It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Trump Fires James Comey

page: 68
144
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


"Its a valid request since Comey, as FBI director, would fall under the executive privilege clause ."


Yup - thr Dir. is named with a ten year tenure (to assure impartiality)
However, nothing impedes The President to end that tenure.



However his termination was for more than just that


So it would seem to us openly conspiracy minded people
as too a certain 'listening public'



It looks like media is trolling in hopes of catching something else.

That's the whole 'intrigue' to the Trump phenomenon

where truths become untruths
and vague truthiness is normal

Any how ....more serious questions await us :
Why is Sean Spicer being sidelined !?!




posted on May, 10 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Acting President.. There is a difference as the President can only serve 8 years. The extension you are talking about is not as President but acting President.

Thats not semantics but the facts.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Damiel

Spicer is not sidelined. He is a Commander in the US Navy reserve and is currently TAD / assigned / whatever you want to call it to the Pentagon for his required yearly commitment.
edit on 10-5-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Acting President.. There is a difference as the President can only serve 8 years. The extension you are talking about is not as President but acting President.

Thats not semantics but the facts.


I acknowledged that in my last post, because I'm an adult. What he's called when he performs the same duties as the President is the very definition of semantics though. Anyway, since you were so concerned with context, the max you'd have to put up with Trump is 10 years, which was the point. I'm glad you learned something new.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Lets settle this, both you guys are right.

I learned something from the conversation, thats why I'm here.

Thank you for both your contributions.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Wouldn't it be longer than 10 years since Trump would have to be President, become Vice President, meaning he would have to run as a Vice President candidate in a new election, then move back to acting President, then run as President again?

and I didnt learn anything new.. As I stated it is a max of 8 years, not 10, since the 2 you keep pushing is an acting capacity and not president. No oath.
edit on 10-5-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Xcathdra

Malfoy!...That's who Trey Gowdy looks like! Malfoy from Harry Potter..

What a dufus..





And...







posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Wouldn't it be longer than 10 years since Trump would have to be President, become Vice President, meaning he would have to run as a Vice President candidate in a new election, then move back to acting President, then run as President again?

and I didnt learn anything new.. As I stated it is a max of 8 years, not 10, since the 2 you keep pushing is an acting capacity and not president. No oath.


No what I'm saying is if you are VP, take over after the first year and finish the remaining 3 years, you are only allowed to seek re-election once, for a total of 7 years. If you ran after that and served 4 more years, you'd have served 11. Only 7 of them would've been as "President", but obviously the intent of the law is that President and "Acting-President" are basically the same thing, so they only want you serving 10 years of any combination of either. They're treated the same in the law you quoted. Nobody called Ford "Mr. Acting President" while he finished out Nixon's term. For all intents and purposes, he was the President. As I said, it's the very definition of semantics.

I actually didn't know he was technically acting-President in that circumstance. I knew when Johnson took over for Kennedy he was administered the oath of office. I didn't realize they had changed it after that. However, obviously neither did you, you just found that out now. If you knew about the "acting President" you would've brought it up 4 pages ago. So all this time you've been arguing from an incorrect position and just came across a technicality that saved your ass. Congrats. You were still wrong when you thought Trump could only serve 8 years. You can pretend you knew that from the beginning but that would've been in your first response if you did. Let's get real here. And either way you could wind up dealing with Trump for 10 years.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Wouldn't it be longer than 10 years since Trump would have to be President, become Vice President, meaning he would have to run as a Vice President candidate in a new election, then move back to acting President, then run as President again?

and I didnt learn anything new.. As I stated it is a max of 8 years, not 10, since the 2 you keep pushing is an acting capacity and not president. No oath.


No what I'm saying is if you are VP, take over after the first year and finish the remaining 3 years, you are only allowed to seek re-election once, for a total of 7 years. If you ran after that and served 4 more years, you'd have served 11. Only 7 of them would've been as "President", but obviously the intent of the law is that President and "Acting-President" are basically the same thing, so they only want you serving 10 years of any combination of either. They're treated the same in the law you quoted. Nobody called Ford "Mr. Acting President" while he finished out Nixon's term. For all intents and purposes, he was the President. As I said, it's the very definition of semantics.

I actually didn't know he was technically acting-President in that circumstance. I knew when Johnson took over for Kennedy he was administered the oath of office. I didn't realize they had changed it after that. However, obviously neither did you, you just found that out now. If you knew about the "acting President" you would've brought it up 4 pages ago. So all this time you've been arguing from an incorrect position and just came across a technicality that saved your ass. Congrats. You were still wrong when you thought Trump could only serve 8 years. You can pretend you knew that from the beginning but that would've been in your first response if you did. Let's get real here. And either way you could wind up dealing with Trump for 10 years.


This is also why Obama or any other 2-term President can't run on a future ticket as the VP. If he had to take over, he wouldn't be President, only "Acting-President", but they still don't want you serving more than 10 years as either of which are effectively the same position. Cool find though, I did learn something new in regard to the official title when the VP takes over.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

and yet he can still subpoena Susan Rice.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Your fun fact of the day is while Trump is the 46th President of the US, we have only had 45 people serve as President.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Some interesting information -


Judicial Watch Sues State Department for Records of Alleged Russian Tampering in the 2016 Election that were Shared with Senator Benjamin Cardin


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State for all records provided by them to Senator Benjamin Cardin’s office related to alleged Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-00852)).

The suit was filed after the State Department failed to respond to a March 2, 2017, FOIA request seeking:

All records provided by any official, employee, or representative of the Department of State to Senator Ben Cardin, any member of his staff, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and/or any Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member regarding, concerning, or related to efforts by the Russian Government to affect, manipulate, or influence any election in the United States or any foreign country from November 8, 2016 to present.

The Obama Administration reportedly spread information about alleged Russian efforts to undermine the 2016 presidential election:

There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress. In one instance, the State Department sent a cache of documents marked “secret” to Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland days before the Jan. 20 inauguration. The documents, detailing Russian efforts to intervene in elections worldwide, were sent in response to a request from Mr. Cardin, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and were shared with Republicans on the panel.

This is the fourth Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (see here, here, here) related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates.

“Did the Obama State Department improperly share classified information with a Democrat Senator as part of an anti-Trump scheme?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Needless to say, the Senate won’t be investigating Senator Cardin’s role in any potential violations of law, but Judicial Watch is going to federal court to do just that.”



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Your fun fact of the day is while Trump is the 46th President of the US, we have only had 45 people serve as President.
Now I have to ask why is that?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for Sally Yates’ Emails While She Served as Trump Acting Attorney General


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for emails of former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates from her government account. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-00832)).

The suit was filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to a February 1, 2017, FOIA request seeking access to her emails between January 21, 2017, and January 31, 2017.

Yates was appointed by President Obama as U.S. Attorney in northern Georgia and was later confirmed as Deputy Attorney General. In January 2017 she became acting Attorney General for President Trump.

Ms. Yates was involved in the controversy concerning Gen. Michael Flynn, allegedly warning the Trump White House in early January about General Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak. (Judicial Watch is separately suing for records concerning the surveillance and subsequent leaks regarding General Flynn.)

On January 30, Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s January 27 executive order seeking a travel ban from seven Middle Eastern countries. That same day, President Trump fired her for refusing to defend the action.

“Between her involvement in the Russian surveillance scandal and her lawless effort to thwart President Trump’s immigration executive order, Sally Yates’ short tenure as the acting Attorney General was remarkably troubling,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Her email traffic might provide a window into how the anti-Trump ‘deep state’ abused the Justice Department.”



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Your fun fact of the day is while Trump is the 46th President of the US, we have only had 45 people serve as President.

Yeah one served twice but it wasn't consecutive terms. The name escapes me at the moment. I could've Googled it to look smarter but I have this nagging integrity thing.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Your fun fact of the day is while Trump is the 46th President of the US, we have only had 45 people serve as President.
Now I have to ask why is that?


Grover Cleveland was elected President in 1885 and became the 22nd President. He lost reelection to Benjamin Harrison, ran again and won the Presidency in 1893. Because another person was elected after his first term, he became the 24th President of the US on his second election.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Your fun fact of the day is while Trump is the 46th President of the US, we have only had 45 people serve as President.

Yeah one served twice but it wasn't consecutive terms. The name escapes me at the moment. I could've Googled it to look smarter but I have this nagging integrity thing.


This is the interwebz... integrity be damned



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Your fun fact of the day is while Trump is the 46th President of the US, we have only had 45 people serve as President.

Yeah one served twice but it wasn't consecutive terms. The name escapes me at the moment. I could've Googled it to look smarter but I have this nagging integrity thing.


This is the interwebz... integrity be damned


One thing I think we can agree on is it appears we badly derailed this thread.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Most likely yes so my apologies to the thread OP.

I posted 2 articles above regarding judicial watches lawsuits to gain access to files given to congress regarding the Russia tampering issue and Yates when she was acting AG.

So far no Democrats can adequately answer why Trump was wrong to fire Comey when Democrats were calling for him to be fired since the election.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Chaffetz asks Justice Dept to investigate Comey firing


Share to Facebook
3.1KShare to Twitter
Share to Google+

Chaffetz asks Justice Dept to investigate Comey firing
© Greg Nash

The chairman of the House Oversight Committee is calling for the Justice Department's inspector general to look into the circumstances surrounding President Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.

"Previously I asked Inspector General Horowitz to review the FBI’s actions in advance of the 2016 election," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in a statement Wednesday.

"Today I sent a letter urging IG Horowitz to expand the scope of his review to include the decision to fire Director Comey. I look forward to receiving the IG’s findings."

The inspector general is also probing the Justice Department's and the FBI's handling of their investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server in the months before the 2016 presidential election.


click link for entire article.



new topics

top topics



 
144
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join