« If I were advising Trump ... | Main | Why Deir Ezzor and why now? - TTG »

10 May 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

AnR

Bravo sir

Eric Newhill

Sir,
Do you really believe that the Dem.s will ever buy into anything that helps Trump. IMO, they are pathologically incapable of that.

Schumer had recently stated that all confidence in Comey had evaporated. Trump then fires Comey and Schumer comes right back saying that it's because Comey was getting close to nailing Team Trump. I don't see how these people can be expected to ever be reasonable.

IMO, Trump would do well to purge anyone with Dem connections and he might as well not look for Dem buy in on anything. Not because he would be attempting to avoid unfavorable results of the investigation - I don't think there will be anything of the sort - but in order to avoid obfuscation of future policy and direction. And to clear the path to investigation and prosecution of Dem.s. Perhaps Clinton or Obama should there be grounds and/or need.

The Dem.s are engaging in no quarter asked/no quarter given political war to the death. Trump must respond in kind.

Annem

But....be aware of the "wag the dog" moves taking shape in Trumpdom. He has learned the lesson that military action not only improves his poll numbers, but is a great distraction. The Comey scandal has been followed by his announcement that he is sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan, presumably to fight the Taliban, though he used his big bomb on AQ! Stand by.

Valissa

Hey Tyler, good to hear from you!

I agree with you 100%. The constant heavily negative, biased and disapproving portrayal of Trump in the predominantly liberal establishment MSM has been a big part of creating a collective emotional hysteria, a lynch mob mentality. That's how propaganda works, if you keep repeating long enough distortions, lies and misinformation about a person or issue most people will come to believe it. Unless they have other sources of information that challenge that.

I never thought I would say this, but thank god for right wing media!

All

Fred

KHC,

"But presidents are increasingly unmoored from the stuff of politics and society so that they are prone to do reckless things." No Presidents are never unmoored from politics.

MRW

One possibility is that the FBI was getting close to cutting a deal with Flynn to get him to talk and the WH knew it wouldn't like what he'd say.

Comey wasn’t the entire FBI, and I doubt that should it true that the FBI was close to cutting deal with Flynn that Comey’s firing would derail it. Why would it? McCabe can complete that agency decision.

MRW

I agree. Besides, I’ll bet Rosenstein has some suggestions and is offering them.

Lars

It is widely known that the hacking of emails was done by Russians. The big question is whether there were Americans colluding with them. Interfering in the US election by a foreign power should be regarded as hostile.

Account Deleted

Outstanding.

Lars

I am sure it will all come out in the end and how much guilt to assign. It should concern all Americans that a foreign power was trying to manipulated their election process. Mr. Trump has now turbo charged the effort to investigate this by firing the head of the investigation.

VietnamVet

Colonel,

James Comey’s firing and the maneuvering to blame Russia for the Democrat’s 2016 election debacle is all about providing a circus to hide the obvious top level corruption in Washington DC. It obfuscates their criminality. The decisions made since the turn of the century were solely for selfish reasons at the bequest of the wealthy elite and not in the best interest of America’s citizens. The new FBI director will be a member of the cabal. The only question is will Donald Trump appoint a nationalist or will he be forced to select a corporate globalist?

A special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the corruption. It will never happen.

MRW

Why doesn’t someone point out the obvious? The Deputy Attorney General (DAG) is the FBI Director’s immediate superior. He was the on making the recommendation. This wasn’t Trump doing eeny-meeny-miney-moe Who Will I Fire Today? over an Egg McMuffin on the second floor at 3 AM.

I’m fairly certain that the DAG knows the status and substance of Comey’s investigations so far. Why would he sully the department’s and his own reputation further compounding the lack of faith, trust, and legal reach he was concerned about by ditching a director working for him who could be about to make an explosive revelation of profound malfeasance with documented evidence (as some hyperbolic pundits are alleging exists with no proof)?

Much ado about nothing, and keeps the Russia-Done-It fantasy in the air.

robt willmann

An interesting item is in a story today in the Washington Post newspaper, to the extent the Wash Post can be believed. It says that Comey asked the Justice Department last week for more resources for the FBI investigation of possible collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government.

"Last week, then-FBI Director James B. Comey requested more resources from the Justice Department for his bureau’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussion.

Comey, who was fired by President Trump on Tuesday, made the request in a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and briefed the chair and Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, the officials said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/10/comey-sought-more-money-for-russia-probe-days-before-he-was-fired-officials-say/?utm_term=.a7457b6398e3

More "resources". Empaneling a grand jury, extra money, applications for search and surveillance warrants, or, perhaps, access to archived NSA data and recordings?

iowa steve

And if the FBI would have exonerated Trump, the dems would have howled that the fix was in, and that Comey should have been fired yesterday, literally.

novicius

Surely there's another person who could fill the bill? Any feedback from the rank and file? Those who actually still work there, not yet retired? I'd be interested to hear their feelings about the firing. I didn't like the public way the firing was accomplished. To let Comey find out about it on tv was pretty classless in my opinion.

turcopolier

TV

You are not the first to accuse me of excessive cleverness. But, IMO what Trump needs is to have an enemy oversee the investigation. pl

Valissa

Col Lang, please address MRW's point about the Deputy Attorney General being the one making the recommendation. This DAG, Rod Rosenstein, was recently confirmed 94-6. Isn't that a record for this administration? Can't get much more bipartisan than that.

turcopolier

Valissa

i have no problem with the dismissal of Comey. the question now is who will succeed him and what effect that will have on the unity of the country. pl

Stephanie

Rosenstein made no recommendation. His memo builds a case, but he recommends no course of action and does not ask for Comey’s dismissal, never mind his immediate dismissal. From what I understand Rosenstein is a competent fellow. Highly unlikely he told Trump that Comey had to go immediately under circumstances that would be bound to put the motives for the firing into question.

If Trump had canned Comey in January, it would have been a smart move. But he saw no reason to do so in January. Now, of course, Trump has made a bad situation worse, out of what appears to be a colossal political miscalculation (he thought both Republicans and Dems would approve, although Schumer warned him that he was making a yuge mistake).

turcopolier

lars

I don't doubt tat the Russians sought to influence the outcome of our elections. We do it all the time and you must know that. Do you feel that our "exceptionalism" allows us to do this but not others? Did Obama not seek to influence the outcome of the French election? pl

PeterHug

I'm not sure he has an enemy as such in Yates - he has someone who would be inclined to be skeptical, and impartial enough to follow the facts wherever they go, no matter how unpopular that turns out to be.

And in that, I agree that she would be precisely who he needs.

I truly doubt that he will be able to see that, though.

FourthAndLong

Hilary ? ROFLMAO. Good one.

kao_hsien_chih

As I see it, "politics," at least politics that works, is a process whose legitimacy and credibility is not questioned by any major faction in a country. A president is, in this sense, "unmoored" from politics if he cannot work with people who are not of his faction. I don't think we have had a president who hasn't been unmoored from politics possibly since Bill Clinton, or at least, the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and the degree of unmooredness has been growing since. I will agree with you if, somehow, Trump can work with a large number of Democrats to get things done, or if you could dig up an instance where Barack Obama could work with a large number of Republicans productively. But the truth today is that, even if a Trump or an Obama were to agree with the other side 100% on the substance, the fact that they are a Trump or an Obama is a good enough reason to refuse cooperation with them and revile them for very large numbers of people in the country. No one seems to be "big" enough to bridge this gap, and, as per the colonel's latest post, we are looking dangerously like the way things were in 1859--and not just United States, but pretty much the entire Western World. Maybe it's not the presidents being unmoored from "politics." Maybe it's "politics" being unmoored from presidents (or the people, or whoever). Same difference. If people can't agree to do politics together, even if they they may not agree on what to do with this politics, then that ain't "politics" at all.

JJackson

Lars I have a problem with the 'widely know' bit. Would that be same widely know as Iraq's WMDs, Iran's nuclear weapons program and Assad's use of Sarin?

Valissa

Col. Lang, I don't think this is a time of unity, and trying to make it so will only make things worse, IMO.

How can their be unity given the lack of objective and fair news reporting? Given the intense tribalism? You can't have unity unless people of differing political stripes can agree on at least some facts.

Freedom is fractious... it's important that people and groups be able to disagree. Vehemently, if necessary. The alternative is totalitarianism. Historically speaking, genuine unforced unity is almost as rare as unicorns.

BTW, there is a full moon tonight ;)


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad