Comments

The next step for the Resistance — 37 Comments

1. Democrats please save the usual “its very important for us to get to the bottom of the Russia hacking of our election because integrity of our democracy is under attack blah blah blah” Whatever you are doing you are just doing it to hurt the President and the republicans to better position yourselves in the upcoming 2018 election so save us the disgusting pretense that you give a darn about the well being of the nation. As a relatively new follower of American Politics (I only started following since 2015, i did vote for obama only because everyone else around me was doing so ) I would like to ask veteran politic junkies out there has American politics always been like this dirty and have democrats always been this despicable. These people believe in nothing and would say whatever they needed to say to get themselves elected. Democrats reminds me of the dirty and corrupted politicians in Hong Kong and China, we thought we could get away from dirty politicians in America and we thought wrong.

2. Beutler adds: Spice and K2 in big spoonfuls to his breakfast cereal…

   They called for impeachment before he was sworn in
   and so far they have nothing unless you want to ignore the constitution and other points and go with their newly warped versions that we do not pay much attention to.

   “We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress,” the judicial opinion said.

   First of all, the President did not exceed the scope of his authority, and second, it’s none of the court’s business. In fact, they are exceeding their scope of powers. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all legislative powers to the Congress, and Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all executive powers to the President. The legislative branch made the laws, and with the executive order President Trump is executing those laws (of which are listed in the executive order). The federal judiciary has no legislative powers, and no executive powers. Their authority is to apply the law to the cases they hear, and the law says the President, when he believes a group of people may pose as a security risk to the national security of the United States, may put into place a temporary prohibition on the migration of that group into the country. Then, if Congress wants to pass a law placing a prohibition on people from immigrating from a particular country to make it permanent until the law says otherwise, they can.

   “The Authority Delegated to him by Congress”

   Im sorry, but that is how soviet russia and china are run, the supreme soviet delegates power to the leader and of course, can take it away.

   Congress actually has no right of delegation of powers!
   but we the people have let them do that!!

   Now they act and think its theirs and who will tell them that power delegated by the people cant be delegated again by the delegate.

   since its a collective, the collective has the dictatorship power over the dear leader, and so, you can see they even THINK like this when in a system that is not that way.

   one presidential power is the ability to take unilateral action..
   no other area has that..

   Inherent powers are powers held by a sovereign state. In the United States, the President derives these powers from the loosely worded statements in the Constitution that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President” and the president should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (defined in practice, rather than by constitutional or statutory law).

   so, the court is basically saying that this is not valid due to a constituational principal that is NOT in effect, nor is being tested, in favor of negating the presidents power and FORCE him to violate the law instead of uphold it. and the Dems years ago, forgot to change the immigration law taht gives the power to the president to do what he did!!!!!!!!!!!!

   if you read wiki, they get it PARTLY right

   Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government. The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require approval of the United States Congress. Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation.

   whats the wrong part?
   “Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation”

   not true…
   where? where in the constitution or federalist papers does the weakest part of our system (made illegally strong by the left) get to review the president?

   the funny part is i only hear explanations on Trump
   Executive Orders in Court
   Erica Newland
   YALE

   This Note presents a study of judicial decisions that have engaged with executive orders. The study was designed to elucidate the contexts in which courts have considered executive orders; to identify the questions that courts have posed about executive orders; and to synthesize the doctrine that courts have developed in response to those questions. This study reveals that, although the executive order is a powerful tool of the presidency, courts have not tended to acknowledge, in a particularly theorized way, the special challenges and demands of the executive order as a form of lawmaking. This Note argues that, in the absence of a thicker jurisprudential conception of the executive order, doctrinal asymmetries that heavily favor executive power have emerged. These asymmetries carry costs and therefore merit closer attention.

   see? the goal is to make the president a figure head that has little power but gets all the blame, then the councils can operate withotu worry as they change the cover every few years and nothing under the cover changes.

   and here is what they are teaching:
   While it has never been put to a congressional vote, E.O. 12,333 nonetheless has the force and effect of law: executive orders, which can derive their power from congressional delegations of authority to the President (explicit, implicit, or anticipated),15 from the President’s independent authority under Article II of the Constitution,16 or from some vague combination of the two,17 are generally enforceable by courts against private citizens

   so Atricle II lays out the independent authority of the president, but where is the derived power clause?

3. Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?

   Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger?

   If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority.

