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: 73
144
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: andrewh7

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am surprised that it took this long for it to happen.
I guess the AG was getting all of his ducks in a row.


The attorney general recused himself from the Russia investigation due to his own involvement. He then recommends firing the guy in charge of the Russia investigation. The letter from Trump makes a point of repeating, "You said you're not investigating me. Thanks for that. So, me firing you clearly isn't intended to disrupt that investigation. Okay. You're fired. Goodbye."

For a conspiracy forum, the number of you who see no problem with this is shocking. Trump was applauding wikileaks for dumping the emails on the web, and now we're supposed to believe that he fired someone for not investigating an attack on his political opponent. That's ridiculous.


We don't have a problem with it because unlike you, most of us have a clue how these investigations work. It wasn't being done by Comey, firing him doesn't impact the investigation at all. The dozens of agents who were working on it will continue to work on it under the acting Director for now (who by the way is a hardcore Democrat and now has access to everything, so if there was something Trump was trying to cover up he would know about it) and under the new Director, whoever that may be. Get informed.


originally posted by: reaganero
The repubes are pretending like there's nothing to hide. Love it.
Trump asks Sessions to find reasons to fire Comey because Comey asked Sessions for money to investigate russiagate.

Believe me.
Bigly.
Sad.


Yeah zero proof that that happened. The recommendation to fire Comey didn't come from Sessions. Get informed, then post. You're embarrassing yourself.


originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: peck420

No American media was in the room.
They weren't allowed.


This is fake news.


originally posted by: Sillyolme
Investigation picking up pace after Comey is ousted.
Senate committee demands Flynn docs
Crisis deepens at Whitehouse.

That's just some of the crawl on tv right now.


But Trump firing Comey was supposed to protect him right? Wrong. Investigations will continue, the firing changes nothing. Thanks for your help demonstrating that.


originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

No I understood what you were saying and was correcting you.


You didn't correct anything. Trump can serve 10 years. You were wrong. Sorry.


Trumps not going to finish out this term so that's a moot point.
You spent two pages trolling the thread with off topic posts.


So if I DM you every day for the next 4 years asking you when he's getting impeached, you won't cry or report me for harassment? Because this projection is based on nothing concrete at all.


originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Indigo5

Starting to sound like Nixon's weekend trying to get someone to fire Cox.


It actually doesn't look like that at all to anyone remotely familiar with history. Keep up the lies and fearmongering. It really worked well in November.




posted on May, 11 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
First pitch to McCabe...

Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.

Moving on to General Stewart.

This looks like McCabe is going to duck the near term controversy...I am off to work and will have to check back to see if McCabe actually opts to throw punches vs. duck.


Actually it looks like McCabe is going to not answer any question he doesn't have the answer to. Did you want him to just make something up like the rest of you do?



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Well at least he's not crazy.
He's a spineless jellyfish but he's not nuts.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Admiral Rodgers just said the IC is aware of the Russians trying to influence the French election. Wow, they must have soooo much power to influence elections. Le Pen only lost by 32 points.

Another fantasy shattered.
edit on 11 5 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Admiral Rodgers just said the IC is aware of the Russians trying to influence the French election. Wow, they must have soooo much power to influence elections. Le Pen only lost by 32 points.

Another fantasy shattered.

Obama tried to influence elections in France and the UK.
No hearings about that.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Don't forget Israel.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5
First pitch to McCabe...

Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.

Moving on to General Stewart.

This looks like McCabe is going to duck the near term controversy...I am off to work and will have to check back to see if McCabe actually opts to throw punches vs. duck.


Actually it looks like McCabe is going to not answer any question he doesn't have the answer to. Did you want him to just make something up like the rest of you do?


How could he not have an answer to what his ears have heard?

--
Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.
--

He could have answered "no"..and that would have given nothing away but the facts..

The fact he never heard Comey say that, doesn't mean Comey didn't say it, just that McCabe was never personally heard Comey say it.

Instead he gave the political answer above...non answer...

Answering "No" also would have been a provocation/challenge to Trump's ego and narrative...and would have been a News talking Point.

McCabe ducked it. That is fine.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Senator Wyden just straight up lied. He said Trump asked Russia to attack our democracy. Trump challenged Russia to find the 30K emails Clinton said she deleted. She insisted they were all personal emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. Unless she was lying, what threat would that pose to our democracy?



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5
First pitch to McCabe...

Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.

Moving on to General Stewart.

This looks like McCabe is going to duck the near term controversy...I am off to work and will have to check back to see if McCabe actually opts to throw punches vs. duck.


Actually it looks like McCabe is going to not answer any question he doesn't have the answer to. Did you want him to just make something up like the rest of you do?


How could he not have an answer to what his ears have heard?

--
Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.
--

He could have answered "no"..and that would have given nothing away but the facts..

The fact he never heard Comey say that, doesn't mean Comey didn't say it, just that McCabe was never personally heard Comey say it.

Instead he gave the political answer above...non answer...

Answering "No" also would have been a provocation/challenge to Trump's ego and narrative...and would have been a News talking Point.

McCabe ducked it. That is fine.


He did say no. "I can't answer that" the obvious reason being that he wasn't present for such a conversation. If he wasn't present, he can't answer. Keep making things up though. That's fine.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Well I'm sixty so I lived that history.
And I was just as engaged in politics then as I am now.
Not to mention all the rehashing being done now with old footage.
It's quite nostalgic actually.
Names I hadn't thought about in years.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Admiral Rodgers just said the IC is aware of the Russians trying to influence the French election. Wow, they must have soooo much power to influence elections. Le Pen only lost by 32 points.

