Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.
Ok, a couple things here.
1) As StevenC pointed out, you don't have to succeed in obstructing justice to be convicted of trying to obstruct it. Firing Comey may have not stopped the investigation, but Trump was trying to do so when he fired him.
2) Trump, Mueller concluded, had decided to fire Comey before he asked Rosenstein to write a memo justifying firing him for his handling of the Clinton investigation. Part of the obstruction case was built on the fact that while afterwards Trump admitted in public appearances the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey, Mueller concluded that he was lying when he wrote his letter to Comey informing him of why he had been fired. Rosenstein was reportedly very unhappy when Trump used him as the reason to fire Comey. Again, you're going on and on about how there's "nothing in the Mueller report," but then ignoring principle conclusions like Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him, and then lying about why he did it. Maybe think about it from this angle - why would Trump fire Comey for the way he handled his investigation into Clinton? Trump was well behind her in the polls until the Comey letter one week before the election, and only after Comey brought her email server back into the news cycle did Trump come within the margin of error in most polls. Comey is very likely the reason Trump won, and Trump had initially agreed to keep him on until the Russia investigation started to gather speed. I mean, hell, Trump tried to fire Mueller too, who had no other role than investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and only failed because McGahn refused and saidf he'd quit if Trump did so. Why is it even remotely hard to believe that Trump hired Comey over the investigation, when we know he tried to fire Mueller himself?
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this - you're saying "there's nothing in the Mueller report," but when we're telling you that Mueller referred the question of obstruction to Congress because there was a strong enough case to be made that the Justice Department had no choice but to refer it to the government body who had the authority to judge the President's actions, and that part of the case was Trump's firing of Comey, you're now saying "oh, Mueller was wrong, I can't believe they couldn't find anything more in two years."
No, that's not "nothing in the report," that's not "Mueller was wrong," that's not "finding nothing in two years," that's YOU not liking the conclusions Mueller came to because you support Trump and don't want to believe he attempted to obstruct justice. Mueller failed to find a "smoking gun" tying evidence of both sides helping the other to criminal cooperation, but he absolutely found an actionable obstruction of justice case, and at this point I don't yet think it's terribly likely, but there's a real and growing chance that Trump gets impeached by the house over this based on how unequivocal the case is that Trump tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
Face it. You not liking the conclusions of the Mueller report isn't the same as there being nothing in it that's damaging to Trump. It's plenty damning, which is why Trump is having a twitter meltdown about it.
You know, regardless of veracity, this is a pretty spot on critique of the "American Dream".
Yeah. Trump isn't the president the majority of Americans wanted... But he's the one we deserve.
Well then its fair to say as usual, that about 50% of the population wanted neither of these guys as president
True or not the meme is funny come on now!
That hardly does Trump any favors, you know.
I'm mildly pragmatic, hence why I vote for one of the major parties. My ideal order would be Vermin Supreme > Zoltan Istvan > The Dem > The R
Drew you said this:
“Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him”
I am sorry but this is false. I have already proven it previously and posted video of Comeys testimony. From the horses mouth Comey said Trump was not under investigation before he was terminated.
The firing of Comey DID however start the real fiasco known as the special council which then started to go with a fine tooth comb over every detail of the Trump campaign.
Once again, have you read Rosenstein’s reasons for firing Comey? It’s pretty detailed and includes many other people agreeing with him for firing Comey. Just go ahead and read the list of people. Are you telling me Trump came up with these reasons or was it Rosenstein? Because it was in FACT Rosenstein who recommended Trump fire Comey and not he other way around.
This is what Rosenstein writes in Conclusion about Comey’s firing.
“Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”
Comey is what, like 6 foot 8 inches tall?! Normally, I'd believe Trump, at a respectable 6' 2.5", but since Comey has at least five inches on him, how can you not trust him?!
That's just not what Mueller concluded. Volume II, page 75 of the report: “Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the president’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.”
Somewhat in Trump's defense, Mueller also does basically clear him of obstruction on that particular point (it's not one of the 10 that he lays out elsewhere) in that it appears Trump didn't fire Comey with corrupt intent to impede the Russia investigation but more out of a sense of jealousy that Comey had publicly cleared Clinton and wouldn't do the same for him. So, it was petty and poorly covered up (by instructing Rosenstein to write the memo and “put the Russia stuff” in it, which Rosenstein refused to do), but not necessarily illegal.
""(Americans have) a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don't make it, my children will." -- Barrack Obama, actual
You're not listening.
You're holding on to two pieces of evidence as proof that Trump didn't fire Comey because of the investigation - Rosenstein's memo, and Trump's letter informing Comey of the decision. They stand in contradiction to a LARGE body of evidence to the contrary, that Trump DID fire Comey because of the Russia investigation. What you're pointing to is the cover story, which Mueller was able to conclude with high confidence was a lie.
Good read here, citing specific portions of the report:
Trump decided he wanted to fire Comey after his May 2nd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where, when asked, Comey was careful to avoid confirming or denying whether Trump himself was under investigation in the Russia investigation.
Trump asked Steven Miller to draft a letter to Comey firing him before the decision to fire Comey had been made at the DoJ. Rosenstein agreed there was a case to fire Comey, but after Trump kept pressing him to include references to the Russia investigation in his letter became convinced that his reasons and Trump's reasons for wanting Comey gone were not the same, and that his memo building the case for removing him was not the actual reason Trump was doing so, between the desire to repeatedly mention Russia and the fact Trump had already made his mind up to fire him before approaching Rosenstein.
Trump wanted Rosenstein to do a press conference on the 9th after the official white house statement was released. Rosenstein refused for two reasons - one, because he was upset his memo was being portrayed as the reason Comey was fired by the White House (something that was reported at the time), and two, because he told Trump if he did give a press conference he would have to tell the press that the decision to fire Comey had been made before Trump had approached him.
The White House continued arguing that the decision to fire Comey had been made at Rosenstein's reccomendartion for another two days, until Trump admitted in an interview on NBC that he was going to fire him one way or another because of the Russia investigation.
So, interviews with participants in the relevant conversations (including McGahn, Rosenstein, Sessions, and Bannon), contemporaneous notes, and Trump's own public remarks undercut the two things you're holding onto, and depict them as the cover story Trump used to fire Comey for the Russia investigation, while making it look like it wasn't about the Russia investigation.
So, yes, I'm telling you Trump decided to fire Comey, went to Rosenstein and asked him to draft a memo giving him a rationale for firing him, which he then publicly admitted (as Rosenstein believes as well) that it was only an excuse and that he was going to fire him "regardless of recommendation." Mueller went into this in depth, and this was his conclusion.
In fact, I'm going to edit my original and address this as a seperate, shorter post, because otherwise I'm afraid you'll miss or gloss over it/
The video you posted - Collins' final question was "at the time of your dismissal, on May 9th, was the President under investigation." That means this was from his second Senate hearing, on June 8th, after he had been fired. That means it's not some sort of proof that Comey had been willing to publicly clear Trump from investigation before he was fired. To the contrary, Comey's public statement during the hearing immediately before he was fired was: "The Department of Justice has authorized me to confirm the existence of a broader investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. We’re not going to say another word about it until we’re done." Souce: WaPo.
So I woke up to Biden officially launching his campaign, and Deutsche Bank handing over Trumps financial documents.
So what you're saying is we have to take the good with the bad?
He's not my preferred candidate, but I'm fine with him being in the running and I think he's got an excellent shot at beating Trump if he wins.
I'm about 70/30 the thing that saved his candidacy was the "I'm not sorry for any of my intentions" line, despite how much he was villainized for it. Indignation seems to be the only defense that sticks these days.