-
Look - someone has a live tracker for it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/
As of 9 June at 9:42AM (let's assume Washington time zone), of the supposed 558 key positions:
426 no nominee
9 awaiting nomination
83 fully nominated
40 confirmedMaybe its part of draining the swamp i.e. reducing the cost in the executive branch.
While that might be a neolib's wet dream, the irony is to change that requires people to change that.
Comparison to other admins is available, of which the most interesting part is the number of Failed Nominations - Trump and Obama equal on 3.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Look - someone has a live tracker for it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/
As of 9 June at 9:42AM (let's assume Washington time zone), of the supposed 558 key positions:
426 no nominee
9 awaiting nomination
83 fully nominated
40 confirmedMaybe its part of draining the swamp i.e. reducing the cost in the executive branch.
While that might be a neolib's wet dream, the irony is to change that requires people to change that.
Comparison to other admins is available, of which the most interesting part is the number of Failed Nominations - Trump and Obama equal on 3.
Wow. The numbers don't lie. That's a lot of positions awaiting nomination and 3 failed nominations doesn't sound like enough to constitute a plot by the dems to stall the Trump administration
-
I find no reason to disbelieve what Comey has testified so far and it should worry Trump fans that the Senate Intelligence Committee is treating his testimony as credible. Comey would have approached Trump knowing exactly what to expect. He's a lawyer and ex head of the FBI after all - he's no idiot. Accusations of partisanship seem weak when we know he was a registered republican right up until 2016 and that he has royally pissed off both sides of the political establishment.
Everything Comey has testified so far seems in line with what I would expect from Trump. If I'm to believe Comey is fibbing, I'd have expected him to use stronger language other than "I'm hoping" - as I said earlier, the case for obstruction is weak and it makes no sense that a seasoned attorney would fabricate a weak case that on its own is unlikely to go anywhere. That Trump emptied the room is a dead give away that he knew what he was doing was not kosher. If you think Comey would leak a baseless case for Obstruction and thats his end game, I would argue that you have grossly under-estimated the former FBI director.As for the charge of perjury - well, that obviously hinges on Trump testifying against Comey which he has (astoundingly) offered to do. Of course, I don't believe anything that Trump has said so far. He has the least credibility of any President in modern history and has a decades old public profile as a as a chronic bullshitter. He has trouble sticking to message without the aid of a teleprompter. Comey knew before he leaked his notes that the logical conclusion from that action is Trump testifying.
FWIW, when I worked in finance, I recorded meetings on my phone quite regularly because some of the people I worked with were ethically questionable. It would not surprise me if Comey acted likewise whilst working under Trump.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@phoenetia I agree that I'll believe Trump truly wants to testify when I see it. I just can't see what he has to gain, I don't even see the sense of even talking about wanting to testify
Trumps doubling down, its what he does.
What I found most remarkable over the Comey testimony was Trump not tweeting. That was un-predisented (double sic). -
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
I find no reason to disbelieve what Comey has testified so far and it should worry Trump fans that the Senate Intelligence Committee is treating his testimony as credible. Comey would have approached Trump knowing exactly what to expect. He's a lawyer and ex head of the FBI after all - he's no idiot. Accusations of partisanship seem weak when we know he was a registered republican right up until 2016 and that he has royally pissed off both sides of the political establishment.
Everything Comey has testified so far seems in line with what I would expect from Trump. If I'm to believe Comey is fibbing, I'd have expected him to use stronger language other than "I'm hoping" - as I said earlier, the case for obstruction is weak and it makes no sense that a seasoned attorney would fabricate a weak case that on its own is unlikely to go anywhere. That Trump emptied the room is a dead give away that he knew what he was doing was not kosher. If you think Comey would leak a baseless case for Obstruction and thats his end game, I would argue that you have grossly under-estimated the former FBI director.As for the charge of perjury - well, that obviously hinges on Trump testifying against Comey which he has (astoundingly) offered to do. Of course, I don't believe anything that Trump has said so far. He has the least credibility of any President in modern history and has a decades old public profile as a as a chronic bullshitter. He has trouble sticking to message without the aid of a teleprompter. Comey knew before he leaked his notes that the logical conclusion from that action is Trump testifying.
FWIW, when I worked in finance, I recorded meetings on my phone quite regularly because some of the people I worked with were ethically questionable. It would not surprise me if Comey acted likewise whilst working under Trump.
