President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Pelvis

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Not sure why anyone would want to hear Trump testify, seeing that he's proven to have a fairly healthy disregard for facts or the truth. I'd love to hear Comey's thoughts on his latest ramblings!

Why would anyone want to hear a compulsive liar testify under oath to congress?

Yeah I can't think of any reason either......

Call me Al

I am watching States of Change on CNN just now. Hes in small-town Wisconsin talking to Trump voters abour where they're at right now.

Pretty unanimously they're all saying they just really don't care about the lies and the obvious nonsense he spouts. All they care about is his doing what he says he will do. Jobs and tax ×1000000 That's it. They don't care about Russia until such time as the real truth (whatever way it falls) is exposed and ajudicated on by the special prosecutor.
And these people he's talking to aren't all the working class politically illiterate stereotype either.

Christy42

Pelvis wrote: »

Why would anyone want to hear a compulsive liar testify under oath to congress?

Yeah I can't think of any reason either......

I certainly can. Cast iron case for impeachment then.

CMOTDibbler

Call me Al wrote: »

I am watching States of Change on CNN just now. Hes in small-town Wisconsin talking to Trump voters abour where they're at right now.

Pretty unanimously they're all saying they just really don't care about the lies and the obvious nonsense he spouts. All they care about is his doing what he says he will do. Jobs and tax ×1000000 That's it. They don't care about Russia until such time as the real truth (whatever way it falls) is exposed and ajudicated on by the special prosecutor.
And these people he's talking to aren't all the working class politically illiterate stereotype either.

And you can't really blame them for that. They voted on particular issues and until and when The Donald reneges or fails in those promises, they will continue to support him.

That will change when they can no longer afford healthcare and the jobs don't come. But that won't be today or tomorrow. it could be at least a year before any signs of such failures start to bite.

Maximus Alexander

Call me Al wrote: »

And these people he's talking to aren't all the working class politically illiterate stereotype either.

But they're probably white supremacists who are watching the US get nudged and moulded into exactly the nightmarish dystopia they want it to be.

Call me Al

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

And you can't really blame them for that. They voted on particular issues and until and when The Donald reneges or fails in those promises, they will continue to support him.

That will change when they can no longer afford healthcare and the jobs don't come. But that won't be today or tomorrow. it could be at least a year before any signs of such failures start to bite.

No I don't blame them. Reality will bite eventually.. They are expecting results from his rhetoric and you could tell they have very specific expectations. They won't support him again if he doesn't deliver as he said he would.

Igotadose

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

But they're probably white supremacists who are watching the US get nudged and moulded into exactly the nightmarish dystopia they want it to be.

Nahh... they're cousins/aunts/uncles of all of us. Demonizing them is what Trump wants, so that he can remain their messiah. Who else would they vote for today? There's no Democratic or alternative Republican politician out there addressing their issues. Trump they know - Apprentics, Miss America, all those rallies where they could let their hair down.

Trump got 60 million votes. 60. Probably some were white supremacists - I still believe that group of primordial cowardly slime is a tiny minority. It's our relatives in the US that have dug in behind Trump.

Give them a better candidate in 2020, and they'll get behind him. I think what gets Trump out in 2020 isn't impeachment - but I'm sure he's overjoyed at the prospect of looking like a victim and getting enormous ratings, heck, more people'd watch him testify than they did Comey, and plenty watched Comey. Trump gets primaried or 'decides not to run' because he knows he'll not win the primary. It'd take a Republican with serious nerve to run against him, though. Reagan almost beat Ford in 1976. It'd take a republican that popular to beat Trump. None of the nitwits in the 2016 primary have a chance imo, most of them are multiple-time failures or indistinguishable from each other. And they'd need to be organizing *now* for a run in 2020 first against Trump then against whoever the Democrats put up.

oscarBravo

Igotadose wrote: »

Give them a better candidate in 2020, and they'll get behind him.

That's a bit trite. "Better", in what way?

It's clear that the criterion most Trump voters used was "will tell me what I want to hear, even if I know it's a lie". So is a "better" candidate one who will tell them more lies that they want to hear?

