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

[jamil]

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.

What if Trump ordered everyone in the executive branch to stop investigating Russia? Would that be breaking the law? I think it'd be pretty ****ty. But is it illegal? The former president ordered the investigation. The current president could legally stop it. But politically that would be suicide.

 

[BugI02]

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.

REALLY? If you feel you have to get your version of a 'recollection' to media hostile to Trump anonymously, via a cut-out at Columbia University, to keep your own role as the leaker obscured and your hands ostensibly clean; your patriotic motivation should be given the benefit of the doubt?

ETR: Edited to remove unnecessarily judgmental conclusion

 

[BugI02]

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-with-trump-not-obama/?utm_term=.82479b49e81e

After his first meeting with Trump on Jan. 6, Comey said he “felt compelled to document my first conversation” with him in a memo, the former FBI director testified publicly for the first time before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill.


Comey said this was not just the normal habit of a careful former federal prosecutor, noting he never felt obligated to do this during the three and a half years he served as FBI director under President Barack Obama, who nominated him in 2013.

 

[jamil]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-with-trump-not-obama/?utm_term=.82479b49e81e

Comey made the point to illustrate how Trump's behavior made him feel he needed to document that conversation, compared to the conversations with other presidents. Apparently the contexts of those other meetings were such that they didn't seem out of place.

 

[BugI02]

Because Obama never seemed oily or prone to prevarication? I guess when you're wallowing in the swamp, as Comey was, its hard to see the boundaries; but Comey's last boy scout act is just that, an act

I maintain he had no interest in ever putting to rest the Russian miasma because he calculated, incorrectly, that Trump would not be willing to undergo the opprobrium firing him (Comey) would bring as long as that investigation was extant.
He was all about maintaining his own privilege, just another snake in the swamp

Did he sign a contract with CNN yet?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Comey made the point to illustrate how Trump's behavior made him feel he needed to document that conversation, compared to the conversations with other presidents. Apparently the contexts of those other meetings were such that they didn't seem out of place.

When you are a leftist shill you need not fear your fellow leftist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

When you are a leftist shill you need not fear your fellow leftist.

I doubt anyone who's paid attention to Comey, think he's a leftist... or even a conservative. He's just Comey... he's very similar in to Trump.

 

[Dddrees]

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.

I don't think the constitution was any different when Nixon was President and he basically got in trouble for the same thing if I remember correctly. So I'm not sure I would base any of my conclusions off of what Dershowitz thinks. Besides I think there's still too many unknowns at this point which very well might tip the scales. Hard to say what they all are since there maybe something out there we just don't know yet. What did Trump say or ask to the DNI and the NSA with relation to the Russia investigation? What is Trump going to say next? From my understanding based on Trumps claim that we would find out about whether there were tapes or not we would know something soon. My understanding the House formally requested the White House for those tapes. What if there are tapes?

I do agree however that a lot of this will depend on what Congress does and this will greatly depend on what their constituents want them to do. Trump has the edge because for now the Republicans are in charge. However when he says things like we will find out soon as to whether there are tapes or not he's just making things worse for himself. It's as if he wishes he would implode regardless of whether he had done anything wrong or not.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

When you are a leftist shill you need not fear your fellow leftist.

He spent time at Columbia University.That is a first class Lefty Factory.

 

[Dddrees]

He spent time at Columbia University.That is a first class Lefty Factory.

Yep, I understand that part of the agreement to attend that University is that you agree to have a lefty altering micro chip installed in your brain. LOL

 

[jamil]

Because Obama never seemed oily or prone to prevarication? I guess when you're wallowing in the swamp, as Comey was, its hard to see the boundaries; but Comey's last boy scout act is just that, an act

I maintain he had no interest in ever putting to rest the Russian miasma because he calculated, incorrectly, that Trump would not be willing to undergo the opprobrium firing him (Comey) would bring as long as that investigation was extant.
He was all about maintaining his own privilege, just another snake in the swamp

Did he sign a contract with CNN yet?

