Merged Trump Fires Comey....

alfaniner said:
If there's good thing that came out of this, it's a new political term I actually like:

Comey memo.

Comeymemo, Comeymemo, Comeymemo.

It just rolls off the lips so pleasantly.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's about to abdicate the throne of Japan.
 
Stacko said:
Trump Officials: ‘He Looks More and More Like a Complete Moron’
Click to expand...
From you quote:
... I wish he’d grow a brain and be the man that he sold himself as on the campaign.
Click to expand...
Note: this is from a GOP operative.

See, that's at the core of the problem. He *IS* the man from the campaign. This Republican delusion that Trump would morph into some elder statesman or top notch political mover and shaker is just nuts. Seventy year-old pampered babies are not malleable like they hope.
 
SezMe said:
From you quote:

Note: this is from a GOP operative.

See, that's at the core of the problem. He *IS* the man from the campaign. This Republican delusion that Trump would morph into some elder statesman or top notch political mover and shaker is just nuts. Seventy year-old pampered babies are not malleable like they hope.
Click to expand...

Jeb! warned us, "He's a chaos candidate and he’d be a chaos President."
 
I may have mentioned Fox News saying it was a simple case of Comey's word against Trump's.

But it's not that simple.

As an analogy, I used to write traffic tickets. If the driver went to court, I would have to testify under oath. After being sworn in, the judge would say, "Officer, state the facts". I would then, using my recollection refreshed by my notes, testify as to how I came to write the ticket.

Like it or not, if all the defendant did was argue the facts, he or she would usually be convicted. It's because officers are held to be experts who are sworn to uphold the law in a fair and impartial manner. Defendants can win, but will have to provide some evidence contradicting the officer's testimony - maybe a photo of a stop sign blocked by a branch, or something like that. And the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so all a defendant has to do is provide something to bring the officer's testimony into doubt - not 100% prove him wrong.

Relevance? Comey will be assumed to be telling the truth. He's not just a traffic cop, he's a head cop and if it's his word against Trump's, his word will likely prevail - especially if he had contemporaneous notes and memos he shared with others. It may then be up to a Grand Jury or a jury of Trump's peers to assess the credibility of the Comey's notes, memos and sworn testimony. In a normal proceeding, they would carry a huge amount of weight.
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Jeb! warned us, "He's a chaos candidate and he’d be a chaos President."
Click to expand...

I just want to see what the chaos President does if and when Robert Muller subpoenas Trump's personal and company's financial records. He could have a stroke at that moment.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
I may have mentioned Fox News saying it was a simple case of Comey's word against Trump's.

But it's not that simple.

As an analogy, I used to write traffic tickets. If the driver went to court, I would have to testify under oath. After being sworn in, the judge would say, "Officer, state the facts". I would then, using my recollection refreshed by my notes, testify as to how I came to write the ticket.

Like it or not, if all the defendant did was argue the facts, he or she would usually be convicted. It's because officers are held to be experts who are sworn to uphold the law in a fair and impartial manner. Defendants can win, but will have to provide some evidence contradicting the officer's testimony - maybe a photo of a stop sign blocked by a branch, or something like that. And the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so all a defendant has to do is provide something to bring the officer's testimony into doubt - not 100% prove him wrong.

Relevance? Comey will be assumed to be telling the truth. He's not just a traffic cop, he's a head cop and if it's his word against Trump's, his word will likely prevail - especially if he had contemporaneous notes and memos he shared with others. It may then be up to a Grand Jury or a jury of Trump's peers to assess the credibility of the Comey's notes, memos and sworn testimony. In a normal proceeding, they would carry a huge amount of weight.
Click to expand...

Fox News is technically right. It's Trump's words against Comey's. Your notes as an officer is usually enough for the court.

But It's not just that. It's that Trump's own words and actions lends credence to what Comey has said. 'The pressure is off, etc. Thank you for saying 3 times I wasn't under investigation.

Trump’s lawyers also won't be able to effectively argue that these are just the words of a disgruntled terminated employee. Finally Comey has a long record for integrity and Trump has a long history of never telling the truth. I created that poll and phrased it in such a way that gives the President the benefit of the doubt. The problem is even Trump’s supporter knows that this President is a habitual liar.

SNL's Weekend Update phrased it this way last night. Who are you going to believe? The FBI Director or the guy who is definitely lying?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Trump has managed to act like an idiot for pretty much his whole life and still survived so anyone thinking they know the outcome if full of it.
Click to expand...

You'd think someone of his total ineptitude, ignorance and stupidity would've fallen to his death in an open manhole at some point by now.

Alas.
 
Argumemnon said:
You'd think someone of his total ineptitude, ignorance and stupidity would've fallen to his death in an open manhole at some point by now.

Alas.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that his dad paid to make sure that every open manhole in New York has at least one Teamster assigned to make sure Donnie Dorko didn't plunge into one.
 
Stacko said:
Jeb! warned us, "He's a chaos candidate and he’d be a chaos President."
Click to expand...

From that debate,

"Jeb doesn't really believe I'm unhinged. He said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. It's been a total disaster. Nobody cares. And, frankly, I'm the most solid person up here,” Trump said.
Click to expand...
from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeb-bush-donald-trump-chaos-candidate-hed-chaos/story?id=35788736

I'd say that Jeb's accusations looked pretty accurate.
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Jeb! warned us, "He's a chaos candidate and he’d be a chaos President."
Click to expand...

And yet, republicans assert that Hillary "was the worst candidate in history."

Of course she wasn't. The problem was that republicans ignored the stuff that was terrible about Trump.

Everything in his candidacy foretold this idiocy of a President
 
pgwenthold said:
And yet, republicans assert that Hillary "was the worst candidate in history."

Of course she wasn't. The problem was that republicans ignored the stuff that was terrible about Trump.

Everything in his candidacy foretold this idiocy of a President
Click to expand...

And yet that candidate received 3 million more votes than theirs. Hmmm.

I think Hillary was a poor candidate who would have made a good President. Sort of the opposite of say JFK who was in my mind was a good candidate and a poor President. I think Trump was a poor candidate and is an even worse President.
 
Last edited:
Rod Rosenstein has a tense call with Trump's White House counsel about refusing to obfuscate facts about Comey firing.

But Mr. Rosenstein knew Mr. Comey was to be ousted before he ever sat down to write his memo, he has told lawmakers. Soon after Mr. Comey’s sudden dismissal on May 9, Mr. Trump and aides began offering varying explanations, with the president admitting within days that he had made the decision himself, as he fumed about the investigation Mr. Comey was leading into his campaign’s ties with Russia.

The day after the firing, in an at-times tense conversation with Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, Mr. Rosenstein stressed that he did not want to be part of an effort to obfuscate or “massage” the facts about it, according to a person with knowledge of the discussion.

Nearly a week later, The New York Times reported that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey in February to quash the Russia investigation, raising the specter of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom