This week's blog contains adult language that may not be suitable for children. It also probably contains misspellings, improper grammar, lapses in judgement, and irrational arguments. As we said: not suitable for children.
David:
A lot has been going on lately. I thought we might touch on several issues, and hope I'm not biting off more than we can chew in a single blog.
FBI Director James Comey was finally fired after months of mismanagement and irregular behavior. The brand new Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, the majority of Senators and Congresspersons, and the vast majority of Americans (85%) felt he was doing the job poorly. Rosenstein, who is the FBI Director's immediate superior, met with Comey, and recommended to the President that he be fired.
The first steps in reforming the debacle known as Obamacare has finally passed the House. The House blueprint promises to change the basic, mortally-flawed structure of Obamacare. The bill now moves on to the Senate. Although Democrats have blamed Republicans for years for not "fixing" their flawed bill, this new ACHC does just that. It isn't a repeal, as that cannot be done through reconciliation. It does put all of the problems inherent in Obamacare on a more financially-stable platform. Yet Democrats are still screaming that Republicans are trying to kill children.
A Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, had his campaign severely damaged by the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the foul-mouthed Tom Perez, over the objections of Bernie Sanders. The DNC has taken the stance that if you are not pro-choice, you are not welcomed in the Democratic party. From the polling in Omaha, it looks like Perez stole a victory from a Democrat and handed it to the trailing incumbent Republican. That doesn't seem very smart to me.
I'm tying these three episodes together as examples that in each and every case, the Democratic leadership has taken the most far-left, extreme position it could possibly take. They have unleashed a barrage of bizarre and foul-mouthed talking points that don't follow a majority of American's opinions or make any attempt to tone down the rhetoric in Washington. Why is that?
Doug:
Why in the world would you believe the President's narrative of these events? The White House has zero credibility when it comes to reality. Do you really believe that Trump decided that Comey was mean to Hillary, and thus needed to be fired right now? Actually, a different narrative is emerging:
David:
Sorry to interrupt, but before you carry on with this line of "thoughtful" questioning, I might point out that only you and hard-core Democrats believe every Republican administration has zero credibility when it comes to reality. I find your comment most alarming coming from someone who accepted everything Obama said as absolute truth. (If you like your doctor...) But please, carry on.
Doug:
You are defending Trump's credibility? You dare to compare what Trump says on a daily basis to one statement by Obama? Do you not worry about your own credibility when you say such things?
1. It appears that Trump was angry that Comey kept talking about Russia.
David:
If you are the President, and have agenda items that you wish to keep moving forward (such as tax reform and efforts to improve the economy), and you believe that you have done nothing wrong in regards to the collusion assertions (for which everyone involved with this case has continually said there is no evidence for), you also might be frustrated that Democrats and others in the media keep pushing that narrative.
Doug:
2. It appears that Trump, not Rosenstein, decided that Comey should be fired. And Sessions had recused himself from the Russian investigation. Why was he involved at all?
David:
Um, the President is the only one who has the authority to fire the FBI director. It is his decision, and his alone. The Congress can impeach a director if it chooses, overriding the President if needed. This has been the case since 1968. Jeff Sessions was involved because Comey's firing has nothing to do with the Russia investigation, but everything to do with how he handled himself during the prior election. Why fire him now? Comey just gave testimony last week in which he admitted he inserted himself into the election, admitted that he overstepped his bounds, and then stated that if he had it all to do over again, with what he knows now, he'd still do all of the same things! He has not learned anything from the experience. He has no apologies. He'd still jump out in front of ongoing investigations and act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. The time for his firing was at hand.
Doug:
3. "Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation". One can try to claim that Comey was fired for other things, such as "irregular behavior." But why would Rosenstein be so upset then?
David:
How long are these points of yours going to go on? Now you're quoting a single, unnamed source in a single article that says Rosenstein threatened to resign. Rosenstein himself denies that claim. Sounds like you'll believe just about anything if it fits your "narrative that's emerging".
Doug:
4. The interim head of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, is the same fellow that secretly (and improperly because, of the investigation) met with Reince Priebus on Feb 15th and told him that the then-reporting by the New York Times was "bullshit."
David:
Goodness gracious! Now you're eating your own. McCabe is a hard-core Democrat whose wife ran as a candidate for the Virginia State Senate.
"His wife Jill McCabe ran for a Virginia State Senate seat as a Democrat in 2015, during when she received nearly $500,000 in campaign donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — a close Clinton family ally."
$500,000 for a State Senate seat?!?!!? Are you saying that you, as a Democrat, don't trust this guy to lead the FBI? Is there anyone who can possibly meet your standards? If Andrew McCabe believes the investigation into collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians is bogus, then it is truly bogus.
Doug:
There are people that meet my standards. But not these: Jared Kushner may be a Democrat. Trump claimed that he was a Democrat. What is your point? That I must trust anyone who claims they are a Democrat, or whose spouse is a Democrat, regardless of their behavior? No.
5. The White House then instructed the heads of the investigations in the House (Devin Nunes) and Senate (Richard Burr) to call reporters and discredit the NYT article. They did. Since then, the NYT article has been found to be true, and has been confirmed by all other reporting.
David:
Let me quote your own link:
"The (unnamed, anonymous) officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue, and their comments were not published by The Post and do not appear to have been reported elsewhere."
