Trump still standing, but damaged by Comey's testimony

[Si Thea01]

20 minutes ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

Post 241

And POst 243

These pretty much demonstrate that you have no relationship with the truth. Like your hero, just deny and fib and distract.

 

Oh, so this thread has become about me has it.  I thought it was about Trump not anything you may think of me. But feel free, it shows that you do not have any moral compass as you have no argument. But remember, once you have attacked me, you have lost the argument.

 

And I find no need to justify myself to someone like you or anyone else on here.  I have opinions so do you but unfortunately yours have turned grubby and have gone completely off topic. I hope it is not removed so others can see your style.  Have a good night.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

18 U.S.C. § 641 provides that it is a federal crime to, without authority, convey a record of the United States, in this case an FBI record he admits under oath he leaked after being fired.”

 

Not applicable.  Here's the full text:

 

Quote

 

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

 

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

 

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

 

 

I held a government job for six years at the level of program director, so I'm acquainted with the relevant statues.  They are meant to apply to assets and output of labor that is directly related to your job duties.  Notes you make in a personal capacity are not covered, so if your coworker gave you a really great lasagna recipe while in the middle of a boring meeting, you're free to take that information home and share it with your wife.

 

Even official government memos aren't covered if there are alleged misdeeds at hand.  In United States v. Nixon, the defendant claimed his tapes were protected by executive privilege, but the supreme court disagreed in a unanimous decision:

 

Quote

The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." It held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process, if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality.

 

Finally, Trump being Trump, waived his right to executive privilege by endlessly blabbering about the meeting.  What is worse, Trump's real estate lawyer is making a fool of himself by bringing the matter to the Inspector General, who has no authority over a private citizen, and Congress likewise has no authority to bring charges.

 

So where exactly do you see this going?  Care to make a prediction?

[Si Thea01]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

Not applicable.  Here's the full text:

 

 

I held a government job for six years at the level of program director, so I'm acquainted with the relevant statues.  They are meant to apply to assets and output of labor that is directly related to your job duties.  Notes you make in a personal capacity are not covered, so if your coworker gave you a really great lasagna recipe while in the middle of a boring meeting, you're free to take that information home and share it with your wife.

 

Even official government memos aren't covered if there are alleged misdeeds at hand.  In United States v. Nixon, the defendant claimed his tapes were protected by executive privilege, but the supreme court disagreed in a unanimous decision:

 

 

Finally, Trump being Trump, waived his right to executive privilege by endlessly blabbering about the meeting.  What is worse, Trump's real estate lawyer is making a fool of himself by bringing the matter to the Inspector General, who has no authority over a private citizen, and Congress likewise has no authority to bring charges.

 

So where exactly do you see this going?  Care to make a prediction?

 

Thank you for your trouble but maybe you should have checked this section, which is the one I was referring to.  Now, with your expertise, what is your interpretation of the following. Mine, by reading it is that it clearly states property or records. I could have listed what you did but not relevant, however, it may be to you if your intention was to make out that I was not correct.

 

18 U.S.C. § 641 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 641. Public money, property or records - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-641.html#sthash.ZIoMulFy.dpu.

 

I think comparing a lasagna receipt to what Comey did is quite frivolous and in poor taste.(No pun intended)

 

Now I appreciate that you held a certain position but in my almost 30 years of law enforcement, the contemporaneous notes that I made whilst employed by the government, although made by me after private meetings, which on occasions I did because I had attend those meetings on the request of the ruling political party, were mine but became the property of the government.  Had I leaked those notes for any purpose, other for which they were intended, then I would have suffered the same fate, I would have been dismissed immediately and could have faced criminal charges.

 

Now Comey, if I heard correctly, stated that he took these notes because he formed the opinion that the POTUS would lie about what occurred at the dinner and then wrote them in such a manner that they would not become a classified document.  Contemporaneous notes can be defined as the most accurate record which was made during that particular time.

Sometime this type of note can be prepared soon an event completes. It is a kind of record you maintain and it also suggest about the relevant evidences which are observed, done or heard during those events.

 

So Comey's so called contemporaneous notes, it could be said, are not worth two bob, as he designed and wrote them specifically for another purpose and not that for that which one would legally be able to present in a court of law.  A good lawyer, not those in the senate, would tear strips of him. He has taken those details in his capacity as head of the FBI, not a private citizen, he was asked to attend that dinner in his capacity as the FBI Director.  And what did he do with them, not used them as evidence, which is why they came into the legal framework but to give them to a friend to leak them. What a hero, never had the guts to do it himself and no one knew until he was forced to admit it during his testimony, if  that is what one could call his self opinionated fairy tale.

 

Comey is not a fool, has been a top line prosecutor and operated within the FBI for many years.  Has dealt with and prosecuted all types of criminals and yet was allegedly stunned and dumfounded when the POTUS allegedly asked hm to drop the Russian investigation.  If any one, let alone those who have had any experience in law enforcement believes that then they will believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

 

And he was so stunned that he did not say anything to the POTUS nor to anyone in the administration.  But gee, sometime later he regained his senses and was able to put in to action a plan to write alleged contemporaneous notes and then get a friend to leak them, why, was it to damage the POTUS and get back at him for his sacking?  It certainly wasn't for the reason he alleged to the senate.  Given his actions and acting skills, the guy should be nicknamed, "Hollywood."

 

In so far as using executive privilege, the POTUS didn't, nor did he stop Comey from testifying.  If he has so much to hide , as many allege, then don't you think he would have but no, he just gave Comey enough rope and he fell for it hook, line and sinker.  Where do I see this going, I have no idea, I just sit back and watch the losers thinking up more trumped up (No pun intended) allegations because everything they have dreamt up so far has not come to fruition.  I'll leave the predictions to all the wise ones, those who know it all or think they do.

 

Their intention, to make it as hard as possible for the POTUS to govern.  Something I would say that any rational person would see and not be blind sided by all the BS that is being proffered by many who, who after 7 months, still can't accept that he won the presidency, fair and square.

 

 

 

[Si Thea01]

9 hours ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

The nothing-burger spin depends on credibility. This is why Comey's word stands way above the word of the guy in the White House who has been consistently demonstrated a liar. You instinct to use untruth instead of admitting to a mistake demonstrates a lack of moral fiber. Grubby is as grubby does.

 

So that there is no doubt on the issue - there is no investigation of the 'leak' of the 2 pages from Trump's 2005 tax return.

 

I will tell you again, I did not and never have stated that there is an investigation into the leaked 2 page tax documents.  Sharpen up you skills of comprehension because it is clear, despite being now told twice, you do not understand.  And please desist in your suggestions that I have instincts to use untruths, (I am not a lair) nor do I lack moral fibre. You are walking a fine line but that is typical, isn't it.

[CLC Survivor]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Thank you for your trouble but maybe you should have checked this section, which is the one I was referring to.  Now, with your expertise, what is your interpretation of the following. Mine, by reading it is that it clearly states property or records. I could have listed what you did but not relevant, however, it may be to you if your intention was to make out that I was not correct.

 

18 U.S.C. § 641 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 641. Public money, property or records - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-641.html#sthash.ZIoMulFy.dpu.

 

I think comparing a lasagna receipt to what Comey did is quite frivolous and in poor taste.(No pun intended)

 

Now I appreciate that you held a certain position but in my almost 30 years of law enforcement, the contemporaneous notes that I made whilst employed by the government, although made by me after private meetings, which on occasions I did because I had attend those meetings on the request of the ruling political party, were mine but became the property of the government.  Had I leaked those notes for any purpose, other for which they were intended, then I would have suffered the same fate, I would have been dismissed immediately and could have faced criminal charges.