   The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person. – Hamilton

   and

   Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the authority to make law regarding “migration” and slavery (Importation of such persons) with the intent to prohibit as Congress feels necessary of any and all people they decide to write law prohibiting. In 1808 this clause was used to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade, and throughout our history this clause has been used as the authority for immigration laws.

   THink HARD on that one….

   or those of you out there ready to use Marbury v. Madison as your excuse, think about what you are saying. If Marbury v. Madison gives the courts the authority to exercise the unconstitutional concept of judicial review

   then you are saying constitutionality is determined by the courts giving themselves a power. How is that limited government? Authorities can only be granted by the States, which is why it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.

   If Marbury v. Madison is the argument, then the argument is that the courts took the power for themselves without asking, and in my opinion, that is tyranny. But, then again, by supporting activist judges and the import of terrorists, that is what you are shooting for, right?

   Gibbs

4. Rosenstein is the man to fire Mueller because he appointed him. All he really needs to do is cite the conflict of interest that has come to light since the appointment; e.g., Mueller colluding with Comey on his Congressional testimony, by Comey’s admission.

   However, failing that, there is another avenue that might work. It is nasty, but this is a nasty business. This would be for every Republican and/or conservative voice to pound Mueller relentlessly through every available conduit to the point that his reputation becomes tattered; and may even decide to resign. I doubt that there is no ammunition to use against such aa long time Washington denizen.

   If options to remove him are ignored or unsuccessful, and Mueller is allowed to proceed, the Congress, and Rosenstein, should be acutely alert for any fishing expeditions; and squelch any attempt to expand his charter. Finally, one critical question that I have not seen discussed, “who controls Mueller’s budget?”.

5. Three articles today profile that Mueller’s recent actions demonstrate extreme prejudice.

   “Mueller Hires Justice Official With History Of Arguing For Expansive Interpretation of Obstruction of Justice”

   “Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors”

   “Mueller staffs up to pursue obstruction of justice”

   Where there’s smoke there’s fire.

   “Rosenstein is the man to fire Mueller because he appointed him. All he really needs to do is cite the conflict of interest that has come to light since the appointment; e.g., Mueller colluding with Comey on his Congressional testimony, by Comey’s admission.” OldFlyer

   True. But since Rosenstein is another deep state operative, that’s not going to happen. He’ll claim that’s Trump’s prerogative. In doing so, it tosses into Trump’s lap responsibility and as neo points out, if Trump fires Mueller, it adds to his “high crimes and misdemeanors’…

6. I think Mueller is probably the straight-arrow people claim he is. One reason you might to staff with people from the left-center is that it lends weight to a decision that there is nothing here to really investigate in the criminal realm.

   However, I could be wrong- Mueller could be picking these people precisely because they are political partisans, but this will then make any attempted prosecutions look like partisan actions (which is why I think my first thought is the right one).

   One thing I would have like to see Rosenstein do when he appointed Mueller, and I still don’t know why this isn’t done generally- give him a concrete deadline, don’t give him an indefinite amount of time. I think the appointment should be for 4 months with a requirement to present what you have to the DoJ.

7. If bho touched it, hrc touched it, Lynch touched it, and then Comey touched it and now his buddy Mueller touches it; you know the fish is rotten from head to tail.

8. Yancey Ward, if Mueller is a straight-arrow, then I find it hard to understand why he collaborated with Comey on his testimony. I forget, and am too lazy too research, whether that was before or after the appointment. Not relevant anyway. If after, a straight arrow would have kept Comey at arm’s length; if before, he would decline the appointment.

   Ipso facto, as the saying goes, he is not a such a straight arrow–in my mind, at least.

9. “Rosenstein is another deep state operative” – GB

   No doubt the dems are salivating at the prospect of impeachment.

   But, we don’t need to lose our heads and start suspecting everyone.

   That’s destructive, and a sure sign that one is “losing”.
   .

   trump has been his own worst enemy.

   A good leader ought to be able to rally the troops. trump seems to create the opposite reaction.

   But, can we say this is all a surprise?
   .

   “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”

   Is that a threshold we really want to go by?

   It’s very much how the dems portray the russian investigation and possible links with the trump campaign, to imply / conclude there is guilt, well before there is any proof.

10. “a straight arrow would have kept Comey at arm’s length” – Oldflyer

    Don’t know how much “collaboration” there was, if anything.

    The “conversation” (as leaked) seems more about a review of the memos with Meuller’s team.

    Couldn’t it simply be part of his investigation?
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336674-mueller-wont-be-surprised-by-comeys-testimony-report
    .

    But, what’s interesting here is the arm’s length concept, which is, rightly, an important standard for handling situations with potential conflicts of interest.

    Wish trump had understood that in his meetings with Comey. Wouldn’t be here if he did.

    (Also wonder about trump’s arms length relationship with his businesses, but that is a good subject for a separate post.)
    .

    We want the dems to stop talking like trump is guilty of collaboration with the russians, with their speculative “smoke and fire” argument.

    There’s been no proof, and may well won’t be – that’s what the investigation is supposed to uncover.

    Yet, without proof, we are jumping to guilty conclusions about others, like Meuller (or anyone who hasn’t sworn fealty to trump, it seems).

    Why don’t we chill out and quit suspecting “enemies” lurking everywhere?

11. Yancey Ward Says:
    June 13th, 2017 at 5:54 pm
    I think Mueller is probably the straight-arrow people claim he is. One reason you might to staff with people from the left-center is that it lends weight to a decision that there is nothing here to really investigate in the criminal realm.

    However, I could be wrong- Mueller could be picking these people precisely because they are political partisans, but this will then make any attempted prosecutions look like partisan actions (which is why I think my first thought is the right one).
    * **
    You hit on the two most likely options, but we won’t really know which is operating in Mueller’s mind until his investigation is underway (I can’t say “done” because no one put on the very reasonable limits you suggested).
    The downsides to each:
    IF he wanted a group that would have credibility when they concluded there was no there there, these people (with whom he has worked before) make sense. Dilemma fork (a) they are too partisan to stop when they reach the emptiness at the end of the trail and keep going (a la Fitzpatrick and Libby) until they create some crime that didn’t previously exist; or (b) they realize that turning in a no-bill on Trump will cause them to be eliminated from the Tribe and so they keep going ditto.

    IF he is, in fact, already committed to convicting Trump on something – anything – and wanted willing confederates, then he will not be deterred by any screeches from the Right about partisanship.

    No one one the Left ever is.

12. It looks like most of the Congressional leadership is also part of the Resistance, as Dyer points out here (picking up on the point Rubio made in Comey’s hearing):
    http://libertyunyielding.com/2017/06/13/basically-entire-d-c-leadership-known-weeks-trump-wasnt-investigation/

    “In posing that question, Rubio alluded to the fact that the top leadership of Congress had known for weeks that Trump wasn’t under investigation.
    As sundance says: Think about that for a minute.

    If all the people he lists were told Trump wasn’t being investigated, that means that everyone who counts in Washington knew — and then some. Besides the party leaders in both houses, committee members and top staffers knew. Even if sundance overestimates the number of Hill employees who had reason to be certain of the facts, we’re still talking about everyone who would be a go-to source for the media on this topic.

    Given the way Washington leaks like a sieve, it really is extraordinary that all these people knew Trump wasn’t being investigated, and it was supposedly in nobody’s lane to let the American people know that.
    …
    In fact, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein — made brief public statements after the closed-door session with Comey in May, basically saying that Trump wasn’t being investigated, and urging Comey to clear that up for the public.
    …
    But I keep circling back to the remarkable point that there is supposed to be some convention that compels all these knowledgeable people to remain silent, when they know the president is not under FBI investigation. Their silence certainly leaves the media free to keep a false narrative alive for months.

    It has also left congressional Democrats free to exploit the garbled implication about the president,
    …
    Here’s the deal. Argue as you will about why these in-the-know D.C. folks would feel compelled to remain silent; the end result is still the wrong answer. If some compulsion to be silent, imposed by your process, is yielding the wrong outcome, then you’re doing it wrong. There’s a problem with something: your priorities, your premises, your inputs. The answer cannot be that the only option is for the entire United States of America to be dangled in limbo by a procedural convention.

    Yet here we are, being haunted by the wrong answer for months, while so many people knew the right one.
    …”

    Why does this seem so reminiscent of the Libby debacle, where everyone involved KNEW BEFOREHAND that he was not the one who revealed Plame’s identity (knowledge of her job was neither totally secret or even damaging to security — unlike that of the CIA head just outed by the Times).

    Look at how the goalposts moved in that case, and now look again at the “collusion” to “obstruction” to “corruption” — why does each step of this apparently fictitious “crime” get progressively worse?

13. Big Maq,

    If they were promoted to a higher position under Obama, the odds are greatly in favor of them being dirty. The corruption is far deeper and far more widespread than you appear to credit.

    News flash! We have been losing and we still are… all that’s been accomplished so far is a slowing of the train toward the collective.

