Trump: I May Fire Wray for Doing the Opposite of What I Supposedly Fired Comey For
President Trump and his advisers have repeatedly discussed whether to fire FBI Director Christopher A. Wray after Election Day — a scenario that also could imperil the tenure of Attorney General William P. Barr as the president grows increasingly frustrated that federal law enforcement has not delivered his campaign the kind of last-minute boost that the FBI provided in 2016, according to people familiar with the matter.
The conversations among the president and senior aides stem in part from their disappointment that Wray in particular but Barr as well have not done what Trump had hoped — indicate that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden or other Biden associates are under investigation, these people say. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions.
In the campaign’s closing weeks, the president has intensified public calls for jailing his challenger, much as he did for Hillary Clinton, his opponent in 2016. Trump has called Biden a “criminal” without articulating what laws he believes the former vice president has broken.
Bob Woodward’s Rage (affiliate link) gave the fullest account I had read to date of Trump trying to use Rod Rosenstein’s memo about Comey as a justification for firing Comey. Rosenstein (who was clearly a source for the book) was called into Trump’s office, where Trump told him he had been working for days on a long (and, as it turns out, completely crazy) letter that would justify a decision he had made days earlier to fire Comey. Rosenstein mentioned that he believed Comey’s handling of the Clinton matter was against law enforcement standards and justified his firing. Trump was thrilled to hear that and told Rosenstein to write it up. Rosenstein stayed up all night to write his memo justifying the firing of Comey. He gave it to the White House in the morning and Trump immediately fired Comey. Then the White House said it was Rosenstein’s idea and told him to hold a press conference saying so. Rosenstein said he was not going to do a press conference because he would have to tell the truth at such a conference, and that would directly contradict the version of events being put out by the White House.
Rosenstein’s memo concentrated primarily on Comey’s decision to announce the Clinton declination himself — a clear usurpation of prosecutorial prerogative — as well as his decision to hold a press conference disparaging Clinton although she had not been charged. This runs counter to all law enforcement traditions in the federal government. Rosenstein did, however, also criticize Comey for his decision to make a public announcement in October 2016 that the investigation had been reopened:
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the FBI’s decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
Although Rosenstein’s criticism of Comey ultimately centered on the July 2016 decision and not the October 2016 decision to announce the investigation had been reopened, he clearly disapproved of both decisions. Rosenstein’s criticism of Comey’s October 2016 can be seen as part of the justification for the firing that the memo all but recommends. And Trump cited (falsely) Rosenstein’s memo as the justification for firing Comey. (Which nobody believed, and which he ultimately revealed was not true, in an interview with Lester Holt.)
As implausible as it sounds, it’s fair to say that Comey’s announcement that the FBI had reopened a criminal investigation of Trump’s political opponent was part of the justification Trump offered for firing Comey. Sure, nobody believed it, but it was part of the public justification.
Now Trump is reportedly considering firing Christopher Wray for not giving an October announcement that the FBI is investigating his political opponent. In other words, the precise opposite behavior Comey engaged in.
Trump’s dishonesty is on full display here, and the nose can detect his desperation from over a thousand miles away.
Pathetic. Desperate. Sad!Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:40 am
“according to people familiar with the matter.”
“Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions.”beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:44 am
By the way, 1DaveMac does not appear inclined to give me the retraction of his false statement I demanded, so I don’t think you’ll be seeing him here again. I’ll miss his misrepresentations and spurious accusations of dishonesty, but it’s his decision.Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:49 am
Here’s a better story I should have written about: a Dutch researcher has guessed Trump’s Twitter password and gained access to his Twitter account twice. Most recent password: maga2020. Before that, it was yourefired.Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:55 am
Seems difficult to square the implication that this is all made-up BS with Trump’s explicit public directives to his AG that he wants to see publicized investigations ASAP.(Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:59 am
There’s a real cost to things like this. Trump has destroyed the credibility of his administration. If the FBI *does* announce an investigation or arrest this will be a reason to be skeptical that it’s well founded.
John Ratcliff’s recent announcement is an example of that.
In another thread Whembly asked how Trump was worse then Biden. This is a great example of how that’s the case.Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:59 am
It’s a pity all the vile, sociopathic, un-American crap posted there can’t be blamed on a hacker.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:00 am
Was it last week or the week before where Trump said Bill bar was a failure for not doing this and suggested he might fire him for it after the election?Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:00 am
@2-Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:01 am
I expect you will equally disparage any anonymous leaks from a possible Biden Administration, correct?
I always enjoy seeing Trump pull the rug out from under his partisan defenders by admitting he did exactly what he’s accused of doing only after they’ve spent days denying on his behalf, but it’s frankly just sort of pathetic to see someone like BnP manage to trip on the rug Trump had already rolled up.(Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:04 am
I expect you will equally disparage any anonymous leaks from a possible Biden Administration, correct?
