Trump, June 2017: From [Covfefe] with Love

I guess if unclear is a word, then unclarity makes sense.

Toni Braxton's best ballad.

Sure does sound funny, though. I'm going to stick with ambiguity...

Unclear My Heart?

Reminds me of Fred Durst and "agreeance."

http://www.chron.com/entertainment/article/Word-experts-in-agreeance-vindicate-Fred-Durst-2107460.php

Reminds me of No Diggity.

Lol @alfred's Buckley imitation

still remember the time a high school classmate used 'invidious' and i was all lol did u mean 'insidious'

"Hi, I'm Dana Milbank, and I'm stupid."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-pence-is-sounding-better-and-better/2017/06/06/c1bf0f52-4af3-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.52bbaa6e25ac

The contrast between the reckless president and his responsible understudy has me thinking, not for the first time, how much better things would be if Pence were president.

go to hell, you turgid lickspittle

Trump, at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year, told attendees to pray for Arnold Schwarzenegger and his “Apprentice” ratings. Pence aimed higher. “Don’t so much pray for a cause as for country,” he said, paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln. “Just pray for America.”

Amen.

I can keep quoting.

"I say go
Pence says yes
Dim the lights
By the grandfather clock."

ohhh
catch that buzz
Pence is the prez
who brings the lolz

Was just at the grocery and forgot (somehow) to buy alcohol for tomorrow.

Is there gonna be a stream of this testimony so I can gasp along as I work

where are you? it'll be on every channel and the radio.

It'll be streaming on http://www.youtube.com

I guess NPR will have an online stream, then.

(My radio reception sucks and I don't have TV.)

I assume CNN et al will be free online. Possibly newspapers too.

Find it ironic that GOP reaction is largely yawn, nothing new, when that is only because this shit's been leaking for weeks.

I dont expect any bombshells or incriminating evidence tbh

Do we expect anything new?

I expect to get a full accounting of the length of Comey's arms.

given past performance there's a small chance he fucks up his own testimony tho

I thought the dudes today outright refusing to answer certain yes/no questions for no legal reason was pretty interesting, I imagine there may or may not be stuff like that tomorrow. I suppose I am curious what the GOP peeps try to hit him with, or what the Dems draw out of such a cool customer. I'm not entirely sure why he wanted to testify in the first place, or why he feels to need to testify having released that detailed accounting. Maybe he has more to add. Maybe he's just a showboater. One twist is he can't fall back on the "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation line" anymore, can he?

I asked rhetorically earlier, but when was the last time a person in a position to know was asked if Trump himself was under investigation?

Afaik he can refuse to answer questions that might compromise mueller's investigation

i honestly don't think the odds of a bombshell are great, and am fine w/ news highlights, if that

Yeah me too

One potential area of inquiry is whether the Trump campaign (or Trump businesses) being under investigation is the same as Trump himself being under investigation.

Yeah but I am absolutely not going to be following any of this in real time. Did that back in 1987 and don't need to relive it.

This thread is more than real time enough for me.

During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

I'm wondering what his reaction was like to make Comey feel he had to smooth things over like that unprompted, ha. I am imagining a defensive tantrum.

I get the feeling Trump and Comey met in the Black Lodge

Well, Comey apparently considered Trump "crazy," so that had to be based on something.

Afaik he can refuse to answer questions that might compromise mueller's investigation

But how would he know unless he was still wearing his FBI director hat? He has no formal/official responsibility to Mueller's investigation. Best he can do is what the dudes today did, and just say he's not comfortable talking about it, but even that doesn't make sense, because it implies he knows the extent or any details of Mueller's investigation. Right? He did meet with Mueller already, so perhaps Mueller gave him some guidance, which would free him up to stay mum. But again, why testify if all that stuff is in the released statement and he's not comfortable going beyond that? And for that matter, since he is slated for a closed door session (right?) what potentially classified or need-to-know stuff would he tell them this time that he had not told them before?

Well, Comey apparently considered Trump "crazy," so that had to be based on something.

Twenty seconds of sensory input, maybe?

I am absolutely not going to be following any of this in real time. Did that back in 1987

I did it in 1973. It dragged out a lot. But I was watching when the existence of the Nixon tapes was first revealed and the reaction from the committee members was one of complete incredulity and amazement. Second best live non-sports television event I ever saw, just after the initial moon landing in 1969!

I think I watched a tiny bit of the '73 hearings but was only 11 and don't remember anything. Wish I had the same recollection of that moment (or Howard Baker, or Dean, or something).

I have a very vague recollection of the day he resigned. (I was six...Grandparents came to visit and were talking about it)

WH PR game plan looks solid https://t.co/EMByvtW3qt pic.twitter.com/d12UFVNzGd

— Laura McGann (@lkmcgann) June 7, 2017

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBwIgDsWAAATyEF.jpg

Comey's appearance will be far less dramatic, unless he comes across with something juicy he's been holding back for a surprise. I expect the republicans' questioning will be painfully obvious in its bald attempts to change the subject to leaks or to anything else, to drag red herrings across the trail, and to suggest wildly implausible, but innocent, interpretations for everything Trump said and did. They'll try to bore the living shit out of the television audience by droning on for four or five minutes of irrelevancies, and will cut Comey short in all his answers by interrupting him often.

I thought today's testimony was interesting.

Coats and Rogers were unable to give any reasons for their decision not to answer questions about pressure Trump may have applied to get them to influence Comey's investigation – except that they *felt* it wasn't *appropriate* to discuss conversations with the president. It seemed pretty clear from their exchanges with Angus King that they don't have any legal rationale, so they just came off looking like they're trying to protect Trump. Ned Price pointed out the their job isn't to protect Trump, it's to honor their oath of office and protect the constitution.

Is there is anything the committee can do to compel them to testify? Their corroboration of the stuff Comey is alleging would go some ways toward helping build a case for obstruction of justice. It seemed clear that none of the questioners thought they could justify not speaking on the basis that it would compromise Mueller's investigation – as McCain said, this is stuff that's already been reported in the Washington Post.

And the exchange between Rosenstein and Kamala Harris, where she tried to get him to say whether or not he could guarantee that Mueller wouldn't be fired (apparently a situation with precedent) and he wouldn't confirm – that made him look bad too.

I wonder if these people are going to come to regret their stonewalling.

I want to say that you could definitely tell Trump the TV isn't working if you complimented him at the same time but he'd have it immediately replaced with a gold-plated TV.

Isn't it a pretty new 60inch TV he's had installed in the Oval Office. Would think most preceding Presidents thought of the office asa place of work so not one that needed a TV in. But I guess flatscreens can be temperamental. Maybe somebody could trip and spill a drink in its general direction which can be fatal for them.

Though the thought of him being hoist by his own petard while live tweeting responses to clarify Comey's comments would have been priceless.

LBJ watched the three broadcast networks, simultaneously.
http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/west-wing/oval-office/oval-office-1968-king.jpg

Funny watching 2013 Daily Shows and seeing john Stewart going on about the recently started administration being mired in scandal. Seems to pale in comparison though.
Even with the Sequester which seems a bit dimly unthought out . Only seen up to May so not sure waht else was made of things at the time

Even the FOX News hacks last night said Coats and Rogers had no reason to be so coy when they hadn't claimed executive privilege.

lol Marshall

ha, i was just looking at that

those pages wouldn't look out of place in the opening credits of seven, josh really needs to put away that red pen and have a nice calming lie down

The more I think about it, the more I can't figure why Comey wants to testify, again. HIs statement mostly affirms many of the stories that leaked out previously, and given those stories involve one on one conversations with Trump, that means Comey got them out. So all those stories came from Comey, the statement came from Comey, Comey has answered questions multiple times in the recent past - what can today's testimony add that goes beyond what we already know? I guess we'll find out. I guess we'll also find out if it makes a difference that he is no longer the head of the FBI, and that he's got a bone to pick with Trump. You want 4D chess, why would his statement go out of its way to somewhat back Trump's account of being told he was not under investigation (the newest info, other than the descriptive color), which does Trump a favor? Unless there is more to that story that will be revealed today, obviously. Because otherwise, I don't see what Comey gains from testifying another time, unless he has something new to add we haven't yet heard. And he does have something to lose, in that people will be specifically gunning for his credibility (as such).

You just answered your own question, sort of. Testifying adds to his credibility by allowing him to take questions and amplify his side of the story

But given the detail he's already leaked and offered directly, what's left to amplify? What questions remain that can be answered in a public forum?

I guess he could amplify why he didn't tell anyone. Though if I recall, his statement claims he *did* tell people.