 

Now Comey, if I heard correctly, stated that he took these notes because he formed the opinion that the POTUS would lie about what occurred at the dinner and then wrote them in such a manner that they would not become a classified document.  Contemporaneous notes can be defined as the most accurate record which was made during that particular time.

Sometime this type of note can be prepared soon an event completes. It is a kind of record you maintain and it also suggest about the relevant evidences which are observed, done or heard during those events.

 

So Comey's so called contemporaneous notes, it could be said, are not worth two bob, as he designed and wrote them specifically for another purpose and not that for that which one would legally be able to present in a court of law.  A good lawyer, not those in the senate, would tear strips of him. He has taken those details in his capacity as head of the FBI, not a private citizen, he was asked to attend that dinner in his capacity as the FBI Director.  And what did he do with them, not used them as evidence, which is why they came into the legal framework but to give them to a friend to leak them. What a hero, never had the guts to do it himself and no one knew until he was forced to admit it during his testimony, if  that is what one could call his self opinionated fairy tale.

 

Comey is not a fool, has been a top line prosecutor and operated within the FBI for many years.  Has dealt with and prosecuted all types of criminals and yet was allegedly stunned and dumfounded when the POTUS allegedly asked hm to drop the Russian investigation.  If any one, let alone those who have had any experience in law enforcement believes that then they will believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

 

And he was so stunned that he did not say anything to the POTUS nor to anyone in the administration.  But gee, sometime later he regained his senses and was able to put in to action a plan to write alleged contemporaneous notes and then get a friend to leak them, why, was it to damage the POTUS and get back at him for his sacking?  It certainly wasn't for the reason he alleged to the senate.  Given his actions and acting skills, the guy should be nicknamed, "Hollywood."

 

In so far as using executive privilege, the POTUS didn't, nor did he stop Comey from testifying.  If he has so much to hide , as many allege, then don't you think he would have but no, he just gave Comey enough rope and he fell for it hook, line and sinker.  Where do I see this going, I have no idea, I just sit back and watch the losers thinking up more trumped up (No pun intended) allegations because everything they have dreamt up so far has not come to fruition.  I'll leave the predictions to all the wise ones, those who know it all or think they do.

 

Their intention, to make it as hard as possible for the POTUS to govern.  Something I would say that any rational person would see and not be blind sided by all the BS that is being proffered by many who, who after 7 months, still can't accept that he won the presidency, fair and square.

 

 

 

 

in my almost 30 years of law enforcement

 

All FBI officers have law degrees. It is a requirement of the job. Director Comey would do nothing without forethought regarding legal consequences.

 

From your posting history, you claim to have been a policeman in Australia. What is the standard of training in Australian police academies? Takes maybe 6 months, maybe a year I guess? I wonder at your presumption in thinking that this would entitle you to make any substantive comment on Comey's decision.

 

It is more telling that you do not reveal that you are talking as a former police officer who presumable acted under State legislation in whatever state you worked. Instead you imply a familiarity with the US justice system and bureaucratic procedures that is clearly not the case and let the reader believe falsely that your context has any bearing on the Comey issue.

 

I think we can take Attrayant's comment with far more faith and credibility than your efforts to distract from the real issues. It would seem that Trump fanboys follow their idol in word and deed through the use of untruths and ambiguous statements. Perhaps you may consider contributing something on topic.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by CLC Survivor

[CLC Survivor]

55 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I will tell you again, I did not and never have stated that there is an investigation into the leaked 2 page tax documents.  Sharpen up you skills of comprehension because it is clear, despite being now told twice, you do not understand.  And please desist in your suggestions that I have instincts to use untruths, (I am not a lair) nor do I lack moral fibre. You are walking a fine line but that is typical, isn't it.

 

I have already posted the relevant post numbers that show your attack on peterw. I will happily and consistently call out those who offer untruths and falsehoods as a way to divert attention or to attempt to malign others. It is always significant when someone has to make the statement that they are 'not a liar'. Very Nixonian which is apt given what is happening with Trump. Would appear that the fanboys will continue kicking and screaming as they and their idol are revealed for the embarrassing clods they are.

