President Trump Fires FBI Director Comey

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
Like, in practical terms, if we don't have an investigation, then the same thing happens all over again, doesn't it? Gerrymandering, foreign manipulation, electoral college BS, etc? We lose elections to these people, still; they still have control over the narrative to their base and they still win. So if we the people transcend the need for an investigation, how do we actually, yanno, effect change that matters? The free press doesn't convict people, or put them on trial...there needs to be legal proceeding, doesn't there?

Right. And pushing for legal proceedings isn't having much effect at the moment.

I do think, though, that having a free press and an unafraid population is critical to keeping fascism in check. Dictators want people to keep their heads down. We need to keep talking and keep showing the government that we're not buying this crap.

I'm not a Libertarian, but at some point our best weapon is minimizing the government's ability to effectively screw us over. This means, among other things:

- Raising bail money so that protestors cannot be kept in jail as easily as a form of intimidation.

- Providing legal services so that people can sue or fight criminal charges.

- Destigmatizing having a criminal record related to victimless crimes.

- Practicing jury nullification.

- Demanding comprehensive non-discrimination policies in schools and businesses and hold people accountable.

- Demanding that state and local governments do what they can to preserve things like healthcare, education, and non-discrimination legislation.

- Holding corporations accountable for their environmental impact.

I think we need to not only actively oppose Trump but persevere in spite of him. It pains me because, again, I'm not a Libertarian and I generally support having a strong, unified federal government. But we can't rely on the government having our back or doing the right thing, so all we can do is make it harder for our culture to shift closer to totalitarianism.
 

Ketzel

Leaving on the 2:19
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
262
Free press, huh? Here's a USA Today article reporting on the arrest of a reporter, wearing press credentials, who followed HHS Secretary Price and Kellyanne Conway down a hallway of the West Virginia legislature, shouting questions that Price was ignoring. He was arrested and charged with "disrupting government services," a crime with penalties of up to 6 months in jail. The reporter is out on $5000 bail. *Ketzel hunts for her checkbook to send yet another donation to the ACLU.*
 

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
Comeys previous job was being a banker, and a lawyer before that.
A US Attorney IS a law enforcement professional.

Comey was a prosecutor in the US Attorney's office in NY and VA and then Deputy AG. He prosecuted several high profile cases, including the Gambino crime family. That's hardly "inexperienced in law enforcement."
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
Also I find it funny everyone thinks Trumps replacement for director will be inexperienced in law enforcement when Comeys previous job was being a banker, and a lawyer before that.

Because lawyers have nothing to do with laws?
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
- Practicing jury nullification.

That's a real double-edged sword. I would suggest that there's been some "jury nullification" going on in the constant acquittals in police brutality cases.

If we reach the point in society where juries routinely go "#*$@ the law, we're voting to acquit because we don't like the law," the rule of law will have broken. Perhaps irretrievably.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,822
Reaction score
6,576
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
There are many variables here: will the GOP obstruct along with Trump? Unknown.

Will public pressure have an impact? Unknown.

Do people really believe this is about the Comey-Clinton matter? Pretty much, no. There are a lot of Trump supporters trying to make this about Democratic hypocrisy, but that has almost zero chance of going anywhere in my opinion. The news media is still about selling scandal and obstruction and a cover up trumps old news that Comey wrongly influenced the election or that the Democrats have called for his resignation.

And then there's this juicy little variable called leaks, starting with the White House staff: Behind Comey’s firing: An enraged Trump, fuming about Russia
He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.
Two advisors? Someone in Trump's inner circle leaking such insulting things about Trump?

I can't imagine there won't be at least one FBI employee that will let it leak if the investigation is ordered stopped by any new director.
 

JJ Litke

People are not wearing enough hats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
8,012
Reaction score
4,534
Location
Austin
Website
www.jjlitke.com
The Watergate scandal took two years to resolve, and during a lot of that time it really looked like Nixon was going to get away with it. I wouldn't assume Trump is off the hook just yet.

The Nixon library caused a stir on Twitter by nitpicking that Nixon didn't fire the FBI director (Cox was a special prosecutor). I know it shouldn't be funny, but damn, I sure did laugh. It's all just so bizarre.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
There are many variables here: will the GOP obstruct along with Trump? Unknown.

