Republicans are the only ones who think yesterday was a win for trump. I know all of you are delusional anyway. No suprise. Too much brainwashing by all the fake news and trump lies.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
It is stunning how dense trumps base is. They actually think comey was a win. Lol
Reason No. 1 Trump shouldn't feel vindicated: Comey wasn't testifying about whether Trump was under investigation
Reason No. 2: Comey may be a “leaker,” but it didn't turn out well for the president
Reason No. 3: Others in the FBI opposed telling Trump he wasn't under investigation
Reason No. 4: Votes cast and cast votes are two different things
This isn't the first time Trump has said he feels vindicated about facts that don't really line up.
Lol what a tweetstorm!
Gop talking points. Comey was a leaker? There was no classified info. It was a private memo and comey is now a private citizen.
Nimrods are grasping for straws in desperation now. Funny
This is what a real President looks like.
[Former GOP congressman who called on Bill Clinton to resign and voted to impeach him ...]
Special counsel http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202786545859 (Robert Mueller) has recruited the Justice Department’s top criminal law expert to help with his investigation of ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian officials.
Deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket, will be assisting Mueller on a part-time basis, according to sources familiar with the arrangement.
While helping Mueller, Dreeben will continue in his role in the solicitor general’s office, with other lawyers in the office pitching in to help him with upcoming criminal cases.
The move signals that Mueller is seeking advice on the complexities that have arisen already in the investigations, including what constitutes obstruction of justice.
"Michael Dreeben is to criminal law what Robert Mueller is to investigations,” former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said Thursday night. “Literally the very best. Yet another sign of how serious Mueller is about this matter."
Yep, Mueller is digging really deep and bringing in the big guns to help means he might have found something and needs to suss it out.
President Trump’s declaration that the Thursday testimony of former FBI director James B. Comey was a “total and complete vindication” despite “so many false statements and lies” was the sort of brashly triumphant and loosely-grounded-in-reality statement we’ve come to expect from the commander in chief. It was news that came out a bit later, news about plans to file a complaint against Comey for a revelation he made during that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing meeting, that may end up being more damaging to the president.
CNN first reported that Trump’s outside counsel, Marc Kasowitz, plans to file complaints with the inspector general of the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee about Comey’s testimony. At issue was Comey’s revelation that he provided a memo documenting a conversation with Trump to a friend to be shared with the New York Times.
As the news broke, I was on the phone with Stephen Kohn, partner at a law firm focused on whistleblower protection. We’d been talking about where the boundaries lay for Comey in what he could and couldn’t do with the information about his conversations with the president. Kohn’s response to the story about Kasowitz, though, was visceral.
“Here is my position on that: Frivolous grandstanding,” he said. “First of all, I don’t believe the inspector general would have jurisdiction over Comey any more, because he’s no longer a federal employee.” The inspector general’s job is to investigate wrongdoing by employees of the Justice Department, of which Comey is no longer, thanks to Trump.
“But, second,” he continued, “initiating an investigation because you don’t like somebody’s testimony could be considered obstruction. And in the whistleblower context, it’s both evidence of retaliation and, under some laws, could be an adverse retaliatory act itself.”
In other words, Comey, here, is an employee who is blowing the whistle, to use the idiom, on his former boss. That boss wants to punish him for doing so. That’s problematic — especially if there’s no evidence that Comey actually violated any law that would trigger punishment.
...
We can safely assume, though, that Trump’s team is aware that Comey likely didn’t violate any laws, and that they are simply using these arguments as a tool for undermining the parts of his testimony that they didn’t like. How they’re doing it, though, could make their problems worse.
Kohn summarized the new minefield into which Trump and his lawyer might be walking.
“They know that they’re not going to get anything out of Comey on this, because there’s no evidence,” he added. “But they’re clearly trying to create a chilling effect. Not a chilling effect on classified information. … This is a chilling effect on people not to talk about conversations they had with the president that are not classified as a matter of law.”
“That is illegal,” he said. “That is unconstitutional.”