    The swamp cannot be drained through the attrition of retirement.

    We’re past the point where following the rules will result in a just outcome.

    We can’t face that because it’s an admission that the rule of law is no longer blind. To work, the rule of law must be respected by both sides. The dems laugh at it. While when it’s politically disadventageous, the GOP ignores the law and won’t enforce it.

    Obama and Hillary would be in jail if the law were being followed. Instead, Obama is collecting $400k speaking fees and organizing a ‘resistance’ movement. One that with the collusion of the deep State, amounts to a shadow government and is rebellious in nature.

    Activist federal judges are refusing to uphold and thus overturning Constitutional provisions and getting away with it.

    The top levels of the Federal bureaucracy are engaged in what amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Congressional democrats have long been engaged in actions that are effectively erasing the American republic. They are enabling what amounts to “clear and present dangers” to the American republic and its citizens.

    The MSM lies every minute of every day and suffers no legal consequence.

    When treason and sedition can be continually engaged in and no consequence accrues because so many are involved in its commission, the principle of equality under the law has become not a joke but an obscenity.

14. Well we no know what the next Democrat strategy to damage Donald Trump is — 200 Democrat Members of Congress have signed a suit charging that Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by allowing payments to be made by foreigners to various Trump business enterprises.

    They just will not stop attacking him. God help us all.

15. “If they were promoted to a higher position under Obama, the odds are greatly in favor of them being dirty.”

    Well then, why have a government?

    Each side taints it for the other, with their appointments or promotions.

    There is no legitimacy in our elected officials choices as representatives of us voters.

    Only “our side” can make righteous and just choices.

    (Yet, “our side” sought fit to support trump, the mutable)
    .

    “The swamp cannot be drained”

    Would have been nice to select someone who actually would live up to the supposed standards we claim we want.
    .

    “We’re past the point where following the rules will result in a just outcome.”

    Not sure what your definition of a “just outcome” is?

    We’ve had this discussion before. You’d be happy if we had an autocrat, as you think your view of a “just society” would be easily “recoverable” under that scenario.

    Makes no sense. Essentially to vest power into one individual?

    All because our (yes, flawed) system of checks and balances, and distributed centers of power no longer provides your view of a “just outcome”.

    The whole point of those checks and balances, and distribution of power is to make it HARD to push through changes – it is by design!

    You rather risk going into full dictatorship mode, and force everyone else through the consequences of that, than to put much effort into doing what a democracy requires of us – convince a majority to follow our ideas.

    Put another way, you’d rather we take the most corrupt and corrupting path, than to work at reducing whatever far less corruption that may exist today, because changes are not easy to make, and people are not easy to convince that your ideas are better.

    End justifies the means is what that argument is.

    Out of frustration, you want a short cut.

    The willingness to advocate that path, at this point, hardly seems aligned to the “just outcome” our Founders were thinking of.

    That short cut just doesn’t exist. It is a dystopian fantasy.

16. Big Maq Says:
    June 14th, 2017 at 9:59 am
    “If they were promoted to a higher position under Obama, the odds are greatly in favor of them being dirty.”

    Well then, why have a government?

    Each side taints it for the other, with their appointments or promotions.
    * **
    Power corrupts, and unaccountable power corrupts unaccountably.

    The whole point of the Civil Service was to remove partisanship from the “neutral” bureaucracy.
    Doesn’t work too well when one side is benefitting from entrenching partisans over decades.

    There was a rational argument behind the spoils system – which we still practice in a perverse fashion (that is what SCOTUS and judiciary appointments are) – which is, that elected officials are thus supported by their own partisans in the trenches.

17. Please God this is NOT the next step for the Resistance, but an isolated act of insanity.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/alexandria-virginia-shooting/index.html

    And the Left is bewildered that some people are disturbed by their Trump=Ceasar production of Shakespeare’s play.

18. Big Maq,

    “Well then, why have a government?”

    We don’t have a government “for the people”, we have a government that seeks to control and manipulate the people. It is not consent of the governed that we have but government without consent that we have.

    “Only “our side” can make righteous and just choices.”

    No, only our side is loyal to the Constitution. And, by “our side” I mean Constitutionalists, not RINOs.

    “(Yet, “our side” sought fit to support trump, the mutable)”

    During the primaries, a fractured right led Trump to the nomination, “our side” then thought fit to support Trump because the alternative was far worse.

    “The swamp cannot be drained” GB

    “Would have been nice to select someone who actually would live up to the supposed standards we claim we want.”

    You go to war with what you have, not with what you would wish. The American right is no more capable of consensus than is the left. It would have been nice to have a Washington or Adams or Jefferson or Madison but it would also be nice to have won the lottery. Both are fantasies, when will you deal with reality?

    “You’d be happy if we had an autocrat, as you think your view of a “just society” would be easily “recoverable” under that scenario.”

    I suspect you purposely misstate my position, rather than are incapable of understanding it.

    I would detest an autocrat, which by definition betrays liberty. My view of a just society is allegiance to the least imperfect form of governance yet conceived, the American Constitutional Republic. Nor have I ever said that recovering from a Caesar would be “easy”. I have ONLY said that history demonstrates that there is a higher probability of recovery from a dictator than from a dictatorship of a totalitarian collective. Given that choice, I go with the odds of which is the most likely. It should be obvious that I would greatly prefer to avoid both.

    “All because our (yes, flawed) system of checks and balances, and distributed centers of power no longer provides your view of a “just outcome”.”

    Our flawed system has been perverted enough that it is no longer capable of providing a constitutionally just outcome.

    “The whole point of those checks and balances, and distribution of power is to make it HARD to push through changes — it is by design!”

    Absolutely. That was once true. You simply can’t accept that it is no longer true. The democrats regularly impose change and “the checks and balances, and distribution of power” you continue to imagine is effective… is demonstrably helpless to oppose those unconstitutional changes.

    “You rather risk going into full dictatorship mode, and force everyone else through the consequences of that, than to put much effort into doing what a democracy requires of us — convince a majority to follow our ideas.”

    It is NOT a case of willingness to accept risk. It IS a case of a willingness to accept the reality we are faced with… the majority, which with every generation increases every day, finds our ideas to be an anathema.

    “Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.” Robert A. Heinlein

    “The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more. Henning Webb Prentis

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” disputed attribution to both Alexander Tytler or Alexis Toqueville

    Many on the right have been trying to persuade the majority of our ideas for nearly a century, yet you insist that if we keep doing it, we’ll finally achieve a different result.

19. Yet here we are, being haunted by the wrong answer for months, while so many people knew the right one.
    All you had to do was ask the spirit of truth, the aO, for an answer and you would have gotten the right one.

    Trusting in humans is where humans up and messed up.

    Of course DC is corrupt. They all are.

    Of course they are wrong, they all are. That’s the requirement to be in DC.

    Of course the media is lying. They’ll be lying if they said red is red.

    Deep State, Trum, get used to it. Leftist alliance ain’t a little Cruz female dog b, that you can order around like you could back when you were a Democrat billionaire.

    This is the true warfare, the true fight. The Leftist alliance has no mercy for traitors and turn coats, no mercy at all. Lucifer has even less tolerance.

20. Trum will wish the fate of Nixon on himself, after awhile. Nixon had it easy, with his enemy’s list, they at least allowed him to retire… alive.

    More than could be said for JFK.

21. It would have been nice to have a Washington or Adams or Jefferson or Madison but it would also be nice to have won the lottery. Both are fantasies, when will you deal with reality?

    Abraham and Moses weren’t all that special. It is not the person that makes them a powerful tool and warrior of God, it is the aO choosing to empower that person in that moment and time.

    So it wasn’t Washington’s military brilliance that got him out of Long Island alive. It was divine power, which he was worthy of because he fought for aO’s principles of religious freedom, which did not exist in most of the Earth.

    If humans want salvation, they need a Moses or a Messiah. Even the Left has a messiah. Trying to find a bunch of human kings, like Washington or the Founding Fathers or Trum to fix your system, is never going to do anything except provide you the rewards of Israel after 70 AD :Total annihilation.

    The aO does not tolerate an evil civilization in this American region of the continent. If you don’t follow divine laws, your people will be replaced by one that does.

22. “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea…” – James Madison

    This might explain some of the predicament we find ourselves in.

    Big Maq, do you recognize the conflict of interest inherent in the relationship of Mueller and Comey?

    Mueller was ostensibly appointed to continue the Russia investigation, but what Comey and others at the FBI intended was obstruction charges– and Comey will be the star witness.

    —

    During his testimony when asked about who at the FBI he had talked with:

    COMEY: The FBI, during one of the two conversations – I’m not remembering exactly – I think the first, my chief of staff was sitting in front of me and heard my end of the conversation because the president’s call was a surprise. I discussed the lifting the cloud and the request with the senior leadership team who, typically, and I think in all the circumstances, was the deputy director, my chief of staff, the general counsel, the deputy director’s chief counsel and, I think in a number of circumstances, the number three in the FBI and a few of the conversations included the head of the national security branch. The group of us that lead the FBI when it comes to national security.

    FEINSTEIN: You have the president of the United States asking you to stop an investigation that is an important investigation. What was the response of your colleagues?

    COMEY: I think they were as shocked and troubled by it as I was. Some said things that led me to believe that. I don’t remember exactly. But the reaction was similar to mine. They’re all experienced people who never experienced such a thing, so they were very concerned. Then the conversation turned to about, so what should we do with this information? That was a struggle for us. Because we are the leaders of the FBI, so it’s been reported to us, and I heard it and now shared it with the leaders of the FBI, our conversation was, should we share this with any senior officials at the justice department? Our primary concern was, we can’t infect the investigative team. We don’t want the agents and analysts working on this to know the president of the united States has asked, and when it comes from the president, I took it as a direction, to get rid of this investigation because we’re not going to follow that request. So we decided, we have to keep it away from our troops.

    Is there anyone else we ought to tell at the justice department? We considered whether to tell — the attorney general said we believe rightly he was shortly going to recuse. There was no other senate confirmed leaders in the justice department at that point. The deputy attorney general was Mr. Boente, acting shortly in the seat. We decided the best move would be to hold it, keep it in a box, document it, as we’d already done, and this investigation is going to do on. Figure out what to do with it down the road. Is there a way to corroborate it? It was our word against the president’s. No way to corroborate this. My view of this changed when the prospect of tapes was raised. That’s how we thought about it then.

    _____

    By the way, earlier in response to a question by Feinstein as to the “cloud that was impairing his ability”, she asked, “what did you believe he wanted you to do?”

    Comey responded by saying:

    COMEY: I interpreted that as he was frustrated that the Russia investigation was taking up so much time and energy. I think he meant of the executive branch, but in the public square in general. It was making it difficult for him to focus on other priorities of his. But what he asked me was actually narrowing than that. I think what he meant by the cloud – and, again, I could be wrong – but the entire investigation is taking up oxygen and making it hard for me to focus on what I want to focus on. The ask was to get it out that I, the president, am not personally under investigation.

23. “during one of the two conversations”… “in all the circumstances, was the deputy director, my chief of staff, the general counsel, the deputy director’s chief counsel”… “in a number of circumstances, the number three in the FBI”,,,”and a few of the conversations included the head of the national security branch”

    So how many conversations did these folks have? Comey had nine interactions with the president– three in person and six by telephone. During his testimony he mentioned five of them, which would indicate that four of the telephone calls included nothing substantial.

    It sounds like they met everytime Trump and Comey talked– or even more often.

    What is a little troubling though, is that in all these conversations, no one thought it might be a good idea to let anyone at DOJ know.

    I guess the time just wasn’t right.

24. I wonder how many meetings by the FBI leadership would have to occur while they plot a strategy to “figure out what they would do with it down the road” before it becomes a conspiracy?

25. Interesting that Mueller’s staff leaked that they were going directly to an obstruction investigation before his staff is even assembled.

    It’s kind of a dare for Trump to fire Mueller. The charges they could bring against Trump would be weak and it would never rise to the level of impeachment proceedings.

    But, if Trump fires Mueller, they have a year to blast him with the manufactured story that Trump is hiding something (corruption), with the aim of gaining seats in the house.

    Whether or not Trump serves out his term hinges on the Republicans retaining the House.

26. “It is not consent of the governed that we have but government without consent that we have.
    …
    Our flawed system has been perverted enough that it is no longer capable of providing a constitutionally just outcome.
    …
    The swamp cannot be drained
    …
    It is NOT a case of willingness to accept risk (of dictatorship). It IS a case of a willingness to accept the reality we are faced with
    …
    (and plenty of other like comments over time)” – GB

    If you TRULY believe that and all the rest of your “all is lost” / “Flight 93” / “edge of the precipice” type of rhetoric, what the h*ll are you doing on this blog?

    Seriously!

    If it is truly that DIRE, to justify what you suggest, who in their right mind has the time to sit and complain about that horrible world on any blog?

    Your own actions belie your words.
    .

    And, while it was “evidently” heading that direction for, what must have been, some years, what exactly have you done to contribute to opposing it, given how critical and urgent you must have thought it was turning and has turned out?

    Or, was it always “lost” in your lifetime, and you are just a helpless victim, so why bother?
    .

    “It should be obvious that I would greatly prefer to avoid both (dictator vs totalitarian collective)”

    IDK, but if I thought it was going THAT horrendously, I’d be taking some FAR more serious and sustained action to help reverse course.
    .

    This is what I don’t get about all the hot rhetoric here (and elsewhere – many places) from several about how, essentially, all is quickly ending, and this all justifies emergency action, such as: “suspend the rules” (i.e. drop or circumvent the very things that are in place to protect the “Constitution”, and somehow the left won’t do the same on their watch?), or have “our” own autocrat / dictator, or tear down the institutions of our country and rebuild them, or that we must line up and shoot the left, or other horrible and ridiculous ideas.

    All, as the “solutions” to “fixing” our country, back to, presumably, “original principles”, the “Constitution”, or something similar.

    Too many argue like we are 9.99 of 10, and are willing to go to 11, yet are living like it is a 2 or 3.

    The words are hot, but the IRL action is relatively passive.

    Maybe the world isn’t as extreme as we are being led to believe by all this hot rhetoric?
    .

    “higher probability of recovery”

    First off, when talking about “probabilities” as such, it is a bunch of nonsense.

    History also suggests that the HIGHEST probability of all would be human misery for a LONG time!

    It takes real work, extreme risk, and luck to bring that “recovery” about.

    And, if folks are not dedicated, heart and soul, to changing it all in this FAR LESS challenging environment we have today, fat chance of accomplishing anything in that world.
    .

    Second, what does “recovery” look like?

    How different would it be from our world today? From our world set up by the Founders?

    What are the rules/laws? What is the process to establishing them? Who gets to decide what the rules are?

    Critically, how do you set up institutions to keep from corrupting them (again)?

    Seems to me, if there is no clear picture here, then looking or wishing to tear down what we have today, or other far fetched “solution”, is a non-starter, as there really is no goal to shoot for.
    .

    Ultimately, this line of argumentation starts to look like the postion taken by the mother before King Solomon who thought the baby divided was a fair settlement.

27. “Interesting that Mueller’s staff leaked that they were going directly to an obstruction investigation before his staff is even assembled.” – Brian

    And trump’s team leaks that trump is contemplating firing Mueller.

    It is a friggin mess.

    One that was entirely avoidable.

    Now it has become an issue that is going to ride trump and the GOP thru 2018, and perhaps 2020.

    It will be trump’s version of clinton’s emails.

28. Big Maq:

    Are you sure it was Trump’s TEAM that leaked he was “going to” fire Mueller?

    I suspect it actually was his enemies who leaked it. And if I recall correctly (don’t have time to research it now), Trump’s team said he would not fire Mueller.

    A Trump friend speculated that Trump “might” fire Mueller, but the friend was speaking about his own opinion.

29. Big Maq,
    My point was I think they recognize going into it that an obstruction charge will be very weak– even in the politically charge “high crimes and misdemeanors” category.

    What’s also interesting is a week ago I read someone state that Mueller’s investigation would be short and probably over by fall. Now I’m reading he’s staffing up and the investigation will continue through the 2018 election cycle.

    I also dispute this was entirely avoidable– unless you mean had another person been elected President. Yes, that would have been a way to avoid this.

    Had Trump not said he hoped the FBI would cut Flynn some slack, the day after he was fired, we might not have been exactly in this position– but then they would just continue with the Russia meme– so things wouldn’t be all that much different.

    It’s pretty obvious that enough of the leadership in the FBI are intent in bringing Trump down, it really doesn’t matter to them how its done.

30. “It’s pretty obvious that enough of the leadership in the FBI are intent in bringing Trump down, it really doesn’t matter to them how its done.” – Brian

    Thing is, it is as “obvious” as it is that trump is attempting to abuse his power.

    We can easily fling accusations about motives all around.
    .

    In the end, it was avoidable because trump could have taken a much different course of action.

    There was nothing “inevitable” about this, as you imply.

    If we take the premise that trump is actually incompetent for this role, and a slow learner, if not steadfastly refusing to learn on the job, it explains a lot of what we have seen since inauguration day, rather than assuming nefarious motives of all parties involved.

31. @Neo – Great observation!

    That is precisely the issue with this.

    There’s plenty of references to various “leaks” but all of us are too far removed to give any one of them anyt certainty.

    Could it be a false flag operation, as you suggest? Maybe.

