President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

The fact is that Trump can #can his ass for any reason, anytime.

He doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

Tell me no one saw it coming. lol.

Comey sealed his fate with the press conference where he laid out the case against Clinton and it was confirmed when Trump won.

Is comey a secret russian?

According to some Democrats any republican who questions the Russia narrative is colluding with Russia.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

You may not have political leanings

I do have political leanings, just not the traditional Left or Right.

but you are mistaken here. No man of integrity would've laid out the case he laid out against Clinton and not recommended charges.

That's a huge topic to undertake and has been in many other threads. Comey followed precedence and proper interpretation of existing law. Clinton should not have been brought-up on charges.

He's either corrupt, or Lynch and/or Obama have dirt on him and forced him to do that.

Can you prove any of that?

Just the publicly available information that Clinton has admitted to is enough to convict her, nevermind all the deep details that we don't know about.

No, it's not. If it was, why hasn't charges been filed? Remember when Comey said "any reasonable prosecutor would take this to court"? Well, turns out he was right.

No one has stepped to the plate.

Anyone who knows anything about classified info knows what she did was illegal, and Comey absolutely knows that.

Another logical fallacy. We've had many on this very website claim to be experts in classified info and almost all of them were wrong.

Also, we know she committed illegal acts, but they were so minor that it would have been handled internally within the SD, not taken to the courts. Comey also said that.

If you think Clinton shouldn't have faced charges, you are either outside your realm of knowledge or have more left political leanings than you realize. I don't care what others here claim. I know what I did in the service, I know you cannot legally do what she did with classified info, and I don't need to have that shoveled to me by my favorite news source, I know it for a fact. You can twist all you want, but nothing you say will change that. She belongs in prison. What she did was highly illegal, and everyone who helped her do it belongs with her.

You wanna talk about logical fallacies, thinking because someone wasn't charged means they're innocent is a bigtime logical fallacy and simply not based in reality. You sound like the brainless Clinton worshippers Mr. No Traditional Political Leanings

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

It would have leaked... Just like any evidence of collusion would have leaked.

If I had to put my finger on it, this is probably one of the biggest sticking points for me on these threads.
Purely opinion, but I'm just not convinced that any evidence would have necessarily leaked.
Maybe I'm just being naive in my faith in the FBI and the IC in general, but the nature of the evidence just has such explosive potential... Not saying there's a smoking gun by any means. My guess is that if there's anything at all, it's one giant puzzle, and they have to connect the dots one painful point at a time. Take the whole FISA warrant thing with Page. I know I keep going back to that, but if they got that renewed multiple times, imagine the amount of data they have to crunch now--new characters to look into, etc.

Well we had an example earlier in this thread, albeit from a questionable source, that the FBI leaked their were pending raids. Even if that's not true, these things have been known to happen. There have been plenty of anti-Trump leaks, not sure why it would be so hard for you to believe if there was another one?

Primarily because leaking the actual evidence can have such dire consequences for the entire probe--tainting the evidence, compromising the investigation, tipping people off (similar to what we were saying earlier), etc. If I'm working in the IC or as part of the FBI probe, why would I want to risk scuttling the whole thing?

Granted, someone could be pissed enough to let something out--and that could work both ways. Maybe someone with an axe to grind with Comey decides to try to sink the whole thing in that very way. Or, conversely, maybe now someone's pissed enough about Comey being fired to let a little nugget or two out--what that looks like, I don't know. You're right to point out that there have been plenty of anti-Trump leaks--the whole Flynn thing being an excellent example. They aren't necessarily evidentiary in nature--more along the lines of those nuggets to fan the fire. Whether or not they came from the FBI is, of course, a matter of speculation. DC is leaky town.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

That's actually really good leadership to personally not like the guy but wait until an impartial 3rd party tells you you do have legit reasons to fire him. Many "leaders" just make decisions like this based on personal bias.

I suppose that's one way to spin it. In one post you said Trump just said "ok" to the recommendation and in the next you say it's great leadership to wait for an impartial 3rd party opinion.

a reply to: introvert

You worked for the Clinton campaign did you not? I remember you talking about it back during the election.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

You may not have political leanings

I do have political leanings, just not the traditional Left or Right.

but you are mistaken here. No man of integrity would've laid out the case he laid out against Clinton and not recommended charges.

That's a huge topic to undertake and has been in many other threads. Comey followed precedence and proper interpretation of existing law. Clinton should not have been brought-up on charges.

He's either corrupt, or Lynch and/or Obama have dirt on him and forced him to do that.

Can you prove any of that?

Just the publicly available information that Clinton has admitted to is enough to convict her, nevermind all the deep details that we don't know about.

No, it's not. If it was, why hasn't charges been filed? Remember when Comey said "any reasonable prosecutor would take this to court"? Well, turns out he was right.

No one has stepped to the plate.

Anyone who knows anything about classified info knows what she did was illegal, and Comey absolutely knows that.

Another logical fallacy. We've had many on this very website claim to be experts in classified info and almost all of them were wrong.

Also, we know she committed illegal acts, but they were so minor that it would have been handled internally within the SD, not taken to the courts. Comey also said that.

