Page 34 of 155

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:52 pm UTC
by MartianInvader
Zohar wrote:I'm talking about rich people. There are rich and uneducated people. The main way people become rich is by being born to other rich people.

So... are you claiming there's no correlation between education and wealth?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:49 pm UTC
by sardia
Chen wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Overall unfair privilege and other assorted dysfunctions are very much zero-sum, and getting them to zero (i.e., removing all the inequalities in the system) is very much the goal.


In a lot of cases they aren't really zero sum. Take police brutality. Right now white people have significant privilege with regards to say getting stopped and/or killed by police. But there's no reason their situation needs to change if police stop brutalizing black people. It's not like there's some fixed level of police brutality that has to go on and thus as black people become less brutalized white people will somehow become more brutalized.

Unfortunately, nonurban whites (centrists? Former Democrats?) have a troubling trend where a lack of growth for them means that other groups no longer get any sympathy.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... istration/
Trump has remained firm on his positions on civil rights and immigration policy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly in particular are aggressively implementing many of Trump’s proposals from 2015 and 2016, angering black, Latino and Muslim activists in particular. The administration is not proposing less intervention from the federal government, which is the typical Republican approach, but rather it is seeking to wield federal power, just as Obama did. But whereas Obama’s policies focused on protecting African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, people who are gay or transgender, and other groups that most Americans view as marginalized, Trump and his team are focusing on defending different groups: Christians, police officers, victims of crimes by undocumented immigrants, and people who fear Latino immigrants are taking their jobs or redefining U.S. culture, among others.

This approach is akin to civil rights for the Trump coalition, a shift in focus away from groups that Democrats (and the data) view as facing more discrimination and toward groups Republicans believe are more often marginalized. And Thursday could bring the latest example: Trump is expected to sign an executive order on “religious freedom” that will reportedly include provisions that make it easier for churches and other religious organizations to participate in politics while remaining exempt from federal taxes.

Trump is heralding Civil Rights for Whites, except it's really bad for everyone.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:48 pm UTC
by Zohar
MartianInvader wrote:
Zohar wrote:I'm talking about rich people. There are rich and uneducated people. The main way people become rich is by being born to other rich people.

So... are you claiming there's no correlation between education and wealth?

Of course there is, but that doesn't imply causation. Sure, lots of rich people might be educated, but that's often because their rich parents can throw money at their education.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:06 am UTC
by sardia
Zohar wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:
Zohar wrote:I'm talking about rich people. There are rich and uneducated people. The main way people become rich is by being born to other rich people.

So... are you claiming there's no correlation between education and wealth?

Of course there is, but that doesn't imply causation. Sure, lots of rich people might be educated, but that's often because their rich parents can throw money at their education.

Are you seriously questioning the higher education income difference? Or is this a more generic high school education vs college drop out critique?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 1:35 am UTC
by morriswalters
Its stating the obvious, that wealth implies privilege. Which is true. Daddy can afford to send privileged daughter to an prestigious school. That isn't a sin of any type nor a moral failing.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 11:35 am UTC
by Zohar
Yeah I'm not sure what you're not understanding. If I have a lot of money, and I want to send my child to a prestigious school no matter what their academic achievements are, I will be able to do so. To imply that education leads to being rich is an insult to billions of people who are educated and not ridiculously rich.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:14 pm UTC
by sardia
Spoiler:
Zohar wrote:Yeah I'm not sure what you're not understanding. If I have a lot of money, and I want to send my child to a prestigious school no matter what their academic achievements are, I will be able to do so. To imply that education leads to being rich is an insult to billions of people who are educated and not ridiculously rich.

You were implying "poor people with higher educations won't make more money than a similar poor person without higher education". The only edge cases are low return degrees compared against military or skilled trades. https://www.asu.edu/president/p3/Reports/EdValue.pdf
Now, to bring this back to Trump presidency, is Trump's son in law an example of education giving him a leg up in the world? No, he's a rich heir who's got rescued marrying another real estate tycoon. All those jobs assigned to him are pure nepotism and loyalty. But I wouldn't tell people to not pursue college just cuz rich people have tons of advantages. You're much better off warning them against low value degrees or the dangers of not completing college.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ncumbents/
In actual related news, I wonder if this bill will affect the Georgia runoff election. Or if that effect is already priced into the polls for a conservative district.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:53 pm UTC
by Zohar
Um, when did I ever say people don't benefit from college? The only thing I said was the biggest indicator of being rich is is having rich parents - that's true, and doesn't change that fact.