That equals bogus, fake news. Parts of the story were true, but both of these men have denied this portion of your conspiracy tale. That's two more dots in your connect-the-dots conspiracy theory that don't exist.
Doug:
6. Nunes has since stepped down from his head of the House investigation. That was weird. Part of the backstory was just revealed: Trump had asked for veto power over Yates' testimony. Yates rejected that idea as “overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials.” Her testimony was quickly cancelled by Nunes.
David:
You think it's weird? That's one of the dots you're trying to connect? That's weird. Nunes was the one who invited Yates to testify. Now, your argument is he cancelled her testimony to somehow protect the President. If that were the case, he wouldn't have invited her in the first place.
As to the executive privilege matter, it isn't as simple as it seems. While Yates attorney makes the case she could testify, there is certainly a mound of precedent that argues she couldn't.
"The Trump administration is probably correct that Yates’s testimony would touch on conversations traditionally covered by the presidential communications component of executive privilege. United States v. Nixon is most famous for ordering production of the Nixon tapes and hastening Nixon’s resignation. But the Supreme Court held that presidential communications are subject to claims of executive privilege that flow from the very structure of the Constitution."
In the end, the White House decided to allow Yates to testify. But it was an issue that could have spent some time in the courts, and in this instance, the White House may have been on proper grounds. But the optics would have been terrible. It would surely look like they were trying to hide something. Better to forfeit your executive privilege at this time than to give Democrats something else to harp on.
Doug:
7. Why, then, was Comey fired now? It appears that he had just asked for expanded resources for the Russian investigation. The investigation into Trump and Russia is just getting started.
David:
There is no evidence or paper trail that Comey actually requested any further resources from anyone, and McCabe, under oath, has said no such request was made. Who, exactly, would the director of the FBI need to make this request to? Congress. Not the White House. This is an example of shameless fake news being propagated by Democrats in Congress who know the request was never made.
David:
Finally, you've come to a point (hopefully a final point) in your argument that makes about 1/3 of an once of sense. There are actually three different investigations going on. Are the Russians trying to influence elections? If they are, how much success are they having, and what should we be doing about it? At this point, there is circumstantial evidence to believe the Russians were behind the DNC hacks. But again, it matters less who was behind them and matters more what can we do about potential hackers from all sources, whether Russia, China, North Korea, or anyone else. The last question, about collusion between Trump and the Russians, has no evidence to support it. It seems that we may be able to put a lid on that assertion, but Democrats appear to want that to remain the issue as long as they can string it out, for political gain. The only portion of the investigation that has no evidence supporting it, is the only part Democrats care about. This seems to back up my argument that the Democrat Party leaders are going to take the most left-leaning and extreme position on any issues that come up in Washington. They have embraced a scorched-earth policy. Bipartisanship is dead.
We all do want answers to the questions of hacking and electioneering. Will Democrats actually help to find the answers to those questions, or are they too bent only on destroying Trump to focus the investigation on the things that there actually is evidence for?
Doug:
9. Trump admits that he fired Comey because of the Trump-Russia investigation. He admits that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what McCabe and Sessions said, and it was because Comey would not pledge his allegiance to Trump.
10. On top of all of this, it is revealed that Trump disclosed highly sensitive information to the Russians when they met in the oval office. Can he survive all of this? I don't think so.
David:
Once again, you are parroting stories with unnamed, anonymous sources that were not there at the meetings where Trump allegedly did horrible, terrible things. Everyone who was actually there, at the meeting, denies these claims.
"During President Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. - Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Stae
"The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." -H R McMaster
From what I've seen from the articles about this new breaking story: CNN is citing HuffPo, who is citing Rachel Maddow, who is citing CNBC, who is citing ABC, who is citing the Washington Post citing anonymous sources citing rumors that they heard from some guy in a parking garage.
Doug:
You can stop defending him: Trump just admitted it. But one thing that does appear from the last 100+ days: Trump appears to have considerable persuasive abilities to get Republicans to do what he asks. This may be his biggest strength, and will also be seen as his biggest weakness. Politicians know that there should be independence between the executive branch and those performing investigations. They need to operate independently. Following directions from the White House will bring the entire Republican party to its knees.
David:
Right. His powers certainly orchestrated a smooth pathway for the ACHC health-insurance bill, money for the border wall, a decrease in government spending, and getting a tax overhaul signed in his first 100 days. Republicans are trying to keep Trump focused on the things they want to accomplish. They need his bully-pulpit to help make the case, not his tweets, which continue to derail the agenda.
Doug:
Frankly, I think this may be more than the Trump administration can handle. I'm not claiming that there is collusion. Trump's Meeting with the Russians the day after firing Comey doesn't make for good optics. But Trump doesn't care. He is the President, right? But that gets right to the heart of the issue. Legally, Trump can fire Comey. But he can also be legally impeached if congress believes that he did it to stop the investigation, even if there is no collusion.
David:
Why would Trump dump Comey and have a staunch Democrat (and good friend of McAuliffe) now be the one left in charge of the FBI if there was collusion? And if there is no collusion, as you just said, and the President knows there is no collusion, why would he stop the investigation? The only thing that makes sense is that Trump made a poor decision to fire Comey now instead of some other time, and there is no collusion. The investigations have not slowed even for an instant. Firing Comey was the right move.
