Comey is a petty idiot

logger said:
You haven’t a clue whether Trump officials were looking for dirt, as a matter of fact, there is no proof of that.
Click to expand...
Actually, we do have a clue. I have a high degree of confidence that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump cultists would be screaming bloody murder.

Why all the lying about the meeting? Can you point to prior examples where Obama & team lied about their meetings with hostile foreign governments?
 
varwoche said:
Actually, we do have a clue. I have a high degree of confidence that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump cultists would be screaming bloody murder.

Why all the lying about the meeting? Can you point to prior examples where Obama & team lied about their meetings with hostile foreign governments?
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/donald-trump-jr-treason-emails-russia.html

The defense that this was a routine meeting to hear about opposition research is nonsense. As ethics lawyers, we have worked on political campaigns for decades and have never heard of an offer like this one. If we had, we would have insisted upon immediate notification of the F.B.I., and so would any normal campaign lawyer, official or even senior volunteer.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
What part was partisan bs?
Click to expand...

He said that there was near universal agreement that, I can't remember the exact words, he should have not let off Hillary for what was found in the email investigation.

That's simply false. There wasn't near universal agreement. In fact, it was really, really, hard to find anyone who wasn't a Republican saying that she done anything wrong. Comey himself was probably harsher than most people, when he called her handling of classified information "careless". (Or was it "reckless" or something like that?) There was also not widespread condemnation of his decision to recommend non-indictment. In the Rosenstein memo, it sounded lie that was somehow outside the bounds of Comeys job and he shouldn't have made any recommendation.

For what it's worth, and I know this is going over old ground that is disputed, and no one will change their minds based on what I am about to say, but I've looked at the "crimes" committed by Hillary concerning the mishandling of classified data, and I say with confidence, based on my experience as a civilian contractor handling classified data, that similar "crimes" might have been punished with a written reprimand in a personnel file and, if your boss didn't like you, a one day suspension without pay. Maybe. Comey's recommendation not to indict was exactly correct and for exactly the correct reasons. Anyone who was in the know about the situation, but wrote anything different, was spouting partisan B.S.

Anyone not in the know, and who thinks she ought to have been indicted, has been listening to Fox News, or some equally poor information source.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Impeachment doesn't require criminal wrongdoing: all it requires is the political power and will.
Click to expand...

Technically correct. However, because the constitution refers to "high crimes and misdemeanors", there won't be any political will to impeach unless there's a crime.
 
logger said:
You clearly didn’t understand, I’ll explain. Jr saying, “yeah sure, we’ll hear some dirt on hillary” is not looking for dirt. So he’s not even under your “norm” definition. There certainly is not a scintilla of evidence of trading favors for money for illegally acquired dirt.
Click to expand...

Here's a good example of what I was talking about.

Russian agents were contacting campaign officials in an attempt to influence electoral processes in the US election. That's a big deal. But what logger is concerned with here is showing that there's no crime, so Trump can't be impeached. Meanwhile, plenty of other people, here and even moreso elsewhere, are very, very, interested, because if they discover a crime, Trump could be impeached.

They don't care that Russians are mucking with our system, what matters to them is whether or not Trump can be impeached.


What ought to happen is that a thorough investigation into Russian election meddling be conducted. If, in the course of that investigation, crimes are uncovered, the guilty parties should be charged, regardless of which party they belong to, and if one of those guilty parties happens to be the President of the United States, there's special procedures for "charging" him, but it should happen. However, at this point, we in the public can only speculate about that. The investigators haven't released any information that would be damning for anyone except Manafort and Gates, and that wasn't related to Russian election meddling. It just came up in the investigation.

So feel free to speculate, and put a partisan spin on that speculation if it suits your fancy, but recognize that it's speculation.
 
logger said:
You clearly didn’t understand, I’ll explain. Jr saying, “yeah sure, we’ll hear some dirt on hillary” is not looking for dirt. So he’s not even under your “norm” definition. There certainly is not a scintilla of evidence of trading favors for money for illegally acquired dirt.
Click to expand...

