The Glade 4.0

That's unlikely, seeing as the present investigation is a counterintelligence investigation, and not actually directed at Trump..



Jeff Sessions hasn't been "implicated" in anything beyond making a mistake while answering a vaguely-worded question. So far, absolutely no one other than Russians has been "implicated" in anything, leftist propaganda notwithstanding. The only person that might eventually become an exception based on current information is Mike Flynn, and even that involves a "sketchy" use of the concept of an "emolument."


Since there is no criminal investigation at this point, a special prosecutor is not warranted. The calls for one are based entirely on the idea that "there must be wrongdoing somewhere, and if there isn't we'll make sure we find it anyhow" and an attempt to create a perpetual distraction to neutralize the Republican's advantages.

There is absolutely no excuse for calling for one at this point - before Trump was even inaugurated the DNI unclassified report made it clear there was no evidence of collusion.



What's needed is a chilling effect. At this point, the Democrats just need to be stomped on until they shut up about it. This is nothing more than refusal to accept that no, there is no leftist veto or "Resistance" of acting horrified that their ability to just scream the Republicans into caving has been taken away.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, it's not difficult to follow the true motivation, which is simply Democrats trying to mine this for as much political capital as possible and the Republicans trying to defend themselves. But the narrative itself in regards to Comey and Russia is very similar to Gamergate in that something would happen and both sides would make statements, then the next day something else would happen to contradict those statements, forcing a retcon of the narrative. Repeat about 15 times and suddenly you need a huge flowchart and advanced calculus to even make sense of the official stances. It was like during the campaign when Comey shifted back and forth from, "giving special treatment to Hillary" to "unfairly targeting Hillary" on a near daily basis and every time the left/right had to somehow respond without appearing contradictory or hypocritical.

You don't have to even bother trying to keep track of it all. There's 3 salient points:

1) Loretta Lynch created the entire shitshow when she met with Bill Clinton. From that point on, the die was cast - There was no way to both avoid the appearance of giving Clinton special treatment and also avoid appearing to throw the election to the Republicans, no matter who made what decision.

2) Comey tried to thread the needle by essentially saying "Yes she's guilty as **** but we aren't going to prosecute her because reasons, lol who would?" which of course totally backfired, and was compounded when the Weiner laptop appeared.

3) People sometimes talk to Russians. This does not make them Russian agents.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's amazing how Trump supporters seem to grok why even the appearance of interfering with an investigation is a serious problem when it's the Clintons, but Trump can literally fire the guy in charge and it's totally fine.

Probably because it doesn't seem controversial to fire someone who for months has been overwhelmingly considered inept at his job.

I do have to say though, the funniest moment for me in this is Stephen Colbert's surprise when he announced that Trump fired Comey, and his audience cheered.

And there's nothing controversial about two people who know each other having a brief chat while waiting at the same airport. Until you add the context. Then the Clinton conversation with Lynch becomes obviously problematic because it creates the appearance of influencing an ongoing investigation into Hillary's emails, and the firing of Comey creates the appearance of punishing someone for the ongoing investigation into Trump's campaign and some of his early appointments. And in the case of Trump, we have a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence that it was in fact actual punishment rather than just the appearance of punishment.

I agree that the timing of the firing of Comey is curious to say the least. He should have been fired on July 5, 2016 when he usurped the Office of the Attorney General by holding a press conference and announcing that an investigation should be closed without being brought before a prosecutor. Further, the later discovery of new information relating to said investigation was disclosed prior to proper investigation by the FBI. This should have been grounds for dismissal. The fact that his ineptness was passed from a democratic president who didn't want the democratic nominee for president to be charged makes any action taken by his republican replacement seem suspect. You're an attorney RD, you should be able to look at the facts without rose colored glasses.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

[quote="RangerDave"]And in the case of Trump, we have a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence that it was in fact actual punishment rather than just the appearance of punishment.[/quote]

Circumstantial, but hardly a tremendous amount I think.

But really I was just answering the question as to why Trump supporters don't grok at the firing, and it's simple... It was all but a bipartisan​ agreement that Comey was inept enough to be fired, so of course his supporters wouldn't balk at the idea, and Democrats took a break from wanting Comey fired to complain about him being fired.

For anyone inclined to think this is all no big deal and it's just the Dems playing politics, I highly recommend the following two articles:





*Edited to clarify source of nested quotes.

Fair enough, but circumstances change, and my impression is that Democratic calls for firing were tapering off as the Russia investigation ramped up - as they should, because of the greater importance of that and the core issue of investigatory independence. I mean, hell, can you imagine the Republican meltdown if Obama had fired Comey back in June or October? Or if Clinton had won the election and then fired Comey herself? It would make the current Dem reaction look tame by comparison, and frankly, they would be right, just as the Dems are right now.