Sure, Rip, and I expect you’ll spam every thread with off topic anti-Biden links, correct?beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:07 am
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:01 am
I’m willing to evaluate them on a case by case basis. Do you expect there to be many?frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:10 am
I don’t see this as dishonesty. I see it as “acting out.” As irrational and crazed as a active shooter on the Titanic.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:13 am
10, you forgot a link to Lewis Capaldi (tell that he doesnt sound a bit like the late Eddie Money)urbanleftbehind (7d9d99) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:14 am
Sure, Rip, and I expect you’ll spam every thread with off topic anti-Biden links, correct?
Of course.Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:14 am
I for one intend to mock and criticize Biden for the many stupid and messed up things his administration does.Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:16 am
13. In isolation, it’s not “dishonest” for Trump to want non-partisan law enforcement agencies to to politically meddle on his behalf (though it is corrupt); in the larger context of his “law-and-order” and “Biden is corrupt” themes, however, it lays bare how dishonest a human being he is.(Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:17 am
Trump should rewrite the oath of office if he is re-elected. This dual loyalty thing (the country and Trump) is tiresome.DRJ (aede82) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:17 am
He can just change it to a preemptive, retro-active blanket self-pardon.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:27 am
I do take issue with your characterization of Comey’s June statement though.
AG Lynch said that the decision on prosecution would be made by the FBI, when that was clearly untrue. Comey clearly would have prosecuted, but was told not to.
Being ordered by his political masters to announce something he did not believe (something possibly arranged by Bill and Lynch in that secret tarmac meeting) he did so in the most bassackwards way possible, and dared them to fire him. It wasn’t “a clear usurpation of prosecutorial prerogative” — Lynch was using him as her puppet. And he refused to play.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:28 am
Trump should rewrite the oath of office if he is re-elected.
Pretty sure he needs 2/3rds of Congress and 34 states to agree.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:30 am
*Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:31 am
The second time as farce. It’s interesting how Hunter Biden was set up to be the EMAILZ of 2020, impeded slightly of course by the impeachment, but really falling down on the sheer clown car, dumpster fire cloddishness of the president and his coterie.
Who would trust Giuliani with anything?Victor (00af29) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:34 am
Why Trump thought that Comey would be pliant (and fired him when he wasn’t) is hard to understand. Comey clearly had a backbone. His flaws were elsewhereKevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:34 am
Rosenstein had already told Attorney general Jeff Sessions that and it was Sessions who suggested Trump hear what Rosenstein had to say.
Trump thought that if he gave a “Democratic” reason for firing Comey he wouldn’t get criticized.Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:35 am
Hmm, trying to manufacture a public announcement of an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden…sounds familiar. Have I heard this before?TR (9bed35) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:36 am
True. That decision was actually made on an airport tarmac.Hoi Polloi (15cfac) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:37 am
I truly hope that Trump taped the political “planning” sessions in his White House. You could carry a sitcom for a decade just on that alone.
“The president’s mistress wants some hush money. His lawyer suggests a complicated scheme. Hilarity ensues.”Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:37 am
27. While the optics of the tarmac meeting were atrocious, it’s a near-certainty the decision had been reached well before then.(Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:38 am
I think this season of APRESIDENT has jumped the shark. They’re basically repeating old material, only with more desperation.TR (9bed35) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:39 am
20. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:28 am
No, he played. She didn’t tell him what to say, but of course, he had to have the consent of Hillary’s lawyers, which nobody has asked about.
The decision was actually made by Justice Department lawyers, but he pretended it was his recommendation.
He criticized Hillary in order to protect his own reputation.Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:40 am
@20 I don’t think that’s the case. If Comey wanted to prosecute, he could have recommended it once Trump was in office and lord knows Trump would’ve jumped on that with both feet. However, since we didn’t see any prosecution against Hillary I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Comey didn’t recommend they do so.Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:41 am
The tarmac meeting was sprung up Loretta Lynch by Bill Clinton and it was to see if there was a RICO investigation of them both going on.
If she refused to be with him that would mean she had been warned against meeting with him. Now she refuse to have ascewddled meeting with him and could not avoid bumping into him if they were at the same event, but this was in the middle, and thus a test.
If there was no RICO investigation, then Hillary would let herself be interviewed and she knew no indictment would be hanging over her head; if there was a RICO investigation she would not le herself be interviewed but she knew she would not be indicted before the election because she had just about run out the clock for that.Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:44 am
If this were above board, Trump and pals would never use Rudy for this. There are so many people they could bring this to. but the Russians use Rudy.
it’s transparent and it’s amazing that in our tabloid and clickbait culture this kind of thing will become the norm in all elections, only further degrading our nation and democracy. Something has got to be done.
The advent of this collusion strategy really threatens to ruin the modern world.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:46 am
Trump is a baby who doesn’t know what he wants from one minute to the next. “Waah! Mommy!”nk (1d9030) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:46 am
Nepotism Barbie, yesterday:
And he’s never believed in having yes-men!Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:46 am
However, since we didn’t see any prosecution against Hillary I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Comey didn’t recommend they do so.
Having announced that he would not prosecute, he could hardly change his mind and expect the prosecution to succeed.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:47 am
And, while Trump would have leapt at the chance, there is no evidence that the DoJ in 2017 would have cared what Trump leapt at.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:48 am
Same difference. Comey wouldn’t stop investigating a political ally, and Wray wouldn’t start investigating a political enemy. We can credit Trump for his consistency, albeit consistently corrupt consistency.Paul Montagu (77c694) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:50 am
Am I the only who remembers Trump nixing the prosecution of Hillary, after the election, saying the Clintons were good people and they had suffered enough?nk (1d9030) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:52 am
Having announced that he would not prosecute, he could hardly change his mind and expect the prosecution to succeed.
He would cease to be a “serious prosecutor”, by his own words.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:54 am
@6 Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 8:59 am
Yeah, going to disagree with this point too.
Naturally, I’m all skeptical of what the government does regardless who’s at the top. But, I don’t see it as “reputational destroying” as you do.
In fact, I think being cynical towards our government is a good thing.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:56 am
The Ministry of Truth has rectified the malquotation, Comrade.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:57 am
The internet remembers too, only slightly differently:nk (1d9030) — 10/22/2020 @ 9:59 am
O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
“And if the Party says that it is not four but five – then how many?”Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:05 am
A Delaware computer repairman.
He first contacted the FBI and Senator Mike Lee. (and at least one other member of Congress)
He thought the worst material on it was the pictures.Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:17 am
@37 & 38 Sure he could. He wouldn’t have needed to explain at all because they aren’t supposed to do that anyway, but if he had, he could just have said that with fresh eyes on the evidences, it became apparent that they that needed to prosecute. And even if Sessions wouldn’t do it, Billy Barr’s been in for a while now, he could’ve taken an earlier recommendation by Comey and run with it.
@44 and then immediately went back to his crooked Hillary rhetoric.Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:21 am
He would cease to be a “serious prosecutor”, by his own words.
Well, I misspoke. He would not recommend prosecution. He himself was not a prosecutor, he was the FBI Director.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:26 am
“And if the Party says that it is not four but five – then how many?”
All of them at once.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:27 am
and then immediately went back to his crooked Hillary rhetoric.
No, not immediately. Once he saw his gesture was rewarded with a two year trip to the fishing hole. But, yeah “both sides”…beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:28 am
This.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:28 am
@50 Yes, immediately.
“Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump·Nov 18, 2017
Crooked Hillary Clinton is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!”
Note the date.Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:34 am
@52: Yeah, Nic, six months after Mueller was appointed. Your point?beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:45 am
@53 I believe I made it further up, but I’ll be glad to repeat it. If Comey had wanted Hillary prosecuted and there was evidence to support it, he could have submitted the recommendation and at some point in the last 4 years, someone would have picked it up and run with it.Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 10:56 am
No Nic, your point @52 seemed to be that Trump reversed himself immediately, having nothing to do with efforts to hunt him down or anything else. Is that still your point?beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:03 am
Joe Biden says he would set up a “bipartisan commission of scholars” from across the ideological spectrum to explore ways to change the US Supreme Court. https://nbcnews.to/31tLK9i
Stephen L. Miller
Cool. He can even name this bipartisan commission “Congress”
BatSpooky Sexy Augustus CaesarBat
By “bi-partisan” he means MSNBC panels and The Lincoln Project
EARLY VOTE IN PERSONharkin (7fb4c9) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:13 am
Norms are so quaint.
Jacking up the seats on the Court to “achieve balance” (read: undo 40 years of GOP organizing, which succeeded despite Trump) is like me assigning myself thousands of Amazon shares to correct imprudent stock sales in the past.
It would destroy what remains of trust in the courts and the law. The courts would correctly be seen as pawns of Congress and their independence seen only in history books. I’d bet money on succession attempts in Texas and the South. The march towards civil war would quicken.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:21 am
For those keeping score, today’s Bobulinski statement means
a) the emails are real – well, duhwhembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:24 am
b) ‘H’ was ‘holding’ 10% for ‘the big guy’
c) ‘the big guy’ is Joe Biden
d) Joe Biden was lying about not knowing
e) Bobulinski has flipped, so more to come
BTW, what is up with this whole VOTE campaign. Anyone who is cognizant of the issues has voted or will certainly vote. Trying to coax people away from their soap operas and celebrity mags to vote, to the point of mailing them ballots unasked for, seems wrong. It’s like one side seeks every last vote from low-information and self-centered people. The really amazing thing is that it isn’t Donald Trump.Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:25 am
Question: If the Biden involvement in Ukraine is as alleged does that mean that the charges in Trump’s impeachment weren’t actually impeachable offenses, and never mind?Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:27 am
@55 You seem to be having trouble following the conversation, so I will sum up.
1. Kevin, at 20, said that Comey clearly would have prosecuted.
2. I disagreed at 32, saying that if Comey had wanted to prosecuted he would’ve recommended it, Trump would’ve liked it, and someone would have done it.
