Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[TheRealnz]

Because the Trump Justice Department would never lie.



We already know that your precious leader is an incompetent moron. And either way Lindsey Graham was talking about the Senate investigation.

the whole narrative is false and you know it.

Do you honestly believe Trump is in cohoots with Russia? Flynn (fired by Trump) investigation and indeed every liberal media outlet is just dying to undermine Trump's presidency, it's as simple as that. But go ahead, keep lapping it up.

 

[The Don]

The acting director is a Democrat. Presumably Trump will want to get someone who is loyal to him in place ASAP.

True, but if there's a toss-up between AHCA and getting a new FBI director (because of use of limited political capital) then can the FBI Director appointment wait ?

Is this the deputy director ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_G._McCabe

If so, I guess Trump could merely spin anything negative as being politically motivated and the press and GOP will lap it up.

 

[Tony Stark]

the whole narrative is false and you know it.

Do you honestly believe Trump is in cohoots with Russia? Flynn (fired by Trump) investigation and indeed every liberal media outlet is just dying to undermine Trump's presidency, it's as simple as that. But go ahead, keep lapping it up.

Trump is totally corrupt and has no loyalty to anyone but himself. So yes, he may have agreed to be Putin's bitch in exchange for Putin's help with the election if he believed he could get away with it.

Do I know for sure this happened? No, that's why there needs to be an investigation.

Where there's smoke, there's fire, right. Unless it concerns Dear Leader.

 

[Tony Stark]

True, but if there's a toss-up between AHCA and getting a new FBI director (because of use of limited political capital) then can the FBI Director appointment wait ?

Is this the deputy director ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_G._McCabe

If so, I guess Trump could merely spin anything negative as being politically motivated and the press and GOP will lap it up.

Trump is desperate for the Russia investigation to die. It is why he fired Comey after all.

 

[The Don]

Trump is desperate for the Russia investigation to die. It is why he fired Comey after all.

That's certainly what I think too - though the Trump administration and posters in this thread say that it genuinely relates to Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.

With Comey gone and a "Democratic Party Stooge" temporarily standing in, Trump has the opportunity to starve the investigation of resources and to discredit anything that comes out of it as being politically motivated.

 

[Tony Stark]

That's certainly what I think too - though the Trump administration and posters in this thread say that it genuinely relates to Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.

With Comey gone and a "Democratic Party Stooge" temporarily standing in, Trump has the opportunity to starve the investigation of resources and to discredit anything that comes out of it as being politically motivated.

He can try. It will just make him look more guilty.

 

[shuize]

Why?

Why does Comey deserve better than learning of his dismissal from a TV news report while in the middle of giving a speech?

Because it's low class.

As I said, I'm not sad Comey's out. But why be rude? As the head of a federal agency, I don't think a heads up phone call is too much to ask. It shows respect for the office.

 

[Aridas]

the whole narrative is false and you know it.

Do you honestly believe Trump is in cohoots with Russia? Flynn (fired by Trump) investigation and indeed every liberal media outlet is just dying to undermine Trump's presidency, it's as simple as that. But go ahead, keep lapping it up.

Hmm? Honestly, what actually matters is that there's far, far more than sufficient cause for serious investigation into the relationships between Russia and both Trump and the people surrounding him. It would be thoroughly irresponsible not to investigate such, given the circumstances. Whether we believe one thing or another is largely immaterial to that.

 

[The Don]

He can try. It will just make him look more guilty.

Perhaps, but IMO to a shrinking number of people who actually care.

It seems to me that these days, unless someone is accused, convicted and punished all in one day then the public at large start to lose interest. Think back to some of the Trump scandals during the campaign and in the first three months of the Presidency.

• Gold star parents
• Disrespecting veterans
• Grab them by the *****
• The lies, contradictions and flipflops before, during and after the election
• Jeff Sessions' perjury
• Accusations of Russian involvement
• Trump accusing Obama of tapping him

The list goes on an on and yet apart from a handful of people like you and me, the US public couldn't really care less. If it was just one or two things, and he seemed embarrassed by them then I suppose that the press and Democratic Party could generate some sustained outrage. The problem is that there are so many things, and he just brazenly continues regardless, that people don't have the energy to be outraged by it all, so they end up being outrage by none of it - IMO.

 

[uke2se]

He can try. It will just make him look more guilty.

I agree. Trump won't get the benefit of doubt on this by the press - excluding FOX news who will probably air puppy vids and rainbows. I truly hope this is the thing that we've been waiting for, that snowballs into impeachment. I don't dare to believe too much just yet, but it's looking promising.

 

[Tony Stark]

Perhaps, but IMO to a shrinking number of people who actually care.

It seems to me that these days, unless someone is accused, convicted and punished all in one day then the public at large start to lose interest. Think back to some of the Trump scandals during the campaign and in the first three months of the Presidency.

• Gold star parents
• Disrespecting veterans
• Grab them by the *****
• The lies, contradictions and flipflops before, during and after the election
• Jeff Sessions' perjury
• Accusations of Russian involvement
• Trump accusing Obama of tapping him

The list goes on an on and yet apart from a handful of people like you and me, the US public couldn't really care less. If it was just one or two things, and he seemed embarrassed by them then I suppose that the press and Democratic Party could generate some sustained outrage. The problem is that there are so many things, and he just brazenly continues regardless, that people don't have the energy to be outraged by it all, so they end up being outrage by none of it - IMO.

Trump is the most unpopular new president ever and Republicans stand a very good chance at losing the House next year because of him.

I think that when it is all said and done, Republicans will end up wishing that Hillary won instead.

 

[The Don]

Trump is the most unpopular new president ever and Republicans stand a very good chance at losing the House next year because of him.

I thought that a GOP majority was "baked in" to the House of Representatives due to Gerrymandering. I thought that there was some hope for the Senate but because the Democratic Party was defending so many more seats, and the GOP seats were pretty safe, then there was little opportunity for Democratic Party gains there either.

Trump may be unpopular but people will still vote GOP regardless.

I think that when it is all said and done, Republicans will end up wishing that Hillary won instead.

I doubt it. That would require a complexity of thought beyond "other party = bad" which I don't see very much these days (in the US or indeed here).

 

[The Don]

I agree. Trump won't get the benefit of doubt on this by the press - excluding FOX news who will probably air puppy vids and rainbows. I truly hope this is the thing that we've been waiting for, that snowballs into impeachment. I don't dare to believe too much just yet, but it's looking promising.

Impeachment would require GOP representatives to call for it and or support a Democratic Party call for impeachment. In today's political climate I cannot really envisage that happening.

IMO impeachment hearings into a GOP President would be far more damaging to the GOP than leaving him in place.

 

[uke2se]

Impeachment would require GOP representatives to call for it and or support a Democratic Party call for impeachment. In today's political climate I cannot really envisage that happening.

IMO impeachment hearings into a GOP President would be far more damaging to the GOP than leaving him in place.

If the ball gets rolling, there will be no stopping it. The GOP Congress critters' first priority is towards themselves. If they feel personally threatened, they will act, even if that means doing the right thing. If Trump's dealings with Russia turns out to be sufficiently scandalous, or the corrupt snowball that has been set in motion with the firing of Comey picks up enough speed, GOP representatives will want to get out of the way. Some of them are young. They have political careers to think about. If they are linked to a Trump that subsequently gets impeached, or worse, they'll never wash it off. They may chose party over nation, but they sure as hell will chose themselves over party.

 

[Tony Stark]

I thought that a GOP majority was "baked in" to the House of Representatives due to Gerrymandering. I thought that there was some hope for the Senate but because the Democratic Party was defending so many more seats, and the GOP seats were pretty safe, then there was little opportunity for Democratic Party gains there either.

Gerrymandering actually makes it so that there are large numbers of relatively close seats that could easily be flipped if conditions are right. Like for example if there is an unpopular president during midterms.

Trump may be unpopular but people will still vote GOP regardless.

The President's party historically loses in midterm elections. That plus Trump's unpopularity could spell disaster for Republicans. Sure most of their voters will go and pull the R lever but some will stay home and some will even flip to Democrats. And Democrats will be extra motivated. You can see this with the special elections already. A Democrat may well win Tom Price's seat (and if he doesn't it will be close), which Price won by like 20 points in 2016.

I doubt it. That would require a complexity of thought beyond "other party = bad" which I don't see very much these days (in the US or indeed here).

I'm talking about the smarter ones.

 

[Puppycow]

This piece in the Atlantic notes that Jeff Sessions is also on the record as saying Comey did the right thing at the time:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...l-reason-for-trump-firing-james-comey/526080/

Another fan of the decision was Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama and top Trump surrogate. “He had an absolute duty, in my opinion, 11 days or not, to come forward with the new information that he has and let the American people know that,” Sessions told Fox Business at the time. Yet in a letter attached to Rosenstein’s memo, Sessions, now the attorney general, told Trump that “for the reasons expressed by the Deputy Attorney General in the attached memo,” he recommended firing Comey in order to reaffirm the Justice Department’s “commitment to longstanding principles that ensure the integrity and fairness of federal investigations.”

 

[The Don]

Gerrymandering actually makes it so that there are large numbers of relatively close seats that could easily be flipped if conditions are right. Like for example if there is an unpopular president during midterms.

Then I guess I didn't understand the Democratic Party's claims of gerrymandering

I thought the claim was that gerrymandering had turned, say, 10 districts which would have been marginal - inclined to flip into, say, 7 safe GOP districts and 3 safe Democratic districts by concentrating all the Democratic Party support into those 3 districts whilst leaving the other 7 comfortably 60/40 GOP.

for example:

The House gerrymander that Democrats complain about is mostly a phenomenon in five states -- Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. President Barack Obama carried all five states in 2008, yet after the 2010 Census, Republicans in those states drew district maps that were very favorable to their party. Those five states have a combined 73 seats in the House -- currently 52 Republicans and 21 Democrats. Those 73 seats are all held by the party favored to hold those districts, according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...gerrymandering-could-end-up-helping-democrats

Now that article goes on to say that the GOP may have put themselves at risk by spreading their support too thinly but:

• Even for the closest seats it would require a significant swing
• Those same seats are still heavily GOP leaning so any Democratic Part gains would likely be reversed at the first opportunity

The President's party historically loses in midterm elections. That plus Trump's unpopularity could spell disaster for Republicans. Sure most of their voters will go and pull the R lever but some will stay home and some will even flip to Democrats. And Democrats will be extra motivated. You can see this with the special elections already. A Democrat may well win Tom Price's seat (and if he doesn't it will be close), which Price won by like 20 points in 2016.

I realise that RealClearPolitics has a very strongly pro-GOP bias but here is their assessment of the Senate race:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...he_democratic_senate_map_for_2018_133823.html

Here's Vox's take:

Yet Democrats also face some very serious challenges in their effort to retake Congress.

The Senate map is so mind-bogglingly awful for them that retaking the chamber in 2018 seems out of reach. The House map is also slanted in Republicans’ favor, due in part to gerrymandering and in part to geography. Finally, the Democratic coalition is composed heavily of younger and nonwhite voters, who in the past have been less likely to turn out in midterms than the older white voters who vote heavily Republican.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...idterm-elections-2018-democrats-chances-house

I'm talking about the smarter ones.

And what proportion of GOP voters do you think that is ?

 

[Tony Stark]

Then I guess I didn't understand the Democratic Party's claims of gerrymandering

I thought the claim was that gerrymandering had turned, say, 10 districts which would have been marginal - inclined to flip into, say, 7 safe GOP districts and 3 safe Democratic districts by concentrating all the Democratic Party support into those 3 districts whilst leaving the other 7 comfortably 60/40 GOP.

for example:



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...gerrymandering-could-end-up-helping-democrats

Now that article goes on to say that the GOP may have put themselves at risk by spreading their support too thinly but:

• Even for the closest seats it would require a significant swing
• Those same seats are still heavily GOP leaning so any Democratic Part gains would likely be reversed at the first opportunity

The title of that article is: "Republicans' Gerrymandering Could End Up Helping Democrats" and the subtitle is "The party redrew lines to create many slightly Republican districts. Those now look vulnerable."

It goes on to say:

After the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008, the Republican wave of 2010, and Trump's unexpected election, pundits must question their assumptions -- and those of the Republican Party. Its gerrymander could cost it the House.

Which is exactly my point.

I realise that RealClearPolitics has a very strongly pro-GOP bias but here is their assessment of the Senate race:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...he_democratic_senate_map_for_2018_133823.html

Here's Vox's take:



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...idterm-elections-2018-democrats-chances-house

The Senate map does look very bad. I don't really have any hopes of Democrats winning it. The House is a different story.

And what proportion of GOP voters do you think that is ?

Admittedly very small.

 

[Ambrosia]

Now why would I do that. I love it here, most agree with me

Got any evidence for that?

Given your posting history, how exactly you work out that most people agree with you should be entertaining.

 

[The Don]

The title of that article is: "Republicans' Gerrymandering Could End Up Helping Democrats" and the subtitle is "The party redrew lines to create many slightly Republican districts. Those now look vulnerable."

This will still require a significant swing to the Democratic Party and as the Vox article points out, staunch GOP voters are the ones most likely to turn out for midterms. It's not impossible for the Democratic Party to control the House, for sure, but I think it's still unlikely and of course the GOP will control the Senate and have the President and SCOTUS locked down and so have 2 1/2 of the three branches locked down.