President Trump Fires James Comey

News, news, the new FBI director can open up Hillary case, again as the immunity deals were not permanent.

Just now in Fox.

Hell yeah, Comey will be part in the investigation because his ties to the Clintons and associates and the millions he made working for them.

He is now a private citizen.

Comey was corrupted by the Clintons.

a reply to: introvert

Because it was not illegal.

I strongly, strongly suggest you not test that theory.

Wasn't even followed-up on. Wasn't illegal, apparently.

Xcathdra already pointed that out. Probably should have been, though, in hindsight.

TheRedneck

a reply to: marg6043

Can but doesnt mean they will...

Although I am a huge proponent of going after clinton, and obama and any other public official.

To explain the immunity issue -
Immunity is granted with caveats, usually to provide evidence / testimony against someone else. If you are granted immunity and you fail to cooperate or somehow lie / mislead immunity is revoked and any info you gave can then be used against you and the person you were helping to bury.

There is evidence the people granted immunity failed to cooperate and lied in testimony.

a reply to: marg6043

Been expecting this revelation...good catch!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: alphabetaone

If I could butt in.

It matters when the AG goes on record as stating before his announcement that she would go with whatever he (Comey) suggests.

Planes and ex-presidents were also in the news around that time......

Yeah, I have some reservations about what she did was legal.

It was like she didn't even give a rats what he found or recommended.

How blatant can one get?

Hope they look into that move, too.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not, why? because is about time that the corruption behind the Clintons and the illegal doings that the Obama administration did comes to the light.

The big scandal is not and never has been Russia, it is and always has been the Clintons and the former administrational abuse of power while abusing the spying agencies, in behave of Hillary.

That will be a scandal like no other in the political history of this nation.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

She and the majority of Democrats and media knew she would be President. Had that occurred she could have just pardoned herself / replaced comey / had Lynch bury the investigation (or at least rig it where no charges would come).

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think if there was a hidden agenda, this was it. By firing Comey out of the blue, after Rosenstein had time to look at the prior investigations, Trump took out Hillary's major protection without losing any of the data collected on her.

Not to mention anyone else the FBI was protecting... I wonder if Pelosi still has fingernails?

Surprise!

TheRedneck

Ugh, I thought I was out of this discussion but I just have to clarify something about precedent. Precedent isn't a rule but a suggestion. If you get as similar case under similar circumstances, you can do x because that's what we did before. That's all it is. If precedent was the end all, be all of legalism they could've just changed the law to require intent as the threshold for prosecution. Anyone with any legal experience knows that precedent is only precedent until something more serious happens, and then a new decision should be made.

There have indeed been plenty of minor cases that were not prosecuted because there was no intent, that is true. However, such a precedent is not normally applied by prosecutors to a more grave violation, because that's just not the same as a minor violation obviously. All the "precedents" Dems like to cite are not even close to what Clinton was documented as having done, which is why those precedents wouldn't apply. There was no precedent of such a serious violation. Not to mention, as someone posted, Comey himself stated there's no way Clinton didn't know what she was doing, proving what I asserted earlier in the thread that with her experience and training it would be inconceivable that she could not know she was breaking the law. If you know you're breaking the law and do it, that's intent. No matter how you spin it, that's intent, by any definition, legal or otherwise. Dems and closet Dems who pretend they have no traditional political leanings can pretend otherwise all they want, but she clearly would've had to know the proper procedures and what was legal and what wasn't, and willfully disregarded that.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

IMO they wouldn't find anything. I doubt there was a recording and I STRONGLY doubt either would tell the truth anyway. Actions speak louder than words.

a reply to: marg6043

I am not clear on what your asking me.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The issue now is McCabe, who failed to disclose his wife got 700k in donations from Clinton / DNC for her political run. He is now in charge with full access.

Although I would think with the scrutiny that trying to remove stuff would be risky.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh not asking I am just posting what I heard in the news, and just voicing my opinion.

That's all.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh not asking I am just posting what I heard in the news, and just voicing my opinion.

That's all.

my bad

a reply to: face23785

Wow there she is with a microphone in that photo, where's the tape of that?

a reply to: Xcathdra

With Rosenstein watching, there won't be any data come up missing, and McCabe is temporary. They'll have a shiny new director soon enough, and one that is not beholding to Clinton.

I'm going out on a limb here... by the time all is said and done, expect to see sensitive information worthy of blackmail to be found on several public officials... including Supreme Court Justices.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: burgerbuddy

IMO they wouldn't find anything. I doubt there was a recording and I STRONGLY doubt either would tell the truth anyway. Actions speak louder than words.

Recording of what?

She's on record saying she will go along comey's recommendation.

Besides, she met with bill with no...oh this part is what you are talking about.

Well, no matter, it might be an egregious lapse of protocol or something but just an investigation will squash her speaking fees.

She can go to work for holder protecting illegals.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh my, I been trying to speculate how important was Comey to the Clintons and the reason why Hillary has been able to sail under pressure of investigations.

I am finding tons of links between Comey and the Clintons in the span of years before Comey was appointed to the FBI.

Lo and behold the garbage is extensive specially the favors from associates and pay offs and the millions made.

No wonder Hillary had a chip on her shoulder.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Oh, don't mistake me. Just because I don't believe they will not find anything doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked!!

Under oath mind you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, is too much going on, is good to kind of let things go and change the tune, I been reading back and forward the posts here for the last 3 pages it can be frustrating.

trying to explain something over and over again.