MistyTiger wrote:Do you know how much time and effort it takes to find replacements for everyone? And if he fires the janitors, will he clean his own messes in the WH? Lol.
Low level staffers are easy to replace. High level staff...not so much. However, if the leaks are actually true--and with the media's lack of credibility these days, it wouldn't surprise me if they were making half this shit up--then Trump needs to start replacing White House staff.
MistyTiger wrote:She is smarter without him. Since she married him, she is less intelligent. I bet that if she says anything he doesn't like to hear, he tells her to STFU.
Now where is my barf bag?
*finds a bag labelled "GOP stuff" and then throws up in it and leaves it on the table* That is what janitors are for. 
Psychic defense...
Hong Wu wrote:I read that the DoJ has appointed a special prosecutor for the Russians thing. I wonder if he can do his job without seeing the DNC servers that were allegedly hacked? The DNC is going to have to start attacking the special prosecutor, wow... the third scoop of ice cream has been served.
Well that's what makes this whole thing interesting. We've been told that 17 different intelligence agencies all agree that Russia hacked the DNC. Yet, none of them have examined the server, and the DNC refused to let the FBI examine it. That's a pretty interesting omission for people claiming a foreign state or non-state actor is responsible.
Hong Wu wrote:Regarding the Comey memo, apparently Comey testified under oath that no such event happened after the date the memo is alleged to have been written and the FBI investigation into Flynn concluded before the memo was allegedly written. The odds of this handwritten memo described by an anonymous person who didn't write it appearing are of course low, the WaPo story was on a spectrum from impossible to inconsequential but the media has been going all out.
Well, here is where it starts getting interesting. This week--and it's amazing that it has to be Rush Limbaugh to point this out--Limbaugh noted:
Does Anyone Remember What James Comey Said Under Oath?Limbaugh wrote:On May 3rd, FBI director James Comey, under oath, testified that he had not experienced any attempts to stop the FBI from doing any investigation. This week an unknown, unidentified person called a New York Times reporter and read to him a memo that supposedly Comey had written after a meeting with Trump back on Valentine’s Day where Trump hoped that the Flynn matter would not proceed further, three weeks after the FBI had cleared Flynn.
See? Now that you have a Special Prosecutor, this could blow up in Deep State's face.
Limbaugh wrote:Would just see clear to let it go. What was there to let go? After that, Comey didn’t tell anybody about this. We’re led to believe that the president attempted to obstruct justice or interfere in in the investigation, and Comey said not a word, which he is legally obligated to do. If somebody in the regime steps up and tries to interfere in your investigation, that’s obstruction of justice; you have a duty to report that to the DOJ. You don’t sit on that. But Comey didn’t report it to anybody.
Nobody knew about it ’til this anonymous source calls the New York Times and reads to them the text of the Comey memo.
So do we have more fake news? Or... is it true, in which case Comey may have perjured himself before Congress and committed a misprision of felony by not informing the DoJ?
How Did Russiagate Start?Rolling Stone wrote:Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on This Week Sunday, and said some head-scratching things.
...
In his Senate testimony, Clapper went out of his way to say this didn't contradict his earlier statements. But if he's not contradicting himself, he's certainly added a layer of confusion to what is already the most confusing political scandal ever.
...
Even so, there was no way to listen to the March 5th interview and not come away feeling like Clapper believed he would have known of the existence of a FISA warrant, or of any indications of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, had they existed up until the time he left office on January 20th of this year.
Todd went out of his way to hammer at the question of whether or not he knew of any evidence of collusion. Clapper again said, "Not to my knowledge." Here Todd appropriately pressed him: If it did exist, would you know?
To this, Clapper merely answered, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government."
That's not an unequivocal "yes," but it's close. There's no way to compare Clapper's statements on March 5th to his interviews last week and not feel that something significant changed between then and now.
See? And now this is happening with Clapper too. Did he lie to Chuck Todd? That's not a big problem, because that's not under oath. If he lied in testimony to Congress, that's a problem. Either way, you have a conflict in statements, which means they can be admitted as evidence to a grand jury.
Rolling Stone wrote:Clapper's statements seem even stranger in light of James Comey's own testimony in the House on March 20th.
In that appearance, Comey – who by then had dropped his bombshell about the existence of an investigation into Trump campaign figures – was asked by New York Republican Elise Stefanik when he notified the DNI about his inquiry.
"Good question," Comey said. "Obviously, the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along. The DNI, I don't know what the DNI's knowledge of it was, because we didn't have a DNI – until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning."
Comey was saying that he hadn't briefed the DNI because between January 20th, when Clapper left office, and March 16th, when former Indiana senator and now Trump appointee Dan Coats took office, the DNI position was unfilled.
But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January?
If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January?
Bingo. This is how a case collapses in the wake of cross-examination and sometimes the plaintiff is the one who ends up in trouble.
Rolling Stone wrote:But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th?
What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
However, I think we should focus on the more important question. If Trump colluded with Russia to hack the DNC's server, why didn't the DNC admit the server into evidence to the FBI? Why are the Democrats pushing this investigation, while at the same time hiding the most important piece of evidence from law enforcement?
Zagadka wrote:Wonder how he is going to get taken off the case.
When he demands to see the server, the Democrats will flip, because they have probably already destroyed the incriminating evidence if there ever was any.
SpecialOlympian wrote:A magical alternate reality where the a career bureaucrat/top cop of the Federal Bureau of Investigation does not keep meticulous records while investigating the sitting president, if only as a cover your ass measure.
You are the resident expert on alternate realities. However, Comey testified under oath that he wasn't pressured and that there was no attempt to impede the investigation. If he changes his tune, he's guilty of a felony while there is a special counsel lurking about.
Hong Wu wrote:Sorry but I am pretty confident that in order to progress under the assumption that the DNC server was hacked by Russia, they will have to prove up to some sort of standard that the server was hacked, and by Russia. This won't be possible without examining the server.
Examining by law enforcement... That's the most interesting part of this scandal. They are claiming Trump committed an impeachable offense, while at the same time preventing the only physical evidence in the case from being examined by the FBI's forensic experts. 17 intelligence agencies offering an assessment without examining the evidence is speculation. Hearsay isn't a strong foundation for a case.
Hong Wu wrote:He's a registered Republican. He's not going to oppose Trump out of some sort of liberal principle.
Let's not pretend that he's going to be any friend of Trump's. This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's always been about the establishment losing this presidential election.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
- By Potemkin
- By Skynet