[RD] Justice Department appoints Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor for Trump Case

[Kozmos]

"Slick" is the word the right has settled on to color people's responses to Comey's testimony. It's very cleverly chosen. You'll get my rhetorical analysis of it in time. Gotta get back to the hearing itself, though.

I use it to mean he handles him very well. Though that could just be the advantage of speaking truthfully and carefully.

Comey: I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting and so I thought it really important to document

----

Sen. Ron Wyden (D):

Did that dinner suggest that your job might be contingent on how you handled the investigation...

Comey:

...I got the sense my job would be contingent on how he thought I conducted myself and whether I demonstrated loyalty

----

Sen. Susan Collins (R):

Later on, upon reflection, did you go anyone at the DOJ and ask them to call the Whitehouse COuncil's office and explain that the President had to have a far better understanding and appreciation of his role vis-a-vis the FBI

Comey:

I did. I spoke to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General... and explained my serious concern about the way in which the President is interacting, especially with the FBI... I told the Attorney General 'it can't happen that you get kicked out the room and the President talks to me'

----

Sen. Angus King (I):

In his interview with Lester Holt, on NBC, the President said 'I had dinner with him, he wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on'... Did you, in any way, initiate that dinner.

Comey:

No.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sen. Angus King (I):

In his interview with Lester Holt, on NBC, the President said 'I had dinner with him, he wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on'... Did you, in any way, initiate that dinner.

Comey:

No.

If we tried to quote every exchange that equates to "Is the president a bald faced liar?" "Well, yes, in fact he is." it would take a dozen posts.

 

[Gori the Grey]

We'd get up to the 1000 needed to make this a serial thread!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm liking my new senator.

This dingbat Republican tried to play "The president of the United States buttonholed you alone and raised the investigation of Flynn, but he only said he hoped you would do something. How can we say that expressing a hope is a directive." Now, I admit that I have used "I hope" to insulate myself from criminal consequences. In fact I have directly said "expressing a hope has no element of intention so NO I did NOT threaten you when I said "I hope you die on the job" or "I hope if you get shot they miss your vest." It's an edgy but useful point of law.

But I rolled when Kamala Harris said "Mr Comey, as former prosecutors I'm sure we have both said, at some point in dealing with a robbery, "when a man holding a gun says 'I hope you will give me your wallet' the most significant point is not his use of the word 'hope.'"

 

[Sommerswerd]

Don - "Give me your wallet"
Jim - "No"
Don - "I hope you can let this wallet go." *pulls out gun and pulls back the hammer* 'click' *points gun at Jim* "I hope you can see your way clear to letting that money go, to letting this wallet go."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So I watched Dingbat Don's attorney responding on, of all things, Faux News. Their reaction was basically "OMG, if that's the best defense the white house can muster the Republican agenda is doomed."

 

[Gori the Grey]

Don - "Give me your wallet"
Jim - "No"
Don - "I hope you can let this wallet go." *pulls out gun and pulls back the hammer* 'click' *points gun at Jim* "I hope you can see your way clear to letting that money go, to letting this wallet go."

It's a good wallet.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Are you guys watching? I can't watch cause I'm at work, so I demand updates... and loyalty...

to the truth

and the United States

and me

Well, maybe you've already got access to summaries. No bombshells.* He came across as entirely credible, measured, willing to fault himself for not standing up more emphatically against the inappropriate things Trump did (but not having done so, in the moment, based on being "stunned").

Each side will walk away with something to focus on. Fox has got him flatly confirming that he did three times tell the President he was not under investigation, and confirming that Trump told him, if any of my "satellites" had inappropriate contacts, by all means investigate them. MSNBC has got him saying he did understand the "I hope you can see your way clear" as a directive, not just an expression of hope.

Other highlights will come to me and I'll add them as they do.

*Sorry, one little bombshell. Comey said Sessions' role in the Russia investigation was "problematic"; then said he couldn't elaborate in open session, but would be happy to in closed session.

Oh, one more thing. When his time to question came, McCain came across as not just doddering, but full-on Alzheimerish.

And now this occurs to me as another highlight: Comey effectively called Trump's bluff about there being tapes of the conversations, by saying bring 'em on: "Lordy, I hope there are tapes!"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, interesting observation on the White House efforts to counter Comey.

Comey repeatedly said "Trump lies." His accounting of events is basically running counter to accounting the president and his team have made, and at various points he outright called the president a liar.

The defense was a very clumsy "the president is not a liar" that has been scoffed off as being reminiscent of "I am not a crook." This was followed by a lawyer with a count by count "Comey lied, this is the truth" restating of the presidential position. What is of interest in this conflict of credibility is that the Republican senators on the committee never once challenged Comey's truthfulness. They tried some soft pedaling about how maybe there could be different points of view or understandings, but to a man they praised Comey as a reliable, honest, trusted factual witness.

 

[warpus]

So there's a hearing of some sort and I'm out of the loop, but from what I understand nothing is going to happen because the Republicans control everything, including the flow of the spice. Is that about right?

 

[Sommerswerd]

So there's a hearing of some sort and I'm out of the loop, but from what I understand nothing is going to happen because the Republicans control everything, including the flow of the spice. Is that about right?

You've got it right. If by "nothing" you mean "Trump won't be impeached this year"

 

[Gori the Grey]

nothing is going to happen because the Republicans control everything, including the flow of the spice.

They control everything through the flow of the Spice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So there's a hearing of some sort and I'm out of the loop, but from what I understand nothing is going to happen because the Republicans control everything, including the flow of the spice. Is that about right?

Correct. The interesting fallout is whether the Republicans can be forced into a position where, number one, their control is squandered on tamping down on having Trump completely demolished rather than enacting their destructive policies, and number two, they are so clearly backed into a corner saying "my party, my president, thick or thin, no matter how ridiculous we have to look in defending him" that they get just crushed in the upcoming elections.

 

[AdrienIer]

So there's a hearing of some sort and I'm out of the loop, but from what I understand nothing is going to happen because the Republicans control everything, including the flow of the spice. Is that about right?

You've got it right. If by "nothing" you mean "Trump won't be impeached this year"

IDK, I've been wondering about Paul Ryan these days. If he wants a shot at presidency someday he'll want to be leading the republicans away from Trump at one point, for fear of leaving the Trump wagon too late. If he were to start rallying house republicans to the impeachment that might bring the trial to the senate.

 

[Arakhor]

What would 2018 or 2019 be like if Trump still hasn't gone if/when the Democrats win control of both your houses? Perhaps he'd be even more like an wailing toddler without even his parents to enable him then.

 

[Gori the Grey]

DK, I've been wondering about Paul Ryan these days. If he wants a shot at presidency someday he'll want to be leading the republicans away from Trump at one point, for fear of leaving the Trump wagon too late. If he were to start rallying house republicans to the impeachment that might bring the trial to the senate.

I too have begun to think it's at some point going to become primarily a matter of timing: whether you jumped ship only when all the rest of the rats did, or were the lead rat is going to be a significant difference in future political fortunes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

IDK, I've been wondering about Paul Ryan these days. If he wants a shot at presidency someday he'll want to be leading the republicans away from Trump at one point, for fear of leaving the Trump wagon too late. If he were to start rallying house republicans to the impeachment that might bring the trial to the senate.

The question is whether Republicans like Ryan understand their base, and how untenable their position is. There are going to be (probably are already) Republicans who will be looking to the leaders 'who knew to jump off the Trump ship' and 'led the way.' But the Republican party also includes a core element that is NEVER going to abandon Trump, and will NEVER forgive any Republican who abandons him.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not so sure about that, Tim (oh, I know your hardcore friends over at Breitbart will be Trumpers for Life). But who would have thought in, say 2004, that within 12 years someone could win the Republican nomination in part by condemning the War in Iraq?

 

[Sommerswerd]

What would 2018 or 2019 be like if Trump still hasn't gone if/when the Democrats win control of both your houses? Perhaps he'd be even more like an wailing toddler without even his parents to enable him then.

Pretty much the same as now, except it will be a year (or two) long Impeachment proceeding and removal trial as opposed to just "hearings and investigations"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not so sure about that, Tim (oh, I know your hardcore friends over at Breitbart will be Trumpers for Life). But who would have thought in, say 2004, that within 12 years someone could win the Republican nomination in part by condemning the War in Iraq?

In 2004 the war in Iraq wasn't an obvious fiasco. But could it have been predicted that "twelve years from now if this war is a complete disaster a Republican claiming that it's a disaster but not of Republican making they will get traction with Republicans despite the obvious falsehood" that Republican would find success? Yes, it could have been.