POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

It's lacking because you and your side are always entitled to your own set of facts.

Yup.
And that sword too has two sharp edges, like the oft repeated claim by POTUS44: "If you like your plan you can keep your plan."
Anyone paying attention knew that all plans had to change to meet the new mandatory requirements. No one was keeping a plan as-is.

Both sides are lying to the American people. (Commence the "but they lie more!" bluster here.)

 

[unofan]

So, is the problem the conversation or the memo.

I say it's the memo. You keep going to the conversation.

Heck, I'll give you the conversation is fine.

So, what about the memo (covered by Federal rules and regulations regarding release).

The memo is how the conversation got released. They're the same thing.

 

[unofan]

Yup.
And that sword too has two sharp edges, like the oft repeated claim by POTUS44: "If you like your plan you can keep your plan."
Anyone paying attention knew that all plans had to change to meet the new mandatory requirements. No one was keep a plan as-is.

Both sides are lying to the American people. (Commence the "but they lie more!" bluster here.)

And Fark Independents like yourself lie, too. You just do it primarily to yourself, by believing you're independent.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

The memo is how the conversation got released. They're the same thing.

COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there's not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might a tape. My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it.

The content of the memo, to a friend, to get it to a reporter.

The content of the memo.

Is that not a problem.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

I don't claim to be independent.
I claim to be a guy that had no good options last November because either way I knew it would just be more of the same (partisan politics and lies).

PS - Want to know who I voted for? This guy.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

Watching the LWNJs right now is just like watching the RWNJs eight years ago. Each side is running off their own scripts, spins, and agendas about the POTUS (just like eight years ago).

Beg to differ, Sic. I think you often fairly point out inconsistencies in the way we libturds think, but not on this one. The RWNJs were screaming things like death squads and fake birth certificates--things that were frequently complete and total fabrications. It was loud, and there were lots of screamers, including the party's vice presidential candidate. The Left is loud now for reasons that even some of the highest ranking members of the Rep party agree with: this guy is categorically and historically unfit. The lies he is accused of are not dug out of the gossip heap--they are his own public declarations. Weekly, if not daily. He is a gusher of falsity. His level of immaturity is . . . well, shocking. He doesn't read and prefers to get his information from media broadcasts. I didn't like Bush II, but I was respectful in that dislike. This guy is pure clown, and it scares people, as it should. And they should be loud about it.

People on the right did not want OBama and were loud about it, as is their right. That was their response to his election. But the SUBSTANCE that elicits the response from the left now (and many mainstream republicans) is different in kind from that which elicited the response 8 years ago.

That is this libturd's view of it, at any rate.

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

Did Comey create these memos as official FBI government documents, or were they for his own personal reflection and use? From what we've seen, these memos were not passed on to senior Justice Department officials, or to other FBI department heads. Comey himself has testified he wrote them up for his own personal use.

As has been stated, they are not official government documents, not classified, and therefore revealing their contents is not illegal. It is not illegal to share the content of conversations with the president either with friends, or with the media, simply because they were with the president. Therefore, not leaked, as leaking implies revealing classified info.

But we know why you would take the position that they are leaks, cause you're not a Trump supporter and all.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

The RWNJs were screaming things like death squads and fake birth certificates--things that were frequently complete and total fabrications.

Golden showers (fabrication) and Trumpcare* is a personal attack on Americans (per DNC chair). Personal attack? <-- Fake and shrill hyperbole. Same ol' same ol'.

And as far as "unfit for office", isn't that the core basis of the "birther" argument against 44 (not "natural born" thus "unfit for office")?


You do point out a problem. I've never called anyone (quoting now) a "libturd." Nothing gets solved with name calling. Before you say it, I find _WNJ as an apt description of a perspective; you may see it as name calling. Touche.



*Let's call it what it should be. Hang it on him.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

Comey himself has testified he wrote them up for his own personal use.

He may have intended them as such; however, if he did it in his FBI office, on his officially issued government computer, that becomes government/FBI work product and government/FBI work product rules apply.

Then again, is this where a question about use of government equipment for personal business (memo writing), i.e. waste, fraud, and abuse, would be a fair question as well.

 

[unofan]

The content of the memo, to a friend, to get it to a reporter.

The content of the memo.

Is that not a problem.

If the information is what matters, why would it be ok to talk to a reporter but not relay the same information in writing?

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

He may have intended them as such; however, if he did it in his FBI office, on his officially issued government computer, that becomes government/FBI work product and government/FBI work product rules apply.

Then again, is this where a question about use of government equipment for personal business (memo writing), i.e. waste, fraud, and abuse, would be a fair question as well.

Mighty big "if" there. Care to back it up with evidence? Or are you just speculating again, just "asking the question'?

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

You do point out a problem. I've never called anyone (quoting now) a "libturd." Nothing gets solved with name calling. Before you say it, I find _WNJ as an apt description of a perspective; you may see it as name calling. Touche.

Yeah, I know you haven't. I was actually poking fun at my own affiliation. I don't mind WNJ either, R or L.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

If the information is what matters, why would it be ok to talk to a reporter but not relay the same information in writing?

