Two very strange men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 pages and no one brought up that Trump also said he might consider no longer having WH press conferences?!

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this. Like there really isn't much *there* there with Russia, but the goal is to send Dems into a tizzy demanding an investigation. When it doesn't reveal outright collusion, even overt graft and money laundering won't look so bad. And he's sowing the seeds of building just enough support that he will be able to remain in office. Democratic norms be damned.

Actually I think not having the press conferences is a good idea. Obama had very few, but Trump seems to love the drama of it all and started the daily press briefings.
I say, go fo it, don't have those press conferences. I mean, he already barred the press from his Russian meeting (and allowed the Russian photographer) so why not?

That, plus making threats on Twitter, is mind boggling. It might be best if he sticks to Twitter where everything he says can be preserved for future investigations; he can't deny it or place blame on his staff. I mean, he just pulled a Nixon this morning and it's out there for everyone to see--no matter whether Trump or staff removes it or not.

No, there have been daily White House press briefings forever. Remember Helen Thomas, sitting in the front row? The time Mike McCurry came out with a paper bag on his head and said "anonymous sources say...."? Allison Janney's character on the West Wing was the press secretary and she did the briefings.

Presidential press conferences are something else.

Correct. Under Obama Josh Earnest had a White House press briefing every weekday. They just weren't televised all the time.

I'm the PP, good to know.

Anonymous wrote:Just in case you're not joking, by publicly announcing this he just waived any right to executive privilege on this issue.

Can you elaborate on this, please?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think this is right. And, sadly, I think Rosenstein basically got punished for trying to do the right thing.

While there are many gaps of evidence, the narrative best fitting the facts is that when Rosenstein was confirmed, he was asked to put together a memo detailing Comey's mistakes/errors. He dutifully did his job, but very purposefully did not recommend removal and went on to explain what a big deal it would be to make this decision. I believe he felt that maybe he could thread the needle of making Trump feel like he was getting what he wanted while also talking some sense into him...which might explain some of the more colorful language condemning Comey's behavior in his memo.

Of course, Rosenstein got completely played to the point where you now have anonymous sources leaking that he was angry at being used as an excuse for the firing. I've said it before, but under normal circumstances once any political appointee becomes the story, it's best for them to step down. But most of Trump's appointees have been stories since their nominations, so...

All of the WH intrigue being reported is not normal. Bannon is now out of the news, but there is a whole new crop of incompetents to focus on...not to mention Conway's return to the spotlight. The only explanations are (1) it's a complete sh1tsh0w there or (2) Trump, knowing only how to sow Reality TV drama, is doing so. Of course, there's also the possibility both are true. And so far we're probably being protected by our largest military in the history of humanity being a deterrent to any enemies messing with us. Never in my life have I been so grateful for our bloated military.

I guess I don't understand this. The Director of the FBI can be a household name. It's a powerful job, but not a political one. When the Director of the FBI is a household name, that may say something about the man, or it may say something about the times and current events.

As for Comey himself, certainly lots of people disagreed with Comey's actions last year. But Trump fired him for reasons unrelated to last year.

Not trying to defend Trump's actions. My point is in a "normal" circumstance, which we are not in whatever his defenders might say. I think it's rare for FBI Director's since Hoover to be household names with the level of recognition Comey has had. And it's true that the perception of his impartiality has been compromised for a while...which under *normal* circumstances is damaging enough to law enforcement that it's not a great idea for a Director to continue. Along these lines, the Democrats anti-Comey drumbeat has been unhelpful, to say the least, given that they should at least have understood the deeper consequences of his ouster.

In an idea situation, the FBI Director would be perceived as completely impartial. Until very recently, he has been vilified by the left more than the right. This, in and of itself, made him less than an ideal Director...and in normal times it would be good to replace him. The problem is that currently no one (okay, a minority of Americans) trusts Trump to replace him with an impartial (or even competent) person. It's a statement on how broken our Executive Branch currently is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the tweet. Why would anyone telling the truth hope that tapes of the conversation in question don't exist?

It's called Executive Priviledge and I would hope that anyone conversing with a President, off the record or not, and especially a member of the administration would respect that confidentiality. I really think Trump is just saying that Comey should adhere to the protocol of the office, something any President would expect. You really are blowing this way out of proportion, but that seems to be the way these days. This is why Trump is always tweeting, not because he is an attention whore, he is probably just trying to get the truth out there, not the media talking point. The left is coming at him full throttle day and night and has been for sometime now, with no signs of stopping. Most of us who support Trump have gotten use to it and simply tune out and turn off any of the left's noise at this point, you are falling on deaf ears. In fact, you seem a little crazy at this point. Hopefully Trump will learn to ignore anything they say, press or not, and stop thinking he can change the left's minds. It won't happen, ever. He will never get the press to cover him fairly and he will never get the support of the left. And it saddens me to add that I will never be able to find anything in common with the left, you are too confrontational and controlling for my needs. This really saddens me, for my children and my country.

Just in case you're not joking, by publicly announcing this he just waived any right to executive privilege on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 pages and no one brought up that Trump also said he might consider no longer having WH press conferences?!

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this. Like there really isn't much *there* there with Russia, but the goal is to send Dems into a tizzy demanding an investigation. When it doesn't reveal outright collusion, even overt graft and money laundering won't look so bad. And he's sowing the seeds of building just enough support that he will be able to remain in office. Democratic norms be damned.

Actually I think not having the press conferences is a good idea. Obama had very few, but Trump seems to love the drama of it all and started the daily press briefings.
I say, go fo it, don't have those press conferences. I mean, he already barred the press from his Russian meeting (and allowed the Russian photographer) so why not?

That, plus making threats on Twitter, is mind boggling. It might be best if he sticks to Twitter where everything he says can be preserved for future investigations; he can't deny it or place blame on his staff. I mean, he just pulled a Nixon this morning and it's out there for everyone to see--no matter whether Trump or staff removes it or not.

No, there have been daily White House press briefings forever. Remember Helen Thomas, sitting in the front row? The time Mike McCurry came out with a paper bag on his head and said "anonymous sources say...."? Allison Janney's character on the West Wing was the press secretary and she did the briefings.

Presidential press conferences are something else.

Correct. Under Obama Josh Earnest had a White House press briefing every weekday. They just weren't televised all the time.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the tweet. Why would anyone telling the truth hope that tapes of the conversation in question don't exist?

Because he's an habitual liar who instinctively tries to lie his way out of every bad situation. It's normal for him.

Anonymous wrote:
I think this is right. And, sadly, I think Rosenstein basically got punished for trying to do the right thing.

While there are many gaps of evidence, the narrative best fitting the facts is that when Rosenstein was confirmed, he was asked to put together a memo detailing Comey's mistakes/errors. He dutifully did his job, but very purposefully did not recommend removal and went on to explain what a big deal it would be to make this decision. I believe he felt that maybe he could thread the needle of making Trump feel like he was getting what he wanted while also talking some sense into him...which might explain some of the more colorful language condemning Comey's behavior in his memo.

Of course, Rosenstein got completely played to the point where you now have anonymous sources leaking that he was angry at being used as an excuse for the firing. I've said it before, but under normal circumstances once any political appointee becomes the story, it's best for them to step down. But most of Trump's appointees have been stories since their nominations, so...

All of the WH intrigue being reported is not normal. Bannon is now out of the news, but there is a whole new crop of incompetents to focus on...not to mention Conway's return to the spotlight. The only explanations are (1) it's a complete sh1tsh0w there or (2) Trump, knowing only how to sow Reality TV drama, is doing so. Of course, there's also the possibility both are true. And so far we're probably being protected by our largest military in the history of humanity being a deterrent to any enemies messing with us. Never in my life have I been so grateful for our bloated military.

I guess I don't understand this. The Director of the FBI can be a household name. It's a powerful job, but not a political one. When the Director of the FBI is a household name, that may say something about the man, or it may say something about the times and current events.

As for Comey himself, certainly lots of people disagreed with Comey's actions last year. But Trump fired him for reasons unrelated to last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Comey is being threatened, will the FBI provide him with security?

Thread title is silly. Trump "threatened" Comey with the truth. "If you don't tell the truth, I'll show the world tape evidence, if there's any."

Oh yeah? Bring it and put up or shut up. Trump will try and wiggle out of his threat like he tried to with the wiretap accusation.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, I believe that Trump did want to fire Comey. I also think that he jumped at the chance to let the dep AG take responsibility.

I think this is right. And, sadly, I think Rosenstein basically got punished for trying to do the right thing.

