(05-10-2017, 10:23 PM)xxlt Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/betting-odds-trump-impeachment-jump-comey-firing-204030599.html

From the article:

"The shocking news drew immediate comparisons to former President Richard Nixon's dismissal of the independent Watergate investigator Archibald Cox in 1973. Nixon resigned the following year after a congressional panel voted for impeachment.

By Wednesday, the odds for a Trump impeachment during his first term had risen from 2/1 to 4/6, representing a 60 percent chance, according to Lewis Davey, a spokesman for the Irish betting site Paddy Power."

(05-10-2017, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not commenting on the firing, the motive for the firing or anything to do with Trump.

It is amusing that the Democrats that have been howling for Comey's blood are now howling that he's been fired.   The hysteria and hyperbole in today's politics are at 11, it's ***** unwatchable.

(05-10-2017, 11:39 PM)hollodero Wrote:  It's gotten a completely different flavor under completely different circumstances.

(05-10-2017, 10:23 PM)xxlt Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/betting-odds-trump-impeachment-jump-comey-firing-204030599.html

From the article:

"The shocking news drew immediate comparisons to former President Richard Nixon's dismissal of the independent Watergate investigator Archibald Cox in 1973. Nixon resigned the following year after a congressional panel voted for impeachment.

By Wednesday, the odds for a Trump impeachment during his first term had risen from 2/1 to 4/6, representing a 60 percent chance, according to Lewis Davey, a spokesman for the Irish betting site Paddy Power."

(05-10-2017, 11:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nope, that is not a fair assessment of what the Democrats are doing and you're oversimplifying that.
Main reason: The chronology of events.
You can't (at least I think so) possibly think the whole Russia story is just "fake news", merely an insubstantial media invention. Never mind possible exaggeration, it has some true serious roots, Michael Flynn alone (and it's not him alone) justifies the attention. The warnings of many current or former members of CIA, FBI, NSA justify it. The Russia connections deserve being looked into, this is not a partisan stance. You have to be deeply partisan to see that differently.
So after Comey confirmed there was an investigation going on, the whole picture changed dramatically. 

Especially after that, Democrats sure did not ask Trump to fire the guy investigating him. You can see that as partisan change of heart, but it's also just a logical one. Whatever they asked before (which was resignation, which is something different than being fired by the president, but whatever) can't seriously be held against them now. It's gotten a completely different flavor under completely different circumstances. To not acknowledge that is just intellectual dishonesty.

(05-10-2017, 11:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nope, that is not a fair assessment of what the Democrats are doing and you're oversimplifying that.
Main reason: The chronology of events.
You can't (at least I think so) possibly think the whole Russia story is just "fake news", merely an insubstantial media invention. Never mind possible exaggeration, it has some true serious roots, Michael Flynn alone (and it's not him alone) justifies the attention. The warnings of many current or former members of CIA, FBI, NSA justify it. The Russia connections deserve being looked into, this is not a partisan stance. You have to be deeply partisan to see that differently.
So after Comey confirmed there was an investigation going on, the whole picture changed dramatically. 

Especially after that, Democrats sure did not ask Trump to fire the guy investigating him. You can see that as partisan change of heart, but it's also just a logical one. Whatever they asked before (which was resignation, which is something different than being fired by the president, but whatever) can't seriously be held against them now. It's gotten a completely different flavor under completely different circumstances. To not acknowledge that is just intellectual dishonesty.

(05-11-2017, 12:43 AM)Dill Wrote: The flavor got even spicier today as Trump brought the Russian Ambassador and foreign minister into the Oval Office with him today--along with a TASS reporter whom they didn't know was a TASS reporter.  Alarms all over the INTEL community about this.

Meantime, when a reporter asks Tillerson about the Comey firing, the Russian minister mocks her--exactly as he would Russian reporter.