    But why should we give any more credibility to that, to “Mueller’s leak”, etc, than to perhaps the trump team putting forth a trial balloon?

    It sure seems like there is a concerted effort now to discredit Meuller, by people who only weeks ago praised the move.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/will-trump-fire-mueller-russia-investigation-james-comey-2017-6

    And, recall, that trump said he wouldn’t fire Comey at one point.
    .

    Ultimately, it comes back to a couple of things…

    Credibility and trust.

    Who knows what (or who) to believe? (Didn’t you ask that question a while ago?)

    Hence, in part, why it is a friggin mess.

    This is part of that “chaos” I was talking about last year.

32. “If we take the premise that trump is actually incompetent for this role, and a slow learner, if not steadfastly refusing to learn on the job, it explains a lot of what we have seen since inauguration day, rather than assuming nefarious motives of all parties involved.”

    The largest load of codswallop ever delivered to this blog.

    How about we deal with reality instead. Trump won. That harshed the Big Maq/Democrat/Deep State narrative that “he can’t win ‘cos we don’t like him.” But since he won that has now morphed to “we’re going to do everything we can to burn the house down around him.”

    That is where we are. Don’t blame Trump for the convulsions you guys are experiencing or for the violence your side is unleashing.

33. “Could it be a false flag operation, as you suggest? Maybe.” – John G

    Excuse me.

    Not MY side, whatsoever.
    .

    But, that’s par for the course, for all those conspiracy theorists out there.

    trump never has any culpability in anything. Blame someone else.

    And, if someone won’t let you excuse trump, obviously they must be part of the “Deep State” or on the dems “team”.

    Pure blue vs red codswallop.

34. “for the violence your side is unleashing.” – John G

    THIS was the quote for above.

35. @John G
    http://neoneocon.com/2017/06/14/a-resister-turns-violent-the-scalise-shooter/#comment-2222065

36. Big Maq,

    Comey testified that between 4 and 6 of the top leaders of the FBI, met multiple times to discuss Trump. During those meetings they decided to keep secret Trump’s supposed “inappropriate” and “concerning” statements regarding the Flynn investigation.

    They used the excuse to not inform AG Sessions about the conversation because they were sure he was going to recuse himself, even though at the time he hadn’t.

    Comey made a big deal about the private meetings with Trump (three times), but the very first meeting on Jan. 6th, it was Comey that requested to meeting privately with Trump, so it seems plausible that Trump would have thought that was SOP.

    I don’t think there’s a Miss Manner’s Book of Etiquette for High Level Government Employees that Trump could have referenced to learn that meeting privately was bad form. Even though Comey met privately with Obama.

    An corporate executive wouldn’t have thought it out of place to meet privately with a subordinate, so I’m not sure Comey’s protestations about the second private meeting and all the “uneasiness” of everyone else in the room when Trump requested they leave so he could talk to Comey is exaggerated.

    In the real world, with a real man in Comey’s position, that person would have told the President that meeting privately wasn’t proper. Someone that wanted the President to succeed might even have told the President any suggestion concerning an investigation also wasn’t proper, and that would have been the end of it.

    Instead Comey begins keeping a diary so that, at the appropriate time, the conversations could be used against the President.

37. “In the real world, with a real man in Comey’s position, that person would have told the President that meeting privately wasn’t proper. Someone that wanted the President to succeed might even have told the President any suggestion concerning an investigation also wasn’t proper, and that would have been the end of it.”

    Or in the real world, a real human being may have been intimidated?

    IDK.

    YOU don’t know.

    It is ALL speculation about motives, made plausible with facts we can each cherry pick.
    .

    Credibility and Trust.

    Neither man is 100% clean in this.

    Not going to specifically side with either one of them.

    And, yes, trump with his history of mutability, and of lies, big and small, has lost much credibility with me. I wish it were different.
    .

    But, this isn’t just about me, it is about what the public perceives.

    If you are a politician, let alone the POTUS, you HAVE to build support beyond your core supporters.

    It is upon that broader support you then rely upon in times of crisis, where questions that are not so clearly answered, like this one, can be settled in your favor.
    .

    If his approval ratings are anything to go by, trump is losing the argument, and may well be on a path to impeachment – which, if I understand correctly, doesn’t necessarily rest on the finer points of law, but has wider latitude from the politics of it (it only takes a specific majority in House and Senate to agree).

    The process alone can muck up any progress.
    .

    Now, ask me how trump can build back that credibility and trust?

    And, I will ask you how do you make a man change his behavior (for starters)?

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>