Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is why he never did. It's just the media trying as hard as they can to plant the idea in people's head that he was considering blocking Comey's testimony.
I can see they hooked one fish already.
Oh, I see. Now it's Trump's fault that the media is trying to fool people about what he said?
Got it.
I can see that you've fallen for the media's trick completely. How does that hook, line, and sinker taste?
Or, are you one of the people who knows he never wanted to block Comey in the first place, without having to be "painted into any corner"... but now you are trying to fool people into thinking he did anyway?
There's a name for trying to promote falsehoods to the public.
Trump handled firing Comey very well. He got the top two people in the Justice Department to put their recommendations to fire Comey in writing, and fired Comey while he was out of town, so Comey couldn't destroy records he didn't want Jeff Sessions to get.
Comey's records are sitting on Sessions' desk, and Trump has recommendations to fire Comey in writing, I'd say Trump handled it masterfully.
It was more emotional than masterful. For the FBI director, in the middle of said director investigating Trump's campaign, to be fired and learn of the firing from TV news, is not masterful.
Then Trump threatened Comey with tapes, which he may or may not have.
Then the very next day in his private meeting with the Russians and TASS, he stated that the pressure was off because he fired 'nutjob' Comey. Not masterful, not presidential, not mature and not smart.
And regarding the letter in which Trump dismissed Comey, he also thanked Comey for confirming “on three separate occasions” that Trump was not being investigated.
"...This has perplexed the intelligence community, lawyers, and senators because it would be highly unusual for the FBI head to tell him such a thing..."
What is most likely to come out at this hearing is not 'classified information' but information showing that Trump is an unethical liar, and may have been attempting to pervert and obstruct justice, and/or abuse the power of the office.
You are as usual drasticly misrepresenting what Comey has said in prior testimony. He said no one at the doj pressured him.
That's your interpretation. But he was asked if "senior officials" had asked him to halt an investigation, and who is the most Senior? The President of the United States. The DOJ works for the President.
The problem here for you people is that you never do any homework. You take what you hear from MSNBC (Rachel Madcow, no less!) and CNN (Wolf(man) Blitzer and the clown, Anderson Cooper), who regularly lie, twist facts (if they even have the facts) and make things up. For example, they regularly call Trump's E.O. a "Muslim Ban" when they know very well it isn't (but they like the effect ...it fools their viewers). They also claim, incorrectly, that it is "unconstitutional." It is not. They never read the Law (and you haven't read it either). Lastly, they assume that judges are gods. Judges are not gods, and they do not make law. They render opinions. In the travel ban case (and by the way, the word "suspend" that the Law uses is synonymous with "ban," which Trump has used in discussing this case) they overstepped the limits of their authority, usurping the Presidents Constitutional power.
It was more emotional than masterful. For the FBI director, in the middle of said director investigating Trump's campaign, to be fired and learn of the firing from TV news, is not masterful.
Then Trump threatened Comey with tapes, which he may or may not have.
Then the very next day in his private meeting with the Russians and TASS, he stated that the pressure was off because he fired 'nutjob' Comey. Not masterful, not presidential, not mature and not smart.
And regarding the letter in which Trump dismissed Comey, he also thanked Comey for confirming “on three separate occasions” that Trump was not being investigated.
"...This has perplexed the intelligence community, lawyers, and senators because it would be highly unusual for the FBI head to tell him such a thing..."
What is most likely to come out at this hearing is not 'classified information' but information showing that Trump is an unethical liar, and may have been attempting to pervert and obstruct justice, and/or abuse the power of the office.
Comey's testimony alone would not show obstruction of justice, just some unethical behavior. But when coupled with the above, asking to be informed if he is under investigation, it does show a pattern of abuse, which under the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" could be enough to convince some that action needs to be taken. ("misdemeanors" when the Constitution was written meant abuse of power or office).
Has President Trump ever said he was even thinking about blocking Comey's testimony?
Or is it all another fake story made up by the media to bash Trump?
If it doesn't work, I can see the next media headline now:
"Trump will be Making a Major Mistake if he Robs the Bank on 13th St. and Constitution Ave!!!"
Complete with major controversies, Congressional investigations, testimony from sobbing mothers who have all their savings in that bank, and weeks of stories on the history of bank robbing and the damage it has done.
If anybody in the Trump administration says, "Hey, this is all baloney, he's not going to rob the bank and never was!", the media will be quick to announce "Trump surrogates deny allegations of planned bank robberies, Trump remains silent". Democrat Senators will insist "It's the seriousness of the charge that makes it necessary to investigate it!"
And if any news channel questions whether there is any evidence that Trump was planning to rob the bank, the rest will scream, "Partisan news 'reporters' try to cover up possible bank robbery plot". And "White House continues to deny bank robbery scheme as controversy mounts!". And "What are they trying to hide???"
After a few weeks of such unrelenting pounding, polls will be taken asking people, "Would a bank robbery by Donald Trump be a serious matter?" and, "If the President robs a bank, would that rise to the level of an impeachable offense?" The answers to both questions would come back heavily affirmative, as they should be of course for any President ever robbing any bank, or planning to.
It doesn't really matter what Trump does or says, or even if he never gave the first thought to robbing a bank. The media can generate huge controversy from thin air, and make a lot of people who aren't paying much attention, think that Donald J. Trump was planning to rob a bank... or at least that there must be good reason to think so.
Or there wouldn't be all this coverage and controversy, would there? Where there's this much smoke, there must certainly be some fire, right?
And all the while, the media technically never accused the President of planning to rob the bank. They merely speculated out loud, what might happen if he DID so plan.
The fact that Donald J. Trump never planned to rob any bank, has no relevance. The media can generate such a "controversy" from thin air, and keep it going for weeks. And millions of people can eventually fall for it, and pay attention to it instead of a successful European trip, a rising economy, or anything else that actually did happen.
How many times has the media created a "crisis" or "controversy" from thin air, when in fact none exists?
How many times will they do it again in the future?
It's striking how often the media uses this trick to try to pretend a Republican President has done something wrong.
We should take a poll on when they will do it next.
Maybe they will speculate on what the effect could be, of silly questions that Republicans won't ask Comey? (They'll leave out the "won't ask Comey" part, of course, but blather the silly made-up "questions" for days on end. Just as they are blathering "Will Trump block Comey's testimony?" now.)
Or maybe invent more things Kushner is speculated to have done with the Russians (but never actually did?
Just think of how many weeks and months of news time they can take up, for "issues" that never happened that they made up out of the blue! Demanding testimony, feigning outrage that republicans are obviously hiding something because they are ignoring the media's "questions", etc.
Then when some factual news coms up (such as a good jobs report or the defeat of terrorist forces somewhere), you can rest assured it will barely be reported at all, as the media spends all its time speculating on whether Ivanka threatened department stores who decided not to carry her clothing line.
I doubt nothing short of a video will convince this Congress to go after "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump unfiltered - may live tweet Comey's testimony