(05-11-2017, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I beg to differ, sir.  Democrats have been accusing Comey of costing Hillary the election since 11/09/17 and have been howling for his blood.  You don't get to throw it in reverse for thirst now simply because Trump fired him.  Let me ask you this, if there is a real Russian connection, actual solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the US presidency, do you really think firing Comey, now, prevents that from ultimate discovery?  I would argue that to believe this is the height of naivete.  The Trump campaign has been under investigation for its alleged ties to Russia since long before election day, no solid proof has yet to be provided.  Is your assertion really that Comey's removal is the linchpin in assuring that such evidence is never procured?

In summation, it is absolutely a fair assessment.  Yesterday's howl for the scaffold has turned into today's cries for martyrdom.  You make the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, allow me to suggest that you have succumbed to the same malady of which you accuse others.

(05-11-2017, 07:17 AM)xxlt Wrote: Trump did it - of course it is the height of naivete! Have you not paid attention at all? He doesn't understand the Constitution, domestic policy, foreign policy, media relations, negotiations... he understands one thing - his prime directive, which is to do anything and everything he can to get himself more money - that's it!

Quote:There are plenty of popular political television shows set in Washington, D.C. – “Scandal,” “House of Cards,” “Madam Secretary,” etc. – and for people who’ve never worked in Beltway politics, it’s only natural to wonder which shows best capture real life.

The answer, of course, is “Veep.” In fact, it’s not even a close call.

Last night at the White House, for example, Press Secretary Sean Spicer didn’t seem altogether prepared for reporters’ questions about his boss firing the FBI director for reasons that don’t make sense. The Washington Post captured the scene:

Quote:After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this…. Can you just turn that light off?”

Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.

Let that sink in for a minute: the chief spokesperson for the president of the United States hid in the bushes, only to emerge after journalists agreed to talk to him in “near darkness.”

If we saw this on HBO, we’d laugh at the absurdity. Knowing that it happened in reality, it’s a lot less funny.

The Washington Post recently added “democracy dies in darkness” to its masthead. I had no idea that would turn out to be so literal.

(05-11-2017, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I beg to differ, sir.

(05-11-2017, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Democrats have been accusing Comey of costing Hillary the election since 11/09/17 and have been howling for his blood.  You don't get to throw it in reverse for thirst now simply because Trump fired him.

(05-11-2017, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me ask you this, if there is a real Russian connection, actual solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the US presidency, do you really think firing Comey, now, prevents that from ultimate discovery? I would argue that to believe this is the height of naivete.

(05-11-2017, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Trump campaign has been under investigation for its alleged ties to Russia since long before election day, no solid proof has yet to be provided.  Is your assertion really that Comey's removal is the linchpin in assuring that such evidence is never procured?

(05-11-2017, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In summation, it is absolutely a fair assessment.  Yesterday's howl for the scaffold has turned into today's cries for martyrdom.  You make the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, allow me to suggest that you have succumbed to the same malady of which you accuse others.

(05-11-2017, 07:17 AM)xxlt Wrote: Trump did it - of course it is the height of naivete! Have you not paid attention at all? He doesn't understand the Constitution, domestic policy, foreign policy, media relations, negotiations... he understands one thing - his prime directive, which is to do anything and everything he can to get himself more money - that's it!

(05-11-2017, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh no, why wouldn't you simply change your mind completely because some austrian arse says something? I'm so disappointed.

Quote:If he did it at the begin, no one would have. The "simply" part is not so much about him getting fired, it's about him getting fired right after the Russia investigation obvioulsy picked up pace.

Quote:I don't know... my guess would be, neither does Trump. He's surprisingly ignorant. It's not what I believe, in this case it's what he might believe.

Quote:It really is. Being more precise, it's the line of thinking I can see behind the firing. It's the only thing making sense. All the White House explanation don't do that.

Quote:You can suggest what you want, it's just that I laid out my line of thinking (you didn't, you just defended and blamed) and they are not fueled by partisanship, but by reason that seems solid to me. So you can't really call me intellectually dishonest, you'd have to call me stupid. Fair enough, but just to keep the terminology straight. Big difference.