While there are many gaps of evidence, the narrative best fitting the facts is that when Rosenstein was confirmed, he was asked to put together a memo detailing Comey's mistakes/errors. He dutifully did his job, but very purposefully did not recommend removal and went on to explain what a big deal it would be to make this decision. I believe he felt that maybe he could thread the needle of making Trump feel like he was getting what he wanted while also talking some sense into him...which might explain some of the more colorful language condemning Comey's behavior in his memo.

Of course, Rosenstein got completely played to the point where you now have anonymous sources leaking that he was angry at being used as an excuse for the firing. I've said it before, but under normal circumstances once any political appointee becomes the story, it's best for them to step down. But most of Trump's appointees have been stories since their nominations, so...

All of the WH intrigue being reported is not normal. Bannon is now out of the news, but there is a whole new crop of incompetents to focus on...not to mention Conway's return to the spotlight. The only explanations are (1) it's a complete sh1tsh0w there or (2) Trump, knowing only how to sow Reality TV drama, is doing so. Of course, there's also the possibility both are true. And so far we're probably being protected by our largest military in the history of humanity being a deterrent to any enemies messing with us. Never in my life have I been so grateful for our bloated military.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 pages and no one brought up that Trump also said he might consider no longer having WH press conferences?!

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this. Like there really isn't much *there* there with Russia, but the goal is to send Dems into a tizzy demanding an investigation. When it doesn't reveal outright collusion, even overt graft and money laundering won't look so bad. And he's sowing the seeds of building just enough support that he will be able to remain in office. Democratic norms be damned.

Actually I think not having the press conferences is a good idea. Obama had very few, but Trump seems to love the drama of it all and started the daily press briefings.
I say, go fo it, don't have those press conferences. I mean, he already barred the press from his Russian meeting (and allowed the Russian photographer) so why not?

That, plus making threats on Twitter, is mind boggling. It might be best if he sticks to Twitter where everything he says can be preserved for future investigations; he can't deny it or place blame on his staff. I mean, he just pulled a Nixon this morning and it's out there for everyone to see--no matter whether Trump or staff removes it or not.

No, there have been daily White House press briefings forever. Remember Helen Thomas, sitting in the front row? The time Mike McCurry came out with a paper bag on his head and said "anonymous sources say...."? Allison Janney's character on the West Wing was the press secretary and she did the briefings.

Presidential press conferences are something else.

Anonymous wrote:But you are?

I strive to be the best me I can be. And I wake up grateful. God will be my judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who's ever watched an action flick or any prime time TV has probably at some point heard cops say that phrase to a perp, "...anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law..."- apparently Trump hasn't ever encountered that piece of his advice and his lawyers haven't bothered to fill him in on that.

I don't know anymore. Information in this book I am reading on confessions can actually get a person off after all kinds of confessions. I know I sound simple to trained criminal attorneys but, I'm enthralled by what I am learning.

Confessing is not as bad an idea as movies make it out to be. But random statements tweeted to the public can be used against you. Trump has successfully gotten out of trouble in the past by shredding documents and paying fines. That won't work now.

"Being used against you" is quite a broad statement.

I am obviously not a criminal attorney and would never offer legal advice. I have more respect for them after a little reading.

Difference between Trump and Clinton--Clinton carefully crafter her lies. Trump has no filter. I don't think he believes he is lying. I think what you see is what you get. I have no idea of what his discussion was with Comey--but I believe that Comey did reassure him in some way. Whether it was as Trump says, I am not sure.

Also, I believe that Trump did want to fire Comey. I also think that he jumped at the chance to let the dep AG take responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 pages and no one brought up that Trump also said he might consider no longer having WH press conferences?!

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this. Like there really isn't much *there* there with Russia, but the goal is to send Dems into a tizzy demanding an investigation. When it doesn't reveal outright collusion, even overt graft and money laundering won't look so bad. And he's sowing the seeds of building just enough support that he will be able to remain in office. Democratic norms be damned.

Who cares if he doesn't have WH press conferences any more? There would be a bit less entertainment. And fewer lies. Beyond that, I don't care.

Ugh, explain how we stay informed and keep him in check is there are no press conferences?

Can you explain to me the function of the press conferences and of the free press, it kind of serves a purpose.

Press conferences and the free press are entirely separate things. Can you explain to me why we need WH press conferences? Trump tweets enough on his own.

They aren't going to give up press conferences. They need them.