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.

 

Liberals Call for Comey to Resign, Trump Fires Comey, Liberals Outraged

page: 11
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But will have everything to do with the decisions of his replacement and they are now trump appointees.
If this replacement is brave enough to present a case that he feels should be prosecuted these new appointees can say no. We don't see the need. The end...

I hope I'm wrong.


You mean the replacement might say they found no intent to break any laws therefore there is no reason to prosecute? It would be like deja vu all over again.




posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So say Schumer and not "liberal" or "conservative?"

He's one example.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Clinton investigation has concluded. Trump isn't calling for reopening it and I'm not certain that he could but I could be wrong.

I was merely saying what I would like to happen, not what will.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

So how'd that work out for her?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Not too good seeing as she is in the woods...not the White House.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Clinton investigation has concluded. Trump isn't calling for reopening it and I'm not certain that he could but I could be wrong.


Well...if you read the letter from the Deputy AG to the AG suggesting Comey be relieved of his position, he clearly states that Comey had no business saying that the investigation was closed as it had not been but he decided he would publicly announce it was which was not his job to do or say.

That one paragraph tells me they are likely going to renew the intensity on this investigation soon.


edit on 5/10/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: uncommitted

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence wikileaks got their intel from Russia. That is based on a 2 step process of logical thinking.

1. There is no real evidence the hacking was even done by Russia.
2. Hacking being done by Russia =/= they are the wikileaks source.

Now we know for a fact Hillary broke the law.

Again, the problem is that in January liberal media outlets were writing stories and everyone found it sane and reasonable. Fast forward 2 months, Trump tweets something very similar, and all of a sudden it's crazy talk.


Evidence of the hacking is part of the investigation Comey has just been sacked from, no? Trump is meeting the Russian foreign minister at the White House tomorrow - you know that, right? And you don't have any feeling that the timing and the reasoning for the firing is a little suspicious? Course you don't.

Comey is not the investigation. In fact, it's literally impossible for this to be the case. Want to know why? The FBI never investigated the hacking. The DNC paid a 3rd party to 'investigate' and then tell the FBI what happened. The FBI never even tried to do their own fair and impartial investigation.

So the FBI is literally going by what the Democrats have told them concerning Trump and Russia. Let that sink in.


I hate to break this to you, but Republicans are even in agreement about Russian involvement. Good grief this is getting tiresome. Republicans are even showing their own concern about the firing. I name you but one - not unnamed, not my speculation that I choose to interpret as fact......

www.burr.senate.gov...

Let that sink in. But, please don't bother responding to me with more speculation or opinion with nothing to base it on that constitutes fact.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: eisegesis

I'm sure that video fully supports your view point.

Nice rebuttal.


If my viewpoint is that Comey is pulling the wool over our eyes, then yes, the video supports that. I'm trying to deny ignorance here, not sit in denial based on the supposed "ignorance" of criminals.

Hillary didn't intend to break the law by sending classified information on a private server and also didn't intend to break the law when it was discovered that e-mails were both withheld and deleted after the subpoena. Huma didn't intend to break the law by sending classified e-mails on a private server to Hillary and a convicted felon, so that he can print and hand them back to her. Weiner never intended and was said not to have (how would Comey know?), read the contents of the classified e-mails before, during or after he printed them. Comey STATED all of the above.

You must live a pretty blissful life.


edit on 10-5-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes proof they were looking at his campaign and his aides.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


proof the media was saying this stuff before Trump. So the claim the media only started after Trump is false.

Also proof that they have been looking into him for almost a year now and have literally zero evidence of wrongdoing.
edit on 10-5-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: eisegesis

I'm sure that video fully supports your view point.

Nice rebuttal.


If my viewpoint is that Comey is pulling the wool over our eyes, then yes, the video supports that. I'm trying to deny ignorance here, not sit in denial based on the supposed "ignorance" of criminals.

Hillary didn't intend to break the law by sending classified information on a private server and also didn't intend to break the law when it was discovered that e-mails were both withheld and deleted after the subpoena. Huma didn't intend to break the law by sending classified e-mails on a private server to Hillary and a convicted felon, so that he can print and then hand them to back to her. Weiner didn't intend and was said not to have (how would Comey know?), read the contents of the classified e-mails before, during or after he printed them. Comey STATED all of the above.

You must live a pretty blissful life.

In the video... Comey admits that they didn't even speak to Weiner!

His investigative skills are apparently using something from the psychic realm!



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

And the FBI did not even investigate the DNC hacking. They let the DNC tell them what happened without investigating it.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

No. Don't put words in my mouth. If that's your point of view own it. Don't try to pass it off as mine.

What I said and what I mean is as a trump appointee he may say he doesn't see a need for an indictment even if the evidence shows otherwise. He could do what ever bully trump tells him to do.

Of course he's also free to act against the presidents wishes and see this investigation to its full conclusion.
What are the chances of that if he thinks his cushy job is on the line?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You mean he could do what Comey did with Clinton? Something along those lines?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: butcherguy

And the FBI did not even investigate the DNC hacking. They let the DNC tell them what happened without investigating it.


Yeah...that part was hilarious to me...oh...DNC says they can't hand server over and picks their own 3rd party forensics company to investigate....I mean there couldn't possibly be any shade thrown on that situation right?



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

So what does that do to that theory?

Apply some critical thinking here before you answer.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
And my favorite was the report it appeared the Russians wanted to get caught and intentionally left their fingerprints so everyone would know it was them .. on purpose.

That made sense.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Vasa Croe
And my favorite was the report it appeared the Russians wanted to get caught and intentionally left their fingerprints so everyone would know it was them .. on purpose.

That made sense.


Yep....just like Gruber said with ACA....gotta count on voters stupidity to get them to believe...



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

He's addressing the announcing of the conclusions by Comey not the conclusions themselves.
Just as he's talking about Comey making announcements that could adversely affect a presidential candidate that close to an election as an inappropriate action. He's an advocate for Hillary now...the woman he called crooked.

You're getting your hopes up for nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join