[maewang99]

he's seems to be way more vulnerable on the Trump International Hotel and $200,000 golf memberships thing.....

Maryland and DC today.

and California on Climate!

the battle of the states? somebody quick go find Andrew Jackson.

he's going to be VERY angry this time.

 

[Si Thea01]

22 minutes ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

in my almost 30 years of law enforcement

 

All FBI officers have law degrees. It is a requirement of the job. Director Comey would do nothing without forethought regarding legal consequences.

 

From your posting history, you claim to have been a policeman in Australia. What is the standard of training in Australian police academies? Takes maybe 6 months, maybe a year I guess? I wonder at your presumption in thinking that this would entitle you to make any substantive comment on Comey's decision.

 

It is more telling that you do no reveal that you are talking as a former police officer who presumable acts under State legislation in whatever state you worked. Instead you imply a familiarity with the US justice system and bureaucratic procedures.

 

I think we can take Attrayant's comment with far more faith and credibility than your efforts to distract from the real issues. It would seem that Trump fanboys follow their idol in word and deed through the use of untruths and ambiguous statements. Perhaps you may consider contributing something on topic.

 

 

You have  no idea what is required to become a police officer in Australia,  maybe you should check.  Do you think training stops once one becomes a sworn officer.  It is ongoing and has continued to until I retired.  Just because someone has a law degree does not make then a whizz kid, have a look at all the failed lawyers you have floating around in the States.

 

Haven't dealt with the main subject have you,  that of Comey's contemporaneous notes? Despite what you say, the same rule of law applies here to those, as it does in the States. So why did you deliberately avoid any reference to them and try to make out I do not know what I am talking about.  What is your background?

 

As for the other aspects that I commented on, these are on record having been said by various persons, including Comey and Trump, so for you to state that they are untruths and ambiguous statements is farcical. And please be so kind as to enlighten me how I am distracting from the real issues.  Just some rhetoric  that you have picked up, not one of your thoughts.  And please do us all a favour, follow you own advice. 

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

he was asked to attend that dinner in his capacity as the FBI Director

 

This makes no sense.  How do you attend a dinner in your capacity as [whatever job you do]?  This might be possible if he was asked to attend the dinner for purposes of observing some criminal activity, or to perform some law-enforcement related activities while dining.  If Comey were a restaurant critic, then he could be asked to attend a dinner in his occupational capacity.

 

The rest of your post is weak sauce, indeed.  Even if the content were classified, a whistleblower has full legal protection to reveal such material if they believe it might shine a light on unscrupulous behavior.  If there's any meat in this sandwich at all, why doesn't Trump's real estate lawyer take it up with some legal entity that can actually do something about it?  The IG and Congress are both dead-ends, as I stated before.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

in my almost 30 years of law enforcement

 

All FBI officers have law degrees. It is a requirement of the job. Director Comey would do nothing without forethought regarding legal consequences.

 

From your posting history, you claim to have been a policeman in Australia. What is the standard of training in Australian police academies? Takes maybe 6 months, maybe a year I guess? I wonder at your presumption in thinking that this would entitle you to make any substantive comment on Comey's decision.

 

It is more telling that you do not reveal that you are talking as a former police officer who presumable acted under State legislation in whatever state you worked. Instead you imply a familiarity with the US justice system and bureaucratic procedures that is clearly not the case and let the reader believe falsely that your context has any bearing on the Comey issue.

 

I think we can take Attrayant's comment with far more faith and credibility than your efforts to distract from the real issues. It would seem that Trump fanboys follow their idol in word and deed through the use of untruths and ambiguous statements. Perhaps you may consider contributing something on topic.

 

 

Actually, FBI officers don't have to have law degrees. I personally know one and he doesn't. But as an anonymous poster on thaivisa my testimony doesn't have much value. But what does have value is this taken from the FBI's page:

• Be 23 to 36 1/2 years old.*
• Meet the Special Agent physical fitness standards.
• Possess a minimum of a U.S.-accredited bachelor's degree.**
• Have at least three years of full-time work experience.***
• Have a valid U.S. driver's license.
• Be completely available for assignment anywhere in the FBI's jurisdiction.                  https://www.fbijobs.gov/career-paths/special-agents

[ilostmypassword]

Here's an interesting item from a close personal acquaintance of Donald Trump:

Friend Says Trump Is Considering Firing Special Counsel

A longtime friend to President Trump said on Monday that Mr. Trump was considering whether to fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating possible ties between the president’s campaign and Russian officials.

The startling assertion comes as conservative allies of Mr. Trump — who initially praised Mr. Mueller’s selection as special counsel — have begun trying to attack his credibility.

Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media who was at the White House on Monday, said on PBS’s “NewsHour” that Mr. Trump “is considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel — I think he’s weighing that option.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html

[smotherb]

19 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

Better order 8 years' supply of popcorn and beer then.

 

Good luck.  

oh, haven't you heard, Trump will have the 22nd amendment repealed and serve as long as he likes

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by smotherb
correct typo

[Ramen087]

Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media who was at the White House on Monday, said on PBS’s “NewsHour” that Mr. Trump “is considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel — I think he’s weighing that option.”

 

Is considering, perhaps... I think he's weighing that option...

 

could speculation be any more well defined than by the words in the quote

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media who was at the White House on Monday, said on PBS’s “NewsHour” that Mr. Trump “is considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel — I think he’s weighing that option.”

 

Is considering, perhaps... I think he's weighing that option...

 

could speculation be any more well defined than by the words in the quote

For once I agree with you, also the source is of course anonymous.

 

But more importantly, could Trump fire him?

[CLC Survivor]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, FBI officers don't have to have law degrees. I personally know one and he doesn't. But as an anonymous poster on thaivisa my testimony doesn't have much value. But what does have value is this taken from the FBI's page:

• Be 23 to 36 1/2 years old.*
• Meet the Special Agent physical fitness standards.
• Possess a minimum of a U.S.-accredited bachelor's degree.**
• Have at least three years of full-time work experience.***
• Have a valid U.S. driver's license.
• Be completely available for assignment anywhere in the FBI's jurisdiction.                  https://www.fbijobs.gov/career-paths/special-agents

 

I have no direct intimate knowledge of the FBI procedures and organizational culture. I had heard that they did have degrees and a very cursory search confirmed this. That was all the time I was prepared to waste on the issue raised by the other poster. I do think you will find that while having a law degree may not be a requirement for entry, that they might expect one for those working in some areas. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if Comey had one.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

For once I agree with you, also the source is of course anonymous.

 

But more importantly, could Trump fire him?

Actually, Christopher Ruddy is the source and he said it on PBS news hour. So not anonymous.  Most likely Trump was just venting. Although there are an increasing number of attacks on Mueller coming from conservatives including that paragon of virtue and consistency, Newt Gingrich.

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

For once I agree with you, also the source is of course anonymous.

 

But more importantly, could Trump fire him?

 

Rosenstein has to fire Meuller, but of course Trump could fire Rosenstein if he wanted to.  How Nixonian THAT would be!

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

I have no direct intimate knowledge of the FBI procedures and organizational culture. I had heard that they did have degrees and a very cursory search confirmed this. That was all the time I was prepared to waste on the issue raised by the other poster. I do think you will find that while having a law degree may not be a requirement for entry, that they might expect one for those working in some areas. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if Comey had one.

Comey is a lawyer so I would be surprised if he doesn't.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Rosenstein has to fire Meuller, but of course Trump could fire Rosenstein if he wanted to.  How Nixonian THAT would be!

So if it gets too close he just fires him. Ludicrous.