There's a great deal of pontification about how the Democrats in particular need to listen to what the voters are telling them in order to put forward the right candidate in 2020. If what the voters are telling is, loud and clear, is "we want a charlatan", should the DNC listen?

CMOTDibbler

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a bit trite. "Better", in what way?

It's clear that the criterion most Trump voters used was "will tell me what I want to hear, even if I know it's a lie". So is a "better" candidate one who will tell them more lies that they want to hear?

There's a great deal of pontification about how the Democrats in particular need to listen to what the voters are telling them in order to put forward the right candidate in 2020. If what the voters are telling is, loud and clear, is "we want a charlatan", should the DNC listen?

Yeah, it's a bit of a pipe dream to believe that suddenly the Americal people will require truth and honesty from their politicians when the entire nation is fed bullsh1t from morning to night in every aspect of their daily lives. You might be tempted to think that they've developed a taste for it.

PropJoe10

Pelvis wrote: »

Why would anyone want to hear a compulsive liar testify under oath to congress?

Yeah I can't think of any reason either......

What would be the point? I'm sure any tapes that may have existed have long since been destroyed so it'd be just his word against Comey's. Trump has no respect for the truth so you would know exactly how it'd go.

Maximus Alexander

Igotadose wrote: »

Nahh... they're cousins/aunts/uncles of all of us. Demonizing them is what Trump wants, so that he can remain their messiah. Who else would they vote for today? There's no Democratic or alternative Republican politician out there addressing their issues. Trump they know - Apprentics, Miss America, all those rallies where they could let their hair down.

Trump got 60 million votes. 60. Probably some were white supremacists - I still believe that group of primordial cowardly slime is a tiny minority. It's our relatives in the US that have dug in behind Trump.

Give them a better candidate in 2020, and they'll get behind him. I think what gets Trump out in 2020 isn't impeachment - but I'm sure he's overjoyed at the prospect of looking like a victim and getting enormous ratings, heck, more people'd watch him testify than they did Comey, and plenty watched Comey. Trump gets primaried or 'decides not to run' because he knows he'll not win the primary. It'd take a Republican with serious nerve to run against him, though. Reagan almost beat Ford in 1976. It'd take a republican that popular to beat Trump. None of the nitwits in the 2016 primary have a chance imo, most of them are multiple-time failures or indistinguishable from each other. And they'd need to be organizing *now* for a run in 2020 first against Trump then against whoever the Democrats put up.

I think it's a myth that ordinary, decent people voted for Trump to be honest.

His voter base is made up on one side, of people who are politically disengaged and automatically vote Republican because that's what their dad did, or what their community does, or what they have always done.

The remainder are people who are politically active and knew exactly what they were voting for. There is no surprise in Trump's behaviour, he made it very clear how terrible a person he was during his campaign and there are plenty of people of poor character who were happy to vote for someone like that.

Take those two groups of people, add in some gerrymandering and voter suppression and Trump squeezes into the White House. Now you have people saying "I wonder how many of those who voted for him regret it now?" Very few, of course. It shouldn't be at all surprising that the ignorant remain ignorant and that arseholes remain arseholes. They won't turn against him; he's exactly what they wanted.

Itssoeasy

AG Jeff sessions will appear on Tuesday in front of the senate intelligence committee arising from James comey testimony.

I take it mr sessions will be coached up before Tuesday.

Water John

Open/closed or both?

He'll need to come clean. Comey left a hand grenade for him to handle.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Open/closed or both?

He'll need to come clean. Comey left a hand grenade for him to handle.

CNN didn't say whether it was open or closed.

wonderfullife

Water John wrote: »

Open/closed or both?

He'll need to come clean. Comey left a hand grenade for him to handle.

Does he?

Even if he does come clean, what consequences did he face for 'not recalling' other meetings with Kislyak?

He'll *probably* just admit to the 3rd meeting and give some lame excuse as to why he forgot.

The thing is, if a 4th meeting subsequently comes to light, then what? Do the same old dance, pull the same old smile and say he 'forgot'?

In any other administration or era, Sessions would have been political toast already and likely facing criminal perjury charges. Instead, he'll just trundle along with his mis-recollections until caught out on them, correct them and face no consequences.

aloyisious

CNN also reporting that the committees have given the Trump Admin 2 weeks to hand over any recorded conversation tapes.

Water John

Anything further and Sessions will have to go.

Well Trump said we'd know soon whether there were tapes. Doubt he had this, in mind.

Christy42

Water John wrote: »

Anything further and Sessions will have to go.

Well Trump said we'd know soon whether there were tapes. Doubt he had this, in mind.

Pretty much. He just wanted to say I am right and I have proof without needing to offer it. Similar to him claiming repeatedly to have proof that Russia were not involved in interfering in the election.

aloyisious

CNN interviewing 3 guests, one of whom said whenever he went into a meeting with Trump, he had a witness with him and used a recorder at the time. He doubts if there are any recordings. The news ticker-tape scrolling across the screen has Don as saying he'll decide soon if he's going to hand over the tapes. If that last bit is fully correctly worded and did come from Don, then I think the committees won't take it lying down if he starts playing games with them.

Water John

I think that decision is already made for him.

StringerBell

Sessions to go before the committee, its a guy who has already lied under oath so what credibility is he going to have anyway?

wonderfullife

StringerBell wrote: »

Sessions to go before the committee, its a guy who has already lied under oath so what credibility is he going to have anyway?

Just to clarify for people what a fast one Sessions just pulled:

He was due to testify on Tuesday in front of the Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee in public. He would have been publicly grilled and put on record on all of this stuff.

Instead, he has opted to send a minion to the Appropriations Committee and will instead testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Key difference? His Tuesday testimony is now behind closed doors and won't be seen by any of us.

Sneaky stuff.

Hank Scorpio

wonderfullife wrote: »

Sneaky stuff.

Sneaky eh?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-issues-statement-testimony-former-fbi-director-james-comey

"In his testimony, Mr. Comey stated that he was “not *** aware of” “any kind of memorandum issued from the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to the FBI outlining the parameters of [the Attorney General’s] recusal.” However, on March 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff sent the attached email specifically informing Mr. Comey and other relevant Department officials of the recusal and its parameters, and advising that each of them instruct their staff “not to brief the Attorney General *** about, or otherwise involve the Attorney General *** in, any such matters described.”

He seems to have caught himself out here too. The memo details were in the press a day before Trump tweeted. He lied.



The article was published May 11th, Comey claimed under oath he didn't orchestrate the leak until the 16th. Trump tweeted on the 12th.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?mcubz=1

Comey’s testimony, based in part on a review of memos he wrote – “I added that I was not ‘reliable’ in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth.”

The Times article, based on an anonymous source – “…Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not ‘reliable’ in the conventional political sense.”

Comey’s testimony – “Near the end of our dinner...He then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That's what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’”

The Times article – “Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty. Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him ‘honesty’ and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation. But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be ‘honest loyalty.’ ‘You will have that,’ Mr. Comey told his associates he responded."

spacecoyote

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sneaky eh?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-issues-statement-testimony-former-fbi-director-james-comey

"In his testimony, Mr. Comey stated that he was “not *** aware of” “any kind of memorandum issued from the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to the FBI outlining the parameters of [the Attorney General’s] recusal.” However, on March 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff sent the attached email specifically informing Mr. Comey and other relevant Department officials of the recusal and its parameters, and advising that each of them instruct their staff “not to brief the Attorney General *** about, or otherwise involve the Attorney General *** in, any such matters described.”

He seems to have caught himself out here too. The memo details were in the press a day before Trump tweeted. He lied.



The article was published May 11th, Comey claimed under oath he didn't orchestrate the leak until the 16th. Trump tweeted on the 12th.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?mcubz=1

Comey’s testimony, based in part on a review of memos he wrote – “I added that I was not ‘reliable’ in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth.”

The Times article, based on an anonymous source – “…Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not ‘reliable’ in the conventional political sense.”

