Comey Testimony

[Jason]

33 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

So is that a big deal but or not? You tell us. If so, how do we feel about a President making such requests?

How would you have felt if Obama himself had said this to Comey: "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty." Also, Obama then eventually follows that statement with ""I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Clinton go. She is a good woman. I hope you can let this go."

My guess is that the number of Godfather parody memes featuring Obama on the Facebook feeds of cons would have broken the internet in a flash.

Anyways, thanks so much for taking my call, I'll hang up and listen for your answer over the broadcast.

 

Trump has no clue how to be president. I imagine the way he interacts with other government officials is how he did as a New York tycoon making business deals. Yes, these things are wrong. Not impeachable, just wrong and stupid. I'm sure Obama did his share of shady stuff but he knew how to keep it on the down low. Trump is either stupid or just doesn't give a shit

[Rico]

25 minutes ago, Jason said:

 Yes, these things are wrong. Not impeachable, just wrong and stupid.

Obstruction of justice.  Using the power of his position to put pressure on law enforcement in an attempt to help out his buddy, is very much criminal and impeachable. Regardless whether or not Comey felt intimidated by Trump, the fact remains the attempt was made. 

[fan_since79]

Nixon obstructed justice by explicitly ordering the CIA to block the FBI investigation of Watergate, and he did that just a few days after the break-in.

I still don't see where Trump expressing a desire that the Flynn matter be wrapped up is the same. Much of the media is trying to make the two things equal.

[RallyMo]

7 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Nixon obstructed justice by explicitly ordering the CIA to block the FBI investigation of Watergate, and he did that just a few days after the break-in.

I still don't see where Trump expressing a desire that the Flynn matter be wrapped up is the same. Much of the media is trying to make the two things equal.

So since you have decided to bring up the distinction of order vs no order, does the concept of obstruction require that an explicit order be given? It seems that you would have to know in order to be making that argument. What say you? Also, if that's not the case, why even bother making that particular argument?

[fan_since79]

12 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

So since you have decided to bring up the distinction of order vs no order, does the concept of obstruction require that an explicit order be given? It seems that you would have to know in order to be making that argument. What say you? Also, if that's not the case, why even bother making that particular argument?

I don't think an explicit order needs to be given, but the code specifies "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede...etc"

I just don't believe the two things (what Nixon and Trump each did) that much of the media is equating are really on the same level. That's my only point, and it's a limited one.

Trump's real problem, it seems to me, is if Mueller finds that Trump's firing of Comey was an attempt to squash any investigations into him and Russia. That seems impeachable on its face.

[Rico]

Just cause he said it in nicer words doesn't make it less of a crime.  He was still trying to squash the investigation.  Comey felt uncomfortable enough with the request to tell Sessions he didn't want to be left alone with the President.  

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Obstruction of justice.  Using the power of his position to put pressure on law enforcement in an attempt to help out his buddy, is very much criminal and impeachable. Regardless whether or not Comey felt intimidated by Trump, the fact remains the attempt was made. 

Comey stated he was never directed to stop any investigation. The words Trump used will be the important factor. Hoping and wishing aren't obstruction

[Jason]

[fan_since79]

Another problem with impeachment is there's a political dimension to it, and the Congress is in Republican hands. Not only would a GOP House need to bring the articles of impeachment, but a 2/3rds vote of the Senate would be needed to convict and remove him from office. Does anyone believe that 19 Republican senators will vote to throw out the president?

 

[Rico]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

Comey stated he was never directed to stop any investigation. The words Trump used will be the important factor. Hoping and wishing aren't obstruction

It may not have been a direct order, but it was implied.  That is still illegal.  The fact that Trump fired him after Comey didn't comply is just Trump going through with his threat.

[mtangelsfan]

Dems:  "impeach"

Reps:  "don't impeach"

 

shocking

[Rico]

5 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Another problem with impeachment is there's a political dimension to it, and the Congress is in Republican hands. Not only would a GOP House need to bring the articles of impeachment, but a 2/3rds vote of the Senate would be needed to convict and remove him from office. Does anyone believe that 19 Republican senators will vote to throw out the president?

 

They would still have a Republican President.  Anyway, a lot of these dudes are up for re-vote and the President's disapproval ratings are at an all time high.

[fan_since79]

6 minutes ago, Rico said:

They would still have a Republican President.  Anyway, a lot of these dudes are up for re-vote and the President's disapproval ratings are at an all time high.

Actually, only about 10 Republicans are up for reelection in the Senate in 2018. The rests are Dems. But everyone's up in the House, and that has been known to turn around sometimes in massive ways.

 

[red321]

He fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation. He has said so multiple times. That is not under question. His Comey requests just reinforce the pattern. Just like his asking other intelligence figures (Coates) to quash or push back on the investigation.

i think a lot of how this is interpreted is what comes back in regards to the overall russian investigation, and if there was coordination or Kushner trying to get his family business large influx of cash by getting sanctions reduced, or did Manafort have ties, etc etc...then the questions start to become what did he know and when. 

these are just pieces in a much bigger puzzle

[Jason]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Dems:  "impeach"

Reps:  "don't impeach"

 

shocking

For the record, I'm fine with impeaching if there's actual evidence of a crime

[fan_since79]

I'm still wondering about how the Russians "interfered" in the election. Did they hack into the voting machines and replace Hillary votes with Trump votes? Is anyone still asserting that?

How else could Russia swing the election to Trump? The Hillary emails? Did Trump acting in concert with Russia have anything to do with that? It seems to me Comey had a lot more to do with her email troubles. He even revisited the whole thing just a few days before the election. Some prominent Democrats thought he should be fired at that time.

The whole thing is very confusing.

 

[Thomas]

With the left continually screaming impeachment it will continue to and eventually lose any meaning as it becomes normalized.  At this point they are only shooting the opposition in the foot by their lack of discipline. 

[arch stanton]

You can tell most hardcore libs have never been fishing or hunting. They'd starve to death

[Vegas Halo Fan]

6 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

Actually, only about 10 Republicans are up for reelection in the Senate in 2018.

One of them is Nevada's Dean Heller, who has been a Trump rubber stamp from the beginning. If the Democrats field any meaningful opposition, he is probably gone.

[red321]

Folks who thought Comey would show up with a detailed investigative report were delusional, and I understand that's what folks like yourself (Blarg) appear to be hanging their hat on, he didn't stand up and yell j'accuse.

Comey made it pretty clear he felt Trump was trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. He also made it very clear he felt Sessions and the administration were compromised and the investigation required a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of what might or might not have happened.

I guess you could read that as "nothing"...other people would look at that and say, what the hell did Comey know that he couldn't talk about it that led him to make that conclusion.

Not to say this is going to end up ala Watergate...but do keep in mind it was something like Watergate took 2 years from the first report. 

[Tank]

brad sherman, a local LA member of the house (i think he's from a district in the valley), has brought a bill to the house calling for the impeachment of trump.

the story on channel 7 news didn't do a very good job of detailing the reasons for impeachment in mr. sherman's eyes.

[red321]

Sherman is an idiot if he did...let the investigations play out and that will make it clear whether articles of impeachment should be drawn or not. 

[fan_since79]

That bill will have a lifetime of five minutes, since the House is in GOP hands.

It's a political stunt.

 

[Tank]

the fact that he made it a bill seems odd to say the least. impeachment is not the same as legislation.

[Adam]

Maybe he's riding the pine for the Dems as a 3rd catcher and just wanted to kill some time down in the bullpen