Good question. Stunning, yet at the same time obvious answer.
Rogers and Coats simply refused to answer the questions about what the Washington Post report said last night. Ostensibly, if it wasn't true they would just deny it. Instead they are basically refusing to submit to the questions of Senate oversight. Two more you can't trust and are going to carry water for Trump.
Strong case to made here for Contempt of Congress, if it wasn't being run by the most craven people in American politics.
Quinnipiac has Trump at 34%, and underwater by 23 points, absolutely unheard of in a first 6 months. He is very close to bottoming out (which I still think is 30-33%).
Comey's opening statement tomorrow has been disseminated. Damning in about half a dozen different aspects. Trump absolutely tried to end a Federal investigation into a subordinate and tried to extract a loyalty oath from the Director of the FBI.
A new state with mostly brown people that might not vote Republican? Why stop at voter suppression when you can suppress a whole island full of people.
For some reason, I think our current government will not go for it.
erm...Puerto Rico is about 75% white/Hispanic, according to 2015 Census approximations based on the 2010 census; this is due to lots of immigration from the Canary Islands and Spain in the 19th Century.
Just for the sake of discussion, though, let us presume that voters go for Statehood and Rosello sends his committee relatively quickly. If the current Congress denies the request it won't be because of Puerto Rico's demographics but because too many of them stand to make too much money keeping the Obama-era PROMESA board in place. As things stand right now, yes the voters in Puerto Rico vote for their government leaders but the *real* government in Puerto Rico right now is PROMESA, which controls the entirety of the economy.
*************
A rare IS attack in Iran today--they even went after the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Coming quickly on the heels of the Saudis trying to isolate Qatar makes me think that there is another layer to this attack. The IS and Iran are mostly ideologically aligned, which is why the IS hardly ever attacks Iran.
That's simply not true. It says right under the conviction rate graphs that the majority of the offenses were related to jihadist terrorism and motivated by events in syria and iraq. It says nothing of travel restrictions so unless there is some other basis for the claim that's baseless speculation. Even so, trying to sneak into a war zone is basically an admission of intent to participate, let's be honest. Nobody sneaks into a war zone because they enjoy hiding from artillery fire. And anyone who would fight on the side of ISIS has no place in the west.
In other news, according to Comey he told Trump 3 seperate times he was not under investigation, that Trump had asked for an investigation to clear the air, and that Comey advised against it because it would have looked bad to the people making a scandal out of everything. I have no idea what this means for the narrative buts it's so convulted as to be moot at is anyway.
The Republicans are also currently at 5 victories, 0 losses in the past 5 special elections since Trump's victory. Even the crazy guy who bodyslammed a journalist won. The mood of the country atm appears unchanged from election time.
. In other news, according to Comey he told Trump 3 seperate times he was not under investigation, that Trump had asked for an investigation to clear the air, and that Comey advised against it because it would have looked bad to the people making a scandal out of everything. I have no idea what this means for the narrative buts it's so convulted as to be moot at is anyway.
Trump didn't ask for an investigation, he asked Comey to say there was no investigation. Comey did not want to do that in case he would be later duty bound to report that changed if the investigation did include him later.
Agreed it is over convoluted. Comey seems to be going out of his way to excuse Trump's brazen attempt to interfere in a felony investigation of a subordinate.
They were taking shots at Trump pre-election and during debates media was reporting as much as 90% chances of a Trump loss. yet results speak for themselves. Whose bubble is it?
They were taking shots at Trump pre-election and during debates media was reporting as much as 90% chances of a Trump loss. yet results speak for themselves. Whose bubble is it?
90%? Never heard that one, anyway it's not 100% so the underdog won. And he did lose the popular vote by over three million votes. So they were right that Hillary was more popular. Unfortunately the electoral college disenfranchised millions of Americans.
And they were not taking shots at him. They reported the outrageous things he said. That's not a shot, that's reporting what his own mouth said. Then they'd let his campaign surrogates and political pundits argue each side of the crazy thing he was quoted as saying.
Which unfortunately granted a kind of false legitimacy to his bizarre statements.
