James Comey is my Homie

[6th Street 6357]

"Morally unfit to be president" 

solid 

[Dr. Teeth 5832]

Mom, I find it interesting that you call The Weekly World News "the paper.

[Ragnarok 103]

This guy cracks me up. Comey, I had to prosecute Martha Stewart because I prosecuted some other guy who lied to us once.  What an honorable guy. Honor, justice for all.  Very important stuff, unless your name is Clinton. George, how about asking a real question? Like, James, have you ever been involved in an investigation that gives immunity BEFORE hearing the proffer of testimony.  In the history of the FBI?  Yeah, right it always goes down just like with the Clinton's. "Guido, we know you pulled the trigger. We got you dead to rights.  Who ordered you to make the hit?  Ok, you won't talk, eh. Well, here's your immunity. What do you have to say now?. Oh, you acted on your own, without orders from Scarface. Damn, I guess we shouldn't have given you immunity. Oh, well, we had no other way to get you to talk."

Yet that is exactly what he would have us believe regarding Hillary's IT guy erasing all her emails that were under a preservation order.  That's how Comey's FBI operated. Honor and Comey each have 5 letters, but that's the only acquaintance they have with each other. He's morally unfit to sniff the jock strap of a real FBI agent, this Comey character.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Ragnarok

[EMAWesome 101]

I was just going to say LOL at the guy in charge of investigating Hillary declaring himself to now be an authority on morality.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

I like how not once Comey and Stepanopolous were shown on camera standing next to each.  They were sitting the entire time.

Comey said he investigated Hillary before the election because he thought she would win.  If that's the case, why not just wait three weeks until the election is over?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Comey said at the end impeachment now would let the American people off the hook and he hopes Trump isn’t impeached.

An unpopular opinion I share.

People need to take it upon themselves to remove Trump with their votes in November.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[yaqdum 182]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Comey said at the end impeachment now would let the American people off the hook and he hopes Trump isn’t impeached.

An unpopular opinion I share.

People need to take it upon themselves to remove Trump with their votes in November.

totally agree.

i said back on the old board under my previous moniker that i have long held the opinion that trickle-down fucks should win and hold office long enough for even the stupid to gain some understanding of what that means.  this situation now is awful but it has the potential to be a cure for some very sick people who aren't beyond redemption.  just those people waking up would augment the more wise enough to point this nation in the right direction.  piss (tape or no tape) on the incorrigible.  don't need them and their numbers make them not matter.

[bad_teammate 13132]

The articles of impeachment exist for a reason. I understand the sentiment, but Comey is an idiot sap.

[Red Five 40665]

Nope. Get him out. Yesterday.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Nope. Get him out. Yesterday.

Gotta agree with this.  Their votes THIS November should, if the system works, take care of it.

[David Dennison 18660]

Impeachment is a complete waste of time unless you have the votes in the Senate to remove him from office. See: Bill Clinton.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

It's not a waste of time.  It shines a fairly bright light on some serious transgressions.  Whether or not the Senate is willing to follow through is another issue entirely.  The more the voters learn, the better.

[David Dennison 18660]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

It's not a waste of time.  It shines a fairly bright light on some serious transgressions.  Whether or not the Senate is willing to follow through is another issue entirely.  The more the voters learn, the better.

It won't shine a light on anything that isn't already known. See: Bill Clinton.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

You're an informed voter.  Many aren't.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It won't shine a light on anything that isn't already known. See: Bill Clinton.

A televised public impeachment trial in the Senate could alter public opinion on the matter.

I’m just saying, those senators are going to vote the way that’s politically favorable for them.

If enough damning evidence is brought to trial in one place at one time, some of those senators might reconsider voting against impeachment.

I don’t think many people comprehend how egregious Trump’s malfeasance has been over the time he’s been in office.  Laying it all out on the table at once will not look good.

[David Dennison 18660]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're an informed voter.  Many aren't.

My concern is that many of those voters will perceive impeachment as an attack on the president and he will benefit politically if he cannot be removed from office. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It won't shine a light on anything that isn't already known. See: Bill Clinton.

But it will put on record the Senators that refuse to vote to remove.   Didn't make a difference with Clinton because his offense wasn't worthy of removal from office.  If the allegations against Trump are substantiated, voting against removal will be a permanent scarlet letter.

[David Dennison 18660]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A televised public impeachment trial in the Senate could alter public opinion on the matter.

I’m just saying, those senators are going to vote the way that’s politically favorable for them.

If enough damning evidence is brought to trial in one place at one time, some of those senators might reconsider voting against impeachment.

I don’t think many people comprehend how egregious Trump’s malfeasance has been over the time he’s been in office.  Laying it all out on the table at once will not look good.

If it's that egregious, there won't be a trial in the Senate. He'll resign before it ever gets that far. I'd rather see him resign than have him benefit politically from a failed attempt to remove him in the Senate. 

[Incredulity 11555]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

But it will put on record the Senators that refuse to vote to remove.   Didn't make a difference with Clinton because his offense wasn't worthy of removal from office.  If the allegations against Trump are substantiated, voting against removal will be a permanent scarlet letter.

purgury isn't worthy of removal.  good to know.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If it's that egregious, there won't be a trial in the Senate. He'll resign before it ever gets that far. I'd rather see him resign than have him benefit politically from a failed attempt to remove him in the Senate. 

That’s my prediction. He will resign at the last second before an impeachment trial.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Most Americans seem to think lying about blowjobs is not worthy of removal.  Maybe this has something to do with the fact that over half of American married couples have at least one partner commit infidelity.

[DDD Dad 14252]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Most Americans seem to think lying about blowjobs is not worthy of removal.  Maybe this has something to do with the fact that over half of American married couples have at least one partner commit infidelity.

Not sure what purgury is but I think perjury is certainly worthy of removal.  It was of course about much more than a consensual blowjob (and I'll not sidetrack this thread with that discussion), but if you want to keep up a narrative that somehow WJC's impeachment was somehow unjustified to compare against DJT then by all means proceed.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

OK, I'll proceed.  Thanks for permission, Dad.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

purgury isn't worthy of removal.  good to know.

Not in that context.  And if I'm telling you something you didn't already know, you should go read up on Clinton's acquittal and the public opinion of it.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[yaqdum 182]

something else to keep in mind is the nov event.  if the results are surprising, that should impact the positions of senators who hope to continue their professional representation careers.  there may be some apparent growth of backbone and sense of responsibility.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not sure what purgury is but I think perjury is certainly worthy of removal.  It was of course about much more than a consensual blowjob (and I'll not sidetrack this thread with that discussion), but if you want to keep up a narrative that somehow WJC's impeachment was somehow unjustified to compare against DJT then by all means proceed.

For me, it depends on the perjury. Did the person lie to conceal an underlying crime?  Does the lying have any impact on national security or the day to day business of government? In Bill Clinton’s case, I would say no.  Therefore, I don’t think removal from office is justified for making false statements about a blowjob.

 Was it wrong and in poor judgment? Yes, but I think it’s important that the punishment fits the crime.

[Pods 7530]

5 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

something else to keep in mind is the nov event.  if the results are surprising, that should impact the positions of senators who hope to continue their professional representation careers.  there may be some apparent growth of backbone and sense of responsibility.

We usually call it an election in this country.

[yaqdum 182]

3 minutes ago, Pods said:

We usually call it an election in this country.

last one wasn't.

[yaqdum 182]

12 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

there may be some apparent growth of backbone and sense of responsibility.

that would be among senators going along for the ride.  those in the employ of putin won't have that option.

[Incredulity 11555]

23 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Not in that context.  And if I'm telling you something you didn't already know, you should go read up on Clinton's acquittal and the public opinion of it.

TIL the rule of law is based on public opinion and context.

I really don't see any downside to that.  You know law enforcement discretion, until not.  Like two black guys sitting in a coffee shop.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

If he has enriched himself as much as some think, I don't think him merely being a one-term president will deter other crooks from following his example. If he is voted out, the investigations him need to proceed as if he were still in office and he and his family and his flunkies need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Incredulity said:

TIL the rule of law is based on public opinion and context.

I really don't see any downside to that.  You know law enforcement discretion, until not.  Like two black guys sitting in a coffee shop.

You seriously don't understand the difference between legal process and impeachment, which is a political process?   Now I'm the one who is incredulous.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You seriously don't understand the difference between legal process and impeachment, which is a political process?   Now I'm the one who is incredulous.

His user name checks out.

[Incredulity 11555]

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You seriously don't understand the difference between legal process and impeachment, which is a political process?   Now I'm the one who is incredulous.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/impeachment-not-politics

[Incredulity 11555]

But, its good that you have the party line down.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I wonder if you are keeping a straight face saying that while literally copying and pasting someone else's opinion from an old op-ed.  Why don't you explain your own position in a couple of sentences.

[Texas_Rocks 346]

No one should have their head locked up the ass of either party to recognize that Comey is neither a man of honor or integrity.

*threadtitle

[Incredulity 11555]

Since the Executive is immune to prosecution, impeachment is the "legal" consequence that can be applied.

[David Dennison 18660]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Since the Executive is immune to prosecution, impeachment is the "legal" consequence that can be applied.

He can be prosecuted once he's out of office. That's why Ford pardoned Nixon.

[Incredulity 11555]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

He can be prosecuted once he's out of office. That's why Ford pardoned Nixon.

of course, but the swamp creatures really aren't into jail time for their own.  Maybe, Trump would be different?

[Grandioso 2592]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Comey said at the end impeachment now would let the American people off the hook and he hopes Trump isn’t impeached.

An unpopular opinion I share.

People need to take it upon themselves to remove Trump with their votes in November.

In 2.5 years?!?! The fact that 46 House Republicans are not seeking reelection tells me that they know what needs to be done/can't stop what's coming. If you are talking about THIS November vis a vis the House, yes. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Since the Executive is immune to prosecution, impeachment is the "legal" consequence that can be applied.

My God. you're all over the place trying to grasp for an argument that you don't even understand.   That position has nothing to do with the op-ed you just linked.  Did you even read it beyond the title? 

As for your argument, you're conflating the Executive with the president.   The president can suffer legal consequences after his term is over.   That is why Bill Clinton had to deal with potential criminal charges, which he essentially settled by admitting wrongdoing, paying the other side's fees, and giving up his law license for 5 years.   He was subject to potential criminal liability and the rule of law, entirely separate from the impeachment process.

And the impeachment process, from articles of impeachment to trial in the Senate, is absolutely a political process.   That there are governing legal standards doesn't make it otherwise.   There are legal standards governing the passage of legislation, too, but passing legislation is quintessentially political.

Clinton was acquitted in that process and public opinion strongly supported that acquittal.  There was no public price to the representatives who voted to acquit.   That means his offense was not worthy of removal.  Literally by definition.   It is the voters who have the last word on what is right and what is wrong here.

Even if the Senate is likely to acquit trump, if the offenses prove serious enough, the House should tee it up and make the Senate take a stand.   And the voters will decide if they got it right or wrong.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

In 2.5 years?!?! The fact that 46 House Republicans are not seeking reelection tells me that they know what needs to be done/can't stop what's coming. If you are talking about THIS November vis a vis the House, yes. 

I think he was talking about November, I know I am. 

It wouldn't make much sense if he wasn't, given the disaster the 2016 election was. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

51 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

If he has enriched himself as much as some think, I don't think him merely being a one-term president will deter other crooks from following his example. If he is voted out, the investigations him need to proceed as if he were still in office and he and his family and his flunkies need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I agree with this in principle but I think in general presidents don’t like to investigate their predecessors, because they don’t want a future president looking at their actions. It’s a very exclusive club. I think if there is hard evidence of very bad shit directly relating trump to Russia he resigns with a plan to avoid much real punishment other  than losing face. If the only findings backed by solid evidence are using campaign money to pay hush money to whores and / or criminal financial dealings from his recent past then I think he lets impeachment proceed with high likelihood of not getting convicted by the senate, but then either chooses not to run for re-election or loses his bid. I don’t see the feds coming after him for anything once he is out of office, though state AGs might

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Call me naive, but I think the Senate would convict if there is a smoking gun connecting Trump to Russian intelligence.  If Mueller can prove Cohen met with Russian operatives, paid off the Romanian hackers, coordinated the release of the stolen emails, or whatever, I think he's done and will resign.   If it's just paying off Stormy and obstructing the investigation of Flynn and that sort of thing, I think he gets impeached but not removed.  And he should face criminal consequences after his term is up.

[Sawbonz 27436]

I agree with all that including the “should face criminal consequences .“  I just don’t think he will

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I guess it kind of depends on what you or I mean.   In a manner of speaking, Bill Clinton faced criminal consequences.  He could and maybe would have been indicted had he not accepted certain punishments in a quasi-plea deal.   I could see Trump having to cop to some shit and pay some fines or something.   But a former president going to prison is hard to imagine.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

29 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Call me naive, but I think the Senate would convict if there is a smoking gun connecting Trump to Russian intelligence.  If Mueller can prove Cohen met with Russian operatives, paid off the Romanian hackers, coordinated the release of the stolen emails, or whatever, I think he's done and will resign.   If it's just paying off Stormy and obstructing the investigation of Flynn and that sort of thing, I think he gets impeached but not removed.  And he should face criminal consequences after his term is up.

It’s not just Russia when it comes to impeachment trial, it’s a slew of other abusive power stuff too.  Emoluments and attacks on the free press. Witnesses tampering/intimidation and character asassinations of private citizens, life long public servants, and private businesses.

His public attacks last week on Amazon was an egregious abuse of power which had a direct impact on the company’s stock performance.  It’s overtly picking winners and losers in the private sector.  

And on top of all that, there’s Russia and the continued pattern of obstructing justice and interference in the investigation.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s not just Russia when it comes to impeachment trial, it’s a slew of other abusive power stuff too.  Emoluments and attacks on the free press. Witnesses tampering/intimidation and character asassinations of private citizens, life long public servants, and private businesses.

His public attacks last week on Amazon was an egregious abuse of power which had a direct impact on the company’s stock performance.  It’s overtly picking winners and losers in the private sector.  

And on top of all that, there’s Russia and the continued pattern of obstructing justice and interference in the investigation.

I'm certainly not downplaying the seriousness of any of that, but I don't think it moves Trump to resign or Senate Republicans to convict.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Mojo Hand