President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.

So you're still gonna pretend that anonymous source that has been refuted is accurate? That's sad. The WSJ reported that an anoymous source alleged phrasing that could be interpreted. That's what you're taking as gospel? And oh by the way, their anonymous source from the DOJ is part of the Trump administration too. So since every single one of the thousands of people who work for the administration can't be trusted, by your own logic you're spreading lies. Biased much? [SNIPPED]

a reply to: Indigo5

You calling anyone dishonest is textbook irony. You keep dishonestly pushing a bogus report because it agrees with your childish worldview.

a reply to: face23785

[SNIPPED]

As they say, "There are lies, and then there are damn lies".

This morning on cable news where you listen to the back and forth of opposing sides, the Dems are STILL, today, lying. It baffles me when the lie has been proven to be an absolute falsehood, pulled out of the a** of some biased source, yet these Dem spokepersons CONTINUE to push the narrative.

It's as if they have to lie and push baloney because that is the current talking point, and they have to repeat it over and over and over and over, until the DNC or one of their mouthpieces in media comes up with a new talking point. When that one is proven to be a lie, they will push it anyway for days and days, until they are given another one.

These people are ill....mentally, imo. And, I'm not saying that lightly. I find it scary to watch their glazed-over robotic repetitive programmed style to be worrisome.

a reply to: queenofswords

They are politicians.

They have a reputation to downhold.

Questions of anonymous sources aside, I won't be the least bit surprised if the FBI hits back. There are indeed a number of ways they could do that.

The Vox article talks about the FBI as being 'tribal' in nature. That's exactly the way it's been described to me by people I know who work there. They tend to close ranks around their own, and perceived threats to their independence aren't well received. No surprise really.

Trump could have stirred up a hornet's nest here. Or not. We'll see. If so, it will be interesting to see what sort of tac they take.

a reply to: queenofswords

I'm probably gonna get kicked off of here but lying really irks me. I was raised with integrity. I'm that guy everyone hated to have on their basketball team because I would admit I was the last one to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. I despise liars, and I especially despise when they continue to push their lies after proven false. They aren't fit to lick my boots.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Vox is about a quarter rung above National Enquirer. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything they "report".

a reply to: Gandalf77

If they act within the law, then more power to them.

If they act outside the law, then they are criminals.

I pray they choose wisely.

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: Gandalf77

If they act within the law, then more power to them.

If they act outside the law, then they are criminals.

I pray they choose wisely.

For those that live the law professionally.."within the law" covers a lot of ground...laws can be esoteric at times..and bent to the will of an agenda.

For example...You would probably not think Reporters could be arrested on public grounds for asking questions in the USA?

A reporter recently learned different when he persistently questioned HHS Secretary Tom Price..

charged with a misdemeanor count of willful disruption of governmental processes. He spent eight hours in a local jail before the news service posted a $5,000 bail for his release.

www.nytimes.com...

Regarding the complete and utter poop circus that passes for communications at the WH--especially with the Comey firing this week--I will say this: Giving those folks an hour or so to get a comms plan in place for major announcement like that is indicative of very poor planning.

Having worked in a corporate capacity, it's PR 101: You loop in the right people early on and make sure everyone is on the same page with the messaging. In this case, they've been all over the place--contradicting each other, amending the story, etc. What a cluster. Is it any wonder there's been so much confusion and speculation?

And then the Tweetnik in chief has this to say this morning:

“As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!” he wrote on Twitter.

“Maybe,” he added a few moments later, “the best thing to do would be to cancel all future ‘press briefings’ and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???”

Whether that's just rhetorical venting or actually serious (in good faith, I tend to think it's the former), and questions of galactic irony where the word 'accuracy' is concerned aside, the WH screwed this one up royally. And as the 'leader,' Trump bears some responsibility for that. Not that I would expect him to admit his own complicity in anything, mind you.

a reply to: Indigo5

True, and I doubt anyone in the United States even knows how many laws apply to them. Still, FBI agents that work within the law are far preferable to outlaws with a badge.

Without integrity, the FBI becomes an enemy of the very Constitution it is sworn to support and defend, and that would be intolerable.

I'm hopeful the majority of people who work there agree.

a reply to: Indigo5

For those that live the law professionally.."within the law" covers a lot of ground...laws can be esoteric at times..and bent to the will of an agenda.

Not to dispute that as fact, but my thinking says such a law itself is wrong and should be corrected.

For example...You would probably not think Reporters could be arrested on public grounds for asking questions in the USA?

False misrepresentation of facts. The reporter was arrested, but not for "asking questions." Your own source states the charge was "willful disruption of government processes." He can ask questions all he wants, but he cannot just burst in upon an official at any moment.

TheRedneck

From the New York Times

a criminal complaint said he “tried aggressively to breach the security of the Secret Service” and was “causing a disturbance by yelling questions.”

Let's see, what earthshaking question was he trying to ask... as a reporter (using his cell phone as an audio recording device)....

According to an audio recording Mr. Heyman provided, he asked whether domestic violence was going to be a pre-existing condition under the new legislation.

Anyone that has looked into this issue is aware that it is 'fake news'.

Which of these candidates is the best replacement for James Comey? Here's the President's "short list".
www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

For those that live the law professionally.."within the law" covers a lot of ground...laws can be esoteric at times..and bent to the will of an agenda.

Not to dispute that as fact, but my thinking says such a law itself is wrong and should be corrected.

For example...You would probably not think Reporters could be arrested on public grounds for asking questions in the USA?

False misrepresentation of facts. The reporter was arrested, but not for "asking questions." Your own source states the charge was "willful disruption of government processes." He can ask questions all he wants, but he cannot just burst in upon an official at any moment.

TheRedneck

False misrepresentation of facts indeed. Another term for it is alternative facts, which he is quite guilty of in this case. Funny they like to parrot that phrase like it's exclusive to the right.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Some good points, but as fast as politics is moving now it could be impractical to get people 'in the loop' as early as would be preferable. I have even heard some pro-Trump pundits complaining about how fast things are moving (Greg Gutfield is one example).

I look at this similar to police reports on a sudden shooting... initial reports are often incomplete and sometimes downright wrong. While I cannot condone the obvious confusion coming from the White House, I can cut a little slack due to the speed involved. I also bring the MSM back into play on this issue; their rabid demand for immediate official statements and unwillingness to vet the resulting statements leads to a lot of the problem. They need to slow down, get their facts straight, and report those facts.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gandalf77

This is something I absolutely do not dispute. The messaging from the White House is awful. I think it is a product of most of them not being professional politicians. We're all so used to these pols being so good at controlling their narrative, even when it's false, that hearing normal people held to this type of standard of having everything they do questioned looks very strange. Let's be honest though, if we had dozens of reporters questioning everything we did 10 different ways, how well would we do?

a reply to: carewemust

Trey Gowdy would be my choice, just to see the absolute panic from the left.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Gandalf77

Vox is about a quarter rung above National Enquirer. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything they "report".

By no means would I suggest Vox is a good source of quality reporting.

My point there is that the 'tribal' nature of the FBI does fit with descriptions I've heard from folks who work there. Yes, that's anecdotal, but it makes sense to me. It suggests they have a motive.

And the different tactics the article lists in terms of what the FBI could do seem quite plausible.
- They could start leaking bits and pieces of what they may have collected so far to the press. (Assuming, of course, it actually exists.)

- They could provide further direct assistance to the congressional committees in the form of more resources, information, etc. One effect this could have would be to further tie things up in Washington and hamper progress on the WH agenda.

- They could just leak information to members of congress that make things harder for the WH, such as torpedoing a nominee to head the bureau.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

False misrepresentation of facts. The reporter was arrested, but not for "asking questions." Your own source states the charge was "willful disruption of government processes." He can ask questions all he wants, but he cannot just burst in upon an official at any moment.

TheRedneck

Tom Price was walking in a hallway at the Virginia State Capital on his way to a meeting...

As Tom Price, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, headed to a meeting at the West Virginia State Capitol in Charleston on Tuesday a reporter from the Public News Service trailed after him in a hallway.

www.nytimes.com...