I would argue based on their recent history and current statements that yes, they will.
Will public pressure have an impact? Unknown.
Agreed. But the lack of public pressure will definitely not have an impact. So, might as well give it a shot, eh?

Do people really believe this is about the Comey-Clinton matter? Pretty much, no. There are a lot of Trump supporters trying to make this about Democratic hypocrisy, but that has almost zero chance of going anywhere in my opinion.

I don't know. I have the opposite view. I can very easily see the "Democrats are hypocrites" narrative being accepted widely. Every other implausible narrative got pushed through to lead us here; why not this?

I don't want to argue against hope, here, even though I personally am not hopeful. My argument is just that we can't count on anything; our government is not going to do the right thing of its own volition.
 
Last edited:

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,522
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
I don't know. I have the opposite view. I can very easily see the "Democrats are hypocrites" narrative being accepted widely. Every other implausible narrative got pushed through to lead us here; why not this?

The bernie "bros" (in quotes because it includes the likes of Susan Sarandon, too) are all too happy to jump on this narrative as well.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,822
Reaction score
6,576
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
The Watergate scandal took two years to resolve, and during a lot of that time it really looked like Nixon was going to get away with it. I wouldn't assume Trump is off the hook just yet.

The Nixon library caused a stir on Twitter by nitpicking that Nixon didn't fire the FBI director (Cox was a special prosecutor). I know it shouldn't be funny, but damn, I sure did laugh. It's all just so bizarre.
I hope it does take a couple years. My daydream is that Pence is involved and we'll have a Democratic Speaker of the House when they both resign. Of course if Pence is involved the GOP will likely put a new VP in there like they did with Nixon (for different reasons).
 

Fabio_of_Mullets

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
4
He was fired because he was leading an investigation into the White House's ties to Russia, wherein the president, his team, his family, etc, are implicated. This isn't about Comey; this is about obstruction of justice and the expansion of corruptive powers.

That the president might replace him with someone inexperienced isn't an issue so much as the fact that he'll replace him with someone who will stop the investigation.

Is there an investigation or isn't there? If so for what? Because I have seen multiple times where they (Comey, DOJ, Congress) have said there is no evidence of any collusion or association with Russia. Since there is (from what I have heard) no crime committed, why would he be fired for investigating?
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
I lived through Watergate. I was a young liberal in 1968--majoring in Spanish and English Literature. To say that I and my female classmates (Mount St. Clare College--Clinton, Iowa.) were disheartened when Nixon was elected is an understatement. We had watched the debacle at Grant Park on television while it happened! We were devastated.

Nixon was arrogant, dismissive of any opposition. He was backed by the morally outraged older generation-- it was a world where racial and gender equality was a dream, forget sexual freedom. It was a world I struggle to explain because it was so different from today. Yeah, people talked about equal rights for women but female teachers had no maternity leave. Women had very little concrete progress in the world. My black classmates had it even worse.

In the next 4 years I fell in love, married a man who was majoring in education. Somehow he managed to sweet talk me into going into teaching--but that is another story. I was pregnant when I graduated college. ( Sweet talking--again!)

I could not take a teaching job out of college because y husband and I could not afford to pay a substitute teacher while I was on maternity leave. Boggle your mind that a teacher would have to pay for her own substitute while on maternity leave? There was no maternity leave in those days! Try this on for size-- female teachers did not receive the same pay as male teachers. There was a clause about being head of household that allowed for single females with children to be paid more if they were head of household--BUT in those days there were no unmarried mothers hired as teachers. So Nixon's election was like a giant step back, into the scary, ultra conservative 50s. Bust the teachers unions like the small gov Republicans want to do, and this is what you get. Look what De-regulation has done for airline employees and passengers while the CEOs rake in the profits--but, again, I digress.)

I opted out of politics. I read Dr. Spock not news magazines. I could not believe that the country did not see Nixon for the arrogant tyrant that he so clearly seemed to me. There was discontent over the years, but that was dismissed as blowhard liberals whining about an election they were bound to lose. There were rumors about Nixon having an "enemies list" but no one in the mainstream was talking about this. I really felt that there was nothing we could do.

