The latest Lamestream-Deep State stupidities — attack the inferred Trump-Comey conversation recordings
© 2017 Peter Free
13 May 2017
More grossly overblown outrage — this time over the White House's inferred conversation recordings
First, we got the shouted silliness regarding President Trump's firing of James Comey.
Now, we have to endure even deeper airheadedness that implies that the President cannot record conversations in the White House — and, if he did (or does), he has to turn those recordings over to Congress.
How did this latest foolish storm over nothing begin?
This latest moron-muddle began when President Trump became irritated with one of the Deep State's agents against him, former FBI Director James Comey.
On about 27 January 2017, a week after his inauguration, the President reportedly asked Comey (at a private White House dinner and three times over) whether he would be loyal to The Donald.
Unsatisfied with Comey's reported response — which legitimately favored honesty over loyalty — Trump fired him on 09 May 2017.
The recorded conversation uproar began three days later (12 May 2017), when the President tweeted that:
James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press.
Slack-jawed Democratic Party jackals immediately pounced
To wit:
Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings and John Conyers, the respective ranking members of the House oversight and judiciary committees, requested from White House counsel Donald McGahn copies of all recordings between Trump and Comey.
"It is a crime to intimidate or threaten any potential witness with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent their official testimony," the two wrote in a letter.
"The President's actions this morning -- as well as his admission yesterday on national television that he fired Director Comey because he was investigating Trump campaign officials and their connections to the Russian government -- raise the specter of possible intimidation and obstruction of justice. The President's actions also risk undermining the ongoing criminal and counter-intelligence investigations and the independence of federal law enforcement agencies."
© 2017 Eugene Scott, Trump threatens Comey in Twitter outburst, CNN Politics (12 May 2017) (paragraph split)
Let's look at this nonsense with a critiquing eye
First, with the NSA intercepting everything electronic (so to speak), why would anyone (who is reasonably aware) think that they can walk into the White House and talk directly to the President of the United States without being monitored?
Is the Lamestream completely brain-dead?
Second, such a recording would almost certainly be legal, even under applicable jurisdiction law, regardless of which of 39 one-party consent states that the talk took place in. Certainly so, in the District of Columbia and regardless of the issue whether DC law actually applies to the interior of the White House and the activities of the President as head of state.
Third, former Director Comey is not yet even a potential witness to anything. Which goes to show what a vat of horseshit everything around the Comey firing has been.
Even if he were a potential witness to something substantive enough not to be laughable, it would be a legal stretch to prove that the President's tweet constitutes intimidation.
How can I possibly intimidate someone by letting them know (only) that, if they lie about something the two of us were involved in, I will tell the truth with the evidence that I have in my possession?
Without significantly more, Representative Cummings and Conyers' position is not even marginally tenable. It is the equivalent of pissing wildly into an incoming wind that one has been too carelessly preoccupied with anger to detect.
Fourth, Congress has no right to material covered under lawfully applied Executive Privilege — a doctrine that is clearly necessary to prevent both legislature and judiciary from unwarrantedly "screwing" with the executive branch of government.
Fifth, President Trump's tweet was an understandable warning to Comey and the Deep State that he represents
President Trump's metaphorical House of Orange is, we can gather, not going to tolerate the intelligence community's persistent attempts to concoct evidence against him. Like, for instance, the Democratic Party and Deep State's grossly overblown Trump-Is-a-Putin-Puppet campaign. (See here and here.)
Whether the President delivered his warning with the goods and "righteous" content to back it up is unknown. There are clever and unclever tyrants.
Even Trump's Comey loyalty question is understandable — given the President's autocratic outlook
The President is a business person. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand how the Constitution separates the varying missions of the three branches of government.
Instead (understandably, given his background), he focuses on gathering people around him whom he can trust to unquestioningly carrying out his usually impulsive wishes.
Since "we" voted him into office knowing all this, it seems a bit late to start whining (in pretended betrayed fashion) about his autocratic perspective now.
It is not as if Hillary Clinton has a fundamentally different outlook on wielding power. She is just a little better about applying Hypocrisy's Camouflage to her Queenish mongerings.
The moral? — With regard to recordings, the President can do what he wants
Pretending otherwise simply reflects how inanely unrealistic the President's persistently conniving, equally self-interested critics are.
The Deep State is every wannabe-free American's enemy. Choosing between it and an autocrat (like President Trump) is not substantive choice. Both suck. Taking sides between them makes little sense.
As I wrote yesterday, the problem is institutional, not personal.
The self-righteous, lying BS that the Lamestream and the Deep State constantly spew — hides their evils behind one Liberty-destroying obfuscation after another.
President Trump is not the most dangerous villain in all this. The system that spawned him is.