But to the Democrats, this is Watergate, and treason, and impeachment, and scandal, and so on and so on. Comey was the Devil until last week. Now he's a saint and a martyr. That seems a bit inconsistent. Have you noticed how the same exact words and headlines are coming from all sorts of Democrats and all of the left-leaning mainstream media? I'll refer you back to our blog on talking points.
"People will die in the streets if the ACHC passes". (Even though another big carrier, Aetna, has pulled completely out of Obamacare, and all health-insurance rates have gone up an average of 39% since 2014.). "If you are not pro-choice, you are not welcomed to be a Democrat". Those are certainly words that imply the Democrats are only interested in obstruction and ideology.
And I'll also reiterate my theory that Democrats are going to continue to take the most extreme positions as long as they are out of power. Hillary Clinton even announced that she's forming a new super PAC, not to benefit progressives, not to help Democrats win offices, not to make the party more inclusive, but just to resist Trump in all of his efforts. Oh, and she's back on the multi-million dollar lecture-circuit again, along with former President Obama. Raking in the big dollars from Wall Street, while funding resistance to the duly-elected president. The bad news for Democrats? Americans are not stupid, nor are they sheep.
Doug:
But Hillary's making money! Trump is using the Presidency to make money for himself, and you are worried about a private citizen making money and creating jobs. Something doesn't add up...
David:
How is Trump using the Presidency to enrich himself? How? That's nonsense.
As I said before, after 8 long years of talk about bringing the country together, due to the new extreme words and actions of Democrats, bipartisanship, compromise, and pragmatism are dead.
Doug:
Obama done it. You mentioned some other things that are somehow linked in your mind, but this phrase of yours caught my eye: "the foul-mouthed Tom Perez." What did Tom say to be forever labeled as "foul-mouthed"? He said, and I quote to be absolutely clear:
I was wondering what it takes for someone to be labelled in your mind as "foul mouthed"? Because I have heard much more vulgar words and ideas come from politicians lately, but they did not draw your ire. For example, Candidate Trump said:
But you never once called him "foul-mouthed Trump." But Tom Perez is foul mouthed for using the poop word? Really? Do you think that the "foul mouthed" insult will, ahem, stick? "Since the average American uses 80 to 90 curse words a day, perhaps [you] are overestimating the potential offense."
David:
Just a few things:
I don't approve of Trump using words like that as a candidate or in our political discourse. I don't believe anyone else does either. The reason you were able to find those quotes is they made headlines. They are outliers in the realm of political discourse. Yet Tom Perez, as the head of the DNC has made swearing the new standard of Democrats, who have followed that lead. Michelle Obama had a great quote during one of her speeches, "When they go low, we go high." I think the Democrats missed an opportunity to not use M. Obama much more during the campaign, and using this particular quote as a theme. But now, the Democrats seem to have embraced a new theme: "There is no point low enough for us". Surely you are not embracing the idea that swearing is a good way to elevate our political discourse in the country, when it is already at the low point that it is at? Or are you arguing that the Democrats should be more like Trump?
Doug:
We need to win elections. If talking like regular people helps, then so be it. When one third of Americans don't know that Obamacare and the Affordable Health Care bill are the same thing, it does seem that that would be enough to make a person curse. There are worse things than swearing. But even if you don't agree, Trump is worse, even in swearing.
David:
Good call. Democrats can't win elections with their ideas, so they'll talk like those deplorable fools to win them over. Maybe they can even start carrying Bibles and guns to fool them. Americans are too stupid to understand their big, important ideas.
Second, Perez is swearing at every one of his rallies.
"With children on stage behind him, Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump "doesn't give a s***t about health care."
"They call it a skinny budget, I call it a sh***y budget," Perez said in Portland, Maine."
Doug:
Clever... hadn't heard that one. He made a rhyme.
David:
While you have pulled a few Trump quotes from 8-10 years ago, when he was not a candidate, Perez has made a conscious decision to insert swearing into the current political dialogue.
Doug:
Let's be specific: the "pussy" quote was from 2005 which was twelve years ago, not 8-10 (when Trump was 58 years old). All of the others are from the last year. And remember, Tom is saying "poopy." Look at the content of the things that Trump says. It is vulgar in its meaning. Some of these he actually is describing sexual assault.
David:
Third, we don't swear at our house, and sometimes my children read the blog while I'm working on it. In my examples of Perez, I blanked out the actual swear words. It isn't that hard to do, and I'd prefer you do that as well within our blog. Even major media does this, or they insert a warning label before the story. The links you used above all have them. For someone who lives in a realm of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces", you don't seem to be bothered by the thought of offending anyone.
WARNING: This post contains profanity and language readers might find offensive. -CNN
Doug:
Isn't that weird? You claim that I live in the overprotective world, and yet you are the snowflake? We don't swear in my house either. What I object to is that you feel as if you can call Tom Perez "foul-mouthed" when in reality you ignore much worse from others. That is offensive. It offends logic and consistency. (And by the way, your comment indicates that you don't understand, at all, these phrases "trigger warnings" or "safe spaces".)
David:
You are defending your stance that it's okay for you to needlessly offend people? Why should that be okay?
I'm quoting from CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and multiple other sources when I call Perez foul-mouthed. His swearing is an outlier. It's something different. I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring a new low in discourse, and trying to make it seem to be okay for Democrats to make it their policy to swear in their major speeches in a superficial way to act and talk like working-class people. "Hey, maybe we can dress up like hillbillies and swear a lot, and those dumb bumpkins will vote for us." Democratic leaders fail to recognize that Republicans have won big in the past 8 years without swearing. Americans are voting for what works.
