into the office and if he is going to be removed, it needs to be because he committed a serious crime, not some tweet calling Comey a doody-head.

 

[Dddrees]

If Trump testifies UNDER OATH about a topic, then you might have reason to investigate his claim. Otherwise, I assume he is full of **** and move on to important stuff. I don't trust Trump. I don't like him. I think he's an embarrassment as our president. But, he was elected into the office and if he is going to be removed, it needs to be because he committed a serious crime, not some tweet calling Comey a doody-head.

I also think the DNI and NSA's testimony is relevant as well. They weren't in the room but they may very well have been asked to do something illegal with regards to the Russia investigation.

 

[SSGSAD]

Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, a campaign pledge delivered... however it makes the United States one of three nations that are not part of the agreement. Lot of people on both sides disagree with this move and many business believe that this will hurt employment in the nation over the long run. I also hold the belief that this will hinder the clean energy progress we have made. I'm not so sure how you can lead from the rear.

-2

Pardon, the interruption,

I give this, a + 10, as

I believe global warming, is a HOAX .....

When "d" LEAD by example,

the way I was taught in the MILITARY,

then I may start to believe .....

When they say do as I say, NOT as I do .....

well you know .....

anyway, I have heard for years, that al gore, has gotten rich

off of global warming .....

and the last I heard, several years ago,

his light bill, for ONE of his homes, was in excess of $2300.00

JMHO ..... YMMV ....

 

[SSGSAD]

And, what ever happened to "carbon credits" ?????

if that worked so well, what happened ?????

Someone, made their money, and LAUGHED

all the way to the bank .....

 

[Kutnupe14]

If Trump testifies UNDER OATH about a topic, then you might have reason to investigate his claim. Otherwise, I assume he is full of **** and move on to important stuff. I don't trust Trump. I don't like him. I think he's an embarrassment as our president. But, he was elected into the office and if he is going to be removed, it needs to be because he committed a serious crime, not some tweet calling Comey a doody-head.

....and we got a ballgame folks! Trump says he's 100% willing to testify under oath. Surely, he's either telling the truth, or he's completely bonkers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Pardon, the interruption,

I give this, a + 10, as

I believe global warming, is a HOAX .....

When "d" LEAD by example,

the way I was taught in the MILITARY,

then I may start to believe .....

When they say do as I say, NOT as I do .....

well you know .....

anyway, I have heard for years, that al gore, has gotten rich

off of global warming .....

and the last I heard, several years ago,

his light bill, for ONE of his homes, was in excess of $2300.00

JMHO ..... YMMV ....

I knew that there would be plenty that would see that move in the opposite way. I'm not sure bears as much as 10% of his entire presidency though.

 

[jamil]

If you agree that it's improper how do you not see this as not potentially rising to the level of obstruction of justice? What do you think Trump was trying to do? I mean he excused everyone but Comey and then he suggested that Comey let that investigation go. Why do you think Trump did and said what he did?

Short answer: Not everything that is improper is illegal.

Longer answer: I think it was Alan Dershowitz who made the point about the difference between the "legal" and "political" conclusions. If we're talking about a criminal act, then we're in the realm of the legal standards for what is obstruction, and what Trump did isn't that.

Part of Dershowitz's point is that the constitution gives the POTUS the authority to fire whomever he wants in the executive branch, for whatever reason, or no reason. The justice department is part of the Executive Branch and thus takes its direction from the POTUS. The POTUS can direct the DoJ to stop investigating whomever he wants. He has that authority.

However, there is a political cost to that. Congress has the power of oversight. If the president is doing something that enough congress critters think is improper, they can vote to impeach the president. Just as the president can fire anyone he wants, congress can impeach the president for whatever reason they want. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty vague. All it takes to convict the president of anything is enough "yes" votes. And there's a political cost for that too, though. Congress critters answer to their constituents.

Dershowitz also made the point that the POTUS could have pardoned Flynn and told the DoJ to stop investigating him. George H.W. Bush did the very same kind of thing in his administration. He pardoned Weinberger over the Iran/Contra deal to stop a trial in which Bush's involvement may been revealed. That rings to me as improper. But it was not a crime in a legal sense because the Contitution gives the President power to pardon whomever he wants. There was weeping and gnashing of teeth over it, but there was not enough political capital to impeach him for it.