In 1972 in the summer, the Watergate Plumbers were arrested. They were arrested trying to plug a leak. This paranoid obsession with leaks and not the actual facts led Nixon and his supporters to make one miss step after another--ring any bells? They were ringing for me back then, but only because I had a background in Spanish and English political history. Otherwise I might have continued with diaper folding--yeah, we used cloth diapers back then-- and ignored the newspapers, which were mostly Republican slanted in my area. But even in my area, the idea of wiretapping another political party had folks mildly upset. Nobody said WTF back then but that was the mood.

People who did not mind Nixon's politics, were beginning to be worried about his lying, his cover ups, his power grabs, his dismissing anyone who disagreed with him as an enemy. The formal investigation was stymied but the tips were still coming in, from well placed sources. People who feared Nixon but knew that he must be stopped because he had gone over the edge, picked up phones--landline phones in offices and homes that could be traced, and unleashed the truth.

It didn't happen all at once. There were whole months when the scandal was reported to have been quashed. That it all amounted to nothing. It was disappointing but not unexpected. Things like this happen in our system and if the powers that be are clever, or at least humbled, they can get past this. Our system does not like, I'm willing to say, will not accept, arrogance and blind stupidity on the part of our leaders. A bumbling cover up and a refusal to back down from a bald faced lie --this gets the public goat more than bugging a rival or buddying up to Russians bearing gifts.

People notice the funny business, but the arrogant refusal to admit a mistake really pisses us off. Telling an FBI Director to "stay the hell out of this business" doesn't wash in 2017 any better than in 1972. I watched with my friends, in slack jawed shock, as some of Nixon's most conservative supporters slowly turned against him. Paul Harvey is the one I remember best. I don't have the time to explain Paul Harvey but he WAS everything that made the fifties the fifties. When he turned on Nixon it was a shock to me.

Still the televised hearings were not held until the next summer. I was home all day folding diapers so I was the one to take notes and report to my husband and friends. My mom would call long distance in the middle of the day to marvel over the events of the day--anyone remember daytime long distance rates? Sometimes the phone bill ran 19$. My dad had a conniption fit! But then he was a Republican and my mom, a Kennedy Democrat, was rubbing his face in the scandal.

As I remember,r the Saturday Night Massacre, in the autumn of 1973, was the real turning point--the time when ordinary people began to rumble and almost everything we heard on the news was Watergate. The time that the boulder was unleashed on Indiana.

It was not until summer 1974 that the smoking gun was revealed. By then the public was so disgusted with Nixon's behavior it didn't matter what was said in those missing 18 minutes. They assumed the worst. Rightly so? No one knows. He incompetently, arrogantly covered a lie for the last time--assuming that people would believe him regardless of the lies. No one had any patience left, not the news people, not the Republicans.

I sincerely believe that this is where we are now. I made a post some time ago, that this thing was progressing like Watergate on steroids. Still, it is going more slowly than some of you expect it should. Hang on. If this scandal doesn't take him down, there will be another one. There will always be another one with Trump. The one good thing is that people, ordinary, everyday people are listening and thinking. That's what it is all about--not winning elections or losing elections, but listening and thinking--s6

PS--sorry for the long winded history lesson but I was asked to explain. You know how we teachers are.
 
Last edited:

eqb

I write novels
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,680
Reaction score
2,056
Location
In the resistance
Website
www.claireodell.com
Is there an investigation or isn't there? If so for what? Because I have seen multiple times where they (Comey, DOJ, Congress) have said there is no evidence of any collusion or association with Russia. Since there is (from what I have heard) no crime committed, why would he be fired for investigating?

Could you cite your sources when you say "there was no crime committed"?
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
That's a real double-edged sword. I would suggest that there's been some "jury nullification" going on in the constant acquittals in police brutality cases.

If we reach the point in society where juries routinely go "#*$@ the law, we're voting to acquit because we don't like the law," the rule of law will have broken. Perhaps irretrievably.

It's definitely an issue, and I'm very cautious about dismantling systems that have potential to work really well. But jury nullification is already a legal option that people can use. And I'm not sure that the law isn't broken already, or on that track.
 

