Stannis is the man....nis

US Politics: Ask Fox News

403 posts in this topic

So it's confirmed not only that there's still an ongoing FBI investigation of Trump but also that it's been ongoing since July 2016.  So the FBI Director dropped the Clinton bombshell but never mentioned the other far more troubling investigation during the campaign.  Unreal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, aceluby said:

What if that incompetence is actually what is saving us?  What if the agenda being pursued is just your typical GOP agenda with a gross amount of incompetence from actually getting anything done?  

I get that angle, but what happens when 9/12 hits? Or we're looking at a true wartime situation? At that point, you're going to be begging for competence. 

Edited by Manhole Eunuchsbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mexal said:

This is next level nuts.

Watching their reactions when they're being read Trump's tweets is ridiculously illustrative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Comey announced that the RNC was hacked also but the DNC info was only released. Hmmmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Triskan said:

So it's confirmed not only that there's still an ongoing FBI investigation of Trump but also that it's been ongoing since July 2016.  So the FBI Director dropped the Clinton bombshell but never mentioned the other far more troubling investigation during the campaign.  Unreal. 

Which isn't a surprise given all his answers. Clinton email investigation was over. Trump investigation is still ongoing. It's why they never released that information in the Intelligence report about Russia interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

He reminds me of that famous comment of Winston Churchill:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

[tangent] Churchill never said this. [/tangent]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DunderMifflin's Law

If Churchill didn't say it then it was Mark Twain. If it was neither of them then Thatcher said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hereward said:

[tangent] Churchill never said this. [/tangent]

Hahahaha! Of course it wasn't, but it's a great attribution!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

DunderMifflin's Law

If Churchill didn't say it then it was Mark Twain. If it was neither of them then Thatcher said it.

If it wasn't Churchill or Twain, it was generally Wilde, Coward, Mencken or Birkenhead. Thatcher never said anything knowingly amusing in her entire life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Which isn't a surprise given all his answers. Clinton email investigation was over. Trump investigation is still ongoing. It's why they never released that information in the Intelligence report about Russia interference.

True, but given that there was supposed to be this deeply-entrenched norm that you don't mention any of this stuff in the final months of the election it makes the decision to announce the Clinton investigation even more weird.  But also, this...doesn't quite right.  When Comey announced the new inquiries due to the Weiner stuff that had appeared that was necessarily an ongoing investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hereward said:

If it wasn't Churchill or Twain, it was generally Wilde, Coward, Mencken or Birkenhead. Thatcher never said anything knowingly amusing in her entire life.

Yogi Berra and G.B. Shaw want a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article by Frank Rich argues that the Dems are fools if they focus too much on going after the rural white vote that they lost.  Whether one agrees with his assessment or not the article is a great summary of the recent cottage industry of pieces on this demographic.

Personally I think that Rich is largely right in that a huge portion of this demographic is never going to stop voting GOP.  That said, Obama was able to thread the needle and turn out big numbers of Dems but also get a bit of this rural demographic as well.  There really was such a thing as the rural white guy that voted Obama over Romney but Trump over Clinton.  Maybe Rich's point is simply that expectations should be limited in terms of how much of the Dems should pursue this demographic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Triskan said:

This article by Frank Rich argues that the Dems are fools if they focus too much on going after the rural white vote that they lost.  Whether one agrees with his assessment or not the article is a great summary of the recent cottage industry of pieces on this demographic.

Personally I think that Rich is largely right in that a huge portion of this demographic is never going to stop voting GOP.  That said, Obama was able to thread the needle and turn out big numbers of Dems but also get a bit of this rural demographic as well.  There really was such a thing as the rural white guy that voted Obama over Romney but Trump over Clinton.  Maybe Rich's point is simply that expectations should be limited in terms of how much of the Dems should pursue this demographic.

How about pursuing the "not giving us a shit candidate who is extremely unpopular" demographic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, Sean Spicer has just said 45 is ....I don't know what to call it. Trump doubled down on Obama spying on him, then tripled down, then ...quadrupled down?  He's quintupling down, sextupling down?  He was just asked if Trump would now apologize for his comments, and Spicer said Comey said "There is no evidence of surveillance on Trump at the moment".

I don't recall he said 'at the moment'? Did he say 'at the moment'?

And Trump is attacking Comey for refusing to say what his discussions with Obama were, the suggestion being, I think, that Obama himself was the leaker of the Flynn information.