3. Kevin at 37 and 38 disagreed with me saying that going back on his recommendation would’ve looked bad and the DOJ wouldn’t have done it anyway.
4. nk at 44 said that Trump had said it was all good, the Clintons are great, he wasn’t going to prosecute, he appreciates them.
5. At 47, I disagreed with Kevin at 37/38 presenting a “reasonable” way to backtrack and that Barr would do it. And I disagreed with nk, as I don’t think that Trump’s actions showed he had given Hillary a “pass.
6. You disagreed with me at 50 and said that no, no, Trump had totally been good with Hillary for years.
7. At 52, I posted a quote of a Trump tweet saying that he was still on the “Crooked Hillary” train.
8. You make what appears to be an irrelevant reference to Mueller and ask what my point was at 53.
9. At 54 I tell you I already made it earlier but restate anyway.
10. At 55 you make a comment that appears to ignore the entire context of the conversation but might be a really poor attempt to reference the possibility of an argument that maybe Trump was mad at Hillary about Mueller? Which is in no way convincing that he wouldn’t have pushed to prosecute her if that was an available option.
11. We are now at 60? where I have recapped the entire conversation in which my point was that if Comey had wanted to prosecute he would have recommended it and at some point in the last 4 yrs, the DOJ would’ve taken action on that.
Are we clear now?Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:28 am
6. You disagreed with me at 50 and said that no, no, Trump had totally been good with Hillary for years.
Dishonest. Never said that.
Never mind, Nic.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:33 am
That’s how it reads to me though. You specifically quoted a small section about Hillary, and you responded “no” so it reads like you’re saying the opposite.
Claiming Nic was ‘dishonest’ because you’re deliberately vague isn’t a good way to have a real exchange of ideas in good faith.
Nic is bending over backwards to explain his point of view, you’re putting words in his mouth and calling him a liar without bothering to articulate yourself.
Maybe all us Trump haters are dumb dummies but you could at least meet us halfway in these discussions, instead of pretending you never took a position and calling people liars you could just defend whatever your point was. If you had a point.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:38 am
harkin’s quote is incomplete and misleading.
Biden said “reform the court system,” not “change the US Supreme Court.”Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:40 am
@62 Are you saying that you didn’t mean that there were 2 years when Trump got advantages for being magnanimous toward Hillary? Because that’s what it looked like you were saying. It could mean that you don’t think that 2 years is multiple and so doesn’t count as years, but that’s silly on it’s face, so my assumption is that you didn’t mean that. Also, do you know the definition of dishonest?
But if you want to leave it, that’s fine.Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:44 am
LOL.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:45 am
…and now you know why Trump critics are spinning so badly.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:55 am
Trump released that 60 minutes interview. The last thing you will think when watching it is ‘this is the guy who will defeat ISIS’. He just looks so scared and fragile.
Stahl also looks quite biased at times. That’s the truth. A lot of Trump’s fans here thought the bias would show how unfair things are. They will be satisfied they were right, and Trump’s critics will also be satisfied Trump should have been better equipped to handle it.
I think the idea of releasing it is to add distractions in case the debate is another disaster. If it’s just to hurt ratings that’s silly as they are making their presentation much more interesting.
I like the idea of recording and releasing the unedited interview.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:01 pm
Oh and he can’t drink a glass of water with one hand still. We were all joking about that, but I wonder what happened.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:03 pm
I saw that video.
Trump did okay.
Stahl came off unhinged.
I think every politician should record their interviews just to keep the media honest.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:03 pm
Whembly: whatever someone slipped into Dustin’s coffee this morning, it’s working! 😉qdpsteve (8d496a) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:06 pm
@65: Clearly I meant that Trump was twiddling his thumbs waiting for the investigation to finish, which he knew ahead of time would be two years, before getting peeved that HRC was being let off. That’s what any non-silly person would think.
You focused on the word “immediately”, as I did, and bolded a date that is the opposite of immediate, unless you thought he was elected in Nov 2017.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:06 pm
Joe has said he didn’t discuss his Son’s business in Ukraine while he was VP. Has he been asked about his involvement in this venture after he was VP?
Because Joe getting money while VP, even if through his son as bag man, is extremely bad. Joe being involved when out of office is less bad. Additionally what was his actual involvement? You seem to be using this specific substantiation to assert that all previous accusations are substantiated.
BTW, even if it’s shown that Joe was involved in helping Hunter set up a business in 2017, I would still find that less corrupt then many of the things Trump and his family have done while in office. Not trying to minimize Biden trying to cash in at this point. Just heading off ‘Biden is imperfect, you should vote for Trump.’ Biden is the less bad choice.Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:11 pm
@73 Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:11 pmwhembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:13 pm
Dude, there were emails and text messages as early as 2015 that indicates Joe Biden’s involvements in these deals (as Hunter ask his dad’s approval for “this and that”).
I think he did very poorly, looked thin-skinned and weird. What about Trump’s performance would you praise?