Fabio_of_Mullets

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
4
Could you cite your sources when you say "there was no crime committed"?

Yeah, but you'll call my sources "fake news". How about some white house press conferences on Youtube on the matter? I will post a link to a good one.

If we continue this I would also like the evidence that says they broke the law. I'm not infallible and could be wrong.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
Is there an investigation or isn't there? If so for what?

From the Atlantic:

[FONT=&quot]With just two sentences on Monday, FBI Director James Comey cast a long, dark shadow over the presidency of Donald Trump and the campaign that resulted in his election.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I’ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey said in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. “That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”[/FONT]

That sounds fairly definitive to me? But okay, here's some more--

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn seeking business records, as part of the ongoing probe of Russian meddling in last year's election, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-advisers-russia-investigation-2017-1


The US intelligence community has opened investigations into several members of President Donald Trump's inner circle over the past year, focusing on the advisers' potential ties to Russian government officials throughout Trump's presidential campaign and beyond.

Because I have seen multiple times where they (Comey, DOJ, Congress) have said there is no evidence of any collusion or association with Russia.

The point of an investigation is to find evidence. But there are numerous shady associations between Trump's staff, family members, White House aides, and Russia, etc--

[FONT=&quot]Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, previously worked for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian former prime minister of Ukraine. Roger Stone tweeted during the election about apparent impending Wikileaks releases and told NBC News in October he had "back channel communications" with the group. Carter Page, who served a foreign policy adviser, had business connections to Russia. Retired Lt. General Flynn, a Trump campaign adviser, was paid for an appearance at an event in Russia held by state-sponsored television network RT in which he sat with Putin, among others.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating Russian hacking, recently [/FONT]asked Page[FONT=&quot] to provide a list of any contacts with Russian officials and The New York Times reports similar letters went out to Manafort, Stone and Flynn. And the committee has requested documents on Trump from the Treasury Departments's money laundering unit, NBC News had confirmed.[/FONT]

http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-golf-courses-russia-funding-2017-5


"We have all the funding we need out of Russia," Eric reportedly said.
"Really?" Dodson recalled answering.
"Oh, yeah," he said Eric Trump answered. "We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time."
Donald Trump's campaign associates and his businesses have repeatedly come under fire since the 2016 campaign and election over questions of their ties to Russia.
Here are some charts:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868


And there's, yanno, the whole Michael Flynn thing, which is covered in some of the above links.

Since there is (from what I have heard) no crime committed, why would he be fired for investigating?

For potentially finding out about crimes/wrongdoing having been committed, maybe. That's sort of the point of a federal investigation, I think.

(Sessions himself has in fact perjured himself here, but no one seems to care, so.)
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Yeah, but you'll call my sources "fake news". How about some white house press conferences on Youtube on the matter? I will post a link to a good one.

If we continue this I would also like the evidence that says they broke the law. I'm not infallible and could be wrong.

I don't see anyone in the thread saying they broke the law -- I see people saying they need to be investigated.

No, a WH press conference, which involves Sean Spicer claiming there was no crime committed, is not evidence, in any way shape or form, that there was no crime committed.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
Yeah, but you'll call my sources "fake news". How about some white house press conferences on Youtube on the matter? I will post a link to a good one.

I dunno, that's sort of like using a video of a suspected burglar saying "I'm innocent" as proof that he's innocent.

If we continue this I would also like the evidence that says they broke the law. I'm not infallible and could be wrong.

How should we provide this if a) it's classified; the FBI isn't exactly going to be like 'here's the evidence for why we have launched a probe' and b) the investigation is not completed?
 
Last edited:

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Conviction after Impeachment takes 67 Senators. We'll never get that in this Congress.

Oh, of course we can get that in this Congress. Mostly because there are few, if any, Profiles In Courage in this Congress.

Politicians want to get elected and then re-elected. They'll run like rats if confronted and just like a rat, they'll bare their teeth when cornered. Trump is a politician. He's feeling the heat over Russia, and Comey just asked for more money to expand his investigations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. One way to throw the dogs off the track is to give them a distraction. Comey is a distraction.