I think he gotta pretty darn fed up with it all, and for HIM he probably felt it was about all HE had left that he felt could do about the whole problem. Not an uncommon solution many terrorists come to.
Eight years ago. OJ Simpson won the Heisman and was a celebrated sideline reporter and commercial pitchman before he sliced his ex-wife's throat as well.
Eight years ago. OJ Simpson won the Heisman and was a celebrated sideline reporter and commercial pitchman before he sliced his ex-wife's throat as well.
Don't forget the Naked Gun! Great comedy just b4 things went south for him...
Eight years ago. OJ Simpson won the Heisman and was a celebrated sideline reporter and commercial pitchman before he sliced his ex-wife's throat as well.
Don't forget the Naked Gun! Great comedy just b4 things went south for him...
In regards to this topic, everyone should watch the 5-part documentary "OJ: Made in America". It confirms what I always thought. OJ could have never gotten off in any other enviroment but LA in the mid-90s. After decades of police abuse, Johnny Cochran cynically but brilliantly exploited the very real anger of the entire African-American community of the country. It was payback for Rodney King, but it was also about every wrongly accused black man, every police beating for 50 years. The thing is, there was no reason for ANY black person to trust anything Mark Fuhrman said, and the prosecution was incompetent in not being prepared for what was coming. Anyone with any sense knows OJ is guilty. But at the same time, anyone with any historical perspective can figure out exactly why he got off, and even understand it. If you want to blame someone, look at the LAPD and the District Attorney's office.
Anyway, it's a totally engrossing watch, as good as any documentary of recent years, even at it's long length.
So I was wondering if anyone else found it highly disturbing that the Prez was demanding fealty of the FBI director and wanting him to drop the felony investigation into his subordinate.
He demanded loyalty, he didn't want him to do his job or find the truth. But shouldn't the FBI just do their job?
So I was wondering if anyone else found it highly disturbing that the Prez was demanding fealty of the FBI director and wanting him to drop the felony investigation into his subordinate.
He demanded loyalty, he didn't want him to do his job or find the truth. But shouldn't the FBI just do their job?
I've already seen the RNC talking points for tomorrow (they leaked). Alot of "but Obama" and "but Hillary". They are going to spin the loyalty oath as an oath of loyalty to the country, despite Trump using the word "I" twice when asking. Also, public servants already take an oath of office. Furthermore, I expect Trump will tweet and totally derail the agreed upon narrative, not like that matters to Republicans. Their entire strategy assumes people have no memories or internal consistency that lasts more than 24 hours.
Also, let's get real here: if Hillary Clinton had called in the director of the FBI, demanded that he stop an investigation into, oh, let's say, Huma Abedin, there would be thousands of people outside the White House fence right now demanding her head on a platter, and Republicans would already be well on the way to an impeachment vote in the House.
That's simply not true. It says right under the conviction rate graphs that the majority of the offenses were related to jihadist terrorism and motivated by events in syria and iraq. It says nothing of travel restrictions so unless there is some other basis for the claim that's baseless speculation. Even so, trying to sneak into a war zone is basically an admission of intent to participate, let's be honest. Nobody sneaks into a war zone because they enjoy hiding from artillery fire. And anyone who would fight on the side of ISIS has no place in the west.
@WarChiefZeke I presume this part of the post referred to me.
I'm not saying that arrests were not related to jihadi terrorism, but that most arrests don't relate to acts of terrorism, i.e. the annex 2 information given on arrests is not directly comparable to the annex 1 information on foiled and completed attacks. The 2015 report from Europol for instance says: "Almost half of the arrests (48%) were for membership of a terrorist organisation, whereas 22% was related to travelling to conflict zones, 13% for carrying out attacks, and 9% for terrorist propaganda."
There may be multiple reasons for travelling to prohibited areas that don't relate to a desire to fight (much less commit acts of terrorism). Reasons could include, for instance, minors re-joining families, women re-joining husbands (or to get married), religious belief in the Caliphate, desire to offer humanitarian aid, desire to offer support to a (perceived) attack on Islam.
*laugh* The New York Times is comparing Trump's plan to tweet responses in real time to Mystery Science Theater 3000. Also,
"At Union Pub in Washington, a sports bar steps from the Hart Senate Office Building, bartenders plan to dole out a free round of Budweisers or bourbon shots every time Mr. Trump blasts out a tweet."
It's a live-action drinking game! Oh, wow--and they aren't putting a limit on the number of shots.
Okay, so Comey's testimony has turned into a cultural event. At this point, if you weren't planning on watching then you should change your mind and watch it just so you can say "I was there". I am using this link for C-SPAN.
*laugh* The New York Times is comparing Trump's plan to tweet responses in real time to Mystery Science Theater 3000. Also,
"At Union Pub in Washington, a sports bar steps from the Hart Senate Office Building, bartenders plan to dole out a free round of Budweisers or bourbon shots every time Mr. Trump blasts out a tweet."
It's a live-action drinking game! Oh, wow--and they aren't putting a limit on the number of shots.
Okay, so Comey's testimony has turned into a cultural event. At this point, if you weren't planning on watching then you should change your mind and watch it just so you can say "I was there". I am using this link for C-SPAN.
Too bad I have to work today. Otherwise I'd be munching on popcorn right now!
Didn't know what McCain was rambling on about. It is as if he didn't know the time lines of the 2 separate investigations. It was really telling when he kept getting Comey's and Trump's name mixed up.
Well, there weren't any live tweets from Trump and the meeting just adjourned (1144 UTC -6). Truthfully: it was as I suspected it would be, mostly boring with no "gotchas" or smoking guns.
In my opinion the most awkward moment for Comey was when John McCain wouldn't let go the subject of Hillary's e-mail investigation from last year which the FBI closed. @deltago Clearly, I concur. I could see Comey wanting to ask McCain "why are you bringing *that* case up in this hearing?" but Comey's only option is to answer as best as he can.
There were lots of weak questions and mostly-answers until Senator Kamala Harris's turn came up and she started in with hardball, hardball, hardball. This was not on accident--she was allowed to have all the hardball questions as part of the setting the stage for her Presidential run in 2020. You might be thinking that now is too soon for people to be throwing their hat into the ring but you have to think like a politician--this was an opportunity to score points against Trump via Comey so she took it. Comey did state that he could not answer some of her questions in an open setting--the closed hearing will be held after lunch--but the important thing is that she was allowed to ask the hardball questions.
@deltago: McCain saw a double standard in that the Clinton investigation was over, while the Trump investigation was not. He implied Comey was attacking Trump while ignoring Clinton.
The reason, of course, is that two completely unrelated investigations into two completely different people, investigating two completely different alleged crimes, are not going to start and end at the same time. Eric Johnson's trial for robbing a Chicago bank is not going to end at the same time as Zhang Jilin's trial for soliciting a Beijing prostitute.
The length of an investigation depends on the crime in question and the evidence necessary to prove it. There's no reason the investigations would begin and end at the same times just because both Trump and Clinton were both presidential candidates.
On top of that, the investigations didn't begin at the same time. Another reason they wouldn't end at the same time. The Clinton investigation began far earlier.
That's actually not what McCain was saying, he was seeming to imply that since Hillary was also involved in the 2016 campaign, why wasn't she being investigated for collusion. Against her own campaign. All kidding aside, John McCain seemed like he was having a stroke or going senile during that exchange. I was only listening on C-SPAN Radio at work, but apparently he looked as bad as he sounded.
Kamala Harris. Love her. Totally on board. As predicted by their dinner with Trump, Rubio and Cotton ran interference. Every Republican was carrying water for the White House. But the takeaway is that James Comey called Trump a straight-up liar on at least half a dozen occasions, and even if he wasn't personally under investigation before, he pretty much is now. For obstruction. Comey clearly thinks so, though he wouldn't say out of respect for Mueller's investigation. Comey stated flat-out Trump fired him because he wouldn't play ball on Flynn and Russia.
The most striking thing was near the beginning. Comey just came out and said he took the detailed notes of the meeting because he had a serious concern that Trump would one day attempt to lie about their conversations.
I'll even say I now know why he did what he did in July in regards to Clinton's email investigation. He thought Loretta Lynch was trying to soft-pedal the language and he thought it was hurting the credibility of the probe. He was right. James Comey is not lying, about anything. Anyone who thinks he is is a terrible judge of human character. His details of the conversations with Trump are specific to the point of describing objects in the room.
Well, there weren't any live tweets from Trump and the meeting just adjourned (1144 UTC -6). Truthfully: it was as I suspected it would be, mostly boring with no "gotchas" or smoking guns.
I was watching via the CSPAN link and McCain didn't appear to be very sharp or in focus.
Nothing Comey said is really damaging to the Trump Administration, per se, but the fact that he thought that his boss's boss would lie to him or about him is pretty telling.
In Trump's defense, Comey admitted that Trump mentioned letting go of the investigation into Flynn only once--if he had really wanted it done he would have mentioned it until it got done. That being said, Comey was definitely fired because he wouldn't play along and/or do what he was told. This forces me to ask the question: if Trump *really* wanted the Russian connection investigation to end he would start handing out pardons, so why hasn't he done so? Probably because accepting a pardon legally equates to admission of culpability.
@deltago I missed those; the CSPAN link gave me only the options for Trump or Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The facts are these: Comey confirmed Flynn was the subject of a criminal inquiry. The day after Flynn is let go, Trump calls Comey in and essentially directs him to end the investigation. Trump later fires Comey for not complying, and then goes on national TV to the American public and lies about nearly every aspect of it. If anyone thinks those are the actions of someone with nothing to hide or fear, I don't know what to tell you.
Comey's testimony so far has been devastating to the Russiaphobia narrative. Where do we even begin.
Comey believed the Attorney General was working with the Clinton Campaign and that's what prompted him to go public with the investigation. Are we surprised though? All of 2016 was a pile on of evidence for Democrat insider collusion on so many levels.
Comey confirms NYT's reporting is fake news and Russia Trump collusion conspiracies are officially discredited. Though in fairness he belives a Russian influence campaign did exist on its own but was unsuccessful.
Trump openly invited investigations into himself despite not being under them. Ultimately there remains no evidence against him which has been the state of affairs his entire time.
Comey leaked info to the press by proxy as part of an effort to influence government. Suddenly I find myself glad he's gone for good.
CNN had to retract one of their stories after Comey's testimony. More anti Trump fake news.
I'm still not tired of winning yet tbh. Trump is a liar in that regard at least
Apparently McCain has said that his question was meant to be: Is there actually a criminal case to be had against Trump, the way that Comey said there was no criminal case to be had against Clinton? Comey didn't understand the question any more than I did, so I don't think we have an answer for that just yet.
Comey leaked info to the press by proxy as part of an effort to influence government.
I think you're referring to the statement by Trump's lawyer, which accused Comey of committing some non-specific crime. I'm pretty sure Trump's lawyer was just lashing out with a counter-accusation. If Comey did leak classified information, he could be prosecuted. But he will not be.
All of 2016 was a pile on of evidence for Democrat insider collusion on so many levels.
What does this mean?
I never thought Trump himself colluded with the Russians, but over time I've come to suspect some of his associates might have. But Comey didn't confirm or deny this.
I hope the investigation gets finished soon. I want to know for sure.
Comey confirms NYT's reporting is fake news and Russia Trump collusion conspiracies are officially discredited.
Comey himself directly said that he should not "answer in an open setting" the question of whether Trump himself was guilty. He said the investigation would answer that question.
No, im referring to his admission that he did so and that he did it to influence government. Specifically, what he said was "“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."
As I said, he did say he didnt have doubt a Russian influence campaign was attempted. But there remains absolutely zero ties to it and Trump nor does he believe it changed votes.
And I mean the Podesta emails and the leaking of debate questions to Hilary and reporting on democrats being vetted by DNC by the DNC colluding against Bernie etc. etc.
Comments
Good question. Stunning, yet at the same time obvious answer.
Rogers and Coats simply refused to answer the questions about what the Washington Post report said last night. Ostensibly, if it wasn't true they would just deny it. Instead they are basically refusing to submit to the questions of Senate oversight. Two more you can't trust and are going to carry water for Trump.
Strong case to made here for Contempt of Congress, if it wasn't being run by the most craven people in American politics.