A college education generally is associated with making more money (high school graduates make 62% of what the average 4-year college graduate makes). It won't generally help someone go from making 40K a year to 400K. And I'm ignoring college loans here, which are not an issue for the rich and a huge burden for years for people without those means (unless they received a scholarship or their parents were able to support them enough).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:41 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
Education doesn't necessarily correlate with being rich, if by "rich" you really mean "superrich." There's a big difference between your typical orthodontist and Paris Hilton (who dropped out of high school, but give her credit--she earned her GED!).

According to this 2011 Wall Street Journal article (other sources vary), "An annual salary above $506,000 puts you in the top 1%" of U.S. earners."

The median salary for a US orthodontist is around $190,000 (source), with a salary range from about $82,000 to $400,000 depending on longevity in the field, whether one owns one's practice or works for someone else, specialties, competition in one's location, etc. I think most people would agree that $400,000 is a pretty cushy annual income, but even orthodontists at the high extreme of salary scale might not be in the top 1%, salary-wise (although they presumably have investment income that might put them there).

Being born into generations of accumulated wealth is still the easiest way to get rich, and it doesn't require educational attainment. (Marrying into it also works, and ditto.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:57 pm UTC
by Liri
I think the breakdown happened somewhere around what different people consider "rich" to mean. If it's just top 1%, then yeah, education alone is unlikely to get anyone there.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 06, 2017 3:44 pm UTC
by sardia
Liri wrote:I think the breakdown happened somewhere around what different people consider "rich" to mean. If it's just top 1%, then yeah, education alone is unlikely to get anyone there.

Pretty much this. It's a stupid argument based entirely on confusion. Moving on.

Trump's administration has decided on the way to reduce student loan debt.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/upsh ... f=politics
Less Accountability for Loan Companies

Harder to Apply to Programs

Income-based repayment plans allow borrowers to pay what they can afford by setting their payments as a percentage of their income. Expanding access to these plans, which are intended to reduce borrower distress and default, was a priority of the Obama administration.

Higher Fees in Store

Access to income-based repayment programs is more important than ever because of a separate Trump administration rollback of protections for borrowers. Now, those who fall behind on their payments are subject to much larger penalties.
What's this, it doesn't actually help anyone save rich corporations? I would say you got fucked over by Trump but this is more of a generic Republican fuck you and we're preaching to the choir here.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:47 am UTC
by MartianInvader
Zohar wrote:Um, when did I ever say people don't benefit from college? The only thing I said was the biggest indicator of being rich is is having rich parents - that's true, and doesn't change that fact.

Was someone claiming that education causes wealth more than wealth causes education?

Going back to your first reply to my post, you seem to consider it important that the causation runs more strongly the other way, and that there are non-educated rich people, but I don't see how those points apply to what I said about the non-educated, poor, white demographic.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:37 am UTC
by elasto
I think it's clearer when you look at the flip-side: Lack of education definitely results in increased poverty, and poverty definitely reduces educational attainment - the causation runs in both directions.

It's one of the things that decreases social mobility on a generational basis - social mobility obviously being a crucial component of any functional meritocracy.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:22 pm UTC
by Zohar
MartianInvader wrote:Going back to your first reply to my post, you seem to consider it important that the causation runs more strongly the other way, and that there are non-educated rich people, but I don't see how those points apply to what I said about the non-educated, poor, white demographic.

My original point was your binary view of large groups of people is misguided.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 5:06 pm UTC
by MartianInvader
I wasn't trying to say that every white person is in one of the two demographics I described - I was trying to illustrate how poorer whites won't respond well to being asked to give up their wealth when they don't have any. Since whites who were poorer and who were in poverty-correlated demographics were instrumental to Trump's surprise victory, I think it's pretty important for democrats and liberals to understand why they largely switched sides this past election.