As we speak I am having the best cup I think Ive ever had so whatever it is please keep it coming!Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:14 pm
@72 It was not clear at all, because that isn’t what you said. However, the investigation has been done for a while and still no prosecution of Hillary. Clearly he wasn’t twiddling his thumbs waiting for the investigation to finish, or we’ve have seen action at this point. And there would’ve been no reason to wait. Whether or not Hillary should be prosecuted for having classified information on a private server had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. And less than a year in that kind of turn around is pretty darn quick.Nic (896fdf) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:15 pm
I’m sorry, Kevin M., but you’re misinforming my readers, and you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Comey believed there was not a prosecutable case. I read his book and you clearly have not. You’re entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to just make up narratives that are totally unsupported by the factual record.Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:15 pm
Hunter asking is just a weasel. You don’t trust him so why are you trusting him?
Do you have anything that does more than ‘indicate’ according to people super biased in the matter?
To be clear: I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if you’re right. Biden’s not a hero of the politics profession at all. I just think this is precisely the sort of thing that is disinformation. The people putting this out cannot tell the truth. If telling the truth would do the job, they still would need to lie.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:17 pm
Trump’s had about 3 years to provide evidence that Biden wasn’t acting in the US interest as the lead on Ukraine. So far he hasn’t done so. We don’t need Hunter’s email to make the case. Have the people who worked on Ukraine at the state department testify as to what was happening and why. Put them in front of the senate committee (GOP lead) and ask them under oath. Have them show internal documents about the assessment of Shokin at the time. What were the assessments? What options were considered? What influence did Biden personally have in the planning.
The testimony available at this point, Kent and Maria(?) has shown that we wanted Shokin gone for legitimate reasons. The senate report by Johson that was done showed that Hunter’s sinecure at worst made us look hypnotical. But that’s that’s about it.
We’ve had investigations by a body that’s antagonistic to Biden, could compel testimony under oath and had all the access to documents that Trump wanted them to have. At this point I don’t think there’s much there.Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:19 pm
I do too, but it’s a dick move to do it in advance of the show.
Trump comes off like a whiny crybaby.. Stahl comes off totally unprepared. Hooray for the republic!Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:20 pm
link to the stuff from 2015 would be appreciated if you have time. If not I’ll look myself when I can.Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:21 pm
Direct quote from the Crybaby in Chief: “Your first statement to me was ‘Are you ready for tough questions?’ That’s no way to talk. No way to talk.”Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:21 pm
You conveniently left out the question mark. Slick!Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:22 pm
What office was Joe Biden selling in 2017?
The idea that Trump fans are truly concerned about corruption . . . it is to laugh.Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:22 pm
Trump wants a SC appointed before he leaves office, to gum up Biden for two years. It’s the sort of house warming gift that’s becoming tradition, so who can blame him.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:25 pm
@82: I’ll bet Stahl didn’t start the Biden interview that way. Any takers?beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:27 pm
The idea that Trump fans are truly concerned about corruption . . . it is to laugh.
The “both sides” argument doesn’t apply here, it seems to me, eh?
It’s never been about corruption, going back at least four or five years. Both sides.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:34 pm
If they appoint someone credible, which is unlikely, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. So far all the AUSA that have looked into Trump’s conspiracy theories has come up dry. Druham was a bust, the Unmasking this is a bust, the review of the Hillary investigation was a bust. But maybe *this* time Trump’s not lying to you.Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:35 pm
She hasn’t interviewed Biden. Not that acting picked on has anything to do with facts.Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:36 pm
She hasn’t interviewed Biden. Not that acting picked on has anything to do with facts.
Ok, well, I’m not going to put myself out there as a 60 Minutes junkie, having not watched it since Harry Reasoner was on it.
Whoever interviewed Biden. Like it matters.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:39 pm
What question do you want Biden to be asked that he hasn’t been asked?Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:40 pm
Apparently at some point in your life the words “Both” and “sides” hurt you, but I don’t recall seeing anyone else comment on the concept here in a long time, if ever at all.
Let’s be direct and honest. Trump is extremely corrupt. His family is shamelessly enriching themselves, giving themselves great power, sitting at tables with the most accomplished leaders in the world even though they are idiots. it is embarrassing and it is unethical.
If you’re honestly concerned about Hunter, who actually wasn’t even in an administration, then you would also be concerned the same principles were violated by Trump.
I know because I have no problem agreeing Hunter’s no good and for the same reason I say Trump and pals are no good.
If you need to sum this up with some ‘that’s what RINOs’ say and completely ignore it, there’s a reason!Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:40 pm
“It’s never been about corruption, going back at least four or five years”
Drain the swamp!Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:41 pm
I thought she interviewed Biden, too BNP.
It’s very fair to want to see both interviews to compare. I think Stahl did poorly and you’re completely justified to complain about it. I also think Trump handled it very poorly. Not just below par for the job, but worse than a random person off the street. He’s so thin skinned, so sensitive, so entitled to yes men. It’s really no surprise ISIS is surging and Kim Jung Un is more threatening than ever. No surprise the free world seems to be in retreat and the bad guys don’t.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:42 pm
I like it! What did you put in your coffee??
