CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 31, 2017 11:32 AM UTC
51 Comments
CNN
The President has the authority to hire and fire at will. He also has the right to ask for loyalty from his employees. Bill Clinton's lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky had no justification, but Trump's did. If Clinton's lies did not warrant his removal from office then nothing Trump has done should either.
Hypocrisy: it's a bitch!!
Still fixated on a third rate blow job from 20 years, Fluffy? #Sad!
There was a big difference between getting a hummer from Monica and compromising our national security withe Russians.
Your moral equivalency is silly. Under your theory, Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, should have been loyal to Nixon and squelched the investigation that implicated Nixon in criminal behavior. You believe that anyone who works for the executive branch of government owes their loyalty to whoever happens to be president and therefore must protect the president from legitimate investigations and prosecution, even in a case where the president has committed a crime.
Do you realize your bottom line is everyone owes a duty to help cover-up criminal behavior? Under your theory, the duty to obstruct justice becomes the obligation of every executive branch employee, including those who have the obligation (like Mr. Mueller) to investigate and prosecute such behavior.
Moddy seems to forget (if he ever knew) that our elected officials swear allegiance and promise to defend not their bosses, but our Constitution. This is one of the key differences between a dictatorship and a democracy.
Too bad Moddy and others seem to prefer the former over the latter.
Um, Moddy. You do know that Clinton was impeached, right? Maybe the Senate won’t convict the Donald, either.
And Newt Gingrich was forever discredited over his futile, and unnecessary, impeachment in the House. He stepped down as House Speaker and did not run for re-election.
Common sense dictates that getting pleasured in the Oval Office is kindergarten chump change compared to Trump and his alleged Russia ties.
The difference is Clinton did have the intern give him oral sex in the oval office. There is no evidence that Donald Trump did anything wrong. All of the alleged Russian ties, whatever that means, do not involve Donald Trump.
Then why is the Donald doing everything possible to impede the investigation? (Including probable obstruction of justice?)
If there is truly nothing to hide, then why hide it?
Hey Cornholio. If Trump did nothing wrong, then he's got nothing to hide. If that is the case, why doesn't he put all his cards on the table, prove his innocence and we can move on. We wouldn't do what your side did with Benghazi et. Al.
Trump has nothing to hide right?
If there is no evidence, Andrew, then why is there now a special counsel? Perhaps wishful thinking on your part?
Newt's replace, Bob Livingston, also had to step down (before stepping up) because he too had committed serious sin. I'll never forget that Saturday morning watching the split screen on TV as the House debating impeachment on one side and Republican speakers were falling on the side.
And then, of course, the GOP thought they had found a man of moral virtue to serve as speaker. Unfortunately their vetting process left something to be desired since he turned out to be a pedophile.
Yeah, Moddy, let's talk about sexual peccadillos circa 1998.
Since 1998? Don't forget former Senator Vitter from Louisiana with his prostitute thing. Or former Senator Craig from Idaho trolling for gay sex in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport. Good family values guys, both of them.
I think I read this past week that more 'boys' have come forward on the Hassert picadillos. These old, white family-values boys sure are pillars, aren't they?
What the covfefe?!?!? . . .
What are you trying to get out of your addled illiterate brain, twit???:
Ok, you've finally admitted the obvious — that Trump lies, lies, lies, lies …
… But, he lied about Lewinsky? Ummm, maybe. Probably. I mean if he ever said anything about her it had to be a lie — he can't help it!
But WTC is your point??? Trumps lies about Lewinsky we're justified??? So therefore he didn't pressure Comey and didn't make any efforts to obstruct an investigation ???
. . . You truly are a world champhion fuckhead, Fluffy (and Hypocrisy is your mama)!!!!
To echo others here, do you not remember Clinton was impeached? Do you not remember the year plus investigation? The Starr Report?
Moldy, are you that dumb and pathetic that you ignore the fact that there was an investigation?
To say nothing of Hilary's email investigation that showed no wrongdoing.
You're right about one thing. Hypocrisy is a bitch.
Btw, where are my ACA and Russia articles Moldy?
I never faulted Clinton for the fib about what happened with the intern. I honestly think he was trying to save the young woman and his wife embarrassment. That's what a gentleman does. As to the affair, that was for his wife to kick his ass over when she found out; and if some of the "backstairs at the White House" gossip was true, she did.
And remember, the affair was discovered during "mission creep" from the Whitewater investigation. A cautionary tale for the Yam if I ever heard one.
One that the Yam is sure to ignore.
… hoo boy, (and, this has nothing to do with the current situation, I agree), but I'm not drinking that kool-aid. — ever! (Bill got caught, and nothing he did showed any concern for anyone except himself.)
(PS. No "gentleman," as I know them, would find himself involved in that situation . . . )
Moddy, he does have the right to fire the FBI director. He does not have the right to obstruct justice. That is a crime. So if he fired Comey in order to obstruct justice, he is guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor, which is grounds for his impeachment, and possibly grounds for a criminal indictment. Brush up on the law, learn something. Don't be like the covfefe in chief
Can you imagine Moldy getting the vapors if a President Hillary Clinton tried to use political manipulation to get Comey to drop the FBI investigation of her emails? He would be hoarse from shouting "Lock Her Up". I bet he would take a dim view if a direct relative of a President Hillary Clinton like Chelsea tried to setup a secret communications channel. Gee, I wonder what could be different from his harsh views of Mrs. Clintons alleged criminal "betrayal" of national interests with his staunch defending that nothing is a problem with Trumps interference with a criminal probe.
Of course being the brown noser defender of immoral behavior that he is, he tries to conflate Trump's criminal obstruction of justice with the powers of the president.
Obama announces that Clinton did not commit a crime by storing classified emails on her unsecured, unauthorized server. The investigation was shut down.
Trump tells the FBI director it would be nice if the Flynn investigation were to go away. It does not and a special counsel is appointed.
Which was obstruction of justice?
The one someone gets convicted for?
Actually that would not be the correct answer.
But keep guessing.
As I recall, Comey is the one who said Hillary Clinton did not commit a crime.
Gerbils was hoping you'd forget that so he could make his false equivalence sound almost plausible.
Before he did, Obama proclaimed it was not a crime. The AG took the hint. A week or so after Bill met with the AG, Comey announced to the world that he agreed with Obama's assessment.
From what I've read, it was more likely for Hillary to get hacked using the State Department systems than using her own private server.
And then he sandbagged her 11 days before the election. I half think they ought to have charged him with electioneering for that.
This is such a total lie that I'm kind of surprised that there wasn't more push back. Obama never shut down the email witch hunt. If anything he didn't require rigorous adherence to procedure and let Comey bull ahead without any restraint. Lynch wasn't able to have much effect much direction on the investigation so Andrew's lie that "Democrats do it too" is just such absolute horse shit. What a perfidious person purporting to be a properly moral man. Not. Double not.
Mod & AC, Comey is not taking orders from the likes of you. Comey will testify, and the truth will come out. And many more will speak over the next weeks and months, and many more truths will be made public. You cannot stop the truth.
I welcome the truth.
Comey will not testify that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.
The truth is gradually coming out.
The Fisa court just roasted Obama et al for violating Americans Constitutional rights by unmasking and identifying Americans improperly.
Comey told Feinstein a couple weeks ago that there was no evidence implicating Trump.
When the truth comes out we will be left with one essential truth. Hillary lost and her followers would rather America not succeed than it be successful on Trump's watch.
Okay Cornholio. Why did your dear leader say to the Russians that firing "nut job" Comey took great pressure because of Russia off him?
First off, we don't know that he said that.
Second, getting rid of Comey and subsequently hiring Meuler did take pressure off in terms of Congressional investigations. The investigations will now be handled as a criminal investigation and handled appropriately. If someone lied or leaked or was not forthcoming, like John Podesta, it will be found out. They may even go back to Hillary. That would be rich.
We knows, shill boy. We knows.
Yeah. Because Trump made the decision to hire Mueller. Please. Let's see, CNN, NYT, NPR, Wapo, and Fox news all say that is what Trump said. Among other sources.
If you're going to lie, do a better job than that Goebbles.
It must be you that told them. The sources were all unnamed.
Wow Cornholio! You're hilarious! I've never heard a funnier joke in my life.
Gerbils — read and learn from your master if you plan to continue your incessant BS. You really need to work on your shilling techniques:
"Comey will not testify that Trump attempted to obstruct justice….." What I find interesting is that Andrew knows exactly what Comey will say long before any hearing.
No reply button under Davie’s comment. But I agree with it.
CHB:
I know that because he was obligated to report it if he felt that way and he did not.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
Given that background, Comey is not going to say Trump attempted to obstruct justice, even if he did.
All Comey has to do is testify to what Trump said to him. It is up to the Special Prosecutor and the Senators in their respective investigations to draw conclusions as to whether it rises to the level of obstruction of justice.
That is where they may serve Trump Fricassee.
Obstruction of justice can be established by a pattern. Firing Comey is part of that pattern–perhaps the step that completes the obstruction.
So, as a legal scholar (you do cite laws, after all), what was Comey's obligation after he was fired?
They may even go back to Hillary. That would be rich.
Why stop there. Maybe they could go back to Bill Clinton getting head, like Moddy would like to see. Or to Ted Kennedy's car accident in 1969, as you're fixed on. Or FDR, Lucy Mercer and Yalta. The possibilities are endless…..
I'd stop with Clinton. The others a dead.
I know. The Russians hacked the election because Bill got head back in the'90s. Now that's rich.
Of course you carefully left out one particular fact. Comey may have told Sen. Feinstein that Trump had not been implicated in the Russia investigation as far as his campaign staffers and aides activities but he certainly did not tell her that Trump was not implicated in obstruction of justice by attempting to get Comey to terminate the investigation of Flynn and others.
While I am very interested to hear what Comey has to say, but I think that our junior Senator is the canary in the coal mine with respect to Trump's future. As others have pointed out, impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. It is worthwhile to debate whether Trump's conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and whether he has committed "high crimes or misdemeanors" but at the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is the majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate.
While I would like to believe that there are members of Congress making impartial, nonpartisan judgments on these matters, the reality is that most if not all will evaluate the question of impeachment from the perspective of self-preservation. And Gardner is the tipping point. He is a loyal foot soldier. He is attained status within his caucus because he will do what leadership tells him to do. If Trump reveals classified info to our enemies, works with the Russians to undermine our democratic process, and generally acts the buffoon – no problem if Republicans can still maintain control. But Gardner wants to be reelected. When Trump becomes too toxic for Cory, it will be a sign that he is too toxic for Republicans and Trump is done.
"he (Gardner) is a loyal foot soldier….." Well, he has been making up for having called Trump a "buffoon" in last year's campaign.
I will admit that Gardner is good at reading people. He certainly pegged Trump
Nah . . .
Trump was Trumpended by Trump long before Comey . . .
. . . a Greek tragicomedy of Shakespearean dimensions . . .
(. . . history's a bitch, eh, Moderatus???
“Taken in,” little Moddy.
“Taken in” by the fake.
“Taken in,” so very easily (you craven dumbass),
cackled your tweeting yammish snake.”)