President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5
BREAKING: Senate Intelligence Panel SUEPONEAS FLYNN..

Move along...nothing to see here...

The House Intel committee is subpoenaing Susan Rice and the Senate Intel committee is gearing for the same but your right...

move along, nothing to see here...

Never mind the fact the ranking Dem on the Senate Intel committee was the one who told Rice not to testify.. Wonder what they are hiding.

The focus will shift quite soon to the criminals who leaked information for political purposes. The Russian narrative is dying out in spite of the desperate flame fanning by liberals.

The Russia lie is all Democrats have left... They used it as an excuse on why they lost the election. They are using it to undermine a sitting President. Democrats are now stating Republicans who support Trump are involved with Russia (That brought to us by Elizabeth Warren).

Their goal is to try and drag it out to the midterms, which wont work, and use it to retake Congress.

Yep - I heard on CNN yesterday that ANYONE supporting Trump should be under suspicion of colluding with Russians. Liberals have finally gone totally mad. So many got led willingly by the nose to Clownsville. Their only consolation is that they are acting so much like clowns that they at least have some utility in being funny.

It's good that we have them to laugh at.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Except for the fact the term is 4 years... Max of 8.

Trying to use semantics is not gonna fly on this one. FDR was the last President to serve 3 terms and to date no VP has done what you are suggesting. Its the exception rather than the rule and for good reason.

This doesn't change the fact that you can serve up to 10 years as president, which is all I said. It's not semantics. Numbers don't lie, they don't change when you want them to. You can indeed serve up to 10 years as President. Nothing you say will change that fact.

Again, the topic was Trump.

Can Trump end up serving 10 years as president?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5
BREAKING: Senate Intelligence Panel SUEPONEAS FLYNN..

Move along...nothing to see here...

The House Intel committee is subpoenaing Susan Rice and the Senate Intel committee is gearing for the same but your right...

move along, nothing to see here...

Never mind the fact the ranking Dem on the Senate Intel committee was the one who told Rice not to testify.. Wonder what they are hiding.

The focus will shift quite soon to the criminals who leaked information for political purposes. The Russian narrative is dying out in spite of the desperate flame fanning by liberals.

The Russia lie is all Democrats have left...

By Dems...you mean the entirety of the intelligence community, both GOP and Dems in Congress...Senate and House investigations and an open FBI investigation??

Those "Democrats"?

originally posted by: Indigo5
AMERICAN reporters were not allowed to photograph the meeting...Only Russian journalists..

Incorrect.

Both countries official photographers were present.

No journalists.

The picture you have posted was released by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. White House could do the same, but has not. No idea why.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5
BREAKING: Senate Intelligence Panel SUEPONEAS FLYNN..

Move along...nothing to see here...

The House Intel committee is subpoenaing Susan Rice and the Senate Intel committee is gearing for the same but your right...

move along, nothing to see here...

Never mind the fact the ranking Dem on the Senate Intel committee was the one who told Rice not to testify.. Wonder what they are hiding.

The focus will shift quite soon to the criminals who leaked information for political purposes. The Russian narrative is dying out in spite of the desperate flame fanning by liberals.

The Russia lie is all Democrats have left...

By Dems...you mean the entirety of the intelligence community, both GOP and Dems in Congress...Senate and House investigations and an open FBI investigation??

Those "Democrats"?

No, just the lunatics claiming collusion without any evidence to support their delusions.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Indigo5
AMERICAN reporters were not allowed to photograph the meeting...Only Russian journalists..

Incorrect.

Both countries official photographers were present.

No journalists.

The picture you have posted was released by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. White House could do the same, but has not. No idea why.

Is that right, lol. God, liberals simply don't know how to tell the truth.

a reply to: Indigo5

Well then you should inform Trey Gowdy (House Intel Committee) that he was wrong when he called for her to be subpoenaed.


Yes, I know about the Grand Jury subpoenas.. You, again, misdeed the point. Grand Jury actions are SECRET, meaning that was a leak. So we get a leak that subpoenas were issued yet NO leaks of incriminating evidence involving Trump...

I see why you dont want to address that point but there are the facts.

a reply to: D8Tee

NO Trump cannot serve ten years...IF Trump dies in his third year, Pence would become president and could technically run for two more terms.

a reply to: Indigo5

No I mean Democrats.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: D8Tee

NO Trump cannot serve ten years...IF Trump dies in his third year, Pence would become president and could technically run for two more terms.

Correct.

a reply to: RickinVa

and once again, given the context of the conversation from 4 pages ago it dealt with Trump trying to use an EO to extend his term.

Like I said, semantics.

In this case its 8 years and thats it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Well then you should inform Trey Gowdy (House Intel Committee) that he was wrong when he called for her to be subpoenaed.


Yes, I know about the Grand Jury subpoenas.. You, again, misdeed the point. Grand Jury actions are SECRET, meaning that was a leak. So we get a leak that subpoenas were issued yet NO leaks of incriminating evidence involving Trump...

I see why you dont want to address that point but there are the facts.

