[Gorefest]

So you're saying nothing will happen then?

[HoosierDaddy]

I don't know. I'm in the liberal bubble. His supporters probably think Comey is a cuck*-Muslim-terrorist.

*Reddit sucks.

[Vengeance]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 May 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

I don't know. I'm in the liberal bubble. His supporters probably think Comey is a cuck*-Muslim-terrorist.

*Reddit sucks.

Reddit is fine. You just have to stay away from r/donald and not read all of the comments. r/politics is if anything leans to the left.

[HoosierDaddy]

/r/the_donald is cancer.

That being said, it infects so many other subreddits because those idiots are.... well. Idiots.

Independent prosecutor is necessary here.

[Silencer]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 May 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

Silencer, on 10 May 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 10 May 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

Nope.

Investigation should come first. Even then, Pence is just as scary in a more competent way.

I think the argument goes more like: how can the investigation come first, if he just fired the person charged with making that happen? (And how will it happen if he replaces Comey with someone more openly biased?)

As much as I'd like to see an independent special prosecutor appointed, do you really believe that Sessions will do that?

Ergo, he should really be impeached for actively subverting the investigation in the first place. XD



But yes, it's not like the problems all go away if Trump is out. Then again, Pence is a lot less likely to start a nuclear war because someone was mean to him on Twitter. So overall a win?

That's not how America works.

Albeit a bit broken right now.

Sessions is not in it.

Congress empowers special prosecutor -> investigation -> impeachment hearings.

Senate itself can do it if enough care to start proceedings.

Oh, I know. That was more of a tongue-in-cheek take at the "can we impeach him yet" line of questioning.


In actual news, though, apparently one of the guys from the Freedom Caucus is "looking into the legislation" on getting a special prosecutor appointed. Odd direction for that to be coming from, sure, but still.

[Tiste Simeon]

Michael Flynn has been subpoena'd

http://edition.cnn.c...oena/index.html

Can someone tell me what this means? Is it good news? Am trying to read through the Reddit thread but there is always so much going on in one of them...

[Tapper]

Tiste Simeon, on 11 May 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Michael Flynn has been subpoena'd

http://edition.cnn.c...oena/index.html

Can someone tell me what this means? Is it good news? Am trying to read through the Reddit thread but there is always so much going on in one of them...

They've ceased to ask for his co-operation and now demand it, on penalty of legal punishment. Basically, it also ends any remaining hopes Flynn might have had of being given legal immunity in return for his witness statement, which is something he demanded initially. I assume this also means he will go under oath once summoned.
As for good or bad: in return for immunity, the focus of the investigation might have been less focused on Flynn and more on others in the Trump administration/campaign who could be prosecuted. Now the whole focus might be on Flynn alone and leave DJT and all his henchmen (Kushner?) out of the question, something most of the Republicans would be happy with.

[Tiste Simeon]

Kind of like Oliver North? You think he'll take all the blame leaving the others free and clear?

[Tapper]

Tiste Simeon, on 11 May 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Kind of like Oliver North? You think he'll take all the blame leaving the others free and clear?

Nah, not take all the blame. The Flynn hearings are not the only ones, anyway.
There are also the Carter Page, Manafort and Roger Stone connections that are being explored, and the last especially could provide fireworks since Stone is apparently still consulted by Trump, for example about the Comey firing. It would get even better for the Democrats if somehow Sessions' meetings with Kislyak became relevant again, since he is the only one involved who is still in the administration (Trump and Kushner aside, but that might be too high a target as it stands).

But: while the summons is legal, and the questioning is (I guess) under oath, the direction of the questions will be political.
Democrats will probably try and get dirt on as much of the administration as they can: Flynn did after all appoint people to the National Security Council who are still in the White House (K.T. McFarland perhaps the most prominent) and that could snowball.

The Republicans on the other hand have a lot to win by containing the scandal and may thus focus on Flynn, not on who else was involved: if people 'upstairs' from Flynn, like Kushner, Bannon, perhaps Trump himself were being involved or were confirmed to know Flynn lied to Pence, it would hurt the party a lot. This is a Republican administration after all, and the outcome of the Russia-probe might set the tone for the mid-term elections.
Everyone up for election who endorsed, praised or defended Flynn already has a target for attack-advertisement on their back.

[Tiste Simeon]

Thanks. I would love for this to lead to the fall of the current administration but I guess they're too rich and powerful as it stands...

[HoosierDaddy]

Trump calling Comey a "Grandstander" is about as ironic as it gets, and the entire spiel is now a blatant black/white lie of some sort.

Good lord. Impeach this ass and get elections now for 2018 midterms.

[worry]

The FBI raided a GOP consulting group in Maryland today. It's still unclear if this is small potatoes, but the firm has ties to Paul Manafort.
http://www.wbaltv.co...ng-firm/9639787

[Morgoth]

If you guys really want to feel depressed, or maybe laugh, I don't know:

http://www.economist...Trumptranscript

Quote

Q&A
Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump
The Economist talks to the President of the United States about economic policy

DONALD TRUMP, the President of the United States, along with Steve Mnuchin, the
treasury secretary, and Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, sat
down for a conversation with editors from The Economist on May 4th, 2017. What
follows is a lightly edited transcript.

[Morgoth]

Quote

President Trump: And the clock starts ticking. But here you have two people calling saying, “Can we negotiate?” I say yes and I have to wait for a hundred days. I don’t know what a hundred days is going to be like. What’s it going to be like? So NAFTA’s a horrible one-sided deal that’s cost us millions and millions of jobs and cost us tens of billions of dollars.

It sounds like you’re imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA.What would a fair NAFTA look like?
Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?
It’s got to be. It’s got to be.

At least the journalist found ways to cope

[Aptorian]

It's even more frustrating to read a Trump interview than it is to watch it. Imagine being all those people that constantly surround him, every single one of them, from his chief of staff to the lowliest aid, all acutely aware they are dealing with a man that might at all times be the dumbest guy in the room.

[Malankazooie]

Uh, this is can be interpreted as threat, right? Which is potentially criminal, correct? What amazing times (not in a good way) in which we are living.

[HoosierDaddy]

A very, very poor one. Who has something to lose?

[Vengeance]

Malankazooie, on 12 May 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

Uh, this is can be interpreted as threat, right? Which is potentially criminal, correct? What amazing times (not in a good way) in which we are living.

The problem with this is that as the President in the white house he should know if conversations are being recorded. Then you get to the issue of this was a dinner that the white house initiated and where the head of the FBI was requesting to be left in place to continue investigations, and the President asked if he was being investigated and requested personal loyalty. Both of which are ethics violations. If it is true it doesn't matter what Comey told him as he just admitted to potentially violating all kinds of rules. If there are tapes the damage will be neglagable to Comey and impeachable to Trump. But with Trumps history is saying things that are false there should be no doubt who's story is believed. After all Comey has been sworn before the senate and Trump is a proven liar.

[Cause]

Malankazooie, on 12 May 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

Uh, this is can be interpreted as threat, right? Which is potentially criminal, correct? What amazing times (not in a good way) in which we are living.

A president willing to really tweet about how he sees the state of his country, what work he is doing etc could be an amazing thing. An open, unfiltered dialogue from him to his citizens.

Somehow trump manages to turn it into bad reality TV

Edit- Did Trump just claim he invnted the term 'prime the pump'. Alzheimers!

This post has been edited by Cause: 12 May 2017 - 06:50 PM

[Vengeance]

Yes he did. He also tried to explain economics to the editors of the economist....... I stopped reading the Economist because I found that there articles didn't go deep enough into the subject matter that I wanted. But they understand both micro and macro economics. Something that Trump has 0 understanding of.