And writing them off as selfish racists is, I think, a cop-out that fails to take into account the complexity of the situation.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 5:58 pm UTC
by Zohar
Who was asking them to give up their wealth?

As for people being selfish, that's not an insult - everyone's selfish. The same, honestly, is true regarding racism. Yes I'm including myself in both these categories.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 6:39 pm UTC
by Chen
Zohar wrote:Who was asking them to give up their wealth?


The initial post that started this tangent mentioned something about white people who were not active in the oppression of the past owing something to those who had been historically oppressed. To be fair it's like 2.5 pages back and things have moved considerably in the time but its where it started.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:17 pm UTC
by cyanyoshi
FBI Director James Comey has been fired.
Spoiler:
ABC News wrote:FBI Director James Comey has been fired, according to the White House.

"Today, President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office," the White House statement reads.

"President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions," the statement said.

In addition to a statement, the White House released the letter that Trump wrote directly to Comey dismissing him at the recommendation of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, "effective immediately."

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau," Trump wrote.

"It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission," Trump's letter states.

President Trump has previously been critical of Comey, suggesting that his actions helped Hillary Clinton during the campaign, while Clinton blamed Comey and his late announcement about the FBI's investigation into her email server contributed to her electoral college loss.

Comey gave inaccurate testimony to Congress on Clinton emails, sources say
"FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?" Trump wrote in two tweets on May 2.

In the wake of those tweets, press secretary Sean Spicer said "the president has confidence in the director" on May 3.

At the White House press briefing today, however, Spicer was reluctant to repeat that statement without first checking with the president. When ABC News' Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl pressed Spicer today about the Comey’s inaccurate statements to Congress regarding Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s handling of emails, Spicer said he’d have to speak to the president first.

"In light of what you are telling me, I don't want to start speaking on behalf of the president without speaking to him first," Spicer said.

Comey, 56, was appointed to head the FBI in September 2013 by then-President Barack Obama. FBI directors typically serve a 10-year term, and his firing today means that he will have only served less than four years. Prior to that, he served as a deputy attorney general and a state's attorney.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, was one of the first politicians outside of the White House to release a statement. Graham acknowledged that it "was a difficult decision for all concerned" and said that he appreciates Comey's public service.

"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation’s interests," Graham's statement concluded.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:04 pm UTC
by freezeblade
So...the President just fired the person who is leading the investigation into the president's team's possible ties and/or collusion with Russia, after recommendation from the Attorney General who claimed he was recusing himself from said investigation. The new person in charge of said investigation will be named by the President.

Sounds legit.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:51 pm UTC
by Dauric
freezeblade wrote:Sounds legit.


No, no, It sounds Tremendous. a really really great firing, there's been no better firings in all of American history, really this was a marvellous firing...(ad nauseum)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:24 am UTC
by Liri
Dauric wrote:
freezeblade wrote:Sounds legit.


No, no, It sounds Tremendous. a really really great firing, there's been no better firings in all of American history, really this was a marvellous firing...(ad nauseum)

I think we reach nauseum pretty quick

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 5:16 am UTC
by ObsessoMom
Philip Bobbitt's interpretation of why Flynn wasn't fired by Trump (well, he was, but not immediately after Acting Attorney General Sally Yates expressed her concerns that he had lied to Vice President Pence about his contacts with Russia) sounds pretty plausible. Bolding mine:

Putting to one side the much more serious issue of collaboration with Russia to manipulate the election, and the allegations of an extensive effort to cover up that collaboration, it seems pretty clear what happened. President-elect Trump instructed General Flynn to tell Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak not to be too upset about President Obama’s new sanctions against Russia because he—Trump—planned to reverse them. It is inconceivable that Flynn did this on his own. The reason he denied having this discussion with the Russian ambassador is because the president-elect instructed him to do so. It was only when the Washington Post article appeared exposing this deception that Trump was forced to act. He didn’t see any problem with undermining Obama’s policy—after all Trump would be president in a few weeks. (Who knows whether he also told Flynn to mislead the vice-president elect so that Pence could credibly—and deniably—mislead the press and the public?)