Comey’s testimony – “Near the end of our dinner...He then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That's what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’”

The Times article – “Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty. Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him ‘honesty’ and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation. But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be ‘honest loyalty.’ ‘You will have that,’ Mr. Comey told his associates he responded."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K94R5u9LGQ

Maddow, who admittedly can be a pain to listen to at times has already posted a debunking of the timeline from trumps lawyer

Hank Scorpio

spacecoyote wrote: »

[Youtxube]3K94R5u9LGQ[/youtube]

Maddow, who admittedly can be a pain to listen to at times has already posted a debunking of the timeline from trumps lawyer

Forced myself to watch that.

Her argument is that Comey's friends leaked details of the dinner for the story on the 11th and it wasn't him directly? Even if that happened how is it any different than the leak on the 16th?

I'm not getting it. The article on the 11th is word for word almost with Comey's testimony.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Forced myself to watch that.

Her argument is that Comey's friends leaked details of the dinner for the story on the 11th and it wasn't him directly? Even if that happened how is it any different than the leak on the 16th?

I'm not getting it. The article on the 11th is word for word almost with Comey's testimony.

It's not very clear alright. But there does seem to be a valid explanation.

There seem to be additional entries in the timeline. There's a reference in the NYT article on May 11th about an NBC interview that Trump gave and in which he referenced the Green Room dinner. Presumably that had to come before the May 11th article since it references it.

The counter claims about the dinner in the NYT article are supposedly sourced from associates of Comey's. Not specifically Comey himself and it doesn't seem to reference his memos as a source. Comey said in his testimony that he shared his memos with his senior team, so they'd have had it word for word as well.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The counter claims about the dinner in the NYT article are supposedly sourced from associates of Comey's. Not specifically Comey himself and it doesn't seem to reference his memos as a source. Comey said in his testimony that he shared his memos with his senior team, so they'd have had it word for word as well.

It's still people leaking directly from his memos though is it not?

I don't get the argument at all, people ( Comey or not ) leaked conversations from his memos to the press and conversations from those memos were published on the 11th. I see zero difference between that and the 16th story, the only difference is the word memo being mentioned.

I cloud say maybe its open to interpretation, but imo it's black and white given how accurate the statements to the press were.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Forced myself to watch that.

Her argument is that Comey's friends leaked details of the dinner for the story on the 11th and it wasn't him directly? Even if that happened how is it any different than the leak on the 16th?

I'm not getting it. The article on the 11th is word for word almost with Comey's testimony.

The timeline seems to be

Meal with Trump

Share info with friends (presuming other agents and not neighbours) with understanding that it would not go further. This step can be looked at later but does not contradict his statement as it was not to go to the press.

Comey fired

Friends go to press

Trump tweets

Comey goes to press

Comey swears under oath that he went to press the day he went to the press. Obviously this is just one potential timeline but it shows that Comey has not been caught lying under oath as it is a possibility.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's still people leaking directly from his memos though is it not?

I don't get the argument at all, people ( Comey or not ) leaked conversations from his memos to the press and conversations from those memos were published on the 11th. I see zero difference between that and the 16th story, the only difference is the word memo being mentioned.

I cloud say maybe its open to interpretation, but imo it's black and white given how accurate the statements to the press were.

The claim is the loyalty question was published after Comey had conversations with friends that the President asked for his loyalty and he said to the president that he could trust him or something. I do not see how that is a leak from Comey in any shape or form.

The after that article the president said that he hoped there was tapes. In response to that Comey informed a friend of the memo, the contents of that unclassified memo read to the paper who published the story. While the memo was leaked I can see no law being broken in giving a friend a copy of a memo the person created that was unclassified.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's still people leaking directly from his memos though is it not?

I don't get the argument at all, people ( Comey or not ) leaked conversations from his memos to the press and conversations from those memos were published on the 11th. I see zero difference between that and the 16th story, the only difference is the word memo being mentioned.

I cloud say maybe its open to interpretation, but imo it's black and white given how accurate the statements to the press were.

Because if the president comes out and speaks about a meeting on TV, it's no longer a leak if soembody else comes out and gainsays that. Unless you're also accusing the president of leaking.

That's why I said there were more elements to the timeline than the tweet and the memo being leaked.