President Trump Fires James Comey

And in all fairness if you look back where I entered the thread I was not insulting anyone. Over the course of the thread I've become increasingly agitated by the consistent blatant lying and denial of facts by you and others, and I lose my cool. Complain to a mod that I call you names when you lie, I don't give a #.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Anywhere the Secret Service is positioned is automatically a restricted area. If a government official stops by a Walmart to use the restroom (extreme example), that restroom and the area leading to it from any direction is a restricted area under control of the Secret Service until he leaves.

TheRedneck

That means anytime a politician under secret service protection is pestered with questions by a reporter...

That reporter can be arrested for "disrupting government processes"? even on public grounds?

I need to understand the circumstances and charges better...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Anywhere the Secret Service is positioned is automatically a restricted area. If a government official stops by a Walmart to use the restroom (extreme example), that restroom and the area leading to it from any direction is a restricted area under control of the Secret Service until he leaves.

TheRedneck

That means anytime a politician under secret service protection is pestered with questions by a reporter...

That reporter can be arrested for "disrupting government processes"? even on public grounds?

I need to understand the circumstances and charges better...

No that's not why he was arrested. Don't lie. I linked you to the reason. He breached the space the Secret Service did not want him in. He was legally arrested for that. He'll never win that fight. Ever.

a reply to: Indigo5

True, but invention typically can result from lack. The human mind tends to fill in missing details in any situation: it's just how we are wired. Providing official documentation would allow those filled-in details to be vetted against known information more easily.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Found the report!

It is confusing enough to not really answer questions, but Dragonrdr was not outright wrong in his claim.

My read is that "breeching the security of secret service" is personal space...

You are welcome to your own reading though..

www.npr.org...

ETA: Removed a couple times from the area walking up the hallway in the capitol...

I am willing to cede that (A) The SS had right to be aggressive if they tried to secure the hallway more than once (B) I still think actual arrest and charge of a reporter on public grounds (even space SS looked to own for temporary security purposes) is over-reach.

a reply to: Indigo5

Not to mention, as I said, the purported reason why they had him arrested is absurd. Price has explained the pre-existing conditions before, and he just gave an interview where he answered questions about it again so what exactly would be the point of having a reporter arrested so he didn't have to answer that question and then answer that question anyway? The gullibility you have to have to believe that is simply staggering.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Indigo5

so what exactly would be the point of having a reporter arrested so he didn't have to answer that question

I never thought they had him arrested so they wouldn't have to answer a question???

No offense...but that is a bizarre premise..

I think general disdain for the press and intimidation (as has been consistently demonstrated at every opportunity by this administration) is simple motive for arresting reporters whenever some slight legalese might afford the opportunity.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Indigo5

so what exactly would be the point of having a reporter arrested so he didn't have to answer that question

I never thought they had him arrested so they wouldn't have to answer a question???

No offense...but that is a bizarre premise..

I think general disdain for the press and intimidation (as has been consistently demonstrated at every opportunity by this administration) is simple motive for arresting reporters whenever some slight legalese might afford the opportunity.

Oh really? STOP YOUR LYING:

originally posted by: Indigo5

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...

a reply to: Indigo5

The Secret Service is not charged with protecting an official from questions. They are charged with protecting them from harm. If I thought for one second that a reporter was arrested for asking a question, I would be up in arms.

On the other hand, reporters have a duty to maintain sufficient decorum to allow the Secret Service to do their job. That Press Pass is authorization that they have accepted this requirement. Imagine for a moment if a Russian agent had been charged with shooting Tom Price and was in attendance secretly. Heyman's disruption would have made the perfect opportunity for that to happen, with the Secret Service busily trying to restrain a reporter.

That wasn't the case here. But that's not the point. It could have been the case.

Likely, Heyman will get the maximum fine of $100 and time served. But he'll also likely lose his press privileges. Not for asking a question, but for creating a disruption that could have prevented the Secret Service from protecting Price.

TheRedneck

Meanwhile, back at the topic...

Trump threatens Comey: Better hope there are no tapes

Trump being Trump?

Either way, the implications are profound.

a reply to: Majic

That sounds mostly like Trump being Trump haha who knows though.

The tweet about ending press briefings was great too. Likely just trolling the media.

a reply to: face23785

You have blinders on...

Read your own post...

YES...Arresting a reporter for asking annoying questions..repeatedly..loudly...houndingly..

NO...Not arresting a reporter so you would not have to answer the question...Of course someone else will eventually ask it.

Trump might have a protestor ejected from one of his rallies...
Does not mean he expects there to never be another protest..

Like...
Having a pestering reporter arrested for asking questions...
Does not mean you will not answer the question later...

Doesn't change the fact he had an annoying reporter arrested for asking questions..
Or that Trump would have a protestor ejected from his rally..

It does not mean the expectation is for it not to happen again..