Like the article said, private reflections on the conversation are fine; content from the memo is government regulated.

Where that line is is up to a prosecutor.

 

[unofan]

Like the article said, private reflections on the conversation are fine; content from the memo is government regulated.

Where that line is is up to a prosecutor.

And shockingly, you believe it was improper while the majority of people in the article you cited for support say it wasn't.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

Mighty big "if" there. Care to back it up with evidence? Or are you just speculating again, just "asking the question'?

You don't know; I don't know, so, yes, I'm asking a legitimate question.

Determining that would be up to a prosecutor willing to take it on.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

And shockingly, you believe it was improper while the majority of people in the article you cited for support say it wasn't.

And I worked in a national laboratory where everything was classified. So yeah, I am very close to the vest in my viewing of these matters.

I was so paranoid about a misstep I wouldn't tell anyone outside of work what was on the next day's lunch menu there.


PS -
Bharara, Kitrosser, and "several (unnamed) law professors" said it was fine in the article. In lack of "several" names, we can only cite two. The others like Greene, Shane, Griffin, and Amann commented on side issues or danced on the head of a pin, taking a qualified stance about what specifically was the conversation about, but shaded to fine under the assumption there was nothing classified discussed or disclosed. The majority named in that article (Sekulow, Kasowitz, Turley, Jarrett) with an unqualified stance said it was a problem. And yes, those four are all Trump hacks. Politifact did a good job writing that up.

 

[unofan]

And I worked in a national laboratory where everything was classified. So yeah, I am very close to the vest in my viewing of these matters.

I was so paranoid about a misstep I wouldn't tell anyone outside of work what was on the next day's lunch menu there.

Every licensed attorney in the country has a duty of confidentiality. They know about this stuff too

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

But they can't. The Repubs will call them on it every time, and the Democrats will meekly concede and apologize, furthering their perceived image as ball-less milquetoasts.

Democrats need to fight back against every Republican lie, and fight back hard. Not just say, "wrong' or go off on some ten minute technobabble discussion about why it's wrong, but in short succint phrases, demonstrate the lie, and then explain in words even a fifth grader can understand, the effects of the specific Republican policy on the people they're speaking to.

THe GOP success comes from an old marketing ploy of labeling something and pounding away at it so it seems real. I don't see this as working with Dems. They can't stick on message and are much more likely to look at the grey areas.

That's entirely dependent upon what stories they were covering. If 90% of the stories were on the size of the man's hands, then negative commentary is moot. If they had 90% of those stories based upon statements made by Trump, and later how he broke a promise, walked back on a prior assertion with his customary I've always supported..., or talking about how he's taking claim for successes that were actually wrought under prior administrations - going all the way back to the Clinton years, then we can start to look at news stories of substance.

What positives things has Trump done since being in office? What "good" stories are there that he can claim as a verified legislative or diplomatic accomplishment??

No one answered this question. I wonder why?

FTFA: Several law professors told us there are no laws prohibiting Comey from sharing conversations he had with Trump in an unclassified manner.

But keep moving those goalposts, you totally not Trump supporter.

THis made me wonder- Did Sessions ever provide proof for his 'policy' that he was asked for when he refused to answer questions? I really wish someone would pursue that.

Beg to differ, Sic. I think you often fairly point out inconsistencies in the way we libturds think, but not on this one. The RWNJs were screaming things like death squads and fake birth certificates--things that were frequently complete and total fabrications. It was loud, and there were lots of screamers, including the party's vice presidential candidate. The Left is loud now for reasons that even some of the highest ranking members of the Rep party agree with: this guy is categorically and historically unfit. The lies he is accused of are not dug out of the gossip heap--they are his own public declarations. Weekly, if not daily. He is a gusher of falsity. His level of immaturity is . . . well, shocking. He doesn't read and prefers to get his information from media broadcasts. I didn't like Bush II, but I was respectful in that dislike. This guy is pure clown, and it scares people, as it should. And they should be loud about it.

People on the right did not want OBama and were loud about it, as is their right. That was their response to his election. But the SUBSTANCE that elicits the response from the left now (and many mainstream republicans) is different in kind from that which elicited the response 8 years ago.

That is this libturd's view of it, at any rate.

THIS!!1!!1!!

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

Tim Ryan is stealing my bit. He's right, too. His appeal is that he speaks to people in his district not unlike trump does. The difference of course is he is talking about things that will actually help working people and bring us all together a little bit, and doesn't lie in every third sentence. If the democratic party is wise, they would listen to voices like Ryan's.

 

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.12: Dan, does it take courage when encountering the covfefe?

Loved the tweet this afternoon. First there was no Russians doing anything. Now Obama should have done something about it. How do people who support him manage to reconcile all of the things he contradicts himself on? I guess it is so important to blame Obama that they don't care what it is that is said. Sort of like a post-hypnotic suggestion. Hear 'Obama', instantly believe he is at fault, no matter what is said and feel righteous about it.