Trump's America

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But also less explosive than it could have been. I think it is clear that he is watering down Trump's efforts to get him to stop investigation the allegations of collusion with Russia on the election.

[yovargas]

“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

[Primula Baggins]

It was not written to highlight those facts, no. But they're there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes and no. He makes it clear that Trump tried to get him to stop investigating Flynn, but he definitely equivocates as to whether Trump was trying to interfere with the Russian investigation in general. I expect more equivocating when he is actually questioned tomorrow. And of course the Republicans are jumping all over the fact that he confirms that he did tell Trump that Trump was not personally being investigated.

[Impenitent]

...he confirms that he did tell Trump that Trump was not personally being investigated.

...at the time of the dinner. A mere statement of the facts at the time, not a prediction nor a conclusion.

Trump was/is foolish to have asked him to make that statement public, because it follows that if the situation changed as facts emerged, Comey would have been obligated to front up to a mic at a later date and retract that statement - in the same way as he felt obligated to announce that the investigation into Clinton's emails had been reopened.

[Frelga]

Senator blasts NSA chief: ‘What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral’

King, known as one of the Senate’s more genial members, reached a breaking point more than an hour into the hearing after Michael Rogers repeatedly refused to answer questions about whether President Trump tried to interfere in the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s actions and possible collusion with his campaign.

But is there any way to interpret the steadfast refusal to say "No he didn't," other than "Yes, he did"?

[River]

So I read Comey's statement. Smoking gun? No. But I've got a feeling that if Comey's aware of a smoking gun he left it with the FBI. Maybe he told Mueller where to find it, assuming that he wouldn't violate his sense of propriety to do so. No matter what, clearly Comey was creeped out enough that he started documenting all the details after that first meeting and he baldly states that this isn't exactly his normal practice. I got the impression that in on of those conversations Trump came off with a "That's a nice job you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it," vibe and that's not something a Director of the FBI will take lightly. I also felt like the gentleman doth protest too much about the hooker tape, but that might just be because I've got a foot in the gutter at all times.

Anyway, maybe not damning but definitely spooky.

[Primula Baggins]

When the possibility that Trump had taped his conversations with Comey came up this morning, I liked Comey's response: "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I got the impression that in on of those conversations Trump came off with a "That's a nice job you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it," vibe and that's not something a Director of the FBI will take lightly.

It seems strange to me that very little of the commentary that I have seen has focused on the fact that Comey actually got fired, and that Trump specifically stated that it was because of the Russia investigation. That, to me, is the real smoking gun.

Anyway, Comey not surprisingly said that it was not for him to say whether Trump's actions amounted to obstruction of justice. He did, however, say that he took Trump's comment about Flynn as "direction". And he did say that he was sure that the special counsel, Robert Mueller (his predecessor as FBI director) is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice. That's probably the most important takeaway from today's hearing. But the most interesting may be that Comey said that he took notes about his meetings with Trump because of "the nature of the person."

[yovargas]

It seems strange to me that very little of the commentary that I have seen has focused on the fact that Comey actually got fired, and that Trump specifically stated that it was because of the Russia investigation. That, to me, is the real smoking gun.

Oh god, I'd actually forgotten that just happened. The insanity moves so fast these days that it's hard to keep up.
(Not that I'm trying too hard to keep up, valuing my sanity as I do....)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

(Not that I'm trying too hard to keep up, valuing my sanity as I do....)

Wise move, Grasshopper



Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

538 pointed out that this was supposed to be the infrastructure week for Trump, something to take the country's mind off Russia and other "clouds". Instead, Comey.

[Sunsilver]

...he confirms that he did tell Trump that Trump was not personally being investigated.

...at the time of the dinner. A mere statement of the facts at the time, not a prediction nor a conclusion.

Trump was/is foolish to have asked him to make that statement public, because it follows that if the situation changed as facts emerged, Comey would have been obligated to front up to a mic at a later date and retract that statement - in the same way as he felt obligated to announce that the investigation into Clinton's emails had been reopened.

And that's EXACTLY what Comey said in his testimony!

Oh, BTW, funniest thing I've read today: "I can definitely say the president is not a liar." — White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response to Comey's testimony

Trump has been caught lying SO often that a friend of mine recently posted on her FB wall that she now automatically disbelieves everything he says!

[Impenitent]

And while Cimey is dominating the news, the Republicans are quietly working on getting the (un)health bill through.

mobile.twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/872299293377519616

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another day, another judicial loss for Trump and his Travel Ban™. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the decision of Hawai'i District Court Judge Derick Watson (who was famously referred to by Attorney General Jeff Sessions as "a judge on an island in the Pacific") in an unsigned highly detailed 86-page decision. This is a completely different three judge panel than the one from the Ninth Circuit that affirmed the previous version of the Travel Ban™ and it follows a similar decision rejecting the latest version of the Travel Ban™ by en banc 13 judge panel of the Fourth Circuit, affirming a decision by a Maryland District Court judge. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to immediately reinstate the Travel Ban™. I doubt very much that even this SCOTUS will do so.

Speaking of Jeff Sessions, he is going to publicly testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee tomorrow, to respond to some of the mean and nasty things that Comey said about him at Comey's own public testimony on Thursday. That should be interesting.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, the District of Columbia and State of Maryland have sued Trump for allegedly violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the president of the U.S. from receiving compensation from foreign governments, arguing that Trump's continued interest in his global real estate empire leaves him deeply enmeshed with many foreign governments. This is actually the third such suit filed, but the other two were filed by non-profit groups that will have trouble establishing standing. The District of Columbia and State of Maryland can argue that their state-owned convention centers have lost money to Trump-owned real estate enterprises that are foreign-enmeshed, making if much more likely that this action can proceed. And the attorneys general that filed the suit have stated that one of their first actions will be to force Trump to produce his long-withheld tax returns to determine to what extent is income is foreign-generated. That could be interesting (or maybe a whole lot of nothing).

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks, Voronwë, for these lucid summaries of the fever dream we're stuck in.

I was only a young teen during Watergate, but I'm flashing back to those dark and uncertain days....

[Dave_LF]

Only in the US, before it was possible to take action against an elected official for foreign entanglements, would it first be necessary to prove that someone is losing money from the arrangement.

[Frelga]

So now this.

".@ChrisRuddyNMX tells me Pres Trump is "considering perhaps terminating" Robert Mueller as special counsel"

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I got the impression that in on of those conversations Trump came off with a "That's a nice job you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it," vibe and that's not something a Director of the FBI will take lightly.

Ah, vibes. People are able to determine so much about the intent and motivations of everyone in the Trump administration. Yet when Clinton deleted 35,000 emails and smashed a phone with a hammer, nobody could determine any intent.