Source for where the committee sees Comey as credible and actually believe him??? Remember the committee is more than just Democrats.
Comey by his actions as outlined previously has shown himself to be corruptible and dishonest. I don't believe much of anything he says. He folded for Lynch in the most pathetic way. About the only thing not released or leaked from the FBI over the last few months was the fact that Trump was not under investigation. Comeys reasoning.... he might be at some stage. That is monumentally pathetic excuse. It is like the police refusing to say that soemone is not under investigation for child molesting.. because one day they might be. FFS. With all the furore going on, Comey could have squelched most of it by just saying that Trump wasnt under current investigation. Not like he didnt have a track record of making statements on active investigations...
As fr the rest of your post, it just comes down you not liking Trump and fitting the narrative to that. I dont know who is telling the truth, but I know that Comey is far FAR from credible.
If he is so competent, why would he allow Lynch to tell him to refer to it as a 'matter' not an investigation? Why would he not record or note about meetings with her after that? He said he was concerned... yeah right.
And that doesnt even mention his complete and utter over reach on the Clinton result.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
Look - someone has a live tracker for it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/
As of 9 June at 9:42AM (let's assume Washington time zone), of the supposed 558 key positions:
426 no nominee
9 awaiting nomination
83 fully nominated
40 confirmedMaybe its part of draining the swamp i.e. reducing the cost in the executive branch.
While that might be a neolib's wet dream, the irony is to change that requires people to change that.
Comparison to other admins is available, of which the most interesting part is the number of Failed Nominations - Trump and Obama equal on 3.
Wow. The numbers don't lie. That's a lot of positions awaiting nomination and 3 failed nominations doesn't sound like enough to constitute a plot by the dems to stall the Trump administration
Ignoring the claim that numbers dont lie....
Those positions are not vacant, they are filled with bureaucrats, not Trump appointees, maybe the WH doesn't see it as a priority to fill them when the Senate is busy with other stiff. It is amusing to see some people in such a hurry for Trump bureaucrats to take over though.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
Look - someone has a live tracker for it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/
As of 9 June at 9:42AM (let's assume Washington time zone), of the supposed 558 key positions:
426 no nominee
9 awaiting nomination
83 fully nominated
40 confirmedMaybe its part of draining the swamp i.e. reducing the cost in the executive branch.
While that might be a neolib's wet dream, the irony is to change that requires people to change that.
Comparison to other admins is available, of which the most interesting part is the number of Failed Nominations - Trump and Obama equal on 3.
Wow. The numbers don't lie. That's a lot of positions awaiting nomination and 3 failed nominations doesn't sound like enough to constitute a plot by the dems to stall the Trump administration
Ignoring the claim that numbers dont lie....
Those positions are not vacant, they are filled with bureaucrats, not Trump appointees, maybe the WH doesn't see it as a priority to fill them when the Senate is busy with other stiff
That may be so and totally reasonable. Three failed nominations however does not smack of a campaign to obstruct the administration from doing it's business
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
I find no reason to disbelieve what Comey has testified so far and it should worry Trump fans that the Senate Intelligence Committee is treating his testimony as credible. Comey would have approached Trump knowing exactly what to expect. He's a lawyer and ex head of the FBI after all - he's no idiot. Accusations of partisanship seem weak when we know he was a registered republican right up until 2016 and that he has royally pissed off both sides of the political establishment.
Everything Comey has testified so far seems in line with what I would expect from Trump. If I'm to believe Comey is fibbing, I'd have expected him to use stronger language other than "I'm hoping" - as I said earlier, the case for obstruction is weak and it makes no sense that a seasoned attorney would fabricate a weak case that on its own is unlikely to go anywhere. That Trump emptied the room is a dead give away that he knew what he was doing was not kosher. If you think Comey would leak a baseless case for Obstruction and thats his end game, I would argue that you have grossly under-estimated the former FBI director.As for the charge of perjury - well, that obviously hinges on Trump testifying against Comey which he has (astoundingly) offered to do. Of course, I don't believe anything that Trump has said so far. He has the least credibility of any President in modern history and has a decades old public profile as a as a chronic bullshitter. He has trouble sticking to message without the aid of a teleprompter. Comey knew before he leaked his notes that the logical conclusion from that action is Trump testifying.
FWIW, when I worked in finance, I recorded meetings on my phone quite regularly because some of the people I worked with were ethically questionable. It would not surprise me if Comey acted likewise whilst working under Trump.
