General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt sickens me to see Democrats falling all over themselves to defend James Comey.
This man rigged the 2016 election, over and over again.
Persisted
(290 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Comey is a modern-day Benedict Arnold. His actions alone prove that. Open to question is whether he carefully acted alone or whether he conspired with others to throw the election and shift massive power to America's own right-wing economic elites.
I do not suspect at this point that he conspired with Russia, or is friendly to Russia. But it has to be noted that he was watching Russian covert infiltration since 2015, by his own admission, and that beyond doubt he fully understood that his efforts would combine with with theirs to gain their common end. That's called "aid and comfort" to the enemy, and we lack only a formal state of war to make him liable for a formal charge of treason.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Try to keep up
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)tblue37
(64,982 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Not nauseated. So I take it he felt OK (though those near him may not have).
Grown2Hate
(2,005 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)I'm not usually such a pedant, but these days I'm a little on edge. In any case the, terms seem to be losing this distinction
Nailed it.
still_one
(91,965 posts)interference in the election. They also condem trump's interference in an investigation involving him by Comey
Is the difference really that difficult to see, and it isn't due to politics as usual
Both positions are consistent. In one case they condemn Comey for his interference, and in the next they condem trump for his interference
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)remove Rump for. That's obvious.
What I'm wondering is what rewards he will be offered or choose. Will they betray him or give him his future of choice? Big money now or big power? Or will both be possible in a conservative government?
Where to after this necessary working transition, Comey?
mucifer
(23,374 posts)LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)He made some inexplicable decisions and errors that proved costly, but he did not "rig" the election.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)in completely illegitimate ways.
janterry
(4,429 posts)I don't know what to think, but I think he *might* know something that would shift 'us' as Democrats. Or it might not be all that serious. IDK.
Frankly, I'm tired of what we don't know. I think that in a healthy democracy, we'd know more. Even that whole Reality Winner situation. We wouldn't know any of that if she hadn't leaked info. I can't, for the life of me, see why we - as citizens - shouldn't know that Russia actively tried to hack our software.
So, for Comey - I want to know - if not what he knows, than a lot more of what he knows. I think we need a whole lot more transparency.............
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)Someone that plays both sides against the middle.
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)He has been maligned. The GOP is trying to attack his integrity to defend Trump. Comey is impressive when being questioned. He was only one factor in the election. Even though there is residual anger from the election, we are in the shit show. A man that could be considered an enemy is an ally.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)She has been maligned. But this is where we are and in order to address current issues, Comey has to be the focal point.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)He spoke very clearly about things she did - and they are things she did. He then spoke of the impact of those things on both him personally and, in his opinion, on the FBI.
Looking at ALL his testimony, what I see is someone who has a total focus on the role of the FBI, law, justice etc. Think back to his encounter with Ascroft and the other Bush people. He had no reluctance to stand against some very tough Bush people because his opinion is that what they wanted was against the law. Note that he was willing to resign over that.
With Trump, he clearly saw Trump personally as a threat to the rule of law - so he wrote the contemporaneous notes and spoke to people at that time - actions that he never did with either Bush or Obama.
Looking at those two interactions with Republicans, I actually for the first time understand what he did in July 2016. At that point, they had completed the investigation and his professional opinion was that no prosecutor would charge this case. While it is true that the FBI normally does not make announcements on cases they will not pursue, someone had to say this investigation was over as it was VERY highly publicized before.
Going back a bit to when Lynch told him to call it a "matter", not an Investigation, he likely was concerned for his own reputation and that of the FBI. In retrospect, it was wrong and stupid that Lynch asked this. Everyone knew it was a euphemism AND they also knew it was being investigated by the State IG and the Intelligence Committee IG. You also might remember that the campaign itself disputed that there was an investigation and that HRC was a subject of investigation.
Add to this, Bill Clinton ignoring all that and meeting privately on the plane with Lynch and you can see why she had to remove herself from what would have been her role. At that point, there were many calls that a special prosecutor because there was reason to question whether the AQ was biased. What she did instead was to defer more than would normally be the case to Comey.
