CrimsonWeltall Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 06:50 PM) And yes, firing Comey was the biggest, dumbest move Trump could have made. That is the big move that counters what i'm arguing. Seemingly Trump could have fired Comey simply for not being good at the PR game and pissing everyone in Washington off, but it sure comes off as Comey being fired for not "taking care" of the Russia problem for him. Yes, especially in light of the fact that the rationale for Comey kept changing and didn't make much sense. I'm not sold on Donald Trump himself being in collusion with Russia. I think it's more likely that some of his associates (guys like Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Page) were, and Donald Trump is a gullible vehicle for them to get things done. Trump's obstruction of justice comes across - to me - less like he's hiding personal guilt and more like he's just unbelievably ignorant of ethical/legal norms. The investigations into Flynn and his campaign were problems. He wanted them to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:56 PM) To be clear: i'm not saying Trump shouldn't be impeached. I would be all for getting rid of him. However, I think that's such a huge step in our democracy that it shouldn't be based on "ifs" or "maybes" or "this is what he meant..." It should be pretty concrete, otherwise we open the door to impeachment proceedings for every little thing. To me, his statements about Flynn are Blago-like act with the horse trading. Is it wrong? Yes. Are these sorts of things (protect your friends and put in good words for them) done all the time in politics? Perhaps i'm wrong, but I assume this is rather common practice. His more egregious act, IMO, was firing Comey, not asking Comey to be nice to his friend. But Blago is in Jail! To me, it's the fact that there was follow-up. But here was basically the line that turned the tide on Nixon (asking CIA to get FBI to stop going forward) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBvQ2bKW0AAY6Kw.jpg And we have rumors and I assume eventual testimony that the DNI was requested to also ask the FBI director to cut it out. FBI was supposed to be independent. Meeting alone with him and even discussing him is censure-worthy. But this is clear obstruction. Honestly to me it's more explicit than blagos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:01 PM) But Blago is in Jail! To me, it's the fact that there was follow-up. But here was basically the line that turned the tide on Nixon (asking CIA to get FBI to stop going forward) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBvQ2bKW0AAY6Kw.jpg And we have rumors and I assume eventual testimony that the DNI was requested to also ask the FBI director to cut it out. FBI was supposed to be independent. Meeting alone with him and even discussing him is censure-worthy. But this is clear obstruction. Honestly to me it's more explicit than blagos. There was a WaPo story yesterday reporting that Dan Coats, DNI, was asked by Trump to intervene with Comey on the Russia probe. He had been overheard saying something similar several weeks back after the last time he was up on the hill, but it wasn't really reported then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:59 PM) Yes, especially in light of the fact that the rationale for Comey kept changing and didn't make much sense. I'm not sold on Donald Trump himself being in collusion with Russia. I think it's more likely that some of his associates (guys like Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Page) were, and Donald Trump is a gullible vehicle for them to get things done. Trump's obstruction of justice comes across - to me - less like he's hiding personal guilt and more like he's just unbelievably ignorant of ethical/legal norms. The investigations into Flynn and his campaign were problems. He wanted them to go away. Exactly, and what Comey's statement shows, to me, is that Trump was more pissed that Comey wasn't putting it out there publicly that he, Trump, was not being investigated. Edited June 7, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 But he was still asking Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, and he was asking other people to ask Comey to do that as well. How is that not trying to obstruct justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 We know reality is broken because Bill Kristol makes interesting, informed statements these days. Bill Kristol @BillKristol Not described by Comey in his written statement: Four of the phone calls with Trump; any interactions with WH staff; interactions with AG. 1:59pm · 7 Jun 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) We know reality is broken because Bill Kristol makes interesting, informed statements these days. He's been a very outspoken anti-Trump, this is a circus admn, critic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:07 PM) There was a WaPo story yesterday reporting that Dan Coats, DNI, was asked by Trump to intervene with Comey on the Russia probe. He had been overheard saying something similar several weeks back after the last time he was up on the hill, but it wasn't really reported then. This is a little odd: Hale said in a statement: “Director Coats does not discuss his private conversations with the President. However, he has never felt pressured by the President or anyone else in the Administration to influence any intelligence matters or ongoing investigations.” Isn't Coats testifying this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) He testified today, and it was a ton of "no comments" from him and Rogers. This was the money exchange: https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/872483529338216448 also this one, right before it: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-you-feel-i...ring-questions/ Edited June 7, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 07:16 PM) This is a little odd: Isn't Coats testifying this week? This morning. It was heated. Rogers and Coats both said they were not "pressured" or "directed" to interfere with any investigations. Marco Rubio came out of left field and asked very specifically if they were ever "asked" to interfere with investigations. They reiterated that they were not "directed". Rubio responded "Not directed. Asked." Both Rogers and Coats clammed up and refused to address the question because it was "inappropriate" to discuss. Then a number of Senators hammered them over and over with the same questions along with demands for a rationale for why it was appropriate to tell them they weren't directed, but inappropriate to tell them they weren't asked. At one point, Rogers got so fed up with it he told Kamala Harris that she wasn't going to trick him into revealing something just by asking it a different way. Both men indicated they'd be more willing to talk about conversations with Trump in a closed hearing. McCabe and Rosenfield were also there. They pretty much didn't want to talk about anything, saying it could step on Mueller's toes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:43 PM) And if it were a Clinton, the Dems would already have their list of reasons why they weren't trying to influence the AG... er, Head of FBI. Bring up Obama next or nah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:44 PM) This morning. It was heated. Rogers and Coats both said they were not "pressured" or "directed" to interfere with any investigations. Marco Rubio came out of left field and asked very specifically if they were ever "asked" to interfere with investigations. They reiterated that they were not "directed". Rubio responded "Not directed. Asked." Both Rogers and Coats clammed up and refused to address the question because it was "inappropriate" to discuss. Then a number of Senators hammered them over and over with the same questions along with demands for a rationale for why it was appropriate to tell them they weren't directed, but inappropriate to tell them they weren't asked. At one point, Rogers got so fed up with it he told Kamala Harris that she wasn't going to trick him into revealing something just by asking it a different way. Both men indicated they'd be more willing to talk about conversations with Trump in a closed hearing. McCabe and Rosenfield were also there. They pretty much didn't want to talk about anything, saying it could step on Mueller's toes. Rosenstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Trey Gowdy to head House Oversight Committee Gowdy was one of the chief BENGHAZI! guys. Expect the politicization to increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 Brian Williams on @MSNBC says a source tells him and @NicolleDWallace they're not sure Trump knew there were Americans stationed in Qatar. 12:16pm · 8 Jun 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 The stories on how badly both The Intercept and Reality Winner herself messed up handling the leak and gave away her identity are pretty ridiculous. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realit...4b0b13f2c67ce7d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 To cap off an historic Infrastructure Week, Trump gave a press conference in which he appeared to decry the idea of engineering being involved in infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Week has been incredible, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 08:55 AM) The stories on how badly both The Intercept and Reality Winner herself messed up handling the leak and gave away her identity are pretty ridiculous. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realit...4b0b13f2c67ce7d I still can't get over that her name is Reality Winner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 12:22 PM) I still can't get over that her name is Reality Winner... And she's 25 so she was born before the Reality TV craze started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 proof that this is really a computer simulation that we're all living in, and something's gone horribly awry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 11:55 AM) To cap off an historic Infrastructure Week, Trump gave a press conference in which he appeared to decry the idea of engineering being involved in infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Week has been incredible, btw. what did he say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 12:59 PM) what did he say? It was mainly whining about regulations but his props were 11x17 binders full of "unnecessary paperwork" that looked suspiciously like engineering packages for some big highway project somewhere. Maybe it's just because I'm a liberal snowflake but I think engineering designs are good for major infrastructure projects. Edited June 9, 2017 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 01:06 PM) It was mainly whining about regulations but his props were 11x17 binders full of "unnecessary paperwork" for some big highway project somewhere. Maybe it's just because I'm a liberal snowflake but I think engineering designs are good for major infrastructure projects. As a civil engineer, I would agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 You know what's a small thing that annoys me to an outsized degree, but for seemingly no reason at all a report that was aimed to understand the cost discrepancies between New Yorks subway expansion to other cities/countries was defunded, so in the future if a big dense city wants to do an infrastructure project it doesn't know why it costs 10x per mile to do it in US v. France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) You know what's a small thing that annoys me to an outsized degree, but for seemingly no reason at all a report that was aimed to understand the cost discrepancies between New Yorks subway expansion to other cities/countries was defunded, so in the future if a big dense city wants to do an infrastructure project it doesn't know why it costs 10x per mile to do it in US v. France It seems odd to me that it would cost 10x as much in a country like France, but I can assure you one thing. It is not the professional services (engineering services) driving this cost discrepancy. We are paid well relative to other professions as a whole but not THAT well and typically account for only ~10-25% of the entire project cost depending upon complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Other countries manage to build out infrastructure not only cheaper but faster and usually with more regulatory hurdles than the US has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts