President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: face23785

If I knew who she was I would tweet her the correct info, along with some berating inappropriate language for being a liar.

a reply to: face23785

I saw that exchange.
The dem pundit just rattled off one proven falsehood after another.
It was hilarious.
Watching her stutter and fumble after being called out on her false talking points was great too.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Do you know who she is? I love sending condescending tweets to lying Dem shills.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Majic Collusion, propagandizing and rumor-mongering have no place in ethical journalism.

And they know it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Nor, in the White House....and they DON'T, but should know it.

Collusion, propagandizing and rumor-mongering have been a staple in the political diet for thousands of years. That won't change. It does not give the media a free pass to disgrace their profession on a daily basis.

There was just some Dem talking head on Fox repeating the lie that the FBI asked for more funding for the Russia investigation just before Comey fired him. Shows how damaging the inaccurate reporting and lack of basic research by the media can be. 3 days later, even after the acting-Director testified to Congress that wasn't true, you still have liberal talking heads pushing a false narrative on live TV. Luckily the Fox host corrected her.

The FBI requested more funds, but it was not for the Russia investigation. The acting-Director testified they have all the funds and resources they need for the Russia investigation.

That's the play book of the Dems. Lie and keep lying, even when caught lying.
It's the 'throw enough mud to see what sticks' attitude.

Have you got a link to that interview - who was the interviewer on Fox?

a reply to: face23785

no, don't know her...but I think it was with Shannon Bream OR Martha Maccallum (FOX) ...and Mercedes Schlapp (R).

a reply to: IAMTAT

I have seen my fair share of the same,
is like they have been paid by who knows whom to go around the media outlets that listen to them to talk nothing but lies, make assumptions and speculate, is just becoming incredible dangerous, I have never seen something like that before and I have been interested in politics for a long time, once in a while you get people like that but no with the rabid growth that is right now and spreading.

As long as somebody feed on their crap they will keep thriving.

That is what I brought up earlier in the thread yesterday, I when I was watching some guy call Mustaffa talking about the firing of Comey and how he said it was illegal and that Yates was fired too because they were investigating Trump, Yates? really since when

And people believe this and take it for facts.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Majic Collusion, propagandizing and rumor-mongering have no place in ethical journalism.

And they know it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Nor, in the White House....and they DON'T, but should know it.

Collusion, propagandizing and rumor-mongering have been a staple in the political diet for thousands of years. That won't change. It does not give the media a free pass to disgrace their profession on a daily basis.

There was just some Dem talking head on Fox repeating the lie that the FBI asked for more funding for the Russia investigation just before Comey fired him. Shows how damaging the inaccurate reporting and lack of basic research by the media can be. 3 days later, even after the acting-Director testified to Congress that wasn't true, you still have liberal talking heads pushing a false narrative on live TV. Luckily the Fox host corrected her.

The FBI requested more funds, but it was not for the Russia investigation. The acting-Director testified they have all the funds and resources they need for the Russia investigation.

That's the play book of the Dems. Lie and keep lying, even when caught lying.
It's the 'throw enough mud to see what sticks' attitude.

Have you got a link to that interview - who was the interviewer on Fox?

It was literally just like 10 minutes ago, so I'm not sure there'd be video of it up anywhere yet. I think it was Shannon Bream hosting.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: face23785

no, don't know her...but I think it was with Martha Maccallum (FOX) ...and Mercedes Schlapp (R).

Definitely wasn't Martha. Pretty sure it was Shannon Bream. Both of whom are gorgeous ladies, I must say.

The Best Of The Worst

a reply to: UKTruth

Indeed, the brilliance of the U.S. Constitution is that it was designed explicitly to function with a government composed entirely of criminals and scoundrels. Its strength comes from the fact that criminals and scoundrels can be counted upon to stab each other in the back at every opportunity.

"No honor among thieves" equals "checks and balances", if you will.

The press is supposed to operate independently of the government, but in practice it never does and never has. Nonetheless, there has always been a market for press exposure of government corruption, and where that happens to coincide with an opportunity for self-enrichment, Great Moments In American Journalism can result.

"Ethical journalism" is an unattainable ideal, but it's not an oxymoron and can be approached. The closest approaches usually occur right out of school, before jaundiced editors can pass on their cynicism, but those foolish enough to defy apathy and chase the dream can still achieve greatness, however obscure or fleeting it may be.

In today's political climate, the waning days of the New Rome, opportunities for greatness abound.

I'm probably wrong, but I have a feeling we may see some yet.

a reply to: marg6043

The good news is I think they only damage themselves doing this. People are more educated and have access to more information these days. Most of us see right through the lies. Only devout worshiping Dems lap it up. Independents are turned off by it and conservatives are further motivated by it. I think it bodes ill for them for the midterms if this is their only strategy. It used to work, but times are changing and they just refuse to evolve. Look at who their leaders are, same old white people as always, aside from Obama of course.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: IAMTAT

Do you know who she is? I love sending condescending tweets to lying Dem shills.

HERE she is:
LIS SMITH
twitter.com...

When there are two conflicting reports on a situation, typically the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The question then becomes where in the middle does it lie?

Let us examine this loyalty issue....

What is loyalty? Is it fealty? I don't think that's necessarily so. I expect loyalty from my close friends... but I wouldn't expect them to lie for me on a court stand. The loyalty I expect is for them to not believe any lies that come down the pike, to alert me if someone is lying about me behind my back, not to spread gossip about me, that sort of thing. I do the same for them. I suppose some could consider loyalty as more absolute, however, so I cannot consider loyalty a known term.

We have a few things both sides agree on. Trump and Comey had a private dinner in the White House shortly after the inauguration. Trump fired Comey recently. Rosenstein wrote a letter to Trump recommending Comey's dismissal two weeks after being confirmed. Sessions approved that recommendation. Many in Congress have recently called for Comey's resignation, but many of them are now angry over the firing. Comey was fired while he was away from DC.

We all know these are true. What's in dispute is more along the lines of why Comey was fired.

Trump claims he never asked for personal loyalty, and that he had previously made the decision to fire Comey before Rosenstein's recommendation. The Left claims Trump demanded personal loyalty during that dinner and Comey refused, so Trump fired him to keep his ties to Russia quiet. The truth, again, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

My take:

Trump entered the Presidency armed with quite a bit of political naivety. I think most of his supporters expected that... and some, like me, actually found it refreshing. Normal people don't pick and choose every word; English communication relies quite heavily on context. An example would be Trump's call for a travel ban during his campaign. Opposers heard "those who don't worship like me" in the word "Muslims," while supporters heard "Arabic terrorists using Islam to justify terrorism." Two quite different interpretations of one word. The former implies a despotic religious fundamentalist in violation of the 1st Amendment, while the latter implies reason and sanity given present concerns over National Security.

So I attempt to listen to his word choice in light of a non-politically-correct context... what does he mean as opposed to what does he say. I do not do that with established politicians, because they are typically well-versed in politically correct speaking.

Trump came into office with quite a lot of opposition from within the government itself, even from within his own department. As an example, Sally Yates sacrificed her job through her refusal to comply with Trump's policies, going so far as to second-guess the Supreme Court's future rulings with the same assurance as if she were a Justice herself. Were I to find myself in such a position, I believe I would have some amount of paranoia about who was and was not a political enemy.

Thus, I believe Trump asked Comey at that dinner for loyalty.

That is not the same as asking Comey to ignore evidence. It is inclusive of asking Comey to conduct any investigations fairly and without malice. When the media picked up the story, however, they changed the context by implying loyalty included ignoring possible evidence damaging to Trump... and in that context, Trump did not ask for loyalty.

Many Americans, myself included, had serious questions about Comey from before the election. For my part, I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt, self-promoting, evil woman I have ever seen. I felt that way since early in Bill Clinton's administration, and my opinion of her based on her actions has declined steadily ever since. I will go to my grave believing that. Comey's announcement concerning her e-mail scandal was so contradictory it caused me to believe he was actively working for Clinton. Specifically:

• The excuse of lack of intent was laughable, as intent is not part of the law in that case and subjective in any case.
  
• He then stated that anyone else would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  
• He specifically stated that Clinton had exhibited extremely poor judgement... very close to gross negligence, the true measure of culpability.
  
• He made a major leap in logic, stating that no reasonable prosecuted would take the case. Given the previous points, that sounds perilously close to mentalism.
  
• The only recommendation the FBI should make, as investigators, is for the DoJ to take the case. He did not make that recommendation, nor did he refuse to make any recommendation (his other reasonable option). He literally recommended non-prosecution, an action that is against the spirit of the American legal process. Translated from legaleeze, that is "Please let her go."

That establishes Comey as a partisan investigator in my mind, loyal to the Clinton's. That said, I still am not sure why he re-opened the case publicly... as I have mentioned before, perhaps he was conflicted... but that is admittedly pure speculation.

The number of inaccuracies presented in the recent past play into my thought process as well. Little things, like Spicer 'hiding in the bushes,' claims about Rosenstein threatening to quit, linguistic slights to change the scope of the Russian investigation from 'Trump campaign associates' to 'Trump,' implying personal culpability, refusal to accept financial disclosures, attempts to smear Sessions based on wild, false narratives, and so many more that it becomes impossible to list them all, might by themselves be minor but taken together indicate a rabid, irrational hatred toward Trump that brings new allegations into question.

Taken all together, I think Trump asked Comey that night for loyalty toward the truth, in other words, to be impartial and fair. It was a test to see where Comey's loyalties lay, and he failed to convince Trump that he would not back-stab him over political fealties. Trump made the decision to remove Comey that night, but waited in order to get a loyal Deputy Attorney General in place and to make sure Comey couldn't compromise data the FBI had in its possession. That opportunity came with Rosenstein's recommendation and Comey's trip out of town.

I believe McCabe is being watched closely now; I doubt Trump has faith in him either. All investigations conducted over the last few years will probably be re-investigated and re-analyzed for prosecution. Once a new Director is appointed, and subsequent weedings from inside the rank and file are accomplished, prosecution of inner corruption within the Beltway can proceed. That, I believe, will include the Russia investigation, which will be expanded to include both political parties and campaigns.

Now, I just laid out, in excruciating detail, the logic and reasoning that went into my opinion. I ask the readers who are, like me, trying to make sense of this maze, to observe the responses. I can all but guarantee that someone will respond with something like "Trump's a bad President," or, "Sessions is a racist," in lieu of an actual rebuttal. That will help you to make sense of this all, for those who do so are indeed exhibiting the depth of their reasoning... or lack thereof.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

This M. Schlapp video has the exchange:
twitter.com...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: face23785

This M. Schlapp video has the exchange:
twitter.com...

The democrat was Liz Smith - former deputy campaign manager for Martin O'Malley. She embarrassed herself by getting every point wrong.

Schlap.. well...schlapped her up.

originally posted by: Majic

originally posted by: Indigo5
Fair enough. Not to be too pointed, but do you trust your reason supersedes political leanings and worldview sufficiently where you apply that standard in a non-partisan way?

Everyone, including me, is biased. These are my biases on this subject.

Partisanship is slavery. I'm not immune to it, but I do avoid it as best I can.

Effort is all any of us can offer. Ironically, partisanship might be Americans greatest commonality at present.

"Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other. "

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."
James Harvey Robinson

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: face23785

This M. Schlapp video has the exchange:
twitter.com...

The democrat was Liz Smith - former deputy campaign manager for Martin O'Malley. She embarrassed herself by getting every point wrong.

Schlap.. well...schlapped her up.

They just don't care anymore if what they say is false.
The entire purpose is to keep vomiting it out and move on.

a reply to: Indigo5

Ah yes, confirmation bias, the one thing we all have in common.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Majic

originally posted by: Indigo5
Fair enough. Not to be too pointed, but do you trust your reason supersedes political leanings and worldview sufficiently where you apply that standard in a non-partisan way?

Everyone, including me, is biased. These are my biases on this subject.

Partisanship is slavery. I'm not immune to it, but I do avoid it as best I can.

Effort is all any of us can offer. Ironically, partisanship might be Americans greatest commonality at present.

"Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other. "

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."
James Harvey Robinson

Effort is great. Acknowledging when your anonymous source is proven wrong is pretty good too. You might wanna try that one.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

It then says when asked for comment the DOJ spokesperson, who was actually NAMED, denied it.

I remain baffled why you continue to cite Trump Administration spokespeople as if they are the final arbiter of truth when the past 100 days have repeatedly shown them to be (intentionally or unintentionally) the least factual/accurate/honest spokespeople in history..."Alternative facts" and all..

The past 48 hours alone plainly demonstrated the President himself in interviews debunking Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee, and VP Pence's accounting and rationale for Comey's firing.

The Deputy AG is greatly respected by both sides. He was recently confirmed 94-6 in the Senate, meaning nearly every Democrat voted for him.

Yes, but you cited the DOJ Spokesperson?

originally posted by: face23785

It then says when asked for comment the DOJ spokesperson, who was actually NAMED, denied it.

As for the Deputy AG...The conservative WSJ has reported phrasing that can be interpreted as a threat to resign or just a statement of severe displeasure with the dishonesty the Trump administration displayed.

I suspect that is where the truth resides...Since WH Spokespeople have now been shown to have offered "Alternative Facts" by Trumps accounting of Comey's firing.

Mr. Rosenstein left the impression that he couldn’t work in an environment where facts weren’t accurately reported, the person said. The deputy attorney general objected to statements by White House aides citing Mr. Rosenstein’s critical assessment of Mr.Comey’s job performance to justify the firing.

www.wsj.com...

Not sure how Rosenstein "left the impression"...

But certainly the Trump Administration didn't want to fully Mimic the Saturday Night Massacre with the Deputy AG resigning on the heels of Comey's firing etc.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Majic

originally posted by: Indigo5
Fair enough. Not to be too pointed, but do you trust your reason supersedes political leanings and worldview sufficiently where you apply that standard in a non-partisan way?

Everyone, including me, is biased. These are my biases on this subject.

Partisanship is slavery. I'm not immune to it, but I do avoid it as best I can.

Effort is all any of us can offer. Ironically, partisanship might be Americans greatest commonality at present.

"Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other. "

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."
James Harvey Robinson

Effort is great. Acknowledging when your anonymous source is proven wrong is pretty good too. You might wanna try that one.

You seem angry and dishonest in your exchanges...