In the testimony, Comey explained why he was against a special prosecutor. He stated that at that point he was at the end of an exhaustive investigation and he did NOT find cause to indict. Consider what would have happened had Comey, in his position, rather than making the statement he did, said that the politics called for a special prosecutor. If his goal was to disrupt Clinton's candidacy, that would have been the most spectacular way to do it - resetting the investigation back to start, 5 months before the election.
Step back to July when he made his statement that the case was closed. There was intense anger on both sides. The Republicans continued to argue that the things she did SHOULD have had a consequence and attacked him as covering for Clinton. Here, I do need to tell you that the dominant reaction was anger that he said anything beyond "the case is closed".
While I think Comey's two later letters were consistent with his blinkers on focus on just what the FBI was doing, here I think he was completely wrong. The potential impact was predictable and the "new" information was not an obvious smoking gun that he would have been remiss not to speak of. In fact, had he instead, quietly had his team immediately do the analysis first - there would not have been any letters - as the second letter essentially said there was nothing there. Here, I suspect he was motivated -as always - by preserving reputations of himself and the FBI and he worried that Republicans would leak the story and he would be accused of covering up. Those letters very likely changed the course of the race -- and he says that "nauseates him" - as it should.
To me, the testimony helps me understand him better. He is a brilliant, disciplined, hard working, honest person who almost intentionally ignores the forest to concentrate on each tree. With Clinton, in trying to diligently follow the investigation and to keep politics out -- he actually became a major factor in giving Trump the election.
As to Lynch, who is a very impressive person, she dealt very badly with dealing with the strange circumstance of having a nominee of her party, who she was personally close to being investigated. Her silly language of "matters" and a private meeting with Clinton, clearly gave at least the perception that she could not be unbiased.
Not to mention, at the heart of this entire issue was that Clinton herself made a huge, unforced error when she did not scramble to leave her work email with the State Department when she left or as soon as possible afterward. There had been inquiries for some of them even when she was in office. Had the SD had them, they would have complied and the emails meeting the request criteria would have gone to media sources and the Congress --- and they contained absolutely nothing wrong. It is always said that the coverup is worse than the crime -- here there was not even a crime.
The odd thing is that - as people - Comey, Lynch and Clinton likely see themselves in very similar ways - excellent serious public servants, with integrity and purpose to the best of their abilities. All of them had flaws and, with Comey, his flaws came from a blind reliance on his strengths.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)I disagree about Comey. I think his actions were outside DOJ guidelines and that is that. If he thought Lynch was unethical he had two choices: 1) resign. 2) Go to President Obama.
I don't even agree that the FBI needed to be involved to begin with. I don't believe that anything that happened warranted an FBI investigation.
If the GOP hadn't made up the fake email scandal they would have made up a different scandal and Comey would have gone along with that too. All his decisions went against Clinton and it was always going to be that way.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)I think saying he thought Lynch "unethical" might be going a step too far. He was also not alone in thinking she had compromised her ability to be the lead on this and she had indicated that she would accept the judgement of the FBI. It is not clear what you think he might have wanted Obama to do. All I can think of would be that he might ask Lynch to distance herself, which she did. We might learn that Obama did request she do so. Obama was not going to ask for her resignation which I would guess would have made things even worse for Clinton, giving more legs to the Bill Clinton/Lynch story.
Given that the internal watchdogs, the SD IG and the Intelligence committee IG both recommended investigation, what is more questionable is that he spoke of Clinton's handling of email as "sloppy" and putting out the two letters than whether there should have been an investigation at all.
Back in January, before Trump became President, the Obama administration DOJ IG spoke of wanting to investigate how the FBI handled the case. From the article, this was pushed by many Democratic legislators. ( http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/doj-watchdog-launches-probe-into-handling-of-clinton-email-investigation/index.html ) To me, this is rather stunning as they KNEW that within a few months, there would be a Republican AG and the IGs are political appointees.
In that article, there is an interesting comment on how Obama saw the IGs:
"Decisions that are made by inspectors general across the administration are independent, and this administration has assiduously protected the independence of inspectors general," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at a briefing.
This actually shows that Obama genuinely believed in transparency, accountability and rule of law. Could you imagine Trump protecting IGs who examine the workings of his administration? This reflects the Constitutional Law expert, Obama's belief in our government. It should also be noted that the State Department did not have an IG for Clinton's term. Kerry recommended one within 2 months of being Secretary, who was nominated and in place for most of that term.