Of course Trump wasn’t moved by Yates’s warning; he knew Flynn couldn’t be blackmailed with the threat to disclose his actions to his boss because there was nothing to expose. What Trump was worried about was exposure of his own role; and that’s why he fired Flynn with fulsome praise and the relatively-honest observation that had he known of Flynn’s contacts he would have authorized his actions.


Full text here:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-trump-t ... ambassador—and-lie-about-it

Apparently the forum software doesn't like that emdash between "ambassador" and "and," so you'll need to cut and paste the URL into your browser. The first part is
https://www.lawfareblog.com/
and the second part is
did-trump-tell-flynn-talk-russian-ambassador—and-lie-about-it

added a bit.ly link for you. ~~Felstaff

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:38 am UTC
by Liri
That relies on assuming the Russians thought Flynn was acting on his own. It would make more sense for the blackmail to be threatening to tell the public about the meetings, which has already happened.

Man what if Flynn has an "accident" before he testifies. That would be terrifying.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:52 am UTC
by Chen
You'd think there'd be a high likelihood of Flynn coming out and saying this then, no?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:55 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
Chen wrote:You'd think there'd be a high likelihood of Flynn coming out and saying this then, no?
If this is the case, it's probably why Flynn asked for immunity, first -- and what he was referring to when he said he had a story to tell.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:47 pm UTC
by Chen
The Great Hippo wrote:If this is the case, it's probably why Flynn asked for immunity, first -- and what he was referring to when he said he had a story to tell.


I had thought the immunity request was because of the money he took from foreign governments without disclosing it properly. I suppose that might have come out too though had he testified at all. And I guess if it was president-elect Trump (since he wasn't yet President) who asked him to talk to the Russian ambassador it was also technically illegal.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 12:55 pm UTC
by Zohar
Maybe I'm being naive here, but why not ask for immunity? What's the downside there? At best - no legal repercussions to your actions. At worst - they keep investigating you?

In other news, Trump fired FBI director James Comey. Supposedly of the way the FBI handled the Clinton e-mails investigation, though that investigation was over before the election even, and Trump has been in office for five months already. The obvious question is why now. It's pretty scary. Some republicans seem upset about this. I just can't help thinking they need to start thinking in the long term, and it seems to me like they aren't.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 1:12 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
Chen wrote:I had thought the immunity request was because of the money he took from foreign governments without disclosing it properly. I suppose that might have come out too though had he testified at all. And I guess if it was president-elect Trump (since he wasn't yet President) who asked him to talk to the Russian ambassador it was also technically illegal.
I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that the request for immunity was in response to a senate inquiry regarding his discussions with the Russian ambassador -- not in response to inquiries regarding money he took from foreign governments. And if that's the case, a lot of this would suddenly make much more sense -- particularly Trump's bizarre decision to keep Flynn on up until it became a PR problem.

As a complete aside, I'm starting to wonder if at least part of the Russian 'smell' around Trump is actually some sort of double-pronged plan on the part of Putin's administration: Work to get Trump elected, then work to make Trump appear to be colluding with the Russians. Probably not (it's hard to imagine why you'd want to do that), but it's a funny thought.
Zohar wrote:In other news, Trump fired FBI director James Comey. Supposedly of the way the FBI handled the Clinton e-mails investigation, though that investigation was over before the election even, and Trump has been in office for five months already. The obvious question is why now. It's pretty scary. Some republicans seem upset about this. I just can't help thinking they need to start thinking in the long term, and it seems to me like they aren't.
I am genuinely amazed at the way people are bending over backwards to defend this decision. Like, okay, yes, it is possible -- really, really unlikely, but possible -- that this is totally legit; Trump fired Comey only because of Rosenstein's report; the timing is just an unfortunate coincidence.