🙂Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:47 pm
I mean, she said in the interview that Trump put out there that she didn’t. I assume she’s not lying about that.Patterico (115b1f) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:48 pm
What question do you want Biden to be asked that he hasn’t been asked?
Ok, how about when he raised his hand along with all the other Democrats (including Kamala) at one of the primary debates? I believe it was a question about healthcare for illegals. That was a pledge. Details? How do we pay for it? etc.
I’ve got plenty more.
The “Why aren’t you more angry at Trump?” one has already been asked, so that’s out.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:50 pm
LOL I stand corrected.
I guess the other day when someone quoted a question about Hunter Biden for 60 minutes, I thought that was from Stahl. BNP, I guess you’re right that this isn’t a very good example of a tough Biden interview! hahahaDustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:55 pm
It’s still in. We’re even having a whole election about Trump.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:56 pm
I need to ask what’s in it. My mother in law made it as she’s helping with the screaming crazy gal running around. I think it’s HEB Taste of San Antonio.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:57 pm
OT: Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2016 deposition has been released. I read the first hundred pages or so. Apart from a few intriguing references to Mar-a-Lago, all the potentially interesting names are redacted. Maxwell basically denied everything, was totally uncooperative and claimed to have no knowledge about Epstein diddling minors that she recruited for him.
Some of the sparring between counsel was mildly entertaining.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:10 pm
@79 Time123 (457a1d) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:19 pm
Because of politics. For much of his early term Trump was under the Sword of Damocles…erm, meant the Special Counsel Office.
Then, folks lost their minds when Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden’s Burisma ordeal.
Then, all hell broke loose and Trump was Impeached™.
Then, covid hit and as such much of the DOJ’s activites were slowed to a crawl (Wheel of justice damn near stopped).
Here’s the kicker…we do have investigations looking into the Bidens, into Spygate, and others…it’ll be done when it’s done.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:10 pm
NPR says it won’t cover Hunter Biden news because it’s a ‘waste’ of time
tsar becket adams
NPR, which brought you “’Auntie Maxine’ Waters Gets Ready To Take On The Banks As House Panel Chair” and “Police Say ‘Empire’ Actor Jussie Smollett Attacked In Possible Hate Crime,” says it can’t be bothered to cover unverified Hunter Biden non-story.
Wall St Journal – Now Corruption Story Is About Joe, Not Hunter
How long can the media blackout continue?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/now-corruption-story-is-about-joe-not-hunter-11603392288?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/43V8YqoUsXharkin (7fb4c9) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:11 pm
@89 Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 12:35 pm
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. (insert various Vader/Office Space “Noooo” memes).
Special Counsel need to die and it would be a total abuse of power, imo, for Trump/Barr to drop a SCO investigation of the incoming administration.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:13 pm
I don’t personally care if you investigate the Bidens or not. But this “we need a SC” as revenge this is silly. A SC has no more power then any other AUSA. They just have a different command structure.
BTW, Trump didn’t ask Ukraine, he withheld military aid to make them do it. It was China who he asked on the front lawn of the white house.Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:16 pm
So now I see the redactions have been cracked easily, because there is a full, alphabetical index with page numbers. The names are redacted in the index, but you can easily figure out many of them.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:18 pm
I think you missed my previous post. 😉 I do NOT want a SCO for this.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:30 pm
“How do we pay for it? etc.”
Mexico will pay for it.Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:52 pm
harkin (7fb4c9) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:11 pm
It still has time to turn into a money laundering case or any number of other things. Or drag other politicans into it.
When you’re having fun with Chinese, what do you even call a corrupt communist business[person], and Ukrainian oligarchs who knows what sorts of wacky antics ensued.frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:01 pm
Washington, DC looked like a dystopian world when protesters dressed in “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes gathered to demonstrate against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
The Machiavellian Republicans aren’t stealing the seat, there Hijacking the seat! For doing Underhandly and grimmy dealings is in there D.N.A!! Like the big old tax scam they pulled off for the rich, this shouldn’t be new to you, this is how they get down!
(((Road Bear Life)))
The Handmaid’s Tale is about surrendering liberty to a totalitarian state in the face of a natural disaster. The mask on these people is the most ironic thing I have seen in years.
There were less than a dozen of these lunatics but you have zero coverage of the massive crowd of women chanting “fill the seat! fill the seat!” right next to them? Great work.
MetsMan7186harkin (7fb4c9) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:02 pm
I haven’t seen the show or read the book. Were the handmaidens allowed to demonstrate publicly against their oppression?
I haven’t seen the show or read the book. Were the handmaidens allowed to demonstrate publicly against their oppression?”
You post a lot of hot takes, harkin, but this moron should win a prize.Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:04 pm
Should we get a new thread for the Debate tonight?
I think Trump definitely loses if he goes old man arguing the sky mode, like he did in first debate.
If he’s the stump speech Happy Warrior™ Trump, he’d be fine.
