Merged Trump Fires Comey....

blutoski said:
I think they're more likely to have him pegged as a new Cyrus, rather than a Second Coming of Christ.
Click to expand...
Good point, but has no bearing on what Trump has himself pegged as or imagines Christian conservatives see him as.

Cyrus: a pagan, acting in his own selfish interest, but though whom, God still successfully executed a plan for the benefit of True Believers.
Click to expand...
Lincoln, a Republican, who knew? Cyrus : isn't that some kind of pansy electric car? See where I'm going here?

Enough fun with that : are there Christian conservatives bringing Cyrus into this? I can see how terrifically convenient that would be for them.
 
Babbylonian said:
I don't think any human being ever thought that was a real possibility.
Click to expand...

Fox News (Bret Baier, Krauthammer, et all) does, or at least they are using the default position that Trump was told 3 times he wasn't under investigation was true. They are reading Comey's written statement as proving Trump was right, he wasn't being investigated and only wanted that to be announced.

They even think Comey pledged loyalty because Comey said, "you have my honest loyalty".

They are still claiming no crime (ignoring the election tampering), ignoring the unusual number of Trump campaign staff contacts with Russia claiming no evidence of collusion, and treating Trump as if his entire history of daily lies wasn't applicable to his statements about this.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Fox News (Bret Baier, Krauthammer, et all) does, or at least they are using the default position that Trump was told 3 times he wasn't under investigation was true. They are reading Comey's written statement as proving Trump was right, he wasn't being investigated and only wanted that to be announced.

They even think Comey pledged loyalty because Comey said, "you have my honest loyalty".

They are still claiming no crime (ignoring the election tampering), ignoring the unusual number of Trump campaign staff contacts with Russia claiming no evidence of collusion, and treating Trump as if his entire history of daily lies wasn't applicable to his statements about this.
Click to expand...
I was referring more to the damage that Comey's testimony will cause, regardless of whether it leads to impeachment, resignation, or anything else.

Even still, I don't think that even the conservative diehards actually believe what they're saying. It's all spin which, by definition, is a type of deception. Of course, I may be guilty of giving them more credit than they deserve.
 
Now Susan Collins is claiming Comey's written testimony confirms Trump was told on three occasions he wasn't under investigation. I don't see that in the testimony. Can some one tell me what sections or passages they are reading?
 
Babbylonian said:
I was referring more to the damage that Comey's testimony will cause, regardless of whether it leads to impeachment, resignation, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Is it even possible for Trump to be more damaged? :p

Babbylonian said:
Even still, I don't think that even the conservative diehards actually believe what they're saying. It's all spin which, by definition, is a type of deception. Of course, I may be guilty of giving them more credit than they deserve.
Click to expand...
I don't think most of them believe it, a few likely do.
 
CapelDodger said:
Good point, but has no bearing on what Trump has himself pegged as or imagines Christian conservatives see him as.

Lincoln, a Republican, who knew? Cyrus : isn't that some kind of pansy electric car? See where I'm going here?

Enough fun with that : are there Christian conservatives bringing Cyrus into this? I can see how terrifically convenient that would be for them.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's where I got the reference.

It's how they reconcile voting for a sexual molester who boasts about his felonies with claims they support law and order and family values.

"Yes, yes, we know he's an animal... but we trust God has a plan for him."

eg: [Trump as cyrus? Really?]
 
Tony Stark said:
Except for the obstruction of justice when the orange turd asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
Click to expand...

There was also Coats and Rogers refusing to answer unclassified questions in an unclassified hearing to protect President Trump politically. If you can't answer a question, we all know the actual answer.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Now Susan Collins is claiming Comey's written testimony confirms Trump was told on three occasions he wasn't under investigation. I don't see that in the testimony. Can some one tell me what sections or passages they are reading?
Click to expand...
1. - January 6 briefing
In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s
leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.


2. - January 27 dinner
I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative.

3. - March 30
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.”
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
There was also Coats and Rogers refusing to answer unclassified questions in an unclassified hearing to protect President Trump politically. If you can't answer a question, we all know the actual answer.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Presumably Robert Mueller will make them answer the questions though.
 
I'll note that the FBI not investigating Trump personally doesn't mean they weren't investigating his campaign.
 
Busta Capp said:
Like all who testified today Comey won't incriminate Trump in anything, because there's nothing there.
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
Non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Pedantic comments follow. Probably best to just skip this one.

Not a non sequitur. You're misinterpreting the argument.

"Because" indicates that what follows ("there's nothing there") is a premise and that what preceded ("Comey won't incriminate Trump in anything") the conclusion. Hence, Busta's argument is the following:

There's nothing there.
So, Comey won't incriminate Trump in anything.

Clearly, this isn't a non sequitur. The primary problem, rather, is that the argument depends on an unsupported premise. Evidently we have to take Busta's word for it that Trump has done nothing illegal.

(It is also an invalid argument, since the premise could be true and the conclusion false -- Comey could lie, after all. Nonetheless, I wouldn't call it a non sequitur, since the premise gives some evidence for the conclusion.)
 
beren said:
1. - January 6 briefing
In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s
leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.


2. - January 27 dinner
I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative.

3. - March 30
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.”
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's a bit vague but it makes me wonder if Trump was keeping a tally.:p
 
beren said:
1. - January 6 briefing

2. - January 27 dinner

3. - March 30
Click to expand...

Snipped a bit for brevity. Thank you for saving me the trouble.

Busta Capp said:
Like all who testified today Comey won't incriminate Trump in anything, because there's nothing there.
Click to expand...

Comey is unlikely to incriminate Trump himself any more than he has been incriminated already, true, given that the story seems to be pretty much out in the open, other than topics that might be classified. It might be worth pointing out that I don't recall Comey himself actually trying to bring harm to or working against Trump in the first place, though, at any point, despite the hype and Trump's antics and attacks. As for whether there's nothing there... that's much more difficult to defend. That Trump behaved in very inappropriate and entirely predictable ways, for starters, is one of the simple takeaways from this.

Tony Stark said:
I'll note that the FBI not investigating Trump personally doesn't mean they weren't investigating his campaign.
Click to expand...

And that his campaign was being investigated, but not him, is something that Trump has stressed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom