Freak Out Friday = June 9, 2017

It just never stops. Then again, I have no idea why the Trump family would care what we say. After all, according to son Eric, anyone who is in opposition to his father is not considered to be a person. Well, let’s see what concerns the non-people this week.

1). Blaming Democrats taken to a new level.. So Trump used his favorite means of communication, Twitter, to accuse Democrats of making it impossible to post people to offices. “Dems are taking forever to approve my people, including Ambassadors. They are nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Want approvals.”

Except here’s the problem: Trump has presented only a handful of nominations to the Senate after ordering that all politically appointed Ambassadors resign as of January 20. He did nominate ambassadors for China, Israel and the United Nations: all approved. The New Zealand ambassador is expected to be approved shortly by the full Senate. Nominees for the Bahamas, Japan and the Vatican are in various stages of the approvals process, and that’s it. In point of fact, including Ambassadors, there are 442 appointments waiting for names to be announced. That is somewhat insane, and the fact that Trump is blaming the Democrats (who are in the minority) for his inability and unwillingness to do his dámņëd job is just…

Well, actually, it’s typical.

2). Hope Springs Eternal.. Yesterday was James Comey Day, which became something of a national drinking game as bars put out challenges where free drinks would be served every time Trump posted: which, in a fit of sanity or self-restraint or good governing by his staff, he didn’t do. Comey, the guy who helped sink Hillary, sat in front of the Senate and–depending on who you were–either vindicated Trump (so said Trump, his attorney, and a handful of senators) or instead lay the groundwork for impeachment (everyone else, except for John McCain, who wound up spouting such an array of word salad that we just wanted to check him into Bellvue for 72 hours of observation.).

Not since Bill Clinton wanted to define the word “is” has a president’s language been so thoroughly parsed. It all comes down to Trump’s assertion that he “hoped” the Michael Flynn investigation would be halted. Was that an order or was it not? Obviously, it all comes down to context. If he says it as an offhand remark to four other guys while having drinks, yes, it’s a wish. When he says it one on one to the guy conducting the investigation, yes, it’s an order. Of course it is. When your father says to you, “I hope you understand what I’m telling you,” this isn’t a vague wish that you grasp the general principles. It’s an order. And if you don’t understand it, you’ll get punished. Which is exactly what happened to Comey. He did’t obey Trump’s wishes and he was fired. End of story. I’m sorry, but if you can impeach Clinton for lying about getting a bløw jøb, you MUST impeach Trump for trying to stop an investigation and firing the guy who was conducting it. It’s no more complicated than that.

Did he do anything right?. He didn’t tweet. Best thing he could have done.

PAD

10 comments on “Freak Out Friday = June 9, 2017

  1. While the chances that President Trump has committed acts worthy of impeachment are…well 100%, using the Clinton impeachment as a standard is flawed. The justification for trying to impeach Clinton out of office was woefully lacking.

    That said, Trump has obviously obstructed justice. It kind of looks like he’s looking at a list of Nixon’s various offenses and seeing if he can top him.

  2. The reason why Trump fired Comey is clear but I’ve learned as I get older that no one understands anything unless it happens to them. As long as it happens to someone else, you can come up with excuses, rationalizations and self-flattering lies to make anything seem okay.

    So let’s try this.

    Imagine is someone out there was saying “Peter David cheats on his wife with an 18-year-old høøkër.”

    Imagine if people started to repeat the story “Peter David cheats on his wife with an 18-year-old høøkër.”

    Imagine if the media starting running stories about how “Peter David cheats on his wife with an 18-year-old høøkër.”

    Imagine if the general public started believing “Peter David cheats on his wife with an 18-year-old høøkër.”

    Now imagine that someone who works for Peter David could PROVE that Peter David does NOT cheat on his wife with an 18-year-old høøkër…but refuses to do so.

    How long would that person continue to work for Peter David? I’d guess far less time than Comey kept working for Trump after doing the equivalent to him.

    And before anyone even tries, Comey had admitted to leaking info damaging to Trump so there were certainly no ethical or legal barriers to him leaking TRUTHFUL info about the President to stop people lying about him.

    Does that make it clearer?