Sorry, if your position is "fire Comey", I don't see how interest in the Russia investigation suddenly rehabilitates him. This is a pretty abject confession of trying to have it both ways.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because Trump is not actually being investigated. This isn't hard. The investigations are of what Russia was doing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Please; you're smarter than that, DE. The investigations are of what Russia was doing and whether and to what degree it involved or compromised Trump-related people. And either way, it's embarrassing and politically damaging to Trump - not to mention a blow to his monstrous ego - and it strains credulity to argue that wasn't the motivation for this firing.

You know you just cited the two biggest Never-Trumpers in the GOP right?

_________________

It doesn't rehabilitate him, but it does add a new complication to firing him. If you're weighing the pros and cons of firing him, it's a huge addition to the con column, which can quite reasonably tip the decision that way.

Well, Friedersdorf is more of a libertarian independent, but yes, they're both strong Never-Trumpers. Regardless, the point is that they're not partisan Dems or squishy liberals. French in particular is a solid conservative Republican.

I think the firing was much more about Trump sending the message of, "This Russia **** is bullshit and I'm not going to tolerate having my administration's time wasted by it anymore." Trump wants a director that will do "real" investigations and not "waste time" on Russia. If it were just about Comey not being so good at his job, I can't see how the benefit of having a somewhat better DoJ head outweighs the political costs of the firing. Like it or not the partisanship in the country has reached the point where Trump has the political capital to get away with this. Sure firing the guy investigating you appears corrupt but who is going to take him to task for it? Trumpers outright assume the media is lying with any negative Trump story and their opinion of the GOP establishment isn't much higher.

Which is obstruction of justice and thus an impeachable offense. The President can't fire the FBI Director to punish him for investigating the President's campaign/administration. Once again, it ain't about the crime, it's about the cover up.

Impeachment is a political exercise. There's no such thing as an "impeachable offense," Congress can impeach or not impeach for any or no reason. They're not going to do it without the will of R voters behind it, and right now the majority of R voters hate the establishment almost as much as they hate the media. Trump literally just threatened Comey on Twitter and they're cheering him on. Trump is pretty much totally immune to corruption allegations at this point, he gains support when the media shits on him. Like it or not the baseline assumption at this point amongst Trump supporters is that any negative report that comes out of the mainstream media or the R establishment is a fake news lie.

I don't disagree with your political analysis, but there is in fact a Constitutional standard for impeachment - "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Obstruction of justice, historically, falls into that latter category. It's literally one of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Clinton was impeached for.

That's a political question though, and Trump decided otherwise. Are you complaining that Trump decided to make a decision you think is politically to his disadvantage?



Except that this action was taken openly, on the recommendation of the DOJ, and falls within the President's powers. Furthermore, the fact an investigation into Russia is going on does not make firing the FBI director obstruction of justice, especially when the idea that this investigation is A) criminal and B) aimed at the President, is itself, entirely a matter of misrepresenting what's going on in the first place.

The entire Trump-Russia connection is entirely because of Trump not being critical of Putin in the manner approved by Democrats during the campaign, Flynn's failure to be fully up front about his personal situation, and one poor answer to a poor question by Sessions. Once again the unclassified report on Russian interference found no evidence of collusion. The desire for this to be an investigation of Trump is purely "let's investigate until we find enough minor circumstantial details to create the impression of a real problem to the public." It is exactly the kind of misuse of prosecutorial power that people regularly complain about.

As for Clinton, Clinton illustrates perfectly why special prosecutors are a bad idea and never should be used. The special prosecutor was originally supposed to be investigating the real estate dealings of the Clintons. However, this (like most other special prosecutors) turned into an unlimited plenary authority to investigate anything and everything perpetually which turned into the **** show of the impeachment. While Clinton getting a teenage intern to suck his dick represents an abuse of power (lets not pretend that there's not a power dynamic involved between a teenager and the President, even if it was consensual) the fact is, it had nothing to do with what the prosecutor was supposed to investigate. Unfortunately, when you get one, they just run amok loohking for a conviction and cannot be gotten rid of by anyone without the appearance of partisanship.

This investigation into Russia's involvement is going the same way. So far, the evidence is that Russia was mostly engaging in propaganda, which should surprise no one. The problem is that the left simply will not accept any investigation that doesn't end how they want it to end - Trump neutralized or impeached - and being very obvious about it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This should be to no one's surprise. The media publicly stated it was refusing to cover Trump objectively during the campaign, and much of the Democrats have made it clear they will take any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to get an impeachment, and they're outraged that the usual methods of ginning up public support aren't working except among their own base.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

*coughs* Benghazi.

It's not a left v. right problem - it's a politics problem.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

This is relevant, and pretty accurately sums up the problems with the Trump Presidency.