Source for where the committee sees Comey as credible and actually believe him??? Remember the committee is more than just Democrats.
Comey by his actions as outlined previously has shown himself to be corruptible and dishonest. I don't believe much of anything he says. He folded for Lynch in the most pathetic way. About the only thing not released or leaked from the FBI over the last few months was the fact that Trump was not under investigation. Comeys reasoning.... he might be at some stage. That is monumentally pathetic excuse. It is like the police refusing to say that soemone is not under investigation for child molesting.. because one day they might be. FFS
As fr the rest of your post, it just comes down you not liking Trump and fitting the narrative to that. I dont know who is telling the truth, but I know that Comey is far FAR from credible.If he is so competent, why would he allow Lynch to tell him to refer to it as a 'matter' not an investigation? Why would he not record or note about meetings with her after that? He said he was concerned... yeah right.
And that doesnt even mention his complete and utter over reach on the Clinton result.
The Committee did next to nothing to attack the credibility of Comeys testimony. They essentially just let it speak for itself. It was quite striking, I had expected otherwise.
You've argued that Comey is not credible for a number of reasons yet the Committee has not argued accordingly.Comeys explanation regarding his decision not to publicly announce that Trump wasnt personally under investigation makes sense to me. The investigation was (and is) still underway and Trump wasn't a person of interest but until the investigation was closed, that could have changed creating a duty to correct. I imagine a federal employee requires more than Trumps fragile self image for a reason to anonymously disclose information about ongoing FBI investigations. Your analogy about the police doesn't work for me. If I was head of a company where many were under investigation for criminal activity and my name wasn't one of them, that's good enough for me. I'd be happy to say "Lets give the police our full support to complete their investigation" and leave it at that. I dont need the police to go making public statements about me personally. I can do that myself.
Yes Im biased against Trump but that doesnt mean my arguments are not valid. FWIW the whole reason Im engaging with you is to seek an alternative view to counter my very obvious biases.
However I will just point out that a common theme I see when engaging with Trump fans is that they rarely leap to the defence of his character. That speaks volumes to me. -
This post is deleted!
-
@Siam Siam
Your post was deleted ..up your game or don't post in this thread. -
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
I find no reason to disbelieve what Comey has testified so far and it should worry Trump fans that the Senate Intelligence Committee is treating his testimony as credible. Comey would have approached Trump knowing exactly what to expect. He's a lawyer and ex head of the FBI after all - he's no idiot. Accusations of partisanship seem weak when we know he was a registered republican right up until 2016 and that he has royally pissed off both sides of the political establishment.
Everything Comey has testified so far seems in line with what I would expect from Trump. If I'm to believe Comey is fibbing, I'd have expected him to use stronger language other than "I'm hoping" - as I said earlier, the case for obstruction is weak and it makes no sense that a seasoned attorney would fabricate a weak case that on its own is unlikely to go anywhere. That Trump emptied the room is a dead give away that he knew what he was doing was not kosher. If you think Comey would leak a baseless case for Obstruction and thats his end game, I would argue that you have grossly under-estimated the former FBI director.As for the charge of perjury - well, that obviously hinges on Trump testifying against Comey which he has (astoundingly) offered to do. Of course, I don't believe anything that Trump has said so far. He has the least credibility of any President in modern history and has a decades old public profile as a as a chronic bullshitter. He has trouble sticking to message without the aid of a teleprompter. Comey knew before he leaked his notes that the logical conclusion from that action is Trump testifying.
FWIW, when I worked in finance, I recorded meetings on my phone quite regularly because some of the people I worked with were ethically questionable. It would not surprise me if Comey acted likewise whilst working under Trump.
Source for where the committee sees Comey as credible and actually believe him??? Remember the committee is more than just Democrats.
Comey by his actions as outlined previously has shown himself to be corruptible and dishonest. I don't believe much of anything he says. He folded for Lynch in the most pathetic way. About the only thing not released or leaked from the FBI over the last few months was the fact that Trump was not under investigation. Comeys reasoning.... he might be at some stage. That is monumentally pathetic excuse. It is like the police refusing to say that soemone is not under investigation for child molesting.. because one day they might be. FFS
As fr the rest of your post, it just comes down you not liking Trump and fitting the narrative to that. I dont know who is telling the truth, but I know that Comey is far FAR from credible.If he is so competent, why would he allow Lynch to tell him to refer to it as a 'matter' not an investigation? Why would he not record or note about meetings with her after that? He said he was concerned... yeah right.
And that doesnt even mention his complete and utter over reach on the Clinton result.
The Committee did next to nothing to attack the credibility of Comeys testimony. They essentially just let it speak for itself. It was quite striking, I had expected otherwise.
You've argued that Comey is not credible for a number of reasons yet the Committee has not argued accordingly.Comeys explanation regarding his decision not to publicly announce that Trump wasnt personally under investigation makes sense to me. The investigation was (and is) still underway and Trump wasn't a person of interest but until the investigation was closed, that could have changed creating a duty to correct. I imagine a federal employee requires more than Trumps fragile self image for a reason to anonymously disclose information about ongoing FBI investigations. Your analogy about the police doesn't work for me. If I was head of a company where many were under investigation for criminal activity and my name wasn't one of them, that's good enough for me. I'd be happy to say "Lets give the police our full support to complete their investigation" and leave it at that. I dont need the police to go making public statements about me personally. I can do that myself.
Yes Im biased against Trump but that doesnt mean my arguments are not valid. FWIW the whole reason Im engaging with you is to seek an alternative view to counter my very obvious biases.
However I will just point out that a common theme I see when engaging with Trump fans is that they rarely leap to the defence of his character. That speaks volumes to me.The intel committee did attack Comey! Thy cant exactly jump the desk and punch him. Did you see Rubios questions and comments among others?
It is not the committees job to attack his credibility in that setting. They are there to ask questions and lead people to their own conclusions on his credibility. They did alot to question his position, actions and his performance. See the comment about the only ting not leaked from the FBI was the one thing that cleared Trump. Not exactly a gentle punch form Rubio.As for not clearing Trump, all well and good, except Comey has a very active history of discussing active investigations. Remember him saying Clinton was no longer the subject of an investigation? Before the investigation has concluded and despite the fact she and the Clinton foundation are still actually under investigation? He cannot just pick and chose when to do his job correctly. Or maybe he could and that was why he was a crap FBI director.. and not credible.
As for leaping to defence of his character? Why would I do that? I dont know him.. and he is a politician. I am interested in the facts of the matter, not if he is a nice guy. Maybe the volumes it speaks to you is that people defending Trump are doing so because they look at the facts, and those that are attacking him are doing it because he is they dont think he is very nice.
-
It should have been publicly stated Trump was NOT a subject of investigation right from the beginning. This could have been changed if he DID become a target at any time.
It would have been good for the country. But what is good for the country has never been the aim of many of those against Trump. It is all about taking Trump down, regardless of the damage it does to national unity. There is a feeling that he somehow "deserves it". = TDS. It is somehow the fault of his Twitter account and bad personality.
Imagine you were Trump. Imagine you were accused of something for which there is NO evidence. Then imagine most of the media insinuating you might be guilty of that crime non-stop every day for months on end. Imagine the head of the investigation refusing to publicly state you are not being investigated. Imagine the spy agencies have collected info' on your campaign team and and then imagine a President changing the classification rules so the leaks could be more freely shared just before he leaves office. So then, each week, a new "bombshell" drops about one of your team.
I know a political witch-hunt when I see one. I hope it blows up in their corrupt fucking faces.
-
As for those saying Coney doesn't have serious credibility issues.
He sent a copy of his Trump meeting memo to a friend who then sent to the NYT.. Now Comey is saying he doesn't have a copy after Senate committee asked for it??? You would have thought he would keep a copy wouldn't you? Transparency and all that. Did he just accidently delete it? Or maybe does have (so a liar)' it but would rather give it to the NYT than a non partisan Senate committee. ..
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
I find no reason to disbelieve what Comey has testified so far and it should worry Trump fans that the Senate Intelligence Committee is treating his testimony as credible. Comey would have approached Trump knowing exactly what to expect. He's a lawyer and ex head of the FBI after all - he's no idiot. Accusations of partisanship seem weak when we know he was a registered republican right up until 2016 and that he has royally pissed off both sides of the political establishment.
Everything Comey has testified so far seems in line with what I would expect from Trump. If I'm to believe Comey is fibbing, I'd have expected him to use stronger language other than "I'm hoping" - as I said earlier, the case for obstruction is weak and it makes no sense that a seasoned attorney would fabricate a weak case that on its own is unlikely to go anywhere. That Trump emptied the room is a dead give away that he knew what he was doing was not kosher. If you think Comey would leak a baseless case for Obstruction and thats his end game, I would argue that you have grossly under-estimated the former FBI director.As for the charge of perjury - well, that obviously hinges on Trump testifying against Comey which he has (astoundingly) offered to do. Of course, I don't believe anything that Trump has said so far. He has the least credibility of any President in modern history and has a decades old public profile as a as a chronic bullshitter. He has trouble sticking to message without the aid of a teleprompter. Comey knew before he leaked his notes that the logical conclusion from that action is Trump testifying.
FWIW, when I worked in finance, I recorded meetings on my phone quite regularly because some of the people I worked with were ethically questionable. It would not surprise me if Comey acted likewise whilst working under Trump.
Source for where the committee sees Comey as credible and actually believe him??? Remember the committee is more than just Democrats.
Comey by his actions as outlined previously has shown himself to be corruptible and dishonest. I don't believe much of anything he says. He folded for Lynch in the most pathetic way. About the only thing not released or leaked from the FBI over the last few months was the fact that Trump was not under investigation. Comeys reasoning.... he might be at some stage. That is monumentally pathetic excuse. It is like the police refusing to say that soemone is not under investigation for child molesting.. because one day they might be. FFS
As fr the rest of your post, it just comes down you not liking Trump and fitting the narrative to that. I dont know who is telling the truth, but I know that Comey is far FAR from credible.If he is so competent, why would he allow Lynch to tell him to refer to it as a 'matter' not an investigation? Why would he not record or note about meetings with her after that? He said he was concerned... yeah right.
And that doesnt even mention his complete and utter over reach on the Clinton result.
The Committee did next to nothing to attack the credibility of Comeys testimony. They essentially just let it speak for itself. It was quite striking, I had expected otherwise.
You've argued that Comey is not credible for a number of reasons yet the Committee has not argued accordingly.Comeys explanation regarding his decision not to publicly announce that Trump wasnt personally under investigation makes sense to me. The investigation was (and is) still underway and Trump wasn't a person of interest but until the investigation was closed, that could have changed creating a duty to correct. I imagine a federal employee requires more than Trumps fragile self image for a reason to anonymously disclose information about ongoing FBI investigations. Your analogy about the police doesn't work for me. If I was head of a company where many were under investigation for criminal activity and my name wasn't one of them, that's good enough for me. I'd be happy to say "Lets give the police our full support to complete their investigation" and leave it at that. I dont need the police to go making public statements about me personally. I can do that myself.
Yes Im biased against Trump but that doesnt mean my arguments are not valid. FWIW the whole reason Im engaging with you is to seek an alternative view to counter my very obvious biases.
However I will just point out that a common theme I see when engaging with Trump fans is that they rarely leap to the defence of his character. That speaks volumes to me.The intel committee did attack Comey! Thy cant exactly jump the desk and punch him. Did you see Rubios questions and comments among others?
It is not the committees job to attack his credibility in that setting. They are there to ask questions and lead people to their own conclusions on his credibility. They did alot to question his position, actions and his performance. See the comment about the only ting not leaked from the FBI was the one thing that cleared Trump. Not exactly a gentle punch form Rubio.As for not clearing Trump, all well and good, except Comey has a very active history of discussing active investigations. Remember him saying Clinton was no longer the subject of an investigation? Before the investigation has concluded and despite the fact she and the Clinton foundation are still actually under investigation? He cannot just pick and chose when to do his job correctly. Or maybe he could and that was why he was a crap FBI director.. and not credible.
As for leaping to defence of his character? Why would I do that? I dont know him.. and he is a politician. I am interested in the facts of the matter, not if he is a nice guy. Maybe the volumes it speaks to you is that people defending Trump are doing so because they look at the facts, and those that are attacking him are doing it because he is they dont think he is very nice.
Im not sure how you got to physical assault from "attack his credibility" but whatever. Rubios questioning was adequate at best but not what I would consider effective.
The FBI concluded its investigation into Clintons emails on July 05. It wasn't an active investigation when Comey decided to send his letter to the members of congress.
FWIW, one need not personally know someone to make a judgement on their character as you demonstrated on your comments about Comey ("has shown himself to be corruptible and dishonest"). It seems odd that you are unable to make a similar character judgement on (arguably) the most talked about man in the world but whatever, you aren't required to defend Trumps character. I was just pointing out that very few Trump fans ever do.
US Politics