I clearly did understand and your analogy clearly failed.

Let's look at what your moved goalpost ignores:

What Jr actually did say directly in his email: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Why did you feel the need to paraphrase: “yeah sure, we’ll hear some dirt on hillary”?

For the full context, here's the initial email from Goldstone that Jr loved:

From: Rob Goldstone To: Donald Trump Jr. June 3, 2016, 10:36 AM
Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
Click to expand...

The real topic of the meeting was more likely about the Magnitsky Act sanctions, not the banned Russian adoptions Putin responded to the sanctions with.

Then there is the reply Trump composed on AF1 to cover up his son's blunder:

WA Po: Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer


Not quite how you are downplaying the affair now is it?
 
Meadmaker said:
Here's a good example of what I was talking about.

Russian agents were contacting campaign officials in an attempt to influence electoral processes in the US election. That's a big deal. But what logger is concerned with here is showing that there's no crime, so Trump can't be impeached. Meanwhile, plenty of other people, here and even moreso elsewhere, are very, very, interested, because if they discover a crime, Trump could be impeached.

They don't care that Russians are mucking with our system, what matters to them is whether or not Trump can be impeached.


What ought to happen is that a thorough investigation into Russian election meddling be conducted. If, in the course of that investigation, crimes are uncovered, the guilty parties should be charged, regardless of which party they belong to, and if one of those guilty parties happens to be the President of the United States, there's special procedures for "charging" him, but it should happen. However, at this point, we in the public can only speculate about that. The investigators haven't released any information that would be damning for anyone except Manafort and Gates, and that wasn't related to Russian election meddling. It just came up in the investigation.

So feel free to speculate, and put a partisan spin on that speculation if it suits your fancy, but recognize that it's speculation.
Click to expand...
The email exchange is not speculation. The response Trump composed is not speculation. The actions Trump has taken to quash or weaken sanctions against Russia is not speculation.

Once again you and others in the thread hand wave all that away just because charges have not yet been filed. There is no "if found" here. There is only "how bad and how deep is it going to go."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The email exchange is not speculation. The response Trump composed is not speculation. The actions Trump has taken to quash or weaken sanctions against Russia is not speculation.

Once again you and others in the thread hand wave all that away just because charges have not yet been filed. There is no "if found" here. There is only "how bad and how deep is it going to go."
Click to expand...

Ya think? Well if you are correct, I'm sure that Mr. Mueller's report will agree with you. I'm content to let that process play out.
 
Meadmaker said:
What ought to happen is that a thorough investigation into Russian election meddling be conducted. If, in the course of that investigation, crimes are uncovered, the guilty parties should be charged, regardless of which party they belong to, and if one of those guilty parties happens to be the President of the United States, there's special procedures for "charging" him, but it should happen. However, at this point, we in the public can only speculate about that. The investigators haven't released any information that would be damning for anyone except Manafort and Gates, and that wasn't related to Russian election meddling. It just came up in the investigation.

So feel free to speculate, and put a partisan spin on that speculation if it suits your fancy, but recognize that it's speculation.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what is happening, except we have a bunch of partisans, Republicans and Trump supporters, trying to smear the investigation as being pro-Democrat anti-Trump partisan before the results are out.
 
Mycroft said:
That's pretty much what is happening, except we have a bunch of partisans, Republicans and Trump supporters, trying to smear the investigation as being pro-Democrat anti-Trump partisan before the results are out.
Click to expand...

... because both sides instinctively know it ain't gonna be good.
 
Probably the most unforgivable thing Comey did is being 6 inches taller than Trump. We know how sensitive the president is to matters of size, to the point of having to brag about his penis during the Republican debates.

Comey could use a little "work" under the eyes, so really I don't think bringing up Trump's eye-baggage was necessary.