And the disgusting thing is, Spicer than continues on to say every single person involved in investigating Russian contacts have found nothing and it's time to stop talking about it because it's untrue. This after 16 or 17 US security services have said Trump was not 'wiretapped'.

CNN has replayed that section of testimony and I can confirm Comey did NOT use the words "at the moment'. He definitively said the FBI found no evidence and said he was authorized on behalf of the Justice Department to say they had found no evidence either.

The "at the moment" is a complete invention of the WH, and they suggested it was a continuing investigation. Looking at Russian links is a continuing investigation, not Obama spying on 45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

How about pursuing the "not giving us a shit candidate who is extremely unpopular" demographic?

Oh good, lets re-litigate the fucking primary again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MerenthaClone said:

Oh good, lets re-litigate the fucking primary again

Yeah, cause it turned out so well the first time, didn't it?

 

Look, I'm not pointing just to the Bernie thing. This woman had an insane amount of baggage. Granted, a fair percentage of it was bullshit, but I understand why people don't like her. I think many of them sorely misunderstood the lesser of two evils argument, but I get why they couldn't vote for her. She was not a good candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Triskan said:

True, but given that there was supposed to be this deeply-entrenched norm that you don't mention any of this stuff in the final months of the election it makes the decision to announce the Clinton investigation even more weird.  But also, this...doesn't quite right.  When Comey announced the new inquiries due to the Weiner stuff that had appeared that was necessarily an ongoing investigation.

Comey's problem was that he testified under oath to Congress that his investigation of Clinton's email was closed.  With the discovery of the new Wiener emails, he felt obligated to update his testimony to Congress.  I can see why he did what he did.  I can also see why others feel that he should have found out if there was anything new in the emails before deciding whether to send out his letter.  But I don't think Comey was acting maliciously against Clinton.  In hindsight, yeah, I think sending the letter was a mistake because ultimately they were able to review the emails before the election, but it was not clear when he sent the letter that they would be able to do so.

Also, people like to blame Comey, but Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton deserve much of the blame in this particular matter as well.  Had Bill Clinton and Lynch not had their tarmac meeting, Lynch would have been in charge of the Clinton email investigation, and Comey would not have had to be the public face of the investigation.  Both Clinton and Lynch knew better than to meet in the middle of an active investigation.  I couldn't believe the stupidity when it happened.  In addition, apparently Lynch and other DOJ officials were aware of Comey's letter before he sent it out, but Lynch chose not to order him to not send the letter.  If Lynch felt strongly about the letter, she should have ordered him not to send the letter.  Did she refrain because she felt her hands were tied after meeting with Clinton?  Probably, but she never officially recused herself from the investigation, so she could have given the order.

Here's a Washington Post article that goes into all of this in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I must be slow, but I just realized that today is the 2 month anniversary of Trump's presidency.

In one way, that is one devastating realization. It absolutely feels like a year or so. The intensity so far is staggering.

In another, weirder way, there's something encouraging about it. Because it seems like this level of ridiculousness is something that cannot go on. The political environment is simply too absurd, too hostile and too full of bullshit on a daily basis. Four years of this would wear everybody down on every side of every spectrum. Something's gotta give at some point, whether it's a smoking gun scandal finally showing up somewhere, or Congress getting exhausted from defending Trump, or his soft supporters finally tiring of his schtick (which would lead to Congress dumping him in any case).

Of course, I guess it could also end up being the media giving in or coming under legislative restrictions at some point, or dissenters growing apathetic like Bannon is counting on. But I choose to believe the bullshitters will get their due at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, cause it turned out so well the first time, didn't it?

 

Look, I'm not pointing just to the Bernie thing. This woman had an insane amount of baggage. Granted, a fair percentage of it was bullshit, but I understand why people don't like her. I think many of them sorely misunderstood the lesser of two evils argument, but I get why they couldn't vote for her. She was not a good candidate.  

Here's the frightening problem though, the Dems arguably didn't have anyone better. Clinton certainly had more negative baggage than just about anyone else, but if you examine the top elected Democrats you quickly realize that there aren't many good prospects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the frightening problem though, the Dems arguably didn't have anyone better. Clinton certainly had more negative baggage than just about anyone else, but if you examine the top elected Democrats you quickly realize that there aren't many good prospects. 

Yeah, that's a fair point as well. I just think you have to be pretty goddamn bad to lose to this chump. I suppose I'm just looking for someone to blame here. Probably not very rational on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.