While you seem to be defending and embracing the new Democrat strategy, I find it disheartening. But it does continue to make my point. Democrats are out to destroy any chance at cooperation or bipartisanship. They'll go so far as to completely undermine polite discourse. They'll make arguments based on even the slightest innuendo.
This interview of Maxine Waters is a good representation of the nonsensical arguments Democrats are making. Even the MSNBC reporter has trouble talking to her with a straight face. While claiming Comey was incompetent and had no credibility, she says it would still be better for him to stay in his job than to have Trump fire him. But, if Hillary Clinton were president, it would be fine if she fired Comey under the same circumstances. I hope and pray Maxine stays in office forever. For Republicans, she's the gift that just keeps on giving.
Doug:
You are just now disheartened?! Your self-identified "pussy grabbing" candidate is President, and is about to be impeached. And you are disheartened that Democrats are swearing, too? That is offensive.
David:
Why are you doubling down on using blue language in the blog, when I just asked you not to?
Doug:
If you are going to label people as "foul mouthed" then we will explore that fully and truthfully. You could remove that descriptor off of Tom Perez and we could remove the entire section. But I think it is rather informative about how the Republicans attempt to smear others without coming to terms with what they are actually saying. You can't have it both ways.
David:
The entire mainstream media has labeled him foul-mouthed. Yet you're going to hold our blog hostage because of it? Do you even listen to yourself? On the one hand, Democrats preach that they should not offend anyone (conservatives can't even be allowed to speak because their ideas are so offensive and hateful), but now you are actually going out of your way to be offensive and hateful in an effort to get your way. You can't have it both ways.
You seem to have the idea that I'm defending Trump. I'm not, to the extent that he says and does things that are outside of what would be considered normal for a politician. He does not follow the rules of protocol or decorum. He is oftentimes vulgar. His middle-of-the-night tweets are bizarre. But the narrative Democrats are pushing is mostly unsubstantiated, anonymous baloney. It may all turn out to have some truth to it, and investigations are ongoing, but for now, there is little to no evidence to support almost any of it. Presidents don't get impeached for being vulgar blowhards, yet that is the case Democrats are making.
Doug:
No. But I like your new name for Trump, "Vulgar Blowhard." Sounds like a Bond villain. I see that you are started to waver in your support of the Republican administration. That is a very good sign.
David:
I call em like I see em. You seem to believe that all Republicans are sheep. Actually, it seems the Democratic leadership believes that all Americans are sheep. "Talk dirty and they'll just follow us blindly." You need to have a little more faith in Americans.
There is probably more evidence that Obama was not born in the US than there is that Trump colluded with the Russians, or gave classified information to the Russians, or interfered with any FBI investigations.
Doug:
I think I will quote you for the rest of your life on that one! The sad thing is that I think you really believe it. Which is why I am not trying to change your mind. It can't be changed.
David:
Obama's literary agent listed him as being born in Kenya in Obama's first book. It was wrong, of course, but it is in print:
As Snopes says: "It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times." Now, before you have a conniption about the birther issue, I'm only presenting this as an example. Obama's literary agent has much more credibility than the anonymous unnamed sources in all of your examples above, yet we can all accept that the agent made a mistake. But the media and Democrats claim these sources in the news (whom they admit they cannot even quote because their information is so tenuous) are all accurate and unquestioned. But I digress.
There is testimony (in some cases under oath) by the people who were there that none of these rumored things happened. There is no evidence that these things did, in fact, happen. But Democrats don't care.
Doug:
I think the more that you write this blog, the more that you believe your own propaganda. Democrats do care. They want an investigation. An investigation would reveal whether these things happened or not. That is all that matters. At that point, maybe things won't be so poopy.
David:
Ha. For a minute I thought you were serious. Or are you? You're accusing me of being a propagandist after you printed all of those ridiculous, unsubstantiated points above? Perhaps you don't really believe all of that nonsense? I hope not. You'll lose credibility, Mr. Angry Poopyhead.
And the investigations are continuing as before. Nothing Trump has done has changed that. Nothing he has done is out of the purview of the POTUS. Yet Democrats are screaming "impeachment!!" That's exactly what I'm talking about. All of their ranting isn't for anything meaningful. It's just to lower the discourse.
The curious thing is that despite all of these stories in the news, Trumps poll numbers have not changed one bit. They were never stellar, to be sure, but they have not dipped, and remain right at about 45%. Americans know when they are being scammed, and too many anonymous sources are being relied on, and subsequently refuted, for Americans to buy into all of these stories. The danger in the current Democrat The-sky-is-falling-everyday strategy is when something serious really does show up, and it may, no one will care. Hysterical hyperbole fatigue will set in.
Doug:
Donald Trump's poll numbers should terrify Republicans, unless they just don't believe it.
David:
A lot has been going on lately. I thought we might touch on several issues, and hope I'm not biting off more than we can chew in a single blog.
FBI Director James Comey was finally fired after months of mismanagement and irregular behavior. The brand new Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, the majority of Senators and Congresspersons, and the vast majority of Americans (85%) felt he was doing the job poorly. Rosenstein, who is the FBI Director's immediate superior, met with Comey, and recommended to the President that he be fired.
The first steps in reforming the debacle known as Obamacare has finally passed the House. The House blueprint promises to change the basic, mortally-flawed structure of Obamacare. The bill now moves on to the Senate. Although Democrats have blamed Republicans for years for not "fixing" their flawed bill, this new ACHC does just that. It isn't a repeal, as that cannot be done through reconciliation. It does put all of the problems inherent in Obamacare on a more financially-stable platform. Yet Democrats are still screaming that Republicans are trying to kill children.
A Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, had his campaign severely damaged by the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the foul-mouthed Tom Perez, over the objections of Bernie Sanders. The DNC has taken the stance that if you are not pro-choice, you are not welcomed in the Democratic party. From the polling in Omaha, it looks like Perez stole a victory from a Democrat and handed it to the trailing incumbent Republican. That doesn't seem very smart to me.
I'm tying these three episodes together as examples that in each and every case, the Democratic leadership has taken the most far-left, extreme position it could possibly take. They have unleashed a barrage of bizarre and foul-mouthed talking points that don't follow a majority of American's opinions or make any attempt to tone down the rhetoric in Washington. Why is that?
Doug:
Why in the world would you believe the President's narrative of these events? The White House has zero credibility when it comes to reality. Do you really believe that Trump decided that Comey was mean to Hillary, and thus needed to be fired right now? Actually, a different narrative is emerging:
David:
Sorry to interrupt, but before you carry on with this line of "thoughtful" questioning, I might point out that only you and hard-core Democrats believe every Republican administration has zero credibility when it comes to reality. I find your comment most alarming coming from someone who accepted everything Obama said as absolute truth. (If you like your doctor...) But please, carry on.
Doug:
You are defending Trump's credibility? You dare to compare what Trump says on a daily basis to one statement by Obama? Do you not worry about your own credibility when you say such things?
1. It appears that Trump was angry that Comey kept talking about Russia.
David:
If you are the President, and have agenda items that you wish to keep moving forward (such as tax reform and efforts to improve the economy), and you believe that you have done nothing wrong in regards to the collusion assertions (for which everyone involved with this case has continually said there is no evidence for), you also might be frustrated that Democrats and others in the media keep pushing that narrative.
Doug:
2. It appears that Trump, not Rosenstein, decided that Comey should be fired. And Sessions had recused himself from the Russian investigation. Why was he involved at all?
David:
Um, the President is the only one who has the authority to fire the FBI director. It is his decision, and his alone. The Congress can impeach a director if it chooses, overriding the President if needed. This has been the case since 1968. Jeff Sessions was involved because Comey's firing has nothing to do with the Russia investigation, but everything to do with how he handled himself during the prior election. Why fire him now? Comey just gave testimony last week in which he admitted he inserted himself into the election, admitted that he overstepped his bounds, and then stated that if he had it all to do over again, with what he knows now, he'd still do all of the same things! He has not learned anything from the experience. He has no apologies. He'd still jump out in front of ongoing investigations and act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. The time for his firing was at hand.
Doug:
3. "Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation". One can try to claim that Comey was fired for other things, such as "irregular behavior." But why would Rosenstein be so upset then?
David:
How long are these points of yours going to go on? Now you're quoting a single, unnamed source in a single article that says Rosenstein threatened to resign. Rosenstein himself denies that claim. Sounds like you'll believe just about anything if it fits your "narrative that's emerging".
Doug:
4. The interim head of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, is the same fellow that secretly (and improperly because, of the investigation) met with Reince Priebus on Feb 15th and told him that the then-reporting by the New York Times was "bullshit."
David:
Goodness gracious! Now you're eating your own. McCabe is a hard-core Democrat whose wife ran as a candidate for the Virginia State Senate.
"His wife Jill McCabe ran for a Virginia State Senate seat as a Democrat in 2015, during when she received nearly $500,000 in campaign donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — a close Clinton family ally."
$500,000 for a State Senate seat?!?!!? Are you saying that you, as a Democrat, don't trust this guy to lead the FBI? Is there anyone who can possibly meet your standards? If Andrew McCabe believes the investigation into collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians is bogus, then it is truly bogus.
Doug:
There are people that meet my standards. But not these: Jared Kushner may be a Democrat. Trump claimed that he was a Democrat. What is your point? That I must trust anyone who claims they are a Democrat, or whose spouse is a Democrat, regardless of their behavior? No.
5. The White House then instructed the heads of the investigations in the House (Devin Nunes) and Senate (Richard Burr) to call reporters and discredit the NYT article. They did. Since then, the NYT article has been found to be true, and has been confirmed by all other reporting.
David:
Let me quote your own link:
"The (unnamed, anonymous) officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue, and their comments were not published by The Post and do not appear to have been reported elsewhere."
That equals bogus, fake news. Parts of the story were true, but both of these men have denied this portion of your conspiracy tale. That's two more dots in your connect-the-dots conspiracy theory that don't exist.
Doug:
6. Nunes has since stepped down from his head of the House investigation. That was weird. Part of the backstory was just revealed: Trump had asked for veto power over Yates' testimony. Yates rejected that idea as “overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials.” Her testimony was quickly cancelled by Nunes.
David:
You think it's weird? That's one of the dots you're trying to connect? That's weird. Nunes was the one who invited Yates to testify. Now, your argument is he cancelled her testimony to somehow protect the President. If that were the case, he wouldn't have invited her in the first place.