The guy's got to eat and AFAIK he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, unlike Trump. So IMO there's nothing wrong with his seizing the opportunity for some book-and-speaking revenue. There's absolutely no question as to which man is more credible, which may explain why Comey is called a "petty idiot" in the thread title, vs. more-substantive criticism of, say, lying.

Disclosure: I haven't read the book and I haven't read the whole thread. There may be some substantive content I missed.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Probably the most unforgivable thing Comey did is being 6 inches taller than Trump. We know how sensitive the president is to matters of size, to the point of having to brag about his penis during the Republican debates.

Comey could use a little "work" under the eyes, so really I don't think bringing up Trump's eye-baggage was necessary.

The guy's got to eat and AFAIK he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, unlike Trump. So IMO there's nothing wrong with his seizing the opportunity for some book-and-speaking revenue. There's absolutely no question as to which man is more credible, which may explain why Comey is called a "petty idiot" in the thread title, vs. more-substantive criticism of, say, his credibility vs. Donald Trump's.

Disclosure: I haven't read the book and I haven't read the whole thread. There may be some substantive content I missed.
Click to expand...

The early excerpts latched on to a couple of paragraphs where he describes Trump's appearance in a meeting with him. But really, he describes how things look throughout the book, and he said in one interview (Colbert I think) that it was to "draw the reader in" to the scene. It works; it's well written.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Technically correct. However, because the constitution refers to "high crimes and misdemeanors", there won't be any political will to impeach unless there's a crime.
Click to expand...

But it really doesn't define what that is. A sitting President can't even be tried in criminal court so what 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' is really an amorphous term. (Unfortunately) I

would argue this President has been committing high crimes since before he was sworn in with the way he ignores the Constitution as President. No President in history has ignored the emoluments clause the way Trump has. But this Congress is not going to impeach him for that. There is a mountain of evidence that he has obstructed justice and this Congress seems eager to ignore that as well.

Impeachment is a political act. Especially with this Congress. A High Crime is what it decides it is. Right at this moment, hardly anyone in Congress is talking impeachment let alone starting proceedings. And as we edge towards the midterms, I think the odds go down on his impeachment as the Dems want to win in 2020. I think Trump loses in 2020. Maybe Pence wouldn't.

Frankly Trump is a pathetic President when it comes to accomplishing anything. With Republicans controlling both the Senate and the House, he should have been able to do much more.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
But it really doesn't define what that is. A sitting President can't even be tried in criminal court....
Click to expand...
This is not clear cut. You might want to review the facts. It's never been tested in court, it was merely stated as a fact during the Nixon investigation.
 
Meadmaker said:
For what it's worth, and I know this is going over old ground that is disputed, and no one will change their minds based on what I am about to say, but I've looked at the "crimes" committed by Hillary concerning the mishandling of classified data, and I say with confidence, based on my experience as a civilian contractor handling classified data, that similar "crimes" might have been punished with a written reprimand in a personnel file and, if your boss didn't like you, a one day suspension without pay. Maybe. Comey's recommendation not to indict was exactly correct and for exactly the correct reasons. Anyone who was in the know about the situation, but wrote anything different, was spouting partisan B.S.

Anyone not in the know, and who thinks she ought to have been indicted, has been listening to Fox News, or some equally poor information source.
Click to expand...

I agree. When I was in the Navy, mishandling of classified documents was a minor, NJP level offense. However, Republicans were trying to convince the public that it is a high crime worthy of the death penalty.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I agree. When I was in the Navy, mishandling of classified documents was a minor, NJP level offense. However, Republicans were trying to convince the public that it is a high crime worthy of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Unless you are in the actual navy then it gets you a presidential pardon.
 
Trump lied to Comey. More Obstruction

You really have to be biased not to see that Trump was clearly obstructing justice.

But Trump is also guilty of violating 18 USC 1001 making false statements to the FBI. Trump told Comey it was impossible for the golden showers event to have occurred because he didn't spend the night in Moscow. This was untrue with everything from flight manifests to his bodyguard contradicting Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom