Comey.

Comey is a complicated guy to me, and in general, I think a certain amount of narcissism seems to play into his controversial (and mostly bad) decisions.


This is unfortunate, because he does strike me as man of integrity, and I don't doubt one observation about Trump that he's shared with us. I pretty much believe it all.


What's your take on his book tour?


The MSM talking heads sort of lean towards trying to be serious, and tut-tutting the fact that he lowered himself to talk about Trump and peeing on the bed. These people are silly. And they can't stop talking about the pee.


But, I heard one guy on CNN recently that really nailed it for me. In sum, what he said was that the book tour is simply Comey's way of running around with his hair on fire, reminding us that we have an incredible disaster of a man in the WH, and that we need to be on guard about normalizing his destructive behavior. Because it's clear that this is what is happening. And that's a very bad thing.




Comey was screwed.  He had no best answer as to how to proceed in the summer of 2016.


Of course, imagine if the Clintons had hired (and listened to) an expert in appearances and legality in, say, 2008.  No email problems.  More transparency in the Clinton Foundation.


tjohn said:
Comey was screwed.  He had no best answer as to how to proceed in the summer of 2016. Of course, imagine if the Clintons had hired (and listened to) an expert in appearances and legality in, say, 2008.  No email problems.  More transparency in the Clinton Foundation.

 

If the Clintons weren't the Clintons.....


He gets to me. Mistakes and all. I'm thinking of going to see him speak at Fairleigh Dickinson.

As for the interest in the Russian hotel performance, most of us who despise Trump, hope its true and that the tape goes viral.


The peepee tape is only a minor part of the Steele Dossier, which will go a long way to being even further verified if Michael Cohen turns out to be lying and actually met with the Russians in Czechoslovakia.  I don't think Comey brings it up gratuitously, but if every journalist raises it and then shakes their head disapprovingly if Comey discusses it, that's typical and ironic.  He does employ colorful language in describing Trump's demeanor, including hands that are smaller than his, which is mildly amusing and tacky, but probably takes him off his perch slightly in an effort to sell books.  But compared to Trump, it is a trivial moment of tastelessness compared to the outrages of a malignant narcissist who has been tearing the country apart.  In terms of policy, Comey may have made some serious mistakes regarding the Clinton emails and investigation, which partially led to Trump's victory; but he provides a thoughtful rationale for his decisions, which were always with an eye towards trying to do the right thing in the best interests of the country, even if they didn't always hit the mark.


Jasmo said:
In terms of policy, Comey may have made some serious mistakes regarding the Clinton emails and investigation, which partially led to Trump's victory; but he provides a thoughtful rationale for his decisions, which were always with an eye towards trying to do the right thing in the best interests of the country, even if they didn't always hit the mark.

 His rationale was both thoughtful and not.  


It was thoughtful as a devised excuse meant to conceal the real reason for his actions.  


It was not thoughtful in that in a stated effort to avoid casting illegitimacy on the election of one candidate, he tipped the voting scales to the other candidate along with the presumed illegitimacy.  


Regarding Comey, I'll defer to Scott Fitzgerald's Nick Carroway (who never lost sight of Gatsby's flaws, still told him):


"They're a rotten crowd," I shouted across the lawn. "You're worth the whole damn bunch put together."


Saw Comey on ABC and Colbert; presently reading the book, which reminds us that he was the guy who decided to prosecute Martha Stewart against lots of opposition, reasoning that any non-celebrity who lied to SEC would've been prosecuted. Also, he's the guy who stood up to Cheney/Abbington/Gonzales and rushed to hospital to head them off in the legendary Ashcroft incident.


So, despite the results in '16, I think he was genuinely conflicted and like the rest of us thought HRC was a slam dunk for POTUS.


And anything that smacks of pettiness regarding Trump, I'm assuming, is both payback and designed to make DJT even crazier in getting under his skin.


Best new sign that DJT is on the edge - he now denies what he said to TV interviewer about why he fired Comey.  The "Russsher thing."


Klinker said:


tjohn said:
Comey was screwed.  He had no best answer as to how to proceed in the summer of 2016. Of course, imagine if the Clintons had hired (and listened to) an expert in appearances and legality in, say, 2008.  No email problems.  More transparency in the Clinton Foundation.
 
If the Clintons weren't the Clintons.....

 Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected twice and been one of the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years.


GL2 said:
And anything that smacks of pettiness regarding Trump, I'm assuming, is both payback and designed to make DJT even crazier in getting under his skin.

 Yeah, but it's also to help sell books.


LOST said:


Klinker said:

tjohn said:
Comey was screwed.  He had no best answer as to how to proceed in the summer of 2016. Of course, imagine if the Clintons had hired (and listened to) an expert in appearances and legality in, say, 2008.  No email problems.  More transparency in the Clinton Foundation.
 
If the Clintons weren't the Clintons.....
 Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected twice and been one of the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years.

 You have to explain what makes him so successful.  I understand why, for example, Lincoln was considered successful.  And Washington and Teddy and FDR and a few others.  Bill Clinton - let's wait for the longer judgement of history.


I like Comey's message (or what I've heard of it) but he's not the best messenger. Or maybe he will be. I don't know.


  
LOST said:


GL2 said:
And anything that smacks of pettiness regarding Trump, I'm assuming, is both payback and designed to make DJT even crazier in getting under his skin.
 Yeah, but it's also to help sell books.

 Hey, the poor guy lost his job.  smile 


Anyone catch the very cool outfit he was wearing last night? All shiny black w/sport jacket. He's really cuttin' loose.


tjohn said:


LOST said:

Klinker said:

tjohn said:
Comey was screwed.  He had no best answer as to how to proceed in the summer of 2016. Of course, imagine if the Clintons had hired (and listened to) an expert in appearances and legality in, say, 2008.  No email problems.  More transparency in the Clinton Foundation.
 
If the Clintons weren't the Clintons.....
 Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected twice and been one of the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years.
 You have to explain what makes him so successful.  I understand why, for example, Lincoln was considered successful.  And Washington and Teddy and FDR and a few others.  Bill Clinton - let's wait for the longer judgement of history.

 Here are the pros and cons. I remember the economy being in good shape, but the question is always how much a President's policies actually impact the economy.


https://clinton.procon.org/


I only caught a few clips, but couldn't watch more as the pettiness is not what I would expect from someone who was the top guy at the FBI. Either add a new dash of insight, or have a buddy to do this as good-cop/bad-cop. But on its own, it looks... unprofessional.


Maybe there is something deeper going on - and then, good, I hope it works out.


But if it's as surface as it seems, I'll be disappointed that this isn't a decoy move in a more complex chess game, and disappointed that Comey was the best the FBI had to offer.


GL2 said:


  
LOST said:

GL2 said:
And anything that smacks of pettiness regarding Trump, I'm assuming, is both payback and designed to make DJT even crazier in getting under his skin.
 Yeah, but it's also to help sell books.
 Hey, the poor guy lost his job.  smile 


Anyone catch the very cool outfit he was wearing last night? All shiny black w/sport jacket. He's really cuttin' loose.

 Was that the night he wore the thin green tie? I'm always paying attention to men's tie selections.


Open shirt in that fashionable shiny black fabric that I cannot really identify. Same w/pants. 


Comey also talks about his time as Deputy AG and having to deal with Cheney and Addington, and also the Yes Man AG Gonzales, who replaced Ashcroft. Confirmation that this group were awful and evil chicken hawks regarding torture.



LOST said:


Klinker said: 
If the Clintons weren't the Clintons.....
 Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected twice and been one of the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years.

 No disastrous swing to the Center (Right)?


Sign me up.  Dems love Bill Clinton for the same reason Conservatives love Trump: He REALLY pisses off the other tribe.  The truth is that the swing to the right that Clinton started has done irreparable damage to the party and the nation.


Klinker said:

The truth is that the swing to the right that Clinton started has done irreparable damage to the party and the nation.

 Let me see if I understand your thinking here.  Something like this:  I disagree with the direction of the Democratic Party, therefore it has done irreparable harm to the party and nation.


tjohn said:


Klinker said:

The truth is that the swing to the right that Clinton started has done irreparable damage to the party and the nation.
 Let me see if I understand your thinking here.  Something like this:  I disagree with the direction of the Democratic Party, therefore it has done irreparable harm to the party and nation.

 Thank goodness Trump won, preventing the damage that Hillary would have inflicted.


tjohn said:


Klinker said:

The truth is that the swing to the right that Clinton started has done irreparable damage to the party and the nation.
 Let me see if I understand your thinking here.  Something like this:  I disagree with the direction of the Democratic Party, therefore it has done irreparable harm to the party and nation.

 Ummm.... yes. The massive increase in income and wealth inequality may have been championed by the Republicans but it never could have happened if the Clinton wing of the party hadn't  transformed the Democrat Party from a progressive organization into a Center Right tool of international corporatism. There's a reason why Goldman Sachs paid HRC insane money for her "talk" and it wasn't because she was looking out for the little guy.


nohero said:


tjohn said:

Klinker said:

The truth is that the swing to the right that Clinton started has done irreparable damage to the party and the nation.
 Let me see if I understand your thinking here.  Something like this:  I disagree with the direction of the Democratic Party, therefore it has done irreparable harm to the party and nation.
 Thank goodness Trump won, preventing the damage that Hillary would have inflicted.

 What a stupid remark.  The Spanish were better off under Franco than they would have been under Hitler. That doesn't mean Franco was a good guy.


Of course I would rather have Clinton than Trump.  You know who I would be even more excited about?  An actual progressive.


I was reading a while Americans consider Canada to be a socialist paradise it is actually regarded by much of the world as a relatively conservative country. 


The Clinton's seem liberal because we judge them by comparison to Reagan and the Bushs but "better than a far right Republican" should not be the standard by which we judge the folks who want to run the Democrat Party,


Do you mean the "Democratic" Party?


If Clinton hadn't "swung to the Right" as you put it, would he have been elected? Would we have been better off with GHW Bush for another four years?


Should the Democratic Party be supporting the re-election of Manchin, Heitkamp, McCaskill and the other "Centrists"? 


Klinker said:


 What a stupid remark.  The Spanish were better off under Franco than they would have been under Hitler. That doesn't mean Franco was a good guy.



 I am no expert on the Spanish Civil War but from what little I know a major reason they ended up with Franco was the factionalism of the Left.


LOST said:


Klinker said:

 What a stupid remark.  The Spanish were better off under Franco than they would have been under Hitler. That doesn't mean Franco was a good guy.
 I am no expert on the Spanish Civil War but from what little I know a major reason they ended up with Franco was the factionalism of the Left.

 I think it was a little more complicated than that but even if it wasn't the Clintonistas themselves are just one conservative faction. This sentiment that the Clinton's somehow own the party is a big part of the problem.


I am a Democrat.  I voted for the Democratic nominee for President in the last election.  I am not a Clinton supporter.


"Democrat party"?

Hmm. That's a bit of a tell I think.


Klinker said:
I was reading a while Americans consider Canada to be a socialist paradise it is actually regarded by much of the world as a relatively conservative country. 


The Clinton's seem liberal because we judge them by comparison to Reagan and the Bushs but "better than a far right Republican" should not be the standard by which we judge the folks who want to run the Democrat Party,

 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.