[boomerangutang]

                                     Trump and his lawyers push back on Comey's testimony, they're often agitated by allegations that Trump cavorted with hookers in Moscow.  It's funny, because Trump does that, even when the hooker thing isn't mentioned.   It's like if a little kid is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and then says, "but I didn't poke holes in the garden hose - and don't ask me about tying a ribbon to the cat's tail."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

I have already posted the relevant post numbers that show your attack on peterw. I will happily and consistently call out those who offer untruths and falsehoods as a way to divert attention or to attempt to malign others. It is always significant when someone has to make the statement that they are 'not a liar'. Very Nixonian which is apt given what is happening with Trump. Would appear that the fanboys will continue kicking and screaming as they and their idol are revealed for the embarrassing clods they are.

 

What other numbers have you quoted beside #241, which is what the member stated and #243 was my response to that, which is, in full, not your selective portion,

 

"He may have, he may not have.  If congress has no idea who leaked it and if they're investigating and not you then please enlighten us as to how you ae so adamant that it was Trump.  And no, no leaks are acceptable regardless of who is responsible. 

 

Please highlight what you have determined to be my attack on the member and what are the falsehoods and untruths posted that you imply I have, in a way, am diverting attention or maligning others.  And here you are, the moralistic police posting in a such a manner that you are doing exactly what yo accuse me of doing.  Look at what you what wrote, and you have the hide to accuse me of deflecting.

[CLC Survivor]

51 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

You have  no idea what is required to become a police officer in Australia,  maybe you should check.  Do you think training stops once one becomes a sworn officer.  It is ongoing and has continued to until I retired.  Just because someone has a law degree does not make then a whizz kid, have a look at all the failed lawyers you have floating around in the States.

 

Haven't dealt with the main subject have you,  that of Comey's contemporaneous notes? Despite what you say, the same rule of law applies here to those, as it does in the States. So why did you deliberately avoid any reference to them and try to make out I do not know what I am talking about.  What is your background?

 

As for the other aspects that I commented on, these are on record having been said by various persons, including Comey and Trump, so for you to state that they are untruths and ambiguous statements is farcical. And please be so kind as to enlighten me how I am distracting from the real issues.  Just some rhetoric  that you have picked up, not one of your thoughts.  And please do us all a favour, follow you own advice. 

 

Of course I have no idea about Australian police training academies. Why would I? It has no bearing on anything related to this topic. Your attempt at knowledge shaming is stupidly naive. I will not comment on your final paragraph until you make specific references. You continue to throw out generalized and meaningless comments such as 'other aspects'. What are these 'other issues' specifically? Your continued use of generalizations to push the nothing-burger spin is mere distraction.

Edited June 13, 2017 by CLC Survivor

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, Christopher Ruddy is the source and he said it on PBS news hour. So not anonymous.  Most likely Trump was just venting. Although there are an increasing number of attacks on Mueller coming from conservatives including that paragon of virtue and consistency, Newt Gingrich.

So Ruddy is the long term friend, " A longtime friend to President Trump said on Monday ".

 

Time to fire that friend.

[Ramen087]

so...now we have speculation about speculation... mind boggling

[boomerangutang]

                      Trump could fire anyone investigating, except a Special Prosecutor or members of a Special Commission.  That's why Republican politicians won't allow that route.  Republicans won't allow setting up any committee that they can't control AND whose members can't be fired by you-know-who.

 

                         Trump will fire the deputy AG and the Special Counsel.  He'll do it crudely and callously, which is the only way he knows how.   When decent Americans stand up and howl at the audacity of it, Trump will just stand there grinning, while continually giving the finger to us all. Then he'll walk into a side room without answering any questions.   He's the opposite of Obama, who is intelligent, well-read, decent, considerate and who didn't break laws.

 

 

[CLC Survivor]

1 minute ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

What other numbers have you quoted beside #241, which is what the member stated and #243 was my response to that, which is, in full, not your selective portion,

 

"He may have, he may not have.  If congress has no idea who leaked it and if they're investigating and not you then please enlighten us as to how you ae so adamant that it was Trump.  And no, no leaks are acceptable regardless of who is responsible. 