Quote:As for Russia, nope no solid proof yet, but solid evidence about contacts, about Flynn not being properly vetted (or Russia/Turkey ties simply weren't cause for worry, which seems more likely), lying attorney generals, foreign agents, Carter Page and Paul Manafort, the FBI investigation. Warnings from FBI, CIA, NSA leaders - they're all partisan hacks to you? Nope there is so much there that a thorough investigation is more than justified. If you disagree with that, I accuse you in return of simply not caring about it. Then Trump were right, if he started shooting people on open street you'd just go "Hillary killed Americans in Benghazi, now Democrats are fake outraged about killing". You wouldn't care if he committed crimes, violated ethics and whatnot, you would be all for sweeping it under the rug, for it's Trump! A non-democrat! That's all that seems to matter to you. You go party over country here. J'accuse!

Quote:Let me ask you one question in return. Why do you even care about Democrats in the first place.

Quote:Without asking the far more important question - why Trumps sudden change of heart? At exactly this time? Because here's what's open to see. An intensifying investigation, an FBI director asking for new ressources.

Quote:And a president and investigation target who in response - fires him. And people like you cheering and applauding him for that.

Quote:I ask imploringly: Can't you see how flat-out bizarre that cheering looks from the outside? That you're not the least troubled? Not the least curious what's behind that gathering of strangehoods?

(05-11-2017, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In my very first post in this thread I took great pains to point out that I was not commenting on the merits of the Comey firing, merely pointing out the Dems insanely hypocritical reaction to it.

(05-11-2017, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not quite sure why you felt the need for such sarcasm, but ok.

(05-11-2017, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you admit your position on this issue is based on 100% speculation of what you believe to be in Trump's head.  This is an odd admission given your claim later in this post.

(05-11-2017, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Above, in this very post, you admitted that this is all speculation on your part.  That's fine and fair enough.  However, it doesn't exactly jive with your insult that all I am doing is blaming and deflecting.  I didn't call you stupid, I didn't even imply it.  Intellectual dishonesty is not synonymous with stupidity.  I am giving my opinion on the subject, the same as you.  I feel the reaction is hypocritical and hysterical.  You feel differently.  We have both explained our positions.

(05-11-2017, 11:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's right. I never intended to insult you. I just don't sugercoat my opinion. For the rest, see my paragraph above. Sorry for not addressing every point, but debates get very exhausting when splitted up too much. Here's the point I think is important: I said intellectual dishonesty, because I do not think you're stupid, that's the exact point. There's a part of you that knows exactly that you deliberately ignored the chronology of events to make a fuzz about Democrat's behavious. And yet you chose to follow through with that flawed line of logic to take a partisan stance. I can not wrap my head around that. 

(05-11-2017, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: If he did it at the begin, no one would have. The "simply" part is not so much about him getting fired, it's about him getting fired right after the Russia investigation obvioulsy picked up pace.

It really is. Being more precise, it's the line of thinking I can see behind the firing. It's the only thing making sense. All the White House explanation don't do that.

As for Russia, nope no solid proof yet, but solid evidence about contacts, about Flynn not being properly vetted (or Russia/Turkey ties simply weren't cause for worry, which seems more likely), lying attorney generals, foreign agents, Carter Page and Paul Manafort, the FBI investigation. Warnings from FBI, CIA, NSA leaders - they're all partisan hacks to you?

(05-11-2017, 11:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, you're right. Hard to separate though.

Quote:Wasn't directed against you. I would expect no one to be persuaded by me. In fact, I'd have a hard time if anyone actually did.

Quote:Yes, I freely admit that, it's the truth. I don't know exactly, maybe the Ghost of election past really persuaded Trump that Hillary was treated badly by Comey and needs to be revenged. I just think that or similar explanations are quite unlikely, and it's reasonable to believe that the uber-obvious explanation is the most likely one. My point would be, even if you disagree, you have to give that some consideration if you're serious about it.


And what really happens with the investigation is not a good counterpoint. Trump doesn't need to know that. There are tons of signs he doesn't know too much.

Quote:That's right. I never intended to insult you. I just don't sugercoat my opinion. For the rest, see my paragraph above. Sorry for not addressing every point, but debates get very exhausting when splitted up too much. Here's the point I think is important: I said intellectual dishonesty, because I do not think you're stupid, that's the exact point. There's a part of you that knows exactly that you deliberately ignored the chronology of events to make a fuzz about Democrat's behavious. And yet you chose to follow through with that flawed line of logic to take a partisan stance.

