PAY DIRT!! The Real Reason President Trump Fired Comey, and A lot of People Are Gonna Love It!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ParasuvO


That's not entirely true. But, that's a great attempt at derailing and deflection you got going on there!

The real reason Trump fired Comey was because he wouldn't drop the investigation. Trump said so himself, twice.

What investigation?

You mean the one they kept talking about that never actually became an "investigation" cause all of the original claims also had no source to even "investigate" ?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


He also didn't have to say, out loud:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,”
“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
“I’m not under investigation.”

What I'm thinking is that any clear minded, nonbiased person would understand he threatened Comey, then when that didn't go so well, he fired him.

But in the world of law, I doubt those two things would convict him. Sad, but possibly true.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ParasuvO


That's not entirely true. But, that's a great attempt at derailing and deflection you got going on there!

The real reason Trump fired Comey was because he wouldn't drop the investigation. Trump said so himself, twice.

What investigation?

You mean the one they kept talking about that never actually became an "investigation" cause all of the original claims also had no source to even "investigate" ?

Are you familiar with Congress? You know, the House of Representatives and the Senate? You understand the function of the FBI? I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but all three of those entities have investigations, on-going.

I know it's sad for you. Here, have a cup of Kool-Aid on me.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

Just curious, please explain wth that has to do with anything? And no funny faces.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


He also didn't have to say, out loud:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,”
“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
“I’m not under investigation.”

What I'm thinking is that any clear minded, nonbiased person would understand he threatened Comey, then when that didn't go so well, he fired him.

But in the world of law, I doubt those two things would convict him. Sad, but possibly true.

But he didnt threaten comey. That meeting on feb 14th he didnt say anything that I would consider a threat. he made a request.

a reply to: jtma508

There is also possibly no theory or background here. No matter the twists and hearsay Comey had to go.

I think there is a lot of smoke in mirrors but sometimes there is not really any just connecting the dots is fun. I think Hollywood has a lot to do with us connecting invisible dots this day and age.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

Just curious, please explain wth that has to do with anything? And no funny faces.

You need to think deep before asking questions.

a reply to: yuppa

I was referring to the tweet, you know, when he said Comey better hope there were no tapes of their conversation.

As for the other, that's why I think it would have a hard time in court. What he said could be construed as "I wish you would drop this investigation" like "I wish you wouldn't smoke in my car", kind of thing. I don't think it would fly in a court room as obstruction.

a reply to: paxnatus

There's only one major flaw in this reasoning... Joe Lieberman.

If the reason for firing Comey was to make way for a real investigation into the Clinton Foundation, why would Trump appoint Al Gore's former running mate who endorsed and campaigned for Hillary Clinton?

No thoughts?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

Just curious, please explain wth that has to do with anything? And no funny faces.

You need to think deep before asking questions.

a reply to: windword

Ba ba but I thought he gave them classified info. How is this worse than what Obama said over a hot mic. Actually hear Obama say something worse that does not need any interpretation or redefining.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

Just curious, please explain wth that has to do with anything? And no funny faces.

You need to think deep before asking questions.

Pretty sure it all boils down to...

a reply to: randomthoughts12


In an of itself, what Trump said is not a big deal. But, because he suggests that the Russian thing is over because of it, makes it look like he fired Comey to end the investigation. That's obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Gothmog


What makes no sense is pretending something didn't happen and claiming that reports are fake news all the time.

Alot of claims of God existing yet you claim that is fake. 😂

Brilliant

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: randomthoughts12


In an of itself, what Trump said is not a big deal. But, because he suggests that the Russian thing is over because of it, makes it look like he fired Comey to end the investigation. That's obstruction of justice.

No it really isn't. read your own post again. You leap from what something looks like (through your point of view I might add, and without the full conversation) to a determination of obstruction of justice. That is, of course, nonsense.

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

Just curious, please explain wth that has to do with anything? And no funny faces.

You need to think deep before asking questions.

Pretty sure it all boils down to...

That's sooo 2016. Move on, Hon.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Some people said Charles Manson was irrelevant too.

Just curious, please explain wth that has to do with anything? And no funny faces.

You need to think deep before asking questions.

Pretty sure it all boils down to...

That's sooo 2016. Move on, Hon.

More like 1970s, but nice try.

a reply to: yuppa

It's not mere hearsay. That's where you guys are making the mistake. A reporter doesn't have to reveal a source but you can bet your ass that most are going to be sure of their source even if they don't reveal it.
They work under a code of ethics. It protects their sources and protects their continued employment.
A news media unless it's their niche are not going to continually pump out false information. They would go out of business. Why does this rational fail here?

You guys are just parroting Donald trump. And he's stupid. You may want to rethink your mentor. Honestly.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Alot is not a word.
It's a lot.