As to the executive privilege matter, it isn't as simple as it seems. While Yates attorney makes the case she could testify, there is certainly a mound of precedent that argues she couldn't.
"The Trump administration is probably correct that Yates’s testimony would touch on conversations traditionally covered by the presidential communications component of executive privilege. United States v. Nixon is most famous for ordering production of the Nixon tapes and hastening Nixon’s resignation. But the Supreme Court held that presidential communications are subject to claims of executive privilege that flow from the very structure of the Constitution."
In the end, the White House decided to allow Yates to testify. But it was an issue that could have spent some time in the courts, and in this instance, the White House may have been on proper grounds. But the optics would have been terrible. It would surely look like they were trying to hide something. Better to forfeit your executive privilege at this time than to give Democrats something else to harp on.
Doug:
7. Why, then, was Comey fired now? It appears that he had just asked for expanded resources for the Russian investigation. The investigation into Trump and Russia is just getting started.
David:
There is no evidence or paper trail that Comey actually requested any further resources from anyone, and McCabe, under oath, has said no such request was made. Who, exactly, would the director of the FBI need to make this request to? Congress. Not the White House. This is an example of shameless fake news being propagated by Democrats in Congress who know the request was never made.
Doug:
8. Sarah Huckabee Sanders claims that it is "time to move on" from these investigations. I don't think that is going to happen. The FBI has just centralized their Russia investigations. There are investigations into the people behind the election hacking, collusion, and the DNC email hack. All of these may be independent actions by Russia. Or there may be connections. Most people would, I think, want to know.David:
Finally, you've come to a point (hopefully a final point) in your argument that makes about 1/3 of an once of sense. There are actually three different investigations going on. Are the Russians trying to influence elections? If they are, how much success are they having, and what should we be doing about it? At this point, there is circumstantial evidence to believe the Russians were behind the DNC hacks. But again, it matters less who was behind them and matters more what can we do about potential hackers from all sources, whether Russia, China, North Korea, or anyone else. The last question, about collusion between Trump and the Russians, has no evidence to support it. It seems that we may be able to put a lid on that assertion, but Democrats appear to want that to remain the issue as long as they can string it out, for political gain. The only portion of the investigation that has no evidence supporting it, is the only part Democrats care about. This seems to back up my argument that the Democrat Party leaders are going to take the most left-leaning and extreme position on any issues that come up in Washington. They have embraced a scorched-earth policy. Bipartisanship is dead.
We all do want answers to the questions of hacking and electioneering. Will Democrats actually help to find the answers to those questions, or are they too bent only on destroying Trump to focus the investigation on the things that there actually is evidence for?
Doug:
9. Trump admits that he fired Comey because of the Trump-Russia investigation. He admits that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what McCabe and Sessions said, and it was because Comey would not pledge his allegiance to Trump.
10. On top of all of this, it is revealed that Trump disclosed highly sensitive information to the Russians when they met in the oval office. Can he survive all of this? I don't think so.
David:
Once again, you are parroting stories with unnamed, anonymous sources that were not there at the meetings where Trump allegedly did horrible, terrible things. Everyone who was actually there, at the meeting, denies these claims.
"During President Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. - Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Stae
"The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." -H R McMaster
From what I've seen from the articles about this new breaking story: CNN is citing HuffPo, who is citing Rachel Maddow, who is citing CNBC, who is citing ABC, who is citing the Washington Post citing anonymous sources citing rumors that they heard from some guy in a parking garage.
Doug:
You can stop defending him: Trump just admitted it. But one thing that does appear from the last 100+ days: Trump appears to have considerable persuasive abilities to get Republicans to do what he asks. This may be his biggest strength, and will also be seen as his biggest weakness. Politicians know that there should be independence between the executive branch and those performing investigations. They need to operate independently. Following directions from the White House will bring the entire Republican party to its knees.
David:
Right. His powers certainly orchestrated a smooth pathway for the ACHC health-insurance bill, money for the border wall, a decrease in government spending, and getting a tax overhaul signed in his first 100 days. Republicans are trying to keep Trump focused on the things they want to accomplish. They need his bully-pulpit to help make the case, not his tweets, which continue to derail the agenda.
Doug:
Frankly, I think this may be more than the Trump administration can handle. I'm not claiming that there is collusion. Trump's Meeting with the Russians the day after firing Comey doesn't make for good optics. But Trump doesn't care. He is the President, right? But that gets right to the heart of the issue. Legally, Trump can fire Comey. But he can also be legally impeached if congress believes that he did it to stop the investigation, even if there is no collusion.
 |
| White House claims it was "tricked" by the Russians when they took, and then published, these pictures. American press was not allowed to take pictures, or to even be in the room. |
David:
Why would Trump dump Comey and have a staunch Democrat (and good friend of McAuliffe) now be the one left in charge of the FBI if there was collusion? And if there is no collusion, as you just said, and the President knows there is no collusion, why would he stop the investigation? The only thing that makes sense is that Trump made a poor decision to fire Comey now instead of some other time, and there is no collusion. The investigations have not slowed even for an instant. Firing Comey was the right move.
But to the Democrats, this is Watergate, and treason, and impeachment, and scandal, and so on and so on. Comey was the Devil until last week. Now he's a saint and a martyr. That seems a bit inconsistent. Have you noticed how the same exact words and headlines are coming from all sorts of Democrats and all of the left-leaning mainstream media? I'll refer you back to our blog on talking points.
