(I’m not counting the impulsive re-tweets from white supremacist and anti-Semitic sources.)
1. All tweets from a President of the United States who lacks rhetorical skills, common sense and self-restraint are unprofessional and self-destructive. That’s the foundation.
2. Ex-FBI director Comey isn’t the President’s enemy. Comey has acted, for the most part, with fairness and grace since being sacked. It is absurd to keep attacking him.
3. Threatening private citizens—which is what Comey is now— from the White House is ugly, unseemly, an abuse of power and only harms Trump. He fired Comey from a job he obviously wanted and loved. Isn’t that enough? This appears to be gratuitous harassment and petty nastiness…and appears that way because it is.
4. Tapes? TAPES? Trump mentions secret tapes while his foes and the news media is trying to make tortured comparisons to Watergate?
KABOOM!
This is signature significance for idiocy, or a death wish, or terminal jerkism, or something. TAPES????
5. “When in a hole, stop digging.” How can a man be successful in business and public life and not have learned this basic principle?
Ethics Alarms 
Can’t help a guy who doesn’t want to help himself. If history remembers him as the worst president ever and says he didn’t do a “single thing” that was good, well….I don’t think many people will be bothered to correct the record. Letting him feed himself to the wolves is fine with me.
Previously commented previous post but shall restate here. Trump’s tweets are the faggots which add the fuel to the fire that will eventually consume him.
heh… you said ‘faggots’
Trump drops a log every time he tweets, it seems. Not that there is funny, I don’t care who you are.
Please stop throwing us in the fire. We really don’t like it. :p
Leaks? Leaks? Perhaps this was an attempt by the President to inoculate himself against potential future leaks … Mr Comey hasn’t intimated anything along those lines, has he?
Yes this sounds like trying to preset conditions to disregard anything Comey might reveal, especially if he reveals something that can be spun in a negative light. If he reveals something that can’t be spun that is negative, there’s not a lot Trump could do to fight it, if it were true, but for marginal items, it would seem Trump is “pre-hedging”…
Either way, it’s a dictatorial move to “go to war” so to say against Comey like this.
I think this is probably right. Idiotic, but right. It’s always much wiser to spring a surprise on someone, but Trump either a) can’t follow through and is just making a bald threat or b) is trying to tempt Comey into a “gotcha” moment.
I think b) shows way too much imagination for Trump, so a) seems most likely.
No, unless Trump regards repeating private conversations as “leaks.”
The first rule of holes only applies to people who can see they are in one. I don’t think Trump sees himself as being in a hole.
Scary, but probably true.
And … TAPES!?!? Somebody tell Trump the 1970’s called and wants its technology back.
If I were Trump, I WOULD record every meeting, every conversation at this point.
He is within his rights to do so, I presume?
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d): “This is called a “one-party consent” law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.”
Need a lawyers opinion here, as there are laws and then there are how they apply.
Valid points, but of course do things change since he’s not a private citizen, and recordings of conversations that do not discuss classified information and are not explicitly of a personal nature, wouldn’t those have some claim of being a type of public record?
A clever person might misstate something said in conversation with Trump just to get him to release a recording; because proof they exist would open them to being subpoenaed.
So, now do you concede there is a real scandal here?
Doesn’t this add evidence to the bipartisan theory already held by many, that Trump fired Comey out of personal animosity rather than because it was the right thing to do, which you previously called “deranged?”
His handling of this is certainly concerning. As noted by Jack already.
What if he did? Seriously, Chris, Jack was most likely calling your conclusion that he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation “deranged.” I know I did, and still do.
Now, I admit he wants to get this thing done fast, but it is also rational to believe that Comey was the reason for its current glacial pace. Trump may have seen it that way, and what you might call “interference,” I would argue was incompetence by Comey.
I don’t recall arguing the reason was to *stop* the Russia investigation. Jack ridiculed the idea that the firing had anything to do with the Russia investigation at all, and that it was for any reason other than what was in the memo. We now know that both of these things are true.
This is the New York Times trick that I flagged at the beginning. To the anti-Trump hysterics “Russia investigation” means “investigation to prove that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.” This is the basis of the endless tax return protests, this is the link to the impeachment fantasy. When someone like Chris says “he did it to interfere with Russian investigation,” it’s supposed to be proof of guilt. But the investigation is not of Trump, as Grassley and Feinstein have confirmed. Trump’s annoyance with the ongoing effort to prove traitorous activities is NOT the motivation that Chris et al say it is. Trump firing Comey because he was not trustworthy, not trusted, becoming a distraction, and allowing a political hit job to drag on is NOT the same as “interfering with an investigation that threatened Trump personally,” which is the Get Trump Mob’s narrative.
Again, a subordinate who should have been fired was. As Comey said, it could be done for any reason. There were many reasons. Focusing on a false one: that Trump feared the Russian investigation, is conclusively wrong, unfair, and inflammatory. Firing Comey does not stop the investigation.
Succinct and elegant.
COTD.
This is the New York Times trick that I flagged at the beginning.
There was no “trick.” The headline and lede were fair, accurate, and truthful. When a president fires the head of the FBI director while he’s investigating his campaign, that is news, regardless if there is causation. This is the bipartisan, objective position, and yours is the extreme one.
To the anti-Trump hysterics “Russia investigation” means “investigation to prove that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.” This is the basis of the endless tax return protests, this is the link to the impeachment fantasy. When someone like Chris says “he did it to interfere with Russian investigation,” it’s supposed to be proof of guilt.
Please don’t put motives in my head. No, it’s not.
But the investigation is not of Trump, as Grassley and Feinstein have confirmed.
My understanding is that they said Comey never contradicted Trump’s claim he wasn’t being investigated. I don’t think that means they confirmed he wasn’t being investigated. I’ve also heard that it would be unusual for an FBI director to comment on whether or not an individual is under investigation, but I could be wrong.
Trump’s annoyance with the ongoing effort to prove traitorous activities is NOT the motivation that Chris et al say it is. Trump firing Comey because he was not trustworthy, not trusted, becoming a distraction, and allowing a political hit job to drag on is NOT the same as “interfering with an investigation that threatened Trump personally,” which is the Get Trump Mob’s narrative.
He said he made the decision to fire Comey while thinking about the Russia “hoax.” Why do you keep ignoring this?
Again, a subordinate who should have been fired was. As Comey said, it could be done for any reason.
And the reason was unethical.
Focusing on a false one: that Trump feared the Russian investigation, is conclusively wrong, unfair, and inflammatory. Firing Comey does not stop the investigation.
Again, I never said he “feared” the investigation. He was angry, and he took it out on Comey. Of course it won’t stop the investigation. Trump acts impulsively; he’s incapable of planning ahead, so how does that disprove the idea that he fired Comey over Russia?
I just checked to make sure my assessment of your immediate take on the firing was correct. From your first substantial post on the first Comey post:
President Clinton on Tuesday fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, abruptly terminating the law enforcement official leading a wide-ranging criminal investigation into whether Clinton violated protocol and left classified information exposed to potential hackers.
Do you think such a lede would be unfair to President Clinton? If so, why?
So let’s stop the pretense that you were “sanely” only concluding that Comey’s firing involved the Russian investigation, and that I was so mean and unfair to call it anti-Trump hysteria unhinged to reality, and motivated by bias. You were saying with that absurd analogy that an FBI investigation that does not involve Trump at all is the equivalent of a past criminal investigation focused on President Clinton’s criminal conduct and cover-up, which got him impeached.
I know that impeachment is “the resistance’s” wet dream, but attaching it to this episode is proof of bias, outrageous hyperbole, paranoia and a giant smear. Now you are backtracking, but the evidence is in the comments. You and others think (despite later agreeing otherwise) that it is fair to call a legal, routine firing an effort to thwart discovery of impeachable offenses…like Clinton, like Nixon. Since there is no evidence of that—unlike Nixon, unlike Clinton—AND no ongoing investigation OF THE PRESIDENT nor evidence that there will be one—none, nada, nothing, zip, zed, zilch—your presumption—I know, based on “what he is”—is unmoored to fact, justice, fairness or reality. It is moored only to the slander of partisan assassins like Paul Begala (who said last night that “With Trump, all roads lead to Russia”). UNLESS Trump is guilty of treasonous crimes, then his firing of Comey is 100% beyond reproach (except for the miserable way it was done.) This is so self-evident. Begin with the assumption that this President is as patriotic as any other…not as smart, or civil, or wise…but just patriotic, as he is, then you, and the rest, have nothing. Either this false narrative is an intentional effort to undermine the office and the office-holder, or it is irrational hysteria made to seem rational by credulous acceptance, fertilized by bias.
If he gave a damn, I’d say the apology is owed the President.
Thanks for this. The words I’ve been looking for this whole time. Yes Chris has spent the better part of today backtracking and softening his verbiage and hedging his commentary to avoid his initial forays into this. Which, I have no problem with if he truly realizes he’s over his skis on this and bitten off more than he could chew and explains he’s backtracking, but coupled with the inane demands for an apology and the incessant bleating of “victory is mine” he’s been beyond the pale.
So let’s stop the pretense that you were “sanely” only concluding that Comey’s firing involved the Russian investigation, and that I was so mean and unfair to call it anti-Trump hysteria unhinged to reality, and motivated by bias. You were saying with that absurd analogy that an FBI investigation that does not involve Trump at all is the equivalent of a past criminal investigation focused on President Clinton’s criminal conduct and cover-up, which got him impeached.
No, I wasn’t. I’ve already pointed out to you that the statement “the FBI investigation does not involve Trunp at all” is bonkers; an investigation into Trump’s campaign quite obviously “involves” him. You are right that my analogy was imperfect, as we do not yet know if Trump is being directly investigated, but the fact that his campaign is being investigated makes the analogy close enough to be valid.
But if you want a closer analogy, my opinion would be exactly the same in the alternate universe where Hillary won if it were merely her campaign, not herself, being investigated.
Your constant accusations of bias and radicalism ignore the many, many Republicans, conservatives and libertarians who have reached the same exact conclusion as myself in this matter. Mine is now the consensus view; yours is the outlier. That doesn’t make me right, but it does make your assertions that my position is an extremist one unfounded.
UNLESS Trump is guilty of treasonous crimes, then his firing of Comey is 100% beyond reproach (except for the miserable way it was done.)
This nonsense has also been previously dispelled. Google “the appearance of impropriety;” you might find some familiar results.
ou were saying with that absurd analogy that an FBI investigation that does not involve Trump at all is the equivalent of a past criminal investigation focused on President Clinton’s criminal conduct and cover-up, which got him impeached.
Also, wow; I missed this part the first time. No, my analogy was clearly about Hillary Clinton, not Bill; I was talking about what my opinion would be if Hillary had won and fired Comey.
But I’d really like more people to try and explain to me what my own argument was, while at the same time showing they couldn’t follow it.
Your argument was what it was, obviously, and you continue to return to it, even while backtracking. Firing Comey was not intended to protect Trump, and the investigation only threatens him if one believes the Democratic Big Lie, which is constantly bolstered by biased and partisan sources like the Times. There is no scandal (Trump handling matters needlessly sloppily and unprofessionally is a steady state) nor Constitutional crisis (except the Democrats and the news media trying to overthrow Constitutional government.)
Now, I don’t hold people who have been de-railed by the narrative and lobotomized by hate and fear of a President responsible for the factors that have set them on this wacked out course, but they are aiding and abetting an attempt at a coup, whether they know it or not. Opposing hyper-partisanship is not partisan. It is good citizenship and responsible adulthood. Nor is staning up for the institution of the Presidency against the biggest threat to it since the Radical Republicans plotted to impeach Andrew Johnson. When Rep. Waters said that President Hillary could fire Comey but President Trump could not, that should have been your clue that you were on the side of the Hateful Anti-Democratic Crazies.
I assume you and the more intelligence of the rest will eventually see the embarrassing hypocrisy of the fake Comey outrage, the sinister objectives of “the resistance,” and the dangerous path they are on that must be opposed by all responsible Americans whatever they may think of Donald Trump as an individual, or how little regard they have for his skills and character—and I yield to no one on that score. You and the rest will either recover your objectivity in time, or live to regret your blindness. Some voices from neutral corners are finally helping out, like the Vox essay linked elsewhere in thread. But I don’t need to appeal to anyone else’s authority. The case made on Ethics Alarms is clear and correct.
Your argument was what it was, obviously, and you continue to return to it, even while backtracking.
Ok, let’s see if you get my argument right this time.
Firing Comey was not intended to protect Trump,
Nope, you still don’t get it. As I’ve already explained, I never said the intention was to “protect” Trump. I said he fired Comey out of personal vengeance, because he was angry over the investigation. This is a fact, confirmed by Trump himself.
and the investigation only threatens him if one believes the Democratic Big Lie, which is constantly bolstered by biased and partisan sources like the Times.
This is also obviously wrong; the investigation threatens his *reputation* even if Trump is innocent.
And your Maxine Waters remark is a hypocritical fallacy. I do not accuse you of being on Trump’s “side” simply because you are defending him on this issue; after I have already explained that I would not hold the same double standard as Waters, you are holding me accountable for her? That is ridiculous. Is Ken White also on Waters’ side? Is Cathy Young? Is David French? You can keep accusing me of partisanship all you want, but it will not change the fact that my conclusion about why Trump fired Comey is still the bipartisan, mainstream position, and yours is the fringe position.
As promised, Jack, I’m reposting some of your past comments you made during the campaign regarding Mr. Trump. First up… your Oct. 14 post. Your comments below are in bold (if my lame attempt at incorporating html works). I’ll post more as time and circumstance allow.
Unethical Quote Of The Week: Donald Trump (Of Course!)
“Take a look. You look at her. Look at her words. You tell me what you think. I don’t think so.”
This comes as close to being funny as a man running for President who proves his sexism and misogyny even in the act of denying them can be. It is tragic, however.
Trump can’t help himself. He can’t help himself for two reasons. The first reason is that he really does, deep down, believe that women exist on earth for purely the carnal enjoyment of men, particularly wealth and powerful men. This is part of his world view, and he is incapable of changing or learning.
And I say to all those with brain pans of normal volume who still say they want to vote for Trump as a protest against Hillary Clinton: think this through. You will be endorsing prejudice and deep bias against fully half of the nation, and insulting your mother, your sisters, your daughters, and every one of your female colleagues and peers by stating that a man holding these primitive and ignorant view is your choice to be our leader—indeed not just holding them, but also being incapable of not displaying them at every turn. Is that worse than voting for a corrupt and dishonest politician like Hillary Clinton? It is much worse.
—————————————————————————-
My take… I don’t understand how comments like these (and there are many others, Jack) gel with your continuing defense of a man so obviously unsuited to be President. Enlighten us, please.
None of this is relevant, FM, as I have said before. None of it justifies holding the President to different standards invented on the fly. None of it justified attempting to overturn the election. None of it excuses the fearmongering, the claims that the man is a Nazi, or plotting to declare himself emperor. None of it excused the hypocritical Electoral college attempted hijacking and the false history used to justify it. None of it justifies the fake news, the complete absent of the basic respect due the office, and the concocted Russian conspiracy theories. None of it gives the news media a right to try to undermine the Presidency and to slant reporting to that end. None excuses the wild, hyperbolic over-reactions to literally everything the President does. Reading the New York Times every day is an orgy of journalists who no longer practice journalism, just frantic attempts to assist progressives as they try to take over the government by illicit means and public misrepresentation. This morning Ross Douhat, one of the less deranged Times pundits, simultaneously claimed that firing Comey was an “abuse of power”—that which the President is empowered to do cannot be an abuse of power, you hack—and then argued that Trump should be removed under the 25th Amendment, which was passed to deal with the situation where the President was disabled, not unable to do the job the way progressives want. Abuse the power of the Constitution because the President abuses his powers by doing what is undeniably within his powers. Got it.
The entire Democratic Party has become Maxine Waters, one of the very very few people on earth that I would rather vote for Donald Trump as President if she were running against him. She says Democrats can do things that Trump cannot, like fire Comey. Right. Good thinking. Moron.
I stand behind the office. I made it clear that Trump had neither the Character, nor the skills or knowledge, to hold it, just as I made it clear that Hillary Clinton was also an unfit candidate because of her thorough corruption. But the public and the process makes the final decision who is fit to serve, and also among two unfit candidates which is more fit. Then the system requires that the nation give the office the respect and presumption of good will it requires to function, in the best interests of the nation. If he is ill-prepared, the nation’s duty is to make it possible for him to do the job, not to creates such distrust and hysteria that no one could do it. Until the Office receives fair treatment, I will oppose those trying to undermine whoever is President.
Meanwhile, it is clear that the real opposition to Trump is not his unprofessional and chaotic style, but the fact that he has the power and intent to enforce immigration laws that have to be enforced; to cut back on excessive regulations, to assert American values in the world, to dial back the creeping totalitarianism in the schools, to explode the Democratic fantasy that Islam is just like any other religion and its adherents pose no special threat to the cultures, to dismantle the system of racial and gender biases hostile to whites, Asians and men,and to generally undo some of the dangerous excesses the last 8 years inflicted on the public and the nation.
This is Andrew Johnson all over again. I know my Presidential history, and I know a re-run when I see it. I have minimal influence, but I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, no matter who occupies that office.
Some of your quotes followed by my thoughts…
“None of it justifies the fake news” – Which entity pours on the most fake news, the media or the White House? Open to argument, yes?
“concocted Russian conspiracy theories” – You’re jumping the gun, sir. The jury is out.
“I stand behind the office.” – I refuse to accept the man behind the office. If left unchecked, Trump will bring down the office after inalterably defacing it.
“I made it clear that Trump had neither the Character, nor the skills or knowledge, to hold it, just as I made it clear that Hillary Clinton was also an unfit candidate because of her thorough corruption.” – Are you saying that Trump is not thoroughly corrupt? Just a little corrupt?
“This is Andrew Johnson all over again.” – Rightfully so, imo. (“Johnson is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history.” – Wikipedia)
“I have minimal influence, but I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, no matter who occupies that office.” – And I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, i.e. Donald Trump.
No president can be adjudged the worst or best after 6 months. The Johnson reference is in rgard to the way the Radical Republicans attempted to remove him unconstitutionally and unjustly. The way to get ris of poor Presidents is call “an election.”
I donno, I judge William Henry Harrison one of our best presidents and he didn’t come anywhere close to the 6 month mark…
“I judge William Henry Harrison one of our best presidents and he didn’t come anywhere close to the 6 month mark…”
Was that snark? As in “He did not have time to screw up, so must have been great”?
I consider a mark of greatness to be one in which the sitting President doesn’t increase the size of the executive or wield executive power in a manner antithetical to American values and liberty. (Though there are other marks of greatness)
William Henry Harrison achieves this standard.
Wow….missed the “she” and saw only the real President Clinton in your hypo and not the parallel universe one. and did so every time I read it. THAT’S troubling! So the hypo does not implicate impeachment…but it does falsely characterize an investigation of Hillary in a criminal context…which that investigation was…as equivielent to an investigation that does not include Trump’s conduct at all. That’s the nucleus: The “resistance” is certain that Trump cheated to beat their darling, they want blood, they want him to be guilty of an impeachable offense, so they assume he is, and see everything from that false perspective. That’s the Times, and that’s you. Is that “insane”? Find the right word: what is it when someone cases their beliefs and conduct on false perceptions of reality? I’m open to suggestions.
Thanks for acknowledging your error. I did already say the analogy was imperfect, as the investigation into Clinton was a criminal one that directly targeted her, but I still think the situations are close enough for the analogy to work. We don’t know if this investigation “doesn’t include Trump’s conduct at all,” but the fact that it certainly includes the conduct of his campaign staff is reason enough to consider the firing inappropriate.
God, I wish he’d stop acting like a fifth grader trying to be cooler than everyone else.
Yeah, that tweet was kinda mafioso.
He’s an idiot. If he lasts his full term without getting impeached for something (probably not the Russian phony conspiracy) I will be surprised.
Good grief! I can’t help suspecting that DJT WANTS to be impeached, after seeing that tweet of his on Comey – it is the stuff of “Trump Jong Un” legends!
If I was one of his advisors I would hide his phone or “accidentally” smash his tweet finger.
Holy crap! Imagine the Secret Service response! You could get shot for smashing the finger that rests on the ‘football.’
Uhg… I just reminded myself who has authority over America’s nuclear arsenal…
Friendly correction:
“while his foes and the news media is trying to make” should be “… are trying to …”
A good read re: Trump v. Comey. From Vox (in Victor Davis Hanson’s words, the young adult section), of all places:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/11/15625990/comey-deserved-fired-no-constitutional-crisis-liberals-hyperventilate
Concluding paragraphs:
At present, therefore, the near-hysterical charges against Trump on the underlying claims of impropriety are not supported. Given the mercurial state of affairs, the critics in Washington should hold their fire until they have something more concrete to go on. The great tragedy is that too many voices are so rigidly and irretrievably anti-Trump — so opposed to him on every aspect of domestic policy and foreign policy — that it clouds their judgment.
My view is somewhat different. I think that Trump à la carte is the only way to look at him: horrible on some issues, and sound on others. In this case, it is too soon to reach a definitive verdict, but here is my tentative conclusion about this current controversy: Where there is no smoke, there is no fire. Let the smoke appear, and we can and should reevaluate. But that time has not yet come.
THIS
“My view is somewhat different. I think that Trump à la carte is the only way to look at him: horrible on some issues, and sound on others. In this case, it is too soon to reach a definitive verdict, but here is my tentative conclusion about this current controversy: Where there is no smoke, there is no fire. Let the smoke appear, and we can and should reevaluate. But that time has not yet come.
Definitely. This is what I’ve desperately counseled the hyperventilating Left on since The election and on this topic…
But they are more than willing to keep pushing their credibility further into the negative. We may very well end up discovering something actually nefarious regarding Trump and Russia. But that won’t make the Left right about it, because all their hate-fueled guesswork and bias driven conclusions have come about through no rational or deliberative method.
I came to the conclusion that Trump fired Comey because he was angry over the Russia investigation through a rational and deliberative method; observing his past behavior and statements, deducing that the reasons in the Rosenstein memo could not possibly have been Trump’s reasons, noticing that his staff could not keep their stories straight…
…and of course, my conclusion was proven true.
It may be that some of Trump’s critics are more rational than you think we are.
Not me.🤡
my conclusion was proven true.
This doesn’t mean what you think it means. You really haven’t been proven right about any thing. And it’s been demonstrated so.
Merely repeating it makes you look silly.
But, by all means, say what you need to say to self medicate.
You are a stubborn ass. My claim was that Trump fired Comey because he was angry over the Russia investigation. Trump has confirmed that:
“And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said ‘you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won’.”
You somehow cannot read that statement for its clear meaning because you have a bias that leads you to bend over backwards to defend the president, while never extending the same benefit of the doubt to his critics. You are embarrassing yourself.
Chris, I’m not sure if this piece on anti-anti-Trumpism caught your attention, but I figured it might pique your interest. (Link below.) Money quote: “But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.”
I think this correctly identifies the motives of enough Trump voters to swing the election. “Conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.” is partisan, biased partyistbullshit, of course, but the Left has been so smug, oppressive and obnoxious that this is a lot of Trump’s appeal. Inexplicably, the Left is responding by behaving even worse.
Saying that this is more important to conservatives than protecting free speech, ending group identification spoils, reducing the debt, eliminating excessive regulations, expanding the economy and being strong abroad i–what? Insulting? Obtuse? Typical?—but I have written since the election that Trump is a human “Fuck you.” This author is a only figuring this out now?
Much of the support for Trump arises from Rationalization 22. and there are worse things.
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/american-university-hate-crime-protests
I wonder if American University would have granted a demand of white student protestors who demanded an (n-word) free zone.
I was about to post that same piece while placing you smack dab center. Am I wrong, Jack?
Let’s be aware of our generalizations, folks.
“… the Left has been so smug, oppressive and obnoxious that this is a lot of Trump’s appeal. Inexplicably, the Left is responding by behaving even worse.”
Perhaps we paint with too broad a brush here. Yes, there is an ill-behaved, obnoxious Left element that the evening news likes to parade. Is it possible that there is also a sane, well-tempered, ethical Left? Let’s not conflate the two. Could the latter actually be the leftist ‘majority’? Where “The Left” winds up in our political Zeitgeist seems less about ideological identity, and more about how compliant certain elements want to be with sensationalistic journalism ‘standards’ .
I am guessing the majority (yes, it is just a guess — i cannot prove it) of those holding left-of-center political views are NOT “hyperventilating,” and are NOT reliant on “hate-fueled guesswork and bias driven conclusions.” Please present counter-evidence if you have it.
There are plenty of rational reasons to be in political opposition to Mr. Trump. And, I suspect there are plenty of ethical, rational folk with leftie-leaning political views who, incidentally, just happen to not also be rabid about it.
That’s a fair point, Pete, and one that has been made by more than one of the regulars, including me. Perhaps Jack should’ve included a modifier, like the “reactionary left” or dealt more with the media, who seem to have become members of the reactionary left.
I do think many liberals, though incensed by Trump, don’t want to see him impeached, or dragged by a cur around the White House by the tongue to a mob waiting to drub his corpse.
I think liberals are really more shocked by his behavior; after all, it is a remarkable departure for a president. One must usually go to a trailer park to find people with his quality of discourse, to say nothing of his bizarre Twitter habits.
Broad brushes are usually a bad idea, but you have to admit, the virulence of the media and professional left-liberal reaction has been exactly as Jack described it.
The problem comes when sane, rational, bipartisan criticism of Trump is conflated with a “left wing freakout,” which is what happened here. Plenty of rational people on both sides of the aisle came to the conclusion that the Rosenstein memo was bullshit and Trump fired Comey out of anger and vengeance, because that was the most likely and logical conclusion to draw from the information we had. Yes, some on the left went too far–it wasn’t a constitutional crisis or grounds for impeachment–but the fact that Trump fired Comey for unethical reasons was obvious. I suppose you can say some Democrats have been “boys who cried wolf,” and the conservatives here tuned out legitimate criticism because Dems have exaggerated before. But this was a clear-cut case.
Thanks, Warren. That’s a great article.
Ditto.
Anti-anti-trumpism does not equate to agreeing with Trump. That’s insanity. It does equate with seeing the Left pretty much soil itself every time Trump breaths and watching the Left push the boundaries of credibility loss exponentially, and therefore recognizing that if the Left does speak about something that actually sounds right, the rational ones of us had better for extra homework to ensure it is right.
You see that’s the burden of being part of a worldview that has no reputation anymore.
You can build a thousand bridges and be known as Lefty the bridge builder, but you lie enough times and I don’t care how many more bridges you build, you’ll always be known as Lefty the liar.
Pump the brakes on the invective. It doesn’t serve you well. Jack has been mighty patient with you and I think you are abusing your status here as one of the few Lefties who will wring out every angle of a Left wing arguement to rationalize Left wing conduct, and it’s miraculous he considers this a symptom of a disease the Left is currently suffering, its a good mark to his patience.
No, your arguments have all been solidly debunked. It’s been shown how you will accept something Trump says when it can be spun into a negative light, but the rest of what he says we must take as inane babbling. This is a fallacy on your part.
Trump confirmed nothing to the exclusivity you need to maintain your original arguments here. No amount of hedging now will fix that.
Last response until you can become civil again.
No, your arguments have all been solidly debunked.
Just saying this doesn’t make it true. Name one argument I’ve made here that has been disproven. I can’t wait.
It’s been shown how you will accept something Trump says when it can be spun into a negative light, but the rest of what he says we must take as inane babbling. This is a fallacy on your part.
No, I have already addressed this. I didn’t “spin” anything. Trump said he arrived at the decision to fire Comey while thinking about the Russia “hoax.” I’ve also explained to you why the subsequent reasons he gave are less believable than the other ones he gave. There is nothing fallacious about this reasoning.
Jack essentially handles this above.
Yikes! Proportion and sanity from Vox!
Now I fear the end of the world.
It terrifies me. I’m fearful.
And well you should. It is a sign of the Apocalypse.
Regretfully, the US NAS (National Academy of Sciences) is Presidenf Trump’s most powerful opponent.
The US NAS will have to be stripped of all authority to review programs and budgets of federal research agencies if the swamp around Washington DC is to be drained and cleaned.
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/the-matrix-revealed-victimized-inspired/#comment-225004
I thought the reference to “tapes” in quotes was a deliberate Watergate joke by Trump. No?
Between that and the reference to “leaks,” it could also double as a stealthier, much dirtier and self-deprecating joke, but Trump isn’t that subtle.
I agree, S. I think he was being a fifth grade goofball.
It is jaw-droppingly stupid whether it is intentional or accidental. You may be right, though. I don’t give Trump credit for complex stupid trolling, I guess. He’s that last person who should be joking about Watergate.
If you know, you are two steps ahead of me. I can’t figure out what that was supposed to mean. Perhaps it didn’t mean… anything! Just another irrational outburst making sense only to one person; the author.
Personally, I think this is as close as we’re going to come to the real reason Comey was fired. I think it was because of the Russia investigation, but not because Trump is afraid of being found guilty of anything; I think if his campaign was implicated he had and has no idea about it, and that his “managing” of his own campaign probably consisted of hiring managers, telling them to hire some people, and ignoring them all while Trump did whatever Trump did. Trump knows they’re not going to find any dirt on him, and I doubt anyone was brave enough to mention that there’s dirt on anyone else, whether there is or not.
Rather, I think Trump saw Comey as a walking bad PR machine, and wanted him, specifically, off the investigation. Whether he foresaw this burst of bad PR for firing him, I don’t know. But I think his only focus is and has been trying to make Comey shut up and stop “feeding the trolls” as they say on the internet.
Very plausible analysis. You pass the derangement test. Get checked again in a few week.
Yeah, that’s pretty tinfoil-hat.
The Treehouse has a different take, unsurprisingly.
I think they make a good case.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/12/president-trump-drops-another-moab-media-missing-sally-yates-and-james-comey-timeline/
I support the President because we need him to clean up the government, and I believe he can. However, he should have resisted that damn tweet. smh
Unless the tweet had nothing to do with what we think it did, but rather another issue which could be the larger reason he was sacked.
Like everyone else here, I don’t know any of the content and context of their conversation(s).
It’s giggle time, yes?
I’m so glad the other media outlets and other entertainers like SNL are on point and are ever ready to maintain constant and incisive vigilance over our presidents… I’m especially glad they’ve maintained this role through all presidencies especially maintaining continuity since our previous President, George Bush.
I mean, if they had even the slightest break in this kind of intelligent and humorous prodding between administrations I’d say that they had no credibility or integrity whatsoever.
Getting the point of the sarcasm is a bias test all by itself
Yup.
I told by son (during a phone conversation) who lives in his Grandfather’s (my dad’s) house while in college,” Go ahead and stick to your way; I have only been around my dad this whole week, and have more than 40 years of experience dealing with him.” My son accused me of being condescending. I told him he did not understand the meaning of that word: what I used was sarcasm
It is a lost art these days: kids take things literally (and they do not know what that word means, either) and assume you are agreeing with them.
Did I spread the cynicism on a bit thick?
I was gonna go on to add how groundbreaking and innovative this humor is. How fresh it is.
It’s so brave.