Quinnipiac has Trump at 34%, and underwater by 23 points, absolutely unheard of in a first 6 months. He is very close to bottoming out (which I still think is 30-33%).
The numbers above are REALLY bad.
Comey's opening statement tomorrow has been disseminated. Damning in about half a dozen different aspects. Trump absolutely tried to end a Federal investigation into a subordinate and tried to extract a loyalty oath from the Director of the FBI.
Just for the sake of discussion, though, let us presume that voters go for Statehood and Rosello sends his committee relatively quickly. If the current Congress denies the request it won't be because of Puerto Rico's demographics but because too many of them stand to make too much money keeping the Obama-era PROMESA board in place. As things stand right now, yes the voters in Puerto Rico vote for their government leaders but the *real* government in Puerto Rico right now is PROMESA, which controls the entirety of the economy.
*************
A rare IS attack in Iran today--they even went after the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Coming quickly on the heels of the Saudis trying to isolate Qatar makes me think that there is another layer to this attack. The IS and Iran are mostly ideologically aligned, which is why the IS hardly ever attacks Iran.
In other news, according to Comey he told Trump 3 seperate times he was not under investigation, that Trump had asked for an investigation to clear the air, and that Comey advised against it because it would have looked bad to the people making a scandal out of everything. I have no idea what this means for the narrative buts it's so convulted as to be moot at is anyway.
The Republicans are also currently at 5 victories, 0 losses in the past 5 special elections since Trump's victory. Even the crazy guy who bodyslammed a journalist won. The mood of the country atm appears unchanged from election time.
Agreed it is over convoluted. Comey seems to be going out of his way to excuse Trump's brazen attempt to interfere in a felony investigation of a subordinate.
And they were not taking shots at him. They reported the outrageous things he said. That's not a shot, that's reporting what his own mouth said. Then they'd let his campaign surrogates and political pundits argue each side of the crazy thing he was quoted as saying.
Which unfortunately granted a kind of false legitimacy to his bizarre statements.
Can't make this stuff up. The absurdity is too extreme to be believable fiction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4581672/Notre-Dame-terror-attacker-given-EU-award.html
Anyway, it's a totally engrossing watch, as good as any documentary of recent years, even at it's long length.
He demanded loyalty, he didn't want him to do his job or find the truth. But shouldn't the FBI just do their job?
Also, let's get real here: if Hillary Clinton had called in the director of the FBI, demanded that he stop an investigation into, oh, let's say, Huma Abedin, there would be thousands of people outside the White House fence right now demanding her head on a platter, and Republicans would already be well on the way to an impeachment vote in the House.
I'm not saying that arrests were not related to jihadi terrorism, but that most arrests don't relate to acts of terrorism, i.e. the annex 2 information given on arrests is not directly comparable to the annex 1 information on foiled and completed attacks. The 2015 report from Europol for instance says: "Almost half of the arrests (48%) were for membership of a terrorist organisation, whereas 22% was related to travelling to conflict zones, 13% for carrying out attacks, and 9% for terrorist propaganda."
There may be multiple reasons for travelling to prohibited areas that don't relate to a desire to fight (much less commit acts of terrorism). Reasons could include, for instance, minors re-joining families, women re-joining husbands (or to get married), religious belief in the Caliphate, desire to offer humanitarian aid, desire to offer support to a (perceived) attack on Islam.
"At Union Pub in Washington, a sports bar steps from the Hart Senate Office Building, bartenders plan to dole out a free round of Budweisers or bourbon shots every time Mr. Trump blasts out a tweet."
It's a live-action drinking game! Oh, wow--and they aren't putting a limit on the number of shots.
Okay, so Comey's testimony has turned into a cultural event. At this point, if you weren't planning on watching then you should change your mind and watch it just so you can say "I was there". I am using this link for C-SPAN.
Didn't know what McCain was rambling on about. It is as if he didn't know the time lines of the 2 separate investigations. It was really telling when he kept getting Comey's and Trump's name mixed up.
In my opinion the most awkward moment for Comey was when John McCain wouldn't let go the subject of Hillary's e-mail investigation from last year which the FBI closed. @deltago Clearly, I concur. I could see Comey wanting to ask McCain "why are you bringing *that* case up in this hearing?" but Comey's only option is to answer as best as he can.