The way Comey described the conversation he had with Obama, the subject wasn't about ending an investigation into wrongdoing by one of Obama's appointees. Comey also talked about a meeting with Bush 44 as deputy AG, and he didn't feel the need to document those meetings. They were pretty normal kind of meetings. No talk of kissing the ring, no requests to stop investigating stuff. The kinds of things that Trump allegedly said in those meetings are not appropriate for presidents to say.

When you are a leftist shill you need not fear your fellow leftist.

I don't think Comey's a leftist. Honestly I don't know what ideologies would describe him. As Kut said, he may not really be ideological at all. Bush appointed him as deputy AG, so I think he is/was a Republican. But I don't get the sense that Comey is particularly partisan.

I don't think the constitution was any different when Nixon was President and he basically got in trouble for the same thing if I remember correctly. So I'm not sure I would base any of my conclusions off of what Dershowitz thinks. Besides I think there's still too many unknowns at this point which very well might tip the scales. Hard to say what they all are since there maybe something out there we just don't know yet. What did Trump say or ask to the DNI and the NSA with relation to the Russia investigation? What is Trump going to say next? From my understanding based on Trumps claim that we would find out about whether there were tapes or not we would know something soon. My understanding the House formally requested the White House for those tapes. What if there are tapes?

I do agree however that a lot of this will depend on what Congress does and this will greatly depend on what their constituents want them to do. Trump has the edge because for now the Republicans are in charge. However when he says things like we will find out soon as to whether there are tapes or not he's just making things worse for himself. It's as if he wishes he would implode regardless of whether he had done anything wrong or not.

This is no Watergate. If you think it is, you don't really know the history. Look up the Articles of Impeachment against, their evidence for them, what Nixon actually did, and you'll see this is no where near that. At least there' no evidence that should make one believe that unless it's something that you wish were true.

Even if Trump did ask the DNI to see what he could do to get the investigation stopped falls well short of "watergate". It's poopy, yeah. It smells of corruption, yeah. And depending on what was said and how, maybe it could be obstruction. But taking the facts that we know, there's no obstruction. Just creepy **** I don't want the POTUS to be engaging in.

 

[jamil]

He spent time at Columbia University.That is a first class Lefty Factory.

Gorsuch attended Columbia University.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Gorsuch attended Columbia University.

So did Gore,Zuckerburg,Sotomayer,JFK,both Roosevelt's,Obama,Ginsburg,Howard Dean,Albright,Stephapanoulos,Eric Holder,and Ted Kaczynski.Anthony Kennedy,John Roberts,and 43,you can decide for yourself.The con list is small.With Gorsuch,it is still too early to tell but I am only hoping.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are we talking about the same Columbia University, whose student paper was the only Ivy to endorse Bush in 2004? Not to say it's not a liberal school, but of the Ivies, it's actually one of the more conservative.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Are we talking about the same Columbia University, whose student paper was the only Ivy to endorse Bush in 2004?d Not to say it's not a liberal school, but of the Ivies, it's actually one of the more conservative.

So in other words,Glum was right."we're doomed!"

 

[Dddrees]

So in other words,Glum was right."we're doomed!"

I told you, it's that chip. Sometimes it's faulty but usually it works pretty good.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sessions, McFlynn, Kushner, Manafort, Tillerson.... The first 3 either lied or "misremembered" their contacts with Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia. A nation with the economy the size of Italy. Why are all these guys all involved with Russia? Why isn't China or Brazil. Pure coincidence?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Trolling again?You know why they ALL were involved in Russia..........try again.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trolling again?You know why they ALL were involved in Russia..........try again.

Da, comrade.

Kut (gets used to saying it, for the honor of Mother America, and the Supreme President)

 

[SSGSAD]

Sessions, McFlynn, Kushner, Manafort, Tillerson.... The first 3 either lied or "misremembered" their contacts with Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia. A nation with the economy the size of Italy. Why are all these guys all involved with Russia? Why isn't China or Brazil. Pure coincidence?

AND, what did "h" say under oath ?????

I don't recall that ..... I don't remember ..... etc. .....