 

Please highlight what you have determined to be my attack on the member and what are the falsehoods and untruths posted that you imply I have, in a way, am diverting attention or maligning others.  And here you are, the moralistic police posting in a such a manner that you are doing exactly what yo accuse me of doing.  Look at what you what wrote, and you have the hide to accuse me of deflecting.

 

Well you are doing a stand up job of deflecting on this issue to avoid taking responsibility for your mistake. Better to keep the discussion about you than anything related to the topic I guess since Trump's position on Comey is indefensible. I repeat there is no inquiry into the 'leaking' of Trumps 2005 tax summary. You were wrong in referencing such in post 243 in response to post 241 from peterw.

[tonray]

Since the Republicans in Congress will do absolutely nothing, the 2018 elections are all important but I think the DEMS are still living in fantasy land and have no plan to win back control of Congress.

 

The biggest (and really only) threat to Trump's presidency is his own outrageous behavior. he is so intent on proving everyone else inferior that I believe he will even lie under oath if called to testify about the Comey meetings. At some point, someone will rat him out. You need only look at that ridiculous Cabinet meeting yesterday where everyone was 'forced' to say something complimentary about Trump to see the pain and humiliation on some of those faces. You can only humiliate grown men so long before one of them reaches back and grabs his balls up off the floor. 

 

I think Trump will ultimately implode, just as he has many times in his business career, he does not know when to stop. 

[boomerangutang]

5 minutes ago, tonray said:

Since the Republicans in Congress will do absolutely nothing, the 2018 elections are all important but I think the DEMS are still living in fantasy land and have no plan to win back control of Congress.

The biggest (and really only) threat to Trump's presidency is his own outrageous behavior. he is so intent on proving everyone else inferior that I believe he will even lie under oath if called to testify about the Comey meetings. At some point, someone will rat him out. You need only look at that ridiculous Cabinet meeting yesterday where everyone was 'forced' to say something complimentary about Trump to see the pain and humiliation on some of those faces. You can only humiliate grown men so long before one of them reaches back and grabs his balls up off the floor. 

I think Trump will ultimately implode, just as he has many times in his business career, he does not know when to stop. 

                           Good post above - worth a re-read, particularly by those who are compelled (genetically?) to back Trump, no matter how outlandish he is.   There are some people who get a kick out of breaking laws.  Motorcycle gang members, pirates, internet scammers, rich Russians, and Wall Street pyramid schemers fall into that category.   Those are the sorts of people (among other sorts) who enjoy watching Trump screw America.   They feel like Trump is part of their coven.   

[Si Thea01]

33 minutes ago, CLC Survivor said:

 

Well you are doing a stand up job of deflecting on this issue to avoid taking responsibility for your mistake. Better to keep the discussion about you than anything related to the topic I guess since Trump's position on Comey is indefensible. I repeat there is no inquiry into the 'leaking' of Trumps 2005 tax summary. You were wrong in referencing such in post 243 in response to post 241 from peterw.

Oh, flip flopping now are we.  So it wasn't an attack, I was just failing to take responsibility for my mistake and I was wrong in referencing the posts of the member. And this from someone who deliberately avoids answering something that they cannot defend.  I would say you are the one who is deflecting, one who selectively chooses aspects in order to push their agenda without providing answers that they know they cannot justify.

[attrayant]

43 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump will fire the deputy AG and the Special Counsel.  He'll do it crudely and callously, which is the only way he knows how.   When decent Americans stand up and howl at the audacity of it, Trump will just stand there grinning, while continually giving the finger to us all. Then he'll walk into a side room without answering any questions.   He's the opposite of Obama, who is intelligent, well-read, decent, considerate and who didn't break laws.

 

 

 

If Congress wants to keep their jobs next year, they'll take up legislation reestablishing the office of the special council, and (ideally) appoint Meuller to it.  That would place him out of the reach of the entire executive branch.