And how the hell was that supposed to work when she no longer worked there?!

That's another pile of BS he threw out there.

Minor my ass. NOT HIS CALL!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

That's actually really good leadership to personally not like the guy but wait until an impartial 3rd party tells you you do have legit reasons to fire him. Many "leaders" just make decisions like this based on personal bias.

I suppose that's one way to spin it. In one post you said Trump just said "ok" to the recommendation and in the next you say it's great leadership to wait for an impartial 3rd party opinion.

So after he said ok to the recommendation he was still waiting for the recommendation? Might want to rethink that chief.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

The fact is that Trump can #can his ass for any reason, anytime.

Just because he can, does not me he should.

He doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

Yes, he does. He has to explain it to us, the people he governs. He is not an almighty dictator and he has to answer for his actions.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
If someone is going to be fired from any position, regardless of the level, I'd like to think they lost that job for just reasons.

What people feel and what they "wonder" is irrelevant.

But, you are essentially wondering if Comey lost his job for reasons that you consider 'just.'

We should all be asking why he did this.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

The fact is that Trump can #can his ass for any reason, anytime.

Just because he can, does not me he should.

He doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

Yes, he does. He has to explain it to us, the people he governs. He is not an almighty dictator and he has to answer for his actions.

He actually doesn't. We can refuse to vote for him next election but those are the only consequences he would face. He is not required in any way shape or form.

a reply to: introvert

No really he doesnt.

a reply to: introvert

Every person I know -- left and right -- wanted Comey fired, at some point. I don't need any reason from Trump. I think Comey is a corrupt sleazebag.

originally posted by: face23785
If you think Clinton shouldn't have faced charges, you are either outside your realm of knowledge or have more left political leanings than you realize.

So let me get this straight, if someone decides to follow the code of law as it is written, then they must be left leaning? What does that say about the right then? Assuming inverse logic.

I don't care what others here claim. I know what I did in the service, I know you cannot legally do what she did with classified info, and I don't need to have that shoveled to me by my favorite news source, I know it for a fact.

What you "did in the service" has no merit in this discussion. The discussion is litigious and unless you commit a crime in the Military, it is not.

You can twist all you want, but nothing you say will change that. She belongs in prison. What she did was highly illegal, and everyone who helped her do it belongs with her.

No, you can twist all you want, but you haven't the slightest idea what youre talking about.

You wanna talk about logical fallacies, thinking because someone wasn't charged means they're innocent is a bigtime logical fallacy and simply not based in reality. You sound like the brainless Clinton worshippers Mr. No Traditional Political Leanings

The only logical fallacy here is in thinking that anyone here who "claims to know" the working of S, and TS documentation would actually be on this site and actually making that claim. They would know better.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No one debates that.

Donald Trump tweets to Rosie ODonnell that they finally agree on something

a reply to: face23785

If you think Clinton shouldn't have faced charges, you are either outside your realm of knowledge or have more left political leanings than you realize.

Actually, I was almost spot-on with my assessment of the Clinton email issue. I will not be baited by such an ignorant ad hom.

I don't care what others here claim. I know what I did in the service, I know you cannot legally do what she did with classified info, and I don't need to have that shoveled to me by my favorite news source, I know it for a fact.

Yet another logical fallacy. I don't care what you did in the service. You could be lying for all I know.

You can twist all you want, but nothing you say will change that.

No need to twist. My assessment is corroborated by the fact she is not in jail, or in the courts.

You wanna talk about logical fallacies, thinking because someone wasn't charged means they're innocent is a bigtime logical fallacy and simply not based in reality. You sound like the brainless Clinton worshippers Mr. No Traditional Political Leanings

Another personal attack.

Let's stick to the topic and not let your emotions cloud your ability to effectively debate. I have no desire or time to trade punches with the immature.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

You worked for the Clinton campaign did you not? I remember you talking about it back during the election.

No. I did not. That point has already been addressed earlier in the thread.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Some of the most flagrant bull# is credited to persons "close to the White House". Based on what's been reported so far, it's safe to conclude there is a veritable legion of trolls "close to the White House", or perhaps just one big alpha troll.

Whoever it may be, they can apparently spew whatever crap stories they want, get them published by news outlets, sully their already dubious reputations and rely on their willing stooges not to reveal them as a source. Pretty sweet deal.

Why do I get the feeling Steve Bannon is behind this? I don't know if he is, but if he is, he's doing a damn good job of sabotaging the media.

At this rate, nobody will believe anything they read anymore, and they will be right not to.

a reply to: introvert

Yes, he does. He has to explain it to us, the people he governs. He is not an almighty dictator and he has to answer for his actions.

Actually, as far as his employees go, he IS pretty much an almighty dictator. Now, if you want to demand an explanation, that's fine... but Trump is not required to give it. You just get to vote him out in 2020 if you think he's doing a bad job.

Irony: I highly doubt any explanation would affect that vote, so what does he have to lose?

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785
a reply to: Xcathdra

So you don't think the President works for the American people and his authority questioned?

Well, forgive me. I thought it was our job as responsible citizens to hold our leader's feet to the fire. Perhaps I should learn to lay down and become a sheep.

Requires less thought. Sounds amusing.