Both Obama and Kerry then stayed as far away as they could from this entire issue - to keep politics out.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)He was appointed by Obama in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz
karynnj
(59,475 posts)From the link I included,
CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said news of the probe provoked some interesting questions for the new administration, since the tenure of Horowitz, as a political appointee, ends along with the Obama administration ends.
"There is a tradition that some presidents allow some inspector generals to stay on and complete. One of the questions that (Trump's nominee for attorney general) Jeff Sessions will surely be asked now ... is will he allow this investigation to continue? Will they appoint a new inspector general?" Toobin told CNN's Brooke Baldwin.
Jeff Sessions will likely first decide if he wants that investigation -- if so, keeping the Obama nominated IG could be seen as a politically smart move. Consider that for Sessions, who came out badly in the hearing that anything that weakens Comey might be seen as good.
Towlie
(5,308 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)over and over again.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)He resigned from the Republican party some time ago, and is now apolitical. He has publicly said he has no interest in politics. He has long had a reputation of being an incredibly honest person, and is well respected in this town by both Republicans and Democrats, even those who have sometimes disagreed with his decisions. Nobody questions his integrity.
If he had wanted to tank Hillary Clinton so Trump would win the election, he had ample opportunity to do that at the end of her email investigation. But he played it straight as he saw it.
Sam
athena
(4,187 posts)He just claims to be apolitical because that makes him look better. If you look at his views and actions, he is extremely conservative.
Read this article without getting sick if you can. It's about Comey's politics and ideology:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-comeys-intellectual-history
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Hmm?
Would you feel equally as strongly and infuriated if he had done the same to someone you were rooting for?
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)The Comey incident was one stumbling block of many in last years campaign and it is a pretty big leap on your part to assume that you know his exact motivations and purpose.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)when they see my name.
I think Comey dominated the election from beginning to end. And I don't believe his actions were consistent with DOJ guidelines.
I don't know his exact motivations, you are right. But in the end it is his actions that matter.
And I don't believe that Comey was one of many factors that tipped the balance one way rather than the other. I think his October Surprise dramatically transformed the race. And his July press conference had a pronounced impact on the election, making her more vulnerable to subsequent damage from Comey and the Russians.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Are you internet famous?
StevieM
(10,499 posts)and know that they have seen my name and posts before.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Times change.
Oneironaut
(5,462 posts)Screw doing what's right. We need to win! The ends justify the means!
The Democratic Party's turning of Comey into a savior is a laughable act of hypocrisy and desperation. If you actually trust Comey, you're being played for a fool.
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)I also see a partisan man who made grave mistakes.
Towlie
(5,308 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Unfortunately, too many people fall for it. People need to learn that if someone looks too good to be true, he usually is.
If you analyze Comey's actions over the years, he has one principle guiding him, and that is his own self-interest. At times Comey's self-interest favors the Right, and at times it favors the Left. But someone who cares more about his own self-interest than the good of his country is not someone I would call "honest". Rather, it's someone I would call, "self-centered and very dangerous".
haele
(12,581 posts)The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but my tool. Democrats are fully aware of Comey and his past actions - including the Whitewater investigation that he was part of, as well as the way he actually stood up for the Constitution when Ashcroft was in his sickbed and the Cheney administration wanted Ashcroft to sign off on torture as interrogation.
The Clintons are his bête noir. He would do anything to screw them. Guiliani's crew played him like a fiddle there.
Other than that, he is a career Justice Department man.
So while Dems don't "need to" forgive him for the part he played in the Clinton Email debacle, they can use him quite effectively to get to Obstruction of Justice in the Russia-Trump connection probe.
Haele
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)No one is worried about your upset stomach.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Because of yr white hot rage. The testimony today is very damaging to Trump.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Trump is a huge threat.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)and sounds like a lot of hyperbole
Squinch
(50,774 posts)and he released the little story. He's been after the Clintons since Whitewater. The guy rigged the election and put a Russian puppet into the presidency.
That ain't hyperbole.
mythology
(9,527 posts)You leave out a major point of context that the Clinton email issue was the subject of a known investigation and Congress had specifically requested notice of any new updates.
Also if Clinton had been smarter and followed the strict letter of the law, there wouldn't have been a stupid server to investigate. She knew she was running for President and knew what a relentless mad on Republicans have for her. She should have gone above and beyond to be squeaky clean. She didn't.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)We have Russia to thank for that.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Attacking Comey when he is going after Trump is foolish...the enemy of my enemy is my friend...at least for the moment.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)ETA: The damage is done, an he played a big part. No matter what happens, the GOP will be in charge
StevieM
(10,499 posts)The GOP took back the White House, Hillary has been humiliated and Neil Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)also by his "satellites". They are all complicit in this disastrous administration.
trump should have never been elected. And Comey played a big role for it to happen.
I will never forget.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)the October Surprise Clinton would have destroyed Trump.
Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)Once you accept that, it all clicks.
MedusaX
(1,129 posts)So unless one has some deep seated desire to live in an
all white evangelical 3rd world kleptocracy
It might be best to set personal feelings aside for a while.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Kaleva
(36,147 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)I don't care how you feel about the election, that was a good thing. I know you think Trump only happened because of Comey, but no one has turned up the heat more on Trump than Comey. That fact alone should tell you something about why people here are cutting him slack.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I hope he drops some bombshells. I also think he should be under investigation. Both thoughts can be held without conflict.
Fuck Comey.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)Comey was finally able to bring down the Clintons, something he's been wanting to do since Whitewater, He did rig the election as much as he was able. Which was quite a lot.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Cui bono
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Bias often prevents us from looking at any one thing objectively, and compels us to call those who do, "Democrats falling all over themselves..." in place of any objective or supporting evidence.
It's that bias which personally frustrates me... otherwise clever little fellas screaming the sky is falling when he overhears someone merely say "Comey made a valid statement..."
You seem shrill and irrational. You most likely are not... but you certainly seem as such.
nadine_mn
(3,702 posts)He - like every single news organization, political analyst, even Trump himself - believed Hillary would win. And she did.
Comey did not have that type of power to "rig".
Did he make some poor decisions - yes. Which he openly regrets, but felt were right at the time.
He has worked with and also gone against the wishes of both parties throughout his career.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)My take:
There is good reason to think that he thought Hillary was ahead and would win the GE just like most people thought.
And there is good reason to think that he was trying to protect the FBI from Republican backlash should he not be forthright about the continuing investigation that he said was closed.
I wish he didn't do it and it makes him mildly nauseous to think that he swayed the election.
OldHippieChick
(2,434 posts)and really never thought for a minute it would kill her chances. He still can't believe it did and that is what makes him sick.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)In the world we all thought we were going to be in...
a) news leaks that more e-mails were found but kept tight hold until post election thus proving 'bias' for Clinton
b) leaks prior to the election and no ability to frame the narrative
c) What he chose and let the chips fall where they may but taking the FBI out of it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I give a big side eye to anyone- on either side- trying to discredit him right now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Our agenda is not relitigating 2016, it's taking down Trump and winning future elections.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)Pretty clear to me anyway.
LisaM
(27,762 posts)The man should have "Trigger Alert" tattooed on his forehead - he's wakening all kinds of negative feelings in my today. I can't stand to look at him.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)Comey sent him a classified letter updating him on the status of the investigation, as was his duty. It was not intended for public release.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)And, yes, Jason Chaffetz is evil. He drove the fake email scandal from beginning to end.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)of any change in status of an investigation he had deemed closed.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)so withholding would give the appearance of a cover-up.
athena
(4,187 posts)Comey did what he did to cover his own ass. As this article details:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-comeys-intellectual-history
Comey was worried that if the reopening of the investigation had been leaked, he would end up looking like he was protecting HRC. Now, ask yourself this: who would have suffered if it looked like Comey was protecting HRC, when all he was doing was following the Justice Department's guidelines and traditions not to interfere in elections? The answer is Comey. The only person who would have suffered is Comey. Comey's focus is first and foremost and always Comey. Someone who is more interested in his self-interest than in the good of the country is not someone who deserves this kind of intense admiration on the Left.