"People will die in the streets if the ACHC passes". (Even though another big carrier, Aetna, has pulled completely out of Obamacare, and all health-insurance rates have gone up an average of 39% since 2014.). "If you are not pro-choice, you are not welcomed to be a Democrat". Those are certainly words that imply the Democrats are only interested in obstruction and ideology.
And I'll also reiterate my theory that Democrats are going to continue to take the most extreme positions as long as they are out of power. Hillary Clinton even announced that she's forming a new super PAC, not to benefit progressives, not to help Democrats win offices, not to make the party more inclusive, but just to resist Trump in all of his efforts. Oh, and she's back on the multi-million dollar lecture-circuit again, along with former President Obama. Raking in the big dollars from Wall Street, while funding resistance to the duly-elected president. The bad news for Democrats? Americans are not stupid, nor are they sheep.
Doug:
But Hillary's making money! Trump is using the Presidency to make money for himself, and you are worried about a private citizen making money and creating jobs. Something doesn't add up...
David:
How is Trump using the Presidency to enrich himself? How? That's nonsense.
As I said before, after 8 long years of talk about bringing the country together, due to the new extreme words and actions of Democrats, bipartisanship, compromise, and pragmatism are dead.
Doug:
Obama done it. You mentioned some other things that are somehow linked in your mind, but this phrase of yours caught my eye: "the foul-mouthed Tom Perez." What did Tom say to be forever labeled as "foul-mouthed"? He said, and I quote to be absolutely clear:
Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump "doesn't give a shit about health care." - CNN, April 24, 2017It appears that he has repeated this claim. I can't find any other evidence of swearing, other than this one phrase. That isn't that bad of a swear word, is it? It means "poop", right?
I was wondering what it takes for someone to be labelled in your mind as "foul mouthed"? Because I have heard much more vulgar words and ideas come from politicians lately, but they did not draw your ire. For example, Candidate Trump said:
"You're going to have businesses coming back to New Hampshire. You can tell them to go fuck themselves." - YouTubeHe also said:
"Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." - NYTimesTrump also said that he was going to "bomb the shit out of ISIS." I think it was also Trump who said that he would begin negotiations with China like this: "Listen you motherfuckers! We're going to tax you 25%!" There are other f-bombs in that last one, but you get the picture.
But you never once called him "foul-mouthed Trump." But Tom Perez is foul mouthed for using the poop word? Really? Do you think that the "foul mouthed" insult will, ahem, stick? "Since the average American uses 80 to 90 curse words a day, perhaps [you] are overestimating the potential offense."
David:
Just a few things:
I don't approve of Trump using words like that as a candidate or in our political discourse. I don't believe anyone else does either. The reason you were able to find those quotes is they made headlines. They are outliers in the realm of political discourse. Yet Tom Perez, as the head of the DNC has made swearing the new standard of Democrats, who have followed that lead. Michelle Obama had a great quote during one of her speeches, "When they go low, we go high." I think the Democrats missed an opportunity to not use M. Obama much more during the campaign, and using this particular quote as a theme. But now, the Democrats seem to have embraced a new theme: "There is no point low enough for us". Surely you are not embracing the idea that swearing is a good way to elevate our political discourse in the country, when it is already at the low point that it is at? Or are you arguing that the Democrats should be more like Trump?
Doug:
We need to win elections. If talking like regular people helps, then so be it. When one third of Americans don't know that Obamacare and the Affordable Health Care bill are the same thing, it does seem that that would be enough to make a person curse. There are worse things than swearing. But even if you don't agree, Trump is worse, even in swearing.
David:
Good call. Democrats can't win elections with their ideas, so they'll talk like those deplorable fools to win them over. Maybe they can even start carrying Bibles and guns to fool them. Americans are too stupid to understand their big, important ideas.
Second, Perez is swearing at every one of his rallies.
"With children on stage behind him, Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump "doesn't give a s***t about health care."
"They call it a skinny budget, I call it a sh***y budget," Perez said in Portland, Maine."
Doug:
Clever... hadn't heard that one. He made a rhyme.
David:
While you have pulled a few Trump quotes from 8-10 years ago, when he was not a candidate, Perez has made a conscious decision to insert swearing into the current political dialogue.
Doug:
Let's be specific: the "pussy" quote was from 2005 which was twelve years ago, not 8-10 (when Trump was 58 years old). All of the others are from the last year. And remember, Tom is saying "poopy." Look at the content of the things that Trump says. It is vulgar in its meaning. Some of these he actually is describing sexual assault.
David:
Third, we don't swear at our house, and sometimes my children read the blog while I'm working on it. In my examples of Perez, I blanked out the actual swear words. It isn't that hard to do, and I'd prefer you do that as well within our blog. Even major media does this, or they insert a warning label before the story. The links you used above all have them. For someone who lives in a realm of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces", you don't seem to be bothered by the thought of offending anyone.
WARNING: This post contains profanity and language readers might find offensive. -CNN
Doug:
Isn't that weird? You claim that I live in the overprotective world, and yet you are the snowflake? We don't swear in my house either. What I object to is that you feel as if you can call Tom Perez "foul-mouthed" when in reality you ignore much worse from others. That is offensive. It offends logic and consistency. (And by the way, your comment indicates that you don't understand, at all, these phrases "trigger warnings" or "safe spaces".)
David:
You are defending your stance that it's okay for you to needlessly offend people? Why should that be okay?