    Mike

    1. Does that make it clearer?

      Nope, because Comey couldn’t

      …[leak] TRUTHFUL info about the President to stop people lying about him.

      because such info doesn’t exist, and Trump is the one lying – repeatedly and inconsistently/self-contradictingly.

    2. No, but that’s possibly because it has nothing to do with Comey and Trump. Or anything.

    3. No because
      1. Comey is not privately employed by Trump and does not owe him personal loyalty.
      2. You are talking about gossip and rumor where there is no potential crime. Criminal investigations have different standards and information is carefully controlled as to ensure that any criminal proceedings are not prejudiced. Sometimes that means people think people are guilty (without evidence) as a result. It’s the price we pay for a free justice system. And anyone, with any brains, who wants to be a political leader understands this.

    4. MBunge,
      .
      The major flaw in your… uhm… logic… is that it wasn’t something Comey could do. Here’s why.
      .
      (1) There is an active investigation going on. Comey was the head of the agency, the FBI, that was behind the investigation. As the head of the FBI, Comey could not comment on the specifics of that investigation in that manner.
      .
      (2) Here’s the fun part. Trump both is and is not being investigated. It’s a matter of very careful wording. Trump is not personally being investigated. However, the Trump campaign is. That basically means everyone who was a part of it is a part of the ongoing investigation.
      .
      As an example- If you go into a small, local police department to investigate police corruption, you don’t start a separate investigation into the Chief. You’re investigating everybody and seeing where the various lines of corruption take you. Everybody is a suspect, so the Chief is in fact a suspect, is in fact being investigated.
      .
      If the Chief asked an investigator if he, the Chief himself, was being investigated, the answer would be no. The Chief is not being investigated as an individual, but the Chief is a suspect in the larger investigation unless or until all evidence shows that the corruption does not reach that high.
      .
      If the Chief were to ask the head of the team doing the investigation could let everyone know that he’s not being investigated, he really can’t do that. It’s an active investigation for one thing, But, on top of that, it is not actually true. He is being investigated, he is just not specifically being personally investigated.
      .
      If the head of the team goes to make a statement to the press, it puts him in a weird position. First, he’s not allowed to make a statement like that about an ongoing investigation as it is. Second, if he tells the press that the Chief is not being personally investigated, he runs into the problem of getting asked questions.
      .
      If so much as one question is whether or not that means the Chief is not a suspect in the investigation at all or is not being investigated at all, he can’t answer. He can’t lie and say that the Chief is not a suspect in the investigation at all or is not being investigated at all, because the Chief is until the investigation is closed. He can’t say “No Comment” as his response, because you just end up back on square one.
      .
      So Comey did what he’s required to do. He kept his mouth shut.
      .
      And Trump fired him for doing his job properly and the Trump lied about it for days on end. But keep trying to defend the human šhìŧ stain.

  3. We live in a society in which definitions of terms are determined not by proper use of the language or personal honesty but by party affiliation. That and that alone will determine (by counted vote) whether it was an order or something less imperative.
    .
    We know the results of any questions from that.

  4. Did he do anything right?. He didn’t tweet.
    .
    Reports are that his staff made sure his morning was filled with meetings and other things to distract him so he couldn’t watch the TV.
    .
    Having to jingle keys at the President to keep him from doing something stupid IS NOT NORMAL.

  5. We should all watch Harvard Law professor and Hillary supporter Alan Dershowitz on CNN, it’s hilarious. He’ explains that impeachment is a political process with no judicial review, congress could impeach a president for jay-walking.

    That being said he is in the uncomfortable position of defending trump, because he loves the rule of law more than he hates trump. Alan Dershowitz shockingly states that nothing trump has done is illegal. It turns out it’s legal for your boss to tell you how to do your job. Even if trump outright ordered Comey to drop the investigation, according to constitional law that is completely legal. Comey even admits in his testimony that historically presidents have done so and only in recent tradition has Presidents taken a hands off approach, but unfortunately tradition is not the law.

    If we impeach a president for something that’s not illegal,
    Hold onto your hats ’cause don’t think Repbulicans won’t do the exact same thing to the next democratic president.

Comments are closed.