Another fantasy shattered.


(A) They had less material on Macron since he was new and unexpected. The hacking was last minute scramble.
(B) They released the emails two-days before elections..but French Media refused to cover it/black-out.
(C) The French people have watched Trump's rise in horror, followed the Russian interference news and thus were less easily manipulated and were turned off by the propaganda. All they had to do was look at the US President to see what their future might look like.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
money laundering concern the fbi greatly! (McCabe)

my opinion, trump up to his eyeballs in it.
edit on 11-5-2017 by knoxie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The key word is tried.
They weren't successful .
But they still tried.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't get it...does it matter why he fired him? He can fire him for any reason other than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

I guess I am not seeing why it even matters and is worth probing.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

With endorsements???
Not quite the same as hacking a candidates computer system.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5
First pitch to McCabe...

Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.

Moving on to General Stewart.

This looks like McCabe is going to duck the near term controversy...I am off to work and will have to check back to see if McCabe actually opts to throw punches vs. duck.


Actually it looks like McCabe is going to not answer any question he doesn't have the answer to. Did you want him to just make something up like the rest of you do?


How could he not have an answer to what his ears have heard?

--
Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.
--

He could have answered "no"..and that would have given nothing away but the facts..

The fact he never heard Comey say that, doesn't mean Comey didn't say it, just that McCabe was never personally heard Comey say it.

Instead he gave the political answer above...non answer...

Answering "No" also would have been a provocation/challenge to Trump's ego and narrative...and would have been a News talking Point.

McCabe ducked it. That is fine.


He did say no. "I can't answer that" the obvious reason being that he wasn't present for such a conversation. If he wasn't present, he can't answer. Keep making things up though. That's fine.


I think anger or something is twisting up your cognition.

"Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President. "

That is not "no"
That is not "he wasn't present for such a conversation"

He said he CANT COMMENT on ANY CONVERSATION the Director might have had with the President.

That means what it means...Doesn't say if he was there, or if he heard any conversation...Or if he was never there or never heard that conversation....It says he CANT COMMENT...ANY CONVERSATION..

It was a highly safe and highly political answer..



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Well I'm sixty so I lived that history.
And I was just as engaged in politics then as I am now.
Not to mention all the rehashing being done now with old footage.
It's quite nostalgic actually.
Names I hadn't thought about in years.


So you should know that Nixon tried to fire the guy who was actually conducting the investigation and there was already a ton of information showing he had engaged in a number of corrupt activities.

To date there's zero evidence available of the Trump/Russia connection, as testified before Congress by numerous IC official and admitted by numerous Dem officials. And the guy Trump fired wasn't the person conducting the investigation, and the firing will have zero impact on the investigation.

So, being that you lived through it and are living through this now, either your memory is faulty or you are knowingly spreading what you are aware are false implications that they are in any way similar, because they're not. So read up and refresh your memory or stop lying. Thanks.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785




So read up and refresh your memory or stop lying. Thanks.

There is an established theme of that.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785
Admiral Rodgers just said the IC is aware of the Russians trying to influence the French election. Wow, they must have soooo much power to influence elections. Le Pen only lost by 32 points.

Another fantasy shattered.


(A) They had less material on Macron since he was new and unexpected. The hacking was last minute scramble.
(B) They released the emails two-days before elections..but French Media refused to cover it/black-out.
(C) The French people have watched Trump's rise in horror, followed the Russian interference news and thus were less easily manipulated and were turned off by the propaganda. All they had to do was look at the US President to see what their future might look like.


Cool excuses. If they were in any way effective she'd be a lot closer than 32 points. Thanks for playing.


originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5
First pitch to McCabe...

Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.

Moving on to General Stewart.

This looks like McCabe is going to duck the near term controversy...I am off to work and will have to check back to see if McCabe actually opts to throw punches vs. duck.


Actually it looks like McCabe is going to not answer any question he doesn't have the answer to. Did you want him to just make something up like the rest of you do?


How could he not have an answer to what his ears have heard?

--
Have you ever heard Director Comey give assurances to the President that he was not the subject of an investigation?

A: Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President.
--

He could have answered "no"..and that would have given nothing away but the facts..

The fact he never heard Comey say that, doesn't mean Comey didn't say it, just that McCabe was never personally heard Comey say it.

Instead he gave the political answer above...non answer...

Answering "No" also would have been a provocation/challenge to Trump's ego and narrative...and would have been a News talking Point.

McCabe ducked it. That is fine.


He did say no. "I can't answer that" the obvious reason being that he wasn't present for such a conversation. If he wasn't present, he can't answer. Keep making things up though. That's fine.


I think anger or something is twisting up your cognition.

"Sir, I can not comment on any conversation the Director might have had with the President. "

That is not "no"
That is not "he wasn't present for such a conversation"

He said he CANT COMMENT on ANY CONVERSATION the Director might have had with the President.

That means what it means...Doesn't say if he was there, or if he heard any conversation...Or if he was never there or never heard that conversation....It says he CANT COMMENT...ANY CONVERSATION..

It was a highly safe and highly political answer..


And I think you're wrong. Providing a wordy answer that amounts to "no" is still a "no". Your partisan bias is blinding you.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

But he did ask them to do that.
It doesn't matter what was in the emails. Trump asked them to continue hacking when the DNC emails were being released and everybody including trump knew it was Russia. Otherwise why would trump make his appeal to Russia. Right there on the tv for all to see and hear?



new topics

top topics



 
144
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join