I'm quoting from CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and multiple other sources when I call Perez foul-mouthed. His swearing is an outlier. It's something different. I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring a new low in discourse, and trying to make it seem to be okay for Democrats to make it their policy to swear in their major speeches in a superficial way to act and talk like working-class people. "Hey, maybe we can dress up like hillbillies and swear a lot, and those dumb bumpkins will vote for us." Democratic leaders fail to recognize that Republicans have won big in the past 8 years without swearing. Americans are voting for what works.
While you seem to be defending and embracing the new Democrat strategy, I find it disheartening. But it does continue to make my point. Democrats are out to destroy any chance at cooperation or bipartisanship. They'll go so far as to completely undermine polite discourse. They'll make arguments based on even the slightest innuendo.
This interview of Maxine Waters is a good representation of the nonsensical arguments Democrats are making. Even the MSNBC reporter has trouble talking to her with a straight face. While claiming Comey was incompetent and had no credibility, she says it would still be better for him to stay in his job than to have Trump fire him. But, if Hillary Clinton were president, it would be fine if she fired Comey under the same circumstances. I hope and pray Maxine stays in office forever. For Republicans, she's the gift that just keeps on giving.
Doug:
You are just now disheartened?! Your self-identified "pussy grabbing" candidate is President, and is about to be impeached. And you are disheartened that Democrats are swearing, too? That is offensive.
David:
Why are you doubling down on using blue language in the blog, when I just asked you not to?
Doug:
If you are going to label people as "foul mouthed" then we will explore that fully and truthfully. You could remove that descriptor off of Tom Perez and we could remove the entire section. But I think it is rather informative about how the Republicans attempt to smear others without coming to terms with what they are actually saying. You can't have it both ways.
David:
The entire mainstream media has labeled him foul-mouthed. Yet you're going to hold our blog hostage because of it? Do you even listen to yourself? On the one hand, Democrats preach that they should not offend anyone (conservatives can't even be allowed to speak because their ideas are so offensive and hateful), but now you are actually going out of your way to be offensive and hateful in an effort to get your way. You can't have it both ways.
You seem to have the idea that I'm defending Trump. I'm not, to the extent that he says and does things that are outside of what would be considered normal for a politician. He does not follow the rules of protocol or decorum. He is oftentimes vulgar. His middle-of-the-night tweets are bizarre. But the narrative Democrats are pushing is mostly unsubstantiated, anonymous baloney. It may all turn out to have some truth to it, and investigations are ongoing, but for now, there is little to no evidence to support almost any of it. Presidents don't get impeached for being vulgar blowhards, yet that is the case Democrats are making.
Doug:
No. But I like your new name for Trump, "Vulgar Blowhard." Sounds like a Bond villain. I see that you are started to waver in your support of the Republican administration. That is a very good sign.
David:
I call em like I see em. You seem to believe that all Republicans are sheep. Actually, it seems the Democratic leadership believes that all Americans are sheep. "Talk dirty and they'll just follow us blindly." You need to have a little more faith in Americans.
There is probably more evidence that Obama was not born in the US than there is that Trump colluded with the Russians, or gave classified information to the Russians, or interfered with any FBI investigations.
Doug:
I think I will quote you for the rest of your life on that one! The sad thing is that I think you really believe it. Which is why I am not trying to change your mind. It can't be changed.
David:
Obama's literary agent listed him as being born in Kenya in Obama's first book. It was wrong, of course, but it is in print:
As Snopes says: "It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times." Now, before you have a conniption about the birther issue, I'm only presenting this as an example. Obama's literary agent has much more credibility than the anonymous unnamed sources in all of your examples above, yet we can all accept that the agent made a mistake. But the media and Democrats claim these sources in the news (whom they admit they cannot even quote because their information is so tenuous) are all accurate and unquestioned. But I digress.
There is testimony (in some cases under oath) by the people who were there that none of these rumored things happened. There is no evidence that these things did, in fact, happen. But Democrats don't care.
Doug:
I think the more that you write this blog, the more that you believe your own propaganda. Democrats do care. They want an investigation. An investigation would reveal whether these things happened or not. That is all that matters. At that point, maybe things won't be so poopy.
David:
Ha. For a minute I thought you were serious. Or are you? You're accusing me of being a propagandist after you printed all of those ridiculous, unsubstantiated points above? Perhaps you don't really believe all of that nonsense? I hope not. You'll lose credibility, Mr. Angry Poopyhead.
And the investigations are continuing as before. Nothing Trump has done has changed that. Nothing he has done is out of the purview of the POTUS. Yet Democrats are screaming "impeachment!!" That's exactly what I'm talking about. All of their ranting isn't for anything meaningful. It's just to lower the discourse.
The curious thing is that despite all of these stories in the news, Trumps poll numbers have not changed one bit. They were never stellar, to be sure, but they have not dipped, and remain right at about 45%. Americans know when they are being scammed, and too many anonymous sources are being relied on, and subsequently refuted, for Americans to buy into all of these stories. The danger in the current Democrat The-sky-is-falling-everyday strategy is when something serious really does show up, and it may, no one will care. Hysterical hyperbole fatigue will set in.
Doug:
Donald Trump's poll numbers should terrify Republicans, unless they just don't believe it.
Doug clearly came out on top here. Thanks for an interesting discussion. For the record, I am an ordained Christian minister with a background in business.
ReplyDelete