Like a good little Republican stooge, James Comey put his fat thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election and tipped it into the win column for the guy who ended up firing him six months later. There's no gratitude in Washington.

Here's what happens next: the Democrats will flex their pecs and wring their hands and whine but they have zero investigative or subpoena power. Mitch McConnell will deny the Dems their request for an independent special prosecutor because the Republicans want the investigations to stay under their control and they can slow-walk them until the 2018 elections are over. Outrage and anger can only go on for so long and then like a fire, it burns itself out.

Go ahead and sign your online petitions and call your Congresscritters. It won't do you no good. This isn't Watergate. That was 40 years ago and we are living in a much different time. The political parties have changed. The news media has changed. The American people have changed. It's not enough for pissed-off progressives to be bent over the corruption and excesses of the Trump Administration. It will never be enough unless enough conservatives and Republicans who place country over party emerge to join the chorus of disapproval.

This will not end until Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan walk into the Oval Office and tell Trump he doesn't have the votes to avoid being impeached. That's how the dug-in tick named Richard Milhous Nixon was dislodged from the American body politic.
The atmosphere in the Oval Office, lit up with TV lights on that warm August evening in 1974, crackled with tension as Richard M. Nixon said he was resigning -- the first president to do so.
Nixon said he would depart at noon the next day, Aug. 9, because it had become evident to him that he no longer had "a strong enough political base in the Congress" to finish his term. The immediate reaction to Nixon's resignation speech was that he had once again fudged the truth. Reporters wrote that it was the Watergate scandal and the strong likelihood of his impeachment by the House and his conviction by the Senate that prompted him to quit.

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Ariz., the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was a respected conservative leader in a Senate whose Republican ranks were less conservative than now. On Aug. 6, 1974, at the regular Senate Republican Conference lunch, Goldwater fumed: "There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many. Nixon should get his ass out of the White House -- today!"


Goldwater called William Timmons, a White House aide, to set up a meeting. He told Timmons he wanted to tell the president that many GOP senators wanted him to resign.


Nixon agreed to see Goldwater on the following day. But he insisted that the top GOP congressional leaders accompany him. So Goldwater arrived with Sen. Hugh Scott, Pa., the minority leader, while Scott's House counterpart, Rep. John Rhodes, Ariz., came separately.


"There's not more than 15 senators for you," Goldwater said. Nixon asked the pipe-smoking Scott for his views. "I think 12 to 15," said Scott, who had once had defended Nixon on the basis of a doctored Watergate transcript that had been shown to him privately.

Nixon swore up and down he'd never quit, never give his enemies the satisfaction of gloating. He was going to hang on to the bitter end, hunker down in the bunker and as long as the military still backed him and he didn't run out of scotch, Nixon wasn't going anywhere. Until Barry Goldwater told him to his face he had nowhere left to go.

Anybody think Trump is a more reasonable creature than Dick Nixon? I sure don't. I think if McConnell and Ryan were to tell Trump to get his ass out of the White House, he'd have them bodily removed from the premises, but only after having their knuckles broken with a claw hammer.

Not until then we're in full-bore crisis mode and Republicans are getting the worst of it will McConnell be given a reason to give a damn. If that never happens and the Republicans aren't prodded to respond against Trump if for no reason other than self-preservation, this is all just pissing in the wind.

It would be nice to think the Republicans would place country over party and do the right thing, but there's no reason to believe they even know what the right thing is.
 
Last edited:

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,822
Reaction score
6,576
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Is there an investigation or isn't there? If so for what? Because I have seen multiple times where they (Comey, DOJ, Congress) have said there is no evidence of any collusion or association with Russia. Since there is (from what I have heard) no crime committed, why would he be fired for investigating?
No, that is how Comey's, Clapper's and Yate's words are being mis-described but it is not what they said.

Comey has said there is a criminal investigation ongoing. Listen to it from Comey's own mouth. Edited to add: I see buzhidao already posted this.

All three specifically said there were investigations they could not speak of because they were classified. They made a point of saying that didn't mean one should assume there was or wasn't an investigation into Trump.

In the meantime the Senate investigative committee has publicly stated they are interested in Trump's financial ties to Russia. Trump is having his lawyer send a statement of denial as if that has any meaning.

Trump in the letter firing Comey proclaims Comey told Trump on three separate occasions that Trump was not under investigation. But Trump has been caught in lie after lie so that proclamation isn't credible.
 
Last edited:

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
I sincerely believe that this is where we are now. I made a post some time ago, that this thing was progressing like Watergate on steroids. Still, it is going more slowly than some of you expect it should. Hang on. If this scandal doesn't take him down, there will be another one. There will always be another one with Trump. The one good thing is that people, ordinary, everyday people are listening and thinking. That's what it is all about--not winning elections or losing elections, but listening and thinking--s6

PS--sorry for the long winded history lesson but I was asked to explain. You know how we teachers are.


Lol, I appreciate it, I do :) I wasn't alive then, and it's great to have such a thing painted out this way.

And I also appreciate the longer view, the idea that it might all pan out in the end the way it should, but it might take time. :)

Where my faith wobbles here is...Nixon's Congress was controlled by the opposing party. That's not the case here. All Republican, all the time, and they have a proven interest in keeping the president propped up. At the same time, they're the only ones with the real power to hold him accountable.

Which is why I think we have to hold them accountable. It would be nice if they were voted out next year, but I can't have faith in that either; it's only up to us by half, and up to gerrymandered districting by the other. (Er, well, that's an oversimplification, and my fractions may be wrong. But what I mean is, outrage alone isn't a guarantee, though it definitely helps.)

Though, as Maenid says, we can also look to each other. I have more trust there than in Congress. But congresspeople are the ones who will be creating the change. If we apply pressure, there's at least a chance, however small, they'll follow our lead.
 
Last edited:

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
But Buzhi--we did not have access to instant media, personal cell phones, the internet back then. Most political protests were only shown as news bits. The network could decide the slant and tone they wanted to use, or even if they wanted to feature the story at all. Now, with personal phones filming the actual events and posting them to the gen public while the protest is in progress, there is less opportunity for glossing over public anger.

Take a look at the films on the Townhall protests. They are much more authentic and current than the pumped up Fox views of the Tea Party Outrage from a few years back. Tea party protests were filmed with wide angle lens to magnify crowd size, palm tres in the background at a supposed Ohio Tea Party gathering. This 2017 anger is real and even the thickest conservative dolt has to realize that these folks are gonna vote! --s6
 
Last edited:

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
Here's what happens next: the Democrats will flex their pecs and wring their hands and whine but they have zero investigative or subpoena power. Mitch McConnell will deny the Dems their request for an independent special prosecutor because the Republicans want the investigations to stay under their control and they can slow-walk them until the 2018 elections are over. Outrage and anger can only go on for so long and then like a fire, it burns itself out.

Go ahead and sign your online petitions and call your Congresscritters. It won't do you no good. This isn't Watergate.

Okay. So what do you suggest we do, then?

Not until then we're in full-bore crisis mode and Republicans are getting the worst of it will McConnell be given a reason to give a damn. If that never happens and the Republicans aren't prodded to respond against Trump if for no reason other than self-preservation, this is all just pissing in the wind.

How do they become "prodded"?

What are you doing, specifically? What are you suggesting?
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
@nighttimer:

Sadly, you are correct.

The only reason Richard Nixon was forced out was that actual tapes existed of him discussing means of obstructing the Watergate investigation with his stooges. Archibald Cox was fired for his continuing efforts to to pry those out of the White House.

When the tapes were finally divulged by direct order from the court, that's the point where Republicans who originally opposed his impeachment flipped and announced they would now support it, which led to Nixon's resignation

And today's Republican Party is even less ethical and moral than the party of the 70s – back then there actually were at least some decent legislators who belonged to the Republican Party.

The only result of the Russian investigation that might get Donald Trump impeached would be video evidence of him discussing election strategies with Russian operatives, and even then, Trump would deny that it was him on those recordings and that it was all faked. Getting 67 votes would be difficult, if not impossible, even if it got as far as the Senate.

I do believe it would cost him, and many other Republicans, reelection in 2020, but that's about the best we can hope for.