But... can people at least agree that the optics are terrible? That you shouldn't fire the guy who's investigating your campaign staff? That it was handled with little to no finesse? Comey found out he was fired from a television, for fuck's sake. How can anyone argue with a straight-face that this administration has any clue what the fuck it's doing?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 1:56 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
The Great Hippo wrote:Work to get Trump elected, then work to make Trump appear to be colluding with the Russians. Probably not (it's hard to imagine why you'd want to do that), but it's a funny thought.

Change just one thing: Instead of working to get Trump elected, work to get Trump close enough, electorally, to leave Clinton (the predictable winner) in power but horribly weakened and delegitimised. But then the whole plan goes horribly right, and end up with a Trump who probably doesn't even realise that he's so indebted, and (perhaps because of being politically inexperienced) needs a bit of his self-assuredness chipped away to get the wrong candidate properly subdued.

(Putin is a judo person (use the opponent's strengths against them), and probably also a decent chess player (positioning used with foresight and contingencies), as well as the consummate post-Soviet politician (with unparalleled success). I can easily imagine him knowingly playing the long game and employing such gambits as a matter of course. All sufficiently deniable, of course, which is where we start wandering into Conspiracy Theory territory, at least by any currently open knowledge. Historians of the future might get the opportunity to untangle it all.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:13 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
Soupspoon wrote:Change just one thing: Instead of working to get Trump elected, work to get Trump close enough, electorally, to leave Clinton (the predictable winner) in power but horribly weakened and delegitimised.
But why wouldn't Putin want Trump to win? Trump's clearly the best choice for Putin; he's a weak-minded blow-hard hawk wannabe with financial ties to Russia. I mean, maybe Putin didn't expect Trump to win, but a Trump victory was always clearly the best outcome he could hope for.

Or are you saying that a Trump-win was the impossible dream, and Putin wasn't really planning for it -- so when it happened, he had to improvise?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:30 pm UTC
by SDK
freezeblade wrote:So...the President just fired the person who is leading the investigation into the president's team's possible ties and/or collusion with Russia, after recommendation from the Attorney General who claimed he was recusing himself from said investigation. The new person in charge of said investigation will be named by the President.

Sounds legit.

Yeah, this coming from Sessions is just awful. It's been talked about a lot, but now for the first time I'm truly afraid that Trump will be America's last president.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:42 pm UTC
by sardia
SDK wrote:
freezeblade wrote:So...the President just fired the person who is leading the investigation into the president's team's possible ties and/or collusion with Russia, after recommendation from the Attorney General who claimed he was recusing himself from said investigation. The new person in charge of said investigation will be named by the President.

Sounds legit.

Yeah, this coming from Sessions is just awful. It's been talked about a lot, but now for the first time I'm truly afraid that Trump will be America's last president.

Sessions doesn't want to end democracy, he just wants to put minorities in their place. (Terrified into submission)
It raises further questions into Trump's competence and arrogance. It's similar to when Bill Clinton had those inappropriate meetings with Lynch, but way worse. Yes he technically can do this, but it raises a lot of questions.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:47 pm UTC
by SDK
Maybe he doesn't want to end democracy, but Sessions even participating in something so directly related to his investigation shows he doesn't care about the integrity of justice, at least. There's a clear conflict of interest, and even if that had nothing to do with the decision to fire Comey, it should not have come from Sessions. If I did something like that as an engineer, I'd very likely lose my professional designation - what's going to happen to him?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:16 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
The Great Hippo wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Change just one thing: Instead of working to get Trump elected, work to get Trump close enough, electorally, to leave Clinton (the predictable winner) in power but horribly weakened and delegitimised.
But why wouldn't Putin want Trump to win? Trump's clearly the best choice for Putin; he's a weak-minded blow-hard hawk wannabe with financial ties to Russia. I mean, maybe Putin didn't expect Trump to win, but a Trump victory was always clearly the best outcome he could hope for.

Or are you saying that a Trump-win was the impossible dream, and Putin wasn't really planning for it -- so when it happened, he had to improvise?

Pretty much. Or at least get the contingency plan into action. A weakened but predictable Clinton would have been the most conceivable end-game back when it became obvious that Trump was to become her opponent (and vice-versa).