I’m actually anxious to see how well muting the mic is going to work.whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:33 pm
Mexico will pay for it.
Hellz ya, cuz Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy effectively does that, Davethulhu. Glad you’re a fan, but Biden will flush it.
Maybe he’ll make that clear if he’s ever asked, but I think he’ll just set up a committee to study it.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:39 pm
103. whembly (c30c83) — 10/22/2020 @ 1:10 pm
Actually he asked them to check out a story he had – where some of his facts were wrong. Ukrainian president Zelensky did not feel free to tell Trump he was wrong.
Joe Biden did not boast of firing a prosecutor to stop an investigation.
Trump had also cut off aid but didn’t mention it in the call. In fact, nobody told the Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians knew because of leaks, but they couldn’t say that they knew because they didn’t know want to be accused of spying. And didn’t want to complain because they didn’t know why and 2) Russia might find out.
They got worried when they thought this might be part of a review of foreign policy. It got confirmed at the end of August.
Now all the civil servants were trying to put an end to this hold because it was without basis in law. The time for affirming or not affirming anti=corruption conditions Congress had put on aid had passed and it had been affirmed.
A president could make a request for recission to Congress, but Trump hadn’t done this nor did high level White House officials want him to do this. They wanted him to release the hold. This aid had virtually unanimous support in Congress.
Trump had put a hold because his mind had been poisoned about the Ukrainian government due to Russian disinformation that some corrupt people, who had also worked to defeat him in 2016, were close to the new president. This is what Giuliani was pressing Zelensky about and Zelensky actually got rid of the few people he named (who were not important.) But Trump knew nothing about what Giuliani was doing.
Trump didn’t tell anyone at all what he wanted from Ukraine.
Then, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland tried to cut a deal, whereby aid would be restored if Ukraine started and announced an investigation into Burisma, and told others that was the deal. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) mentioned this to Trump in a phone call and Trump said he had no such ideas in his mind. He said Ukraine should want to do the investigation anyway. He said he was reviewing the matter and the Senator would probably be happy with his decision.
Gordon Sondland also brought up this deal with Trump and Trump rejected it. Still, the aid wasn’t forthcoming. Gordon Sondland was of the opinion that an announcement of an investigation would shake the money loose.
So Zelensky scheduled an interview with Fareed Zakaria of NN in which he would announce an investigation but this became known to Congress (the practical deadline for getting money out the door, Sept 30 was approaching. The Defense Department and even the State Department suddenly released the money that was on hold and Ukrainian president Zelensky canceled his CNN interview.
They were not in fact able to get all the money out the door by the end of the fiscal year and Congress had to reappropriate the money.
To prevent alll hell from breaking loose Trump restored the money but Democrats persisted in misrepresenting the situation rather than trying to understand it.
Some sort of thing maybe.
Any Ukrainiann investigation into Burisma has been put on hold because the Ukraianians don’t want to appear to be taking sides in American politics. They were told they needed bipartisan support by any including Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:43 pm
There’s a difference between Larson E. Whipsnade corruption, J.R. Ewing corruption and James Mattoon Scott corruption.
See if you can figure it out.DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:48 pm
Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 11:40 am
And he also said, during the same interview, there are a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing.frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:51 pm
BTW, I saw the first 15 minutes of the Trump-Stahl interview and then the video was taken down. Apparently, Trump welshed on the agreement with CBS News; he’s not allowed to air the video before the show.Paul Montagu (77c694) — 10/22/2020 @ 2:56 pm
It looked contentious from Minute One. Trump wanted to go on with his spiel without interruption and without Stahl fact-checking him. I expect a similar mood tonite. Maybe he’ll walk out on that if Welker gets too uppity.
There’s a famous old tale about the vanity that is Lesley Stahl that would inevitably get retold at the CBS holiday parties; back in the day when she was the new kid at network, there were traditional trenchcoated male reporters on stand-by, microphones in hand, ready to go on air standing the rain getting soaked– and in their earpieces they grimaced as they heard Stahl fussing w/a producer over her blond hair and worried about how she’d look on camera. When Hewitt tagged her for 60 Minutes, a lot of those old ‘weathered’ guys were pretty happy about the transfer. 😉DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:00 pm
Biden should have worked on all the little zingers to drop on Trump that just send him up a rope. He cannot control himself, and just egging it on a little bit, could make for an epic meltdown. Then Biden doesn’t have to do anything but point and laugh at Donnie…again, which will work him up even more.Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:04 pm
All Trump needs to do is be nice and calm,and let Biden make some inevitable massive gaffes. He would beat expectations and shake up the race.
Is he able to let an event not be about himself?Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:08 pm
“Hellz ya, cuz Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy effectively does that, Davethulhu. ”
Show your math.Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:09 pm
LOL nice try I guessDustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:09 pm
Show your math.
Logic, not math. So, we’re paying for the healthcare for illegals that are in Mexico pending review of their cases? Is that how you think it works?beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:16 pm
“Logic, not math.”