Quote:I can not wrap my head around that. What you said to me here has some merit and I tend to think about things, if I overdid it and offended you it was not my intention, just if I underdo it I get no responses usually, and I wanted one. But I addressed you as kind of a substitute for the FOX crowd, and that wasn't entirely fair. Sorry for that.

Quote:If you allow me to put things in my perspective: Your president just fired the FBI director that led an investigation against him. That sentence is factually correct, and it alone demands attention. The fact that it was out of the blue and immediately before the surprising act, said director requested more funds for the investigation that obvioulsy caught steam, adds to the smelly picture.

Quote:You can't ignore this smell without showing deep bias, you simply can't, considering all circumstances. Democrats play no role in that smelly picture, to focus on them is the wrong reaction, and I'm astonished you can not see this point entirely.

Quote:Even if they were the most awful hacks (which in general they probably are, in this case I think that's not fair to say, but even if), what does it matter? Why the mention? Trump mentions them out of deflection, just why do you follow his lead there. Using a very flawed narrative of left-wing hypocrisy, which honestly does sound a bit hysteric too. I don't get that.

Quote:Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “The dismissal of Director Comey establishes a very troubling pattern. This Administration has now removed several law enforcement officials in a position to conduct independent investigations of the President and his administration – from acting Attorney General Sally Yates to Preet Bharara, and now, Jim Comey. What should happen now … what must happen now … is that Mr. Rosenstein appoints a special prosecutor to oversee this investigation.”

(05-11-2017, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a perfect example of the utter horse crap being spouted on this issue.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roller-coaster-reactions-unfold-congress-day-comey-fired/

Sally Yates was fired for refusing to do her job, inane comparison.  Preet Bharara was dismissed as almost all US Attorney's are dismissed when a new administration takes over, inane comparison. 

Quote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sally-yates-ted-cruz-muslim-ban-testimony-hearing-legal-questions-video-a7725281.html


Sally Yates batted off cross-examination from Senator Ted Cruz during a testy exchange over Donald Trump's proposed travel ban during her Senate testimony on Russian meddling in the election.

Mr Cruz tried to challenge the former acting Attorney General's decision not to enforce Mr Trump's ban - the original version of which would have restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries - only to find that she had come prepared.

Ms Yates determined the executive order violated the “fundamental” right to freedom of religion and so stuck by the decision, which would eventually lead to her dismissal from her job. 

Republican Senator John Cornyn repeatedly chided Ms Yates for overruling the Office of Legal Counsel (OOLC)  within the Department of Justice that had determined the travel ban was lawful. 

He said the decision to make the determination of whether Mr Trump’s executive order was unlawful should have been left up to the courts. Mr Cornyn did not mention the district courts that have blocked the executive order. 

“The [OOLC] has a narrow function. They look at the face of the executive order...purely on its face,” she explained. 

That office does not take into account “extemporaneous” comments on the intent of the executive order, Ms Yates said. 


Ms Yates reminded Mr Cornyn that during her confirmation hearing under the Obama administration that she vowed, under oath, to tell the President if she was asked to do something she determined to be unlawful or “inconsistent with the principles of the Department of Justice.” 

Ted Cruz, the Republican Senator from Texas, read out the federal regulation relevant to the President’s authority regarding barring “aliens” from entering the US if it is “not in the best interest” of the country. 

Ms Yates then read another portion of the same regulation, passed after the portion to which Mr Cruz referred: “no person shall receive preference or be discriminated in issuance of a visa against because of race, nationality, or place of birth.” 

“That’s been part of the discussions with the courts...is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described,” Ms Yates explained. 

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar noted that the same day the “Muslim ban” executive order was signed was also the same day Ms Yates had a meeting with the White House to warn them about former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s ties to Russian officials. 

Ms Yates said the White House not only did not consult with her office about the order, but did not tell her it was coming either, adding that she found out about it from the media. 

"I did my job," Ms Yates said.