It seems to me that the Left is desperately in need of a man they can lionize. A woman running for the presidency was so disturbing and traumatic to some people that they don't even care if the man they're lionizing is a liberal. They just need a man, period.
If being a man were not a requirement, we would have seen this kind of admiration for Sally Yates, who actually put the good of her country ahead of her own self-interest. We did not. She is, after all, just a woman.
athena
(4,187 posts)"This letter violated the most basic Justice Department and FBI guidelines and traditions of not announcing early-stage investigations and not becoming involved in partisan politics."
"What Comey could have done, should have done but shamefully did not do is order FBI agents to examine the new emails without public comment to determine whether there was any new evidence to reverse his decision to clear Clinton. Had incriminating evidence been discovered, that would have been the proper time to write to Congress not before the search warrant was even granted, and before any evidence was even reviewed."
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)The GOP/Trump got what they wanted, then they disposed of him.
HAB911
(8,811 posts)until he isn't, again
Squinch
(50,774 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And given half a chance he'll go right back to lying about the Clintons and playing pennyboy to the nutjobs.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)is a complete drama monger who sees himself as the white knight righting wrongs.
At the moment the only wrongs for him to right - the only ones that will keep CNN doing countdowns to the moment when he speaks - are those dealing with Trump. I think he will be useful to us as long as that situation exists.
But yes. He has a personal and long standing and well documented and irrational thing about the Clintons. I believe he knew exactly what he was doing when he put his thumb heavily on the election scale. There are a lot of people trying to come up with explanations for why he released the Clinton story and not the RUSSIANS STEALING THE ELECTION!!!! story. There is no explanation other than he hates the Clintons and wanted Trump to win.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)We've seen this movie before.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)VOX
(22,976 posts)Politics have never been clean. It's all about trade-offs, compromise, and making do.
The purity issue ("Can't vote for Hillary in good conscience," etc.) helped to hand the 2016 election to the most grossly unqualified, incompetent and destructive candidate in history. Subsequent events have brought into question the very reality of American democracy.
The country is now in serious crisis, fighting for its very life. A mechanism is desperately needed to spark action toward removing as many individuals in #45's toxic administration as possible, including #45. Seeking PURITY in picking and choosing some acceptable means to this end is a fool's errand.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Someone that high up in the law enforcement world who pisses both parties off is probably doing something right.
ADX
(1,622 posts)Hekate
(90,202 posts)Okay
StevieM
(10,499 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)He crapped all over Hillary and Loretta Lynch, again.
Basically said Lynch did her best to stop/miss-characterize the Clinton server investigation, which is a lie.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)In an unconventional war, you deploy unconventional weapons and cultivate unconventional allies...
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Comey is playing six-dimensional chess.
MacMcQuill
(5 posts)I'm with ya though.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)I think it is extremely unlikely that Comey voted for Trump, let alone wanted to tilt the election in his favor.
Of course, he did take an action that tilted the election in Trump's direction, and he likely knew it would help Trump. But that doesn't mean he did it for the purpose of helping Trump (or that he thought Trump would win).
I think he thought HRC would win (as did most people, right up until election night), and wanted to avoid Republican whining after the election when it came out. This was extremely poor judgement at best, and (I think) a cowardly desire to avoid criticism at worst. His actions will forever tarnish a reputation he spent a lifetime building, and he will be blamed in part for whatever damage remains to be caused by the Trump presidency.
But given everything we know about Comey during the Bush administration through today, I have a very hard time believing that Comey wanted Trump anywhere near the presidency.
moonscape
(4,664 posts)That Man JB
(2 posts)We're defending the rule of law, just as we defended it when he cleared Hillary of any CRIMINAL mis-doings.
judesedit
(4,437 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)trump .
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)all the russian hogwash and personal bias against her
comey's act didn't help but that was not the sole act responsible for her loss as 75,000 votes total was the difference across 3 states
StevieM
(10,499 posts)what would have been a decisive victory.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)Good news, though, is that I haven't really fallen all over myself. And I'm not "defending" Comey.
Why, just the other day, I went for a walk, and...CHEWED GUM AT THE SAME TIME. Got home safely. It was a beautiful thing.