It is also likely that a Grand Jury would not know that the subpoenas were issued until the subject was in front of them or notified. IF there are in fact subpoenas still being issued, then there is still an open case.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AnonyMason

Giuliani already stated he doesnt want the job.. In addition to Christie (no thanks) is Trey Gowdy. Absent a qualified person from the FBI or DOJ I would like to see Gowdy in there. Clark is a probable no since he has no prosecutorial experience, which while not required for the FBI director its something that is considered given their attachment to the DOJ.

Also Clark is actually a politician. Sheriff's are elected positions.

Ahh, good catch.

But might not be enough?

Then again, that's what the DOJ is for.

So all things being equal, he can actually be considered for the position.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

So is Obama unamerican when he banned media from covering his meeting with Muslim American leaders at the White House?

Did he invite Al-Jazeera to the meeting while banning American Reporters?

Otherwise WTF are you talking about??

Trump is sick in the head...

What part of me saying Obama refused media access for when he met with Muslim American leaders confused you? Your the one who called Trump un american for banning the press. I am using your standard and applying it to Obama.

Or are you trying to feign ignorance in order to avoid calling obama un american for the same behavior you dont like in trump?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Indigo5
AMERICAN reporters were not allowed to photograph the meeting...Only Russian journalists..

Incorrect.

Both countries official photographers were present.

No journalists.

The picture you have posted was released by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. White House could do the same, but has not. No idea why.

NOPE..Not the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Photographer..

But the meeting was closed press, meaning the rotating pool of photographers, reporters and camera operators who follow the president weren't allowed in. Yet photos of the three laughing and smiling were soon published by the Russian state news agency TASS. The Russian foreign ministry also tweeted photos of the meeting.

www.politico.com...
twitter.com...

a reply to: burgerbuddy

As a voter for Trump and a supposed Libertarian, I would want the head of the FBI to be completely indifferent towards Trump. IDK if it is even possible in this political climate but a man can wish!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

So is Obama unamerican when he banned media from covering his meeting with Muslim American leaders at the White House?

Did he invite Al-Jazeera to the meeting while banning American Reporters?

Otherwise WTF are you talking about??

Trump is sick in the head...

What part of me saying Obama refused media access for when he met with Muslim American leaders confused you? Your the one who called Trump un american for banning the press. I am using your standard and applying it to Obama.

Having meetings that are closed to the press does happen..

Having meetings that are closed to American Press while not allowing American Press in?

Are you unable to differentiate?

a reply to: Indigo5
There are no words for your level of desperation....

Read what you bolded...slowly. Now, think real, real hard.

State....news...agency....state?

Oh, you mean the Russians publish their official photographer's work through their official state run news? Say it ain't so!!!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Well then you should inform Trey Gowdy (House Intel Committee) that he was wrong when he called for her to be subpoenaed.

Another inability to differentiate..

Trey Gowdy was talking # when he said Susan Rice should be subpoenaed ...as it hasn't happened and no one of reasonable mind left or right sees a reason to. That was political posing Gowdyness like usual.

WHILE...Yes...Michael Flynn was issued a subpoena today by the Senate Intelligence Committee..

And multiple business partners of his have reported receiving FBI Grand Jury Subpoenas for all their records pertaining to deals with Michael Flynn.


One was someone pandering to people like yourself saying Susan rice should be Subpoenaed..

The others are ACTUAL Subpoenas issued by a Grand Jury and a Senate Intelligence Committee where the ranking GOP member had to sign off.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Well then you should inform Trey Gowdy (House Intel Committee) that he was wrong when he called for her to be subpoenaed.


Yes, I know about the Grand Jury subpoenas.. You, again, misdeed the point. Grand Jury actions are SECRET, meaning that was a leak. So we get a leak that subpoenas were issued yet NO leaks of incriminating evidence involving Trump...

I see why you dont want to address that point but there are the facts.

It is also likely that a Grand Jury would not know that the subpoenas were issued until the subject was in front of them or notified. IF there are in fact subpoenas still being issued, then there is still an open case.

A subpoena issued by a Federal grand Jury, in order to secure a person under investigation to comply, has to be approved by a Us Attorney and the Grand Jury.

Source

9-11.150 - Subpoenaing Targets of the Investigation

A grand jury may properly subpoena a subject or a target of the investigation and question the target about his or her involvement in the crime under investigation. See United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 179 n. 8 (1977); United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 190 n. 6 (1977); United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 573-75 and 584 n. 9 (1976); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 10 n. 8 (1973). However, in the context of particular cases such a subpoena may carry the appearance of unfairness. Because the potential for misunderstanding is great, before a known "target" (as defined in USAM 9-11.151) is subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury about his or her involvement in the crime under investigation, an effort should be made to secure the target's voluntary appearance. If a voluntary appearance cannot be obtained, the target should be subpoenaed only after the grand jury and the United States A ttorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General have approved the subpoena. In determining whether to approve a subpoena for a "target," careful attention will be paid to the following considerations:

The importance to the successful conduct of the grand jury's investigation of the testimony or other information sought;

Whether the substance of the testimony or other information sought could be provided by other witnesses; and

Whether the questions the prosecutor and the grand jurors intend to ask or the other information sought would be protected by a valid claim of privilege.