I can't have a conversation with you if you are cemented in a worldview that makes you scream "liar" at people thinking differently than yourself every other post.

a reply to: Indigo5

Thank you!

My reading is that Heyman tried to proceed through a Secret Service checkpoint; there are areas, usually close to their destination, where no one else is allowed. He was stopped, fought the agents, and was summarily removed by force twice. It sounds like on his third attempt, the local police attempted to calm him down to the side and he tried to break through the checkpoint again. That time he was removed and arrested.

He could have legally been killed on the spot, if one SS agent thought he represented an immediate danger. The Secret Service has complete authority and jurisdiction wherever their charge is at the time. It is to the credit of the Secret Service that such rarely happens.

But this is a perfect example of how the media twists stories. From the official report, it is clear Heyman tried to push past Secret Service multiple times and every attempt to stop him without incident was made. Yet, without this report, it is so easy to say Heyman just wanted to ask a question. The truth is reasonable; the lie carries an implication of tyranny.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Majic
Meanwhile, back at the topic...

Trump threatens Comey: Better hope there are no tapes

Trump being Trump?

Either way, the implications are profound.

Anonymous source...Say Comey isn't worried...

thehill.com...

Again...I think trump opened himself up to request and subpoena...

Chaffetz (R) asked the DOJ Inspector General to investigate the Comey firing..

The head of the Senate intelligence Committee (R) said he found the firing "disturbing"...

It's possible they could request all relevant recordings involving Trump, the firing, Comey and Russia from the WH.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: face23785

You have blinders on...

Read your own post...

YES...Arresting a reporter for asking annoying questions..repeatedly..loudly...houndingly..

NO...Not arresting a reporter so you would not have to answer the question...Of course someone else will eventually ask it.

Trump might have a protestor ejected from one of his rallies...
Does not mean he expects there to never be another protest..

Like...
Having a pestering reporter arrested for asking questions...
Does not mean you will not answer the question later...

Doesn't change the fact he had an annoying reporter arrested for asking questions..
Or that Trump would have a protestor ejected from his rally..

It does not mean the expectation is for it not to happen again..


I can't have a conversation with you if you are cemented in a worldview that makes you scream "liar" at people thinking differently than yourself every other post.

Dude your own post talks about reporters being arrested for asking questions, and gives this reporter as an example. Then 2 pages later you claim you never said that. YOU. ARE. A. LIAR. Period. End of story. You continually spread lies here. That's what you do. He wasn't arrested for asking questions, despite what you thought. He was arrested for legitimate reasons. You feckless, brainless conspiracy theories are debunked by 5 minutes on Google. You're sad. If you can't handle the heat of being called out for your lies, DON'T LIE.

a reply to: Majic

Considering all that Trump has had to deal with since January (last November?), it wouldn't surprise me if he had a recorder running... just in case. The meeting was on Trump's home turf... the White House.

Or it could be a bluff. Who knows? Raise, call, or fold.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

We have very different readings...

You seem to have gotten a whole lot from that limited accounting..

Glad to have informed the discussion with actual docs though...

a reply to: Majic

like I been reading on the other thread on the subject, either Trump recorded for his benefits all the conversations he had with Comey or he is making a mockery in reference to the Nixon tapes.

Taking into consideration that Trump is like a cat to playing with the mice is making the media go on a frenzy at whatever he tweets and never apologizes for it, I think this is just a bait more for the media than for Comey.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: face23785

You have blinders on...

Read your own post...

YES...Arresting a reporter for asking annoying questions..repeatedly..loudly...houndingly..

NO...Not arresting a reporter so you would not have to answer the question...Of course someone else will eventually ask it.

Trump might have a protestor ejected from one of his rallies...
Does not mean he expects there to never be another protest..

Like...
Having a pestering reporter arrested for asking questions...
Does not mean you will not answer the question later...

Doesn't change the fact he had an annoying reporter arrested for asking questions..
Or that Trump would have a protestor ejected from his rally..

It does not mean the expectation is for it not to happen again..


I can't have a conversation with you if you are cemented in a worldview that makes you scream "liar" at people thinking differently than yourself every other post.

Dude your own post talks about reporters being arrested for asking questions, and gives this reporter as an example. Then 2 pages later you claim you never said that. YOU. ARE. A. LIAR.

Lord help me...

Read carefully...

originally posted by: Indigo5

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

Indigo5 wrote: I never thought they had him arrested so they wouldn't have to answer a question???

Get back to me when you can stop shouting liar and tell me the difference between asking a question and answering a question.

a reply to: Indigo5

Well, as I said, the human mind tends to fill in missing details. Not in dispute (assuming the report is accurste) are

• Heyman tried multiple times to breach Secret Service
  
• Heyman's arrest occurred when he tried to breach Secret Service during a talk with local police.

The rest is based on my limited knowledge of Secret Service procedure.

But yeah, thanks again. We can now debate with actual facts.

TheRedneck