Comey, from every indication, gave Robert Meuller the ammo he needed (in addition to whatever Meuller gathered without Comey) to assemble a team which is going to dig deep into Trump's trail of Russian money laundering.
Nothing's going to change what happened in 2016. Yes, it was wrong. Comey pretty much admitted that he screwed up during Thursday's hearing. He can't go back and undo it, we are probably not going to have a do-over of the election. In June 2017, Comey's testimony has been instrumental in moving forward with "possible" obstruction of justice / collusion charges against Trump. Folding his testimony into the overall legal case does not require me to defend him, apologize for him, forgive him, or do anything other than watch the legal process at work.
No one on DU has "defended" the role Comey played in the 2016 elections (at least from what I have seen...I do not read every single thread and comment here).
I'm sure if they did, they would have already been shitcanned for it.
My focus, right now, is on Meuller doing his job. My focus is on the legal wheels in Washington turning as they were designed to do, and "IF" significant evidence is found for Trump's impeachment,
My choice is to separate myself from what happened in 2016 and what is happening in 2017. It doesn't mean I am a good Democrat or a bad Democrat. It means I would truly like to see Donald Trump held accountable for anything that he "might have done of an illegal nature."
If Comey is part of that, I am OK with that.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going for a walk.
Just as soon as I find my gum.
Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)You may be thinking about the Republicans' using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" when "Democratic" is correct. That is a right wing insult.
But I am a Democrat, and I hope you are one too, and that is not RWNJ language. It is a label we should be proud to hold.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)Sancho
(9,065 posts)he's a modern version of Archie Bunker, who has conservative and religious values that he uses to rationalize poor decisions. Comey is surely pro-life, he has spoken against police body-cameras, and he has typically acted in the most conservative ways in his career. Comey probably disagrees with almost all progressive positions.
There's no question that he went out of his way to go after Hillary, and over-looked the tRump/Russian connections.
If insane people like tRump want to battle it out with conservatives like Comey it's OK with me. If Obama had fired Comey a couple years ago, Hillary would likely be President (in hindsight).
As it is, if Comey is the tool to take down tRump that's wonderful, but more importantly it would be really cool if Paul Ryan, McTurtle, and a bunch of others turned out to be part of the Russian connection. Pissing off Comey and his FBI buddies might result in turning over a lot of rocks.
We are watching a nasty fight between two extremely egotistical conservative men. While this can be amusing, and is a symptom of internal problems on the Right, it is no reason to lionize a man who is a conservative, cares only about himself, and interfered in the last presidential election in a totally inappropriate way to give us President Trump.
Demonaut
(8,909 posts)Response to StevieM (Original post)
Post removed
Squinch
(50,774 posts)BamaRefugee
(3,476 posts)And of course I supported and voted for him twice.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)alert worthy.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I think the calculation was, if he brought out something bad about Clinton, she would win anyway, but it would be nearly impossible for her to fire him without it looking very bad politically.
nini
(16,670 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 10, 2017, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)
I think what he did before thd election was BS. However the rigging of the election was done by russian meddling in the end.
Now lets fast forward to the current situation - comey is in the position to take this nightmare trump down. I am going to support him in doing so. The survival of this republic is at stake - sometimes you have to suck it up and deal with people you wouldn't normally want to.
still_one
(91,965 posts)you fire someone who is investigating you in the middle of that investigation, obstruction of justice is a real concern
The media's bullshit how this is just partisan political, is their false equivalency garbage that they have been pushing for years
About a week ago The NY Times had an article why the republicans don't sign on to The Paris Acords, and half way in that article they said a motivating factor was because of the "huburis" of President Obama and the Democrats.
It is bullshit, and so is the blanket characterization that the Democrats are defending Comey without putting the facts in context
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)Oneironaut
(5,462 posts)This whole testimony thing was a charade to throw himself into the limelight. He's nothing more than a carnival barking attention whore.
There's only room for one of those in the White House now.
still_one
(91,965 posts)For his interference in an investigation involving him by Comey
JenniferJuniper
(4,496 posts)that POS L'il Marco if he suddenly up and called for Trump's impeachment.
Every time he quoted Trump, it sounded just like something Trump would do or say. And Trump wouldn't know the truth if it flew down and took a chomp out of his yuge ass.
So I believe what Comey says.