President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

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

Dude, it's time for you to embrace the real world and let it into your life. Rosenstein did NOT say he was quitting the FBI. We've linked you to two sources, the DOJ statement and a quote from Rosenstein himself, which state that did NOT happen. You are the most diehard lie-worshipper I've ever seen on here. You were wrong. You cited a bogus source, which has been refuted by more reliable sources, at some point you have to act your age and just admit you were mistaken. This isn't a place where you can just keep knowingly pushing something you are absolutely aware is a lie.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
So wait...

It has everything to do with the FIN getting too close to finding the Trump and Russia ties

Yeah, right. That must be it..

originally posted by: JinMI
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: marg6043

I've been trying to find a reason Obama could get away with some of the stuff he got away with. It was a tax in one part of the ruling, but wasn't a tax in the next part? That's serious mental gymnastics coming out of the Supreme Court. As soon as I heard that Obamacare ruling, I knew someone was holding something over someone's head. Now, with all this information about Comey coming out, it's all starring to fit together.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: marg6043

I've been trying to find a reason Obama could get away with some of the stuff he got away with. It was a tax in one part of the ruling, but wasn't a tax in the next part? That's serious mental gymnastics coming out of the Supreme Court. As soon as I heard that Obamacare ruling, I knew someone was holding something over someone's head. Now, with all this information about Comey coming out, it's all starring to fit together.

TheRedneck

That has always bothered me as well. The Supreme Court is meant to protect us from Congress or the President blatantly trying to get around the constitution with clever legalese. Don't blame Obama for trying, he WAS a lawyer after all, but judges are supposed to keep the lawyers in check. That's when it was obvious to even non-political people that the SCOTUS had become politicized. Thank God Clinton didn't get to fill Scalia's seat.

a reply to: face23785

I'm glad to see I wasn't alone in that thinking.

I can't see a Supreme Court Justice being able to be swayed by rewards. They're set for life, regardless of their decisions, unless they can get themselves impeached (which has never happened). So if reward wasn't used to sway them, could threats be used? Perhaps against family?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Nor would it surprise me if it hasn't happened before. No SC justice has ever been poor, many were in fact rather wealthy...so how to control 'em?

Sons. Daughters. Wives. Grand-children. Blackmail. Suddenly you've your own pet judge on the highest court in the land.

It would amaze me if it hasn't happened. Or unqualified judges getting onto the court...what would it take to rig their appointments?? Or conversely, keep qualified jurors off...??

a reply to: face23785

Thank God Clinton didn't get to fill Scalia's seat.

You're not alone in that!!

I can' help but wonder who it would have been...I don't recall her ever saying--or did I just miss it?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

I'm glad to see I wasn't alone in that thinking.

I can't see a Supreme Court Justice being able to be swayed by rewards. They're set for life, regardless of their decisions, unless they can get themselves impeached (which has never happened). So if reward wasn't used to sway them, could threats be used? Perhaps against family?

TheRedneck

I don't think they were swayed by anything like that I just think some of them let their political ideology dictate their decision instead of interpreting the law and the Constitution. If you need another reason, rewards maybe not but if there was dirt on any of them, that could be it. I really just think it was activist judging though.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: face23785

Thank God Clinton didn't get to fill Scalia's seat.

You're not alone in that!!

I can' help but wonder who it would have been...I don't recall her ever saying--or did I just miss it?

I seem to remember her saying she might consider resubmitting Garland, but I could be wrong. I really don't think she would have. He wasn't liberal enough.

a reply to: TheRedneck

When the Obamacare ruling came down people were talking about the dissenting opinion and the way it was written. They noted it was written as if it were the majority opinion and that Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. There was speculation of blackmail.

Oh my god what in the heck is going on with the democrats, these people are completely on some kind of Hallucinogen or they ran out of Xanax, They got to be kidding, some guy or Democratic strategist, call Mustaffa, came out on the news saying that Trump have no right to fired Comey, that he didn't have the right to fired Yates, because all those people were investigating Trump, now Yates? really, Yates? since when Yates was appointed to investigate Trump.

This just something you will read in a bad comedy show.

Trump is the president, but democrats think that Trump have not rights as the president, because they say so.

How dare Trump fired the frogs that Obama the toad appointed under his administration.

Darn democrats are losing their minds, can somebody give this people some anti depressants.

This is the misinformation and crap they are feeding people that believe on them and then no wonder we come here on ATS and can not even get a nice debate on this issues, because people actually believe what these democratic agents on agendas are saying.

Un freaking believable.

I had not clue Yates was investigating Trump too.

originally posted by: marg6043
Oh my god what in the heck is going on with the democrats, these people are completely on some kind of Hallucinogen or they ran out of Xanax, They got to be kidding, some guy or Democratic strategist, call Mustaffa, came out on the news saying that Trump have no right to fired Comey, that he didn't have the right to fired Yates, because all those people were investigating Trump, now Yates? really, Yates? since when Yates was appointed to investigate Trump.

This just something you will read in a bad comedy show.

Trump is the president, but democrats think that Trump have not rights as the president, because they say so.

How dare Trump fired the frogs that Obama the toad appointed under his administration.

Darn democrats are losing their minds, can somebody give this people some anti depressants.