And, even before that, look how easily the alternate Republican nominees fell by the wayside. It could have been pure Trump's salesmanship 'genius', but what if it wasn't? Meh, too speculative, but an interesting, if idle, question.

And I don't think Sanders would have been Putin's choice for President (too left wing?) but as a spoiler vs Clinton and part of the electoral stick used to bash at Hillary with (some otherwise unsurprising stuff from the Clinton/Sanders internal race were spun out to damage her after their kind 'liberation' from standard confidentiality by everybody's favourite St. Petersburg troll bureaus, like as not) he was ideal as a way of weathering away her support with little interventions.

Hey, it's a theory. Not sure I subscribe to it, but you can't easily reject it either...

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:16 pm UTC
by mosc
The Great Hippo wrote:But why wouldn't Putin want Trump to win? Trump's clearly the best choice for Putin; he's a weak-minded blow-hard hawk wannabe with financial ties to Russia. I mean, maybe Putin didn't expect Trump to win, but a Trump victory was always clearly the best outcome he could hope for.

It's been pretty well discussed that Russia's current foreign policy views relations with the United States as a Zero Sum Game. To the point, Trump being an inferior leader is reason enough for Putin to prefer him over Clinton. If he thinks Trump will do damage to the US domestically or abroad, that's the desired outcome. I don't think it's anything more covert than that. Putin's well researched opinion is Trump is damaging for America and what's bad for America is, in his mind at least, good for Russia.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:43 pm UTC
by Thesh
SDK wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to end democracy, but Sessions even participating in something so directly related to his investigation shows he doesn't care about the integrity of justice, at least. There's a clear conflict of interest, and even if that had nothing to do with the decision to fire Comey, it should not have come from Sessions. If I did something like that as an engineer, I'd very likely lose my professional designation - what's going to happen to him?


Sessions being nominated showed he didn't care about integrity of justice.

As for this investigation, Spicer literally (literally) hid in the bushes to avoid answering questions on this.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 4:15 pm UTC
by Chen
SDK wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to end democracy, but Sessions even participating in something so directly related to his investigation shows he doesn't care about the integrity of justice, at least. There's a clear conflict of interest, and even if that had nothing to do with the decision to fire Comey, it should not have come from Sessions. If I did something like that as an engineer, I'd very likely lose my professional designation - what's going to happen to him?


While it may have been Sessions who ultimately agreed with the decision to fire Comey, the original recommendation appears to have come from his deputy. Whether the deputy (Rosenstein) was pushed into things is unclear. Washington post seems to indicate Rosenstein was investigating Comey two weeks ago, after he was sworn in, with regards to his behavior in the Clinton email scandal.

As Hippo said, I highly doubt Trump fired him solely because of Rosenstein's report. I'm not necessarily convinced though that the whole report was created as part of a charade though. Rosenstein may have written the report legitimately (since realistically Comey did deserve to be fired for his role in the Clinton email thing) and Trump just immediately jumped on it to fire him and help himself too. The optics are absolutely terrible though, so I have no idea why no one would have recommended he wait a bit for it.

I mean it's not like Comey was doing all the digging into the Russia scandal directly himself. There are tons of analysts whose information is still there. Firing him should slow things down somewhat but it shouldn't scuttle the whole thing anyways. Seems like it was just a poor decision in all points of view to do this now.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 5:18 pm UTC
by Zohar
According to this Politico article, Trump may have asked for the reports as a rationale to fire Comey:
Trump received letters from Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, calling for Comey's dismissal, on Tuesday, a spokesman said. The president then decided to fire the FBI director based on the recommendations and moved quickly. The spokesman said Trump did not ask for the letters in advance, and that White House officials had no idea they were coming.

But several other people familiar with the events said Trump had talked about the firing for more than a week, and the letters were written to give him rationale to fire Comey.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:56 pm UTC
by Liri
According to NYT, Comey requested additional resources for expanding the Russia ties investigation days before the firing.

WELP

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 8:10 pm UTC
by Chen
Now far from being fully informed it seems very out of character for Rosenstein to facilitate these things. I mean hell he was confirmed 94-6 in the senate when his confirmation hearing was almost completely about the Russian investigation.