Math, actually. So far about $6 billion has been spent on the wall. The “Remain in Mexico” policy has blocked about 60,000 asylum seekers. To get close to your point, all you need to do is show that each of these asylum seekers would have cost $100,000.
But even that doesn’t really make the point, because the asylum seekers staying in Mexico doesn’t result in a reimbursement from Mexico of the $6 billion spent.Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:37 pm
BNP, you’d never give such a generous amount of help to an argument you don’t agree with.
Trump did not promise that the cost savings from his immigration policies would save us the cost of a wall. And you do need to show your math… your response of ‘logic not math’ is not really explaining what you think the cost of a wall is, or how we saved so much money with Trump’s great work (which are damn pricey overall). A sarcastic ‘is that how you think it works?!?!?!’ is not actually backing up your claim that Mexico actually paid for a wall.
Also, there’s no wall. Mexico did not provide any funds for a wall. This promise is like all other Trump promises. Too good to be true, and also not true.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:40 pm
Too late hunter biden e-mails and his associates are coming out in a torrent biden is damaged even if media can drag his body over the finish line. Ghislane maxwell testimony dumps all over bubba not trump driving media crazy!asset (ea92c5) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:47 pm
Dustin and Davethulhu, you’re focused on the wall and I’m focused on the question to Biden, which is the comment of mine Davethulhu responded to.
So, it’s nice that you want to take the issue of Biden’s pledge in the debate (which nobody has asked him) and do yet another whatabout on what Trump said more than four years ago — so have at it amongst yourselves.beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 3:51 pm
“So, it’s nice that you want to take the issue of Biden’s pledge in the debate (which nobody has asked him) and do yet another whatabout on what Trump said more than four years ago — so have at it amongst yourselves.”
I think your question “how do we pay for it” is insincere.Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:08 pm
Four years is not bad for Trump. The expiration date for his promises is usually fifteen minutes.nk (1d9030) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:08 pm
Biden’s people say that muting the Trump’s microphone so the teevee audience can’t hear him doesn’t mean Joe won’t be able to, so he’s been practicing giving answers while somebody screams at him the whole time…
Would anyone really be surprised if Trump walked over and started shouting into Biden’s mic while his own is muted?Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:13 pm
I think your question “how do we pay for it” is insincere
I think the obsession with Trump saying Mexico will pay for the wall is insincere.
If Mexico said today they would pay every cent of the wall, and build it today, you’d still oppose it. But, you can correct me,beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:13 pm
Air Pods Pro are noise-cancelling and barely visible. Or Biden could bring a set of Bose 700s and put them on ostentatiously.nk (1d9030) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:19 pm
“If Mexico said today they would pay every cent of the wall, and build it today, you’d still oppose it. But, you can correct me,”
What if a solid gold meteor that just happened to be shaped like mexico landed on the white house lawn? What then?!?!Davethulhu (6d3b4b) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:20 pm
In the interview with Stahl, Trump revives the vaporware health care plan he’s been promising to release “in two weeks” since 2016.
After claiming his plan is “fully developed,” and they are just waiting for Obamacare to be ruled unconstitutional to release all the details (why?), this exchange followed:
LOL. He has no clue about his mythical plan.
This con-man’s gig is just about up.Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:24 pm
Yeah fair point. When you said “hellz yeah” and asserted Mexico essentially paid for the wall, asking how your assertion makes any sense is a ‘whatabout’ rather than a direct response. You can tell by how you’re quoted and replied to directly and craziness like that.
I agree, that was so long ago, when Trump was just running for president, and now that he’s up for re-election it’s really kinda stupid to evaluate whether Trump kept that promise, him being the president who kept no difficult promises.Dustin (4237e0) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:35 pm
OMG, I’m so excited, I just got a chance to make a donation to President Trump with a “historic” 9X “Debate Donor Match”.
Is anyone really stupid enough to believe they have piles of money sitting around on hold that he only gets if somebody else donates?
If feel good though, since it means every dollar I don’t donate is really TEN dollars Trump doesn’t get.
I hope they make a 20X or 100X match offer, so my money can go even farther by staying in my wallet!Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:45 pm
Dave, it makes about as much sense as the pic of a Biden supporter I saw yesterday, giving the finger to…
a Trump/Pence bumper sticker.
“Ooo, I showed that sticker who’s boss! Bet it’s embarrassed now!” [/nuclear eyeroll]qdpsteve (8d496a) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:52 pm
Just remember… the biggest mistake everyone has ever made when dealing w/Trump… is underestimating him.DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/22/2020 @ 5:33 pm
# 139. Um, no. The biggest mistake in dealing with Trump is expecting to be paid (or repaid).Appalled (1a17de) — 10/23/2020 @ 4:13 am
131. Dave (1bb933) — 10/22/2020 @ 4:13 pm
Yes. And he didn’t. Because that’s never been done in a presidential debate before.
As a matter of fact the muting acted as a detrrent to try to say something. Both candidates were speaking very dully.Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 10/23/2020 @ 8:41 am