This is the misinformation and crap they are feeding people that believe on them and then no wonder we come here on ATS and can not even get a nice debate on this issues, because people actually believe what these democratic agents on agendas are saying.

Un freaking believable.

I had not clue Yates was investigating Trump too.

Yeah I just saw that too, it was pathetic. They really have come unhinged. They don't realize they're driving reasonable people away from their party and Independents can't stand it.

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: Indigo5

I would like something more definitive as well, but he did answer the question, and he did say "no".

Additionally, Laura Jarrett of CNN tweeted "DOJ on the record: Rosenstein did not threaten to resign".

NBC News also reports:

Did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Threaten to Quit?

Two Justice Department officials are refuting a report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to resign unless his role in writing the Comey memo was better defined so that the impression wasn't left that he was the "prime mover" in the firing. "Didn't happen," one official told NBC News. "He did not threaten to resign" said another.

Of course, as is now the pathetic standard for the commercial media, actually naming those sources doesn't seem to be a priority. But nonetheless, it's now Rod Rosenstein himself and one set of anonymous sources versus another set of anonymous sources without Rod Rosenstein.

Believe (or better yet, disbelieve) whatever you want.

Oh...no doubt...from amongst the sources...anonymous, WH, DOJ Spokesperson..The horses mouth itself is the most reliable...

I will cede that he said "no' when asked the question...but if you watch that video of him walking away when he says it?

It was wonky...

I think all involved needs to go on record and look camera's straight in the eye and answer some questions honestly..or at least be squarely on record with the story the are sticking to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced Scalia died of natural causes...

TheRedneck

Just wanted to remind everyone that WJC fired the fbi director in his day the day before vince foster was found suicided.

a reply to: marg6043

I had not clue Yates was investigating Trump too.

It's crazy, isn't it!

BTW, Trump has never been under investigation by Yates, by Comey, or anyone else....officially. (Let me add that, because I think Obama WAS using the intelligence operatives to surveil and spy on him and many others; but not for criminal reasons but for political reasons.)

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: marg6043
Oh my god what in the heck is going on with the democrats, these people are completely on some kind of Hallucinogen or they ran out of Xanax, They got to be kidding, some guy or Democratic strategist, call Mustaffa, came out on the news saying that Trump have no right to fired Comey, that he didn't have the right to fired Yates, because all those people were investigating Trump, now Yates? really, Yates? since when Yates was appointed to investigate Trump.

This just something you will read in a bad comedy show.

Trump is the president, but democrats think that Trump have not rights as the president, because they say so.

How dare Trump fired the frogs that Obama the toad appointed under his administration.

Darn democrats are losing their minds, can somebody give this people some anti depressants.

This is the misinformation and crap they are feeding people that believe on them and then no wonder we come here on ATS and can not even get a nice debate on this issues, because people actually believe what these democratic agents on agendas are saying.

Un freaking believable.

I had not clue Yates was investigating Trump too.

Yeah I just saw that too, it was pathetic. They really have come unhinged. They don't realize they're driving reasonable people away from their party and Independents can't stand it.

I do not believe you would recognize "reasonable people" if your life depended on it.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: Indigo5

I would like something more definitive as well, but he did answer the question, and he did say "no".

Additionally, Laura Jarrett of CNN tweeted "DOJ on the record: Rosenstein did not threaten to resign".

NBC News also reports:

Did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Threaten to Quit?

Two Justice Department officials are refuting a report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to resign unless his role in writing the Comey memo was better defined so that the impression wasn't left that he was the "prime mover" in the firing. "Didn't happen," one official told NBC News. "He did not threaten to resign" said another.

Of course, as is now the pathetic standard for the commercial media, actually naming those sources doesn't seem to be a priority. But nonetheless, it's now Rod Rosenstein himself and one set of anonymous sources versus another set of anonymous sources without Rod Rosenstein.

Believe (or better yet, disbelieve) whatever you want.

Oh...no doubt...from amongst the sources...anonymous, WH, DOJ Spokesperson..The horses mouth itself is the most reliable...

I will cede that he said "no' when asked the question...but if you watch that video of him walking away when he says it?

It was wonky...

I think all involved needs to go on record and look camera's straight in the eye and answer some questions honestly..or at least be squarely on record with the story the are sticking to.

It wasn't an anonymous DOJ source, it was a named DOJ spokesperson, and it was obviously put out to refute the false reports from the actual anonymous sources that you guys are relying on. And as I stated earlier in the thread, if the DOJ spokesperson had put out such a statement regarding the Deputy AG, and it was wrong, the Deputy AG would be inclined to correct it don't you think? The DOJ spokesperson is a reliable source, and it was backed up by the Deputy AG himself. Let it go. Your unending worship of this blatant lie is pathetic. You guys are worse than flat-earthers.

a reply to: face23785

I can not believe this what they feeding their followers, they are actually telling people that Trump as the president doesn't have rights like Obama did or any other president before him.

This is worst than brainwashing, this is creating the ride mode for those that are gullible or that do not understand Americans politics to get up and start rioting.

What is this people thinking, I mean of what ever have become of the democrat leadership.

This beyond losing an election, this an agenda and an ugly one.