There were lots of weak questions and mostly-answers until Senator Kamala Harris's turn came up and she started in with hardball, hardball, hardball. This was not on accident--she was allowed to have all the hardball questions as part of the setting the stage for her Presidential run in 2020. You might be thinking that now is too soon for people to be throwing their hat into the ring but you have to think like a politician--this was an opportunity to score points against Trump via Comey so she took it. Comey did state that he could not answer some of her questions in an open setting--the closed hearing will be held after lunch--but the important thing is that she was allowed to ask the hardball questions.
The reason, of course, is that two completely unrelated investigations into two completely different people, investigating two completely different alleged crimes, are not going to start and end at the same time. Eric Johnson's trial for robbing a Chicago bank is not going to end at the same time as Zhang Jilin's trial for soliciting a Beijing prostitute.
The length of an investigation depends on the crime in question and the evidence necessary to prove it. There's no reason the investigations would begin and end at the same times just because both Trump and Clinton were both presidential candidates.
On top of that, the investigations didn't begin at the same time. Another reason they wouldn't end at the same time. The Clinton investigation began far earlier.
Kamala Harris. Love her. Totally on board. As predicted by their dinner with Trump, Rubio and Cotton ran interference. Every Republican was carrying water for the White House. But the takeaway is that James Comey called Trump a straight-up liar on at least half a dozen occasions, and even if he wasn't personally under investigation before, he pretty much is now. For obstruction. Comey clearly thinks so, though he wouldn't say out of respect for Mueller's investigation. Comey stated flat-out Trump fired him because he wouldn't play ball on Flynn and Russia.
The most striking thing was near the beginning. Comey just came out and said he took the detailed notes of the meeting because he had a serious concern that Trump would one day attempt to lie about their conversations.
I'll even say I now know why he did what he did in July in regards to Clinton's email investigation. He thought Loretta Lynch was trying to soft-pedal the language and he thought it was hurting the credibility of the probe. He was right. James Comey is not lying, about anything. Anyone who thinks he is is a terrible judge of human character. His details of the conversations with Trump are specific to the point of describing objects in the room.
Nothing Comey said is really damaging to the Trump Administration, per se, but the fact that he thought that his boss's boss would lie to him or about him is pretty telling.
In Trump's defense, Comey admitted that Trump mentioned letting go of the investigation into Flynn only once--if he had really wanted it done he would have mentioned it until it got done. That being said, Comey was definitely fired because he wouldn't play along and/or do what he was told. This forces me to ask the question: if Trump *really* wanted the Russian connection investigation to end he would start handing out pardons, so why hasn't he done so? Probably because accepting a pardon legally equates to admission of culpability.
@deltago I missed those; the CSPAN link gave me only the options for Trump or Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Comey believed the Attorney General was working with the Clinton Campaign and that's what prompted him to go public with the investigation. Are we surprised though? All of 2016 was a pile on of evidence for Democrat insider collusion on so many levels.
Comey confirms NYT's reporting is fake news and Russia Trump collusion conspiracies are officially discredited. Though in fairness he belives a Russian influence campaign did exist on its own but was unsuccessful.
Trump openly invited investigations into himself despite not being under them. Ultimately there remains no evidence against him which has been the state of affairs his entire time.
Comey leaked info to the press by proxy as part of an effort to influence government. Suddenly I find myself glad he's gone for good.
CNN had to retract one of their stories after Comey's testimony. More anti Trump fake news.
I'm still not tired of winning yet tbh. Trump is a liar in that regard at least
I never thought Trump himself colluded with the Russians, but over time I've come to suspect some of his associates might have. But Comey didn't confirm or deny this.
I hope the investigation gets finished soon. I want to know for sure.
As I said, he did say he didnt have doubt a Russian influence campaign was attempted. But there remains absolutely zero ties to it and Trump nor does he believe it changed votes.
And I mean the Podesta emails and the leaking of debate questions to Hilary and reporting on democrats being vetted by DNC by the DNC colluding against Bernie etc. etc.