President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Advantage


When you tell conflicting lies and discredit yourself (CNN) it's thoroughly entertaining.

eLIEjah Cummings on CNN Just Now: "It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that President Trump fired Michael Flynn better than he fired FBI Director Comey!!!" (his face red as a beet).

Since AG Jeff Sessions recommended that Donald Trump fire James Comey, because James Comey leaked the classified Flynn info that Susan Rice "unmasked" to the Washington Post, OF COURSE Trump treated Flynn better than Comey.

a reply to: carewemust

CNN = VERY fake news.

Why do you still bother with them? Trump fired Flynn "better" than Comey. LOL. That's just hilarious! CNN is like a 24 hr a day, "liberal"l non-stop soap opera.

All things non-lefty, so dramatic. ALL the time.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

then made up some bogus excuse about "intent" (which isn't even part of the statute)

Actually, it is. First part of the law, actually.

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Wookiep

I watch CNN after Fox News changes over to weird shows like Wally World and Red Eye, late at night. The Domestic terrorist network is the only one that's real-time after 2:00am, unless there's a disaster.

There is a saying...paraphrased; first rule of assassination, is to kill the assassins.

I think that's what just happened here - an attempt to shut up the knowledge by other means than the extreme of assassination. That must be one deep dark hole with many secrets that is being covered-up.


The news of the Comey firing deeply troubles me. I've been a long time lurker of many many years at ATS, but this story brought me out to post.

a reply to: Spork

WELCOME! I'm glad you're participating, Spork. As you know, the political threads are made up us same old fuddy-duddies, day after day after day... Looking forward to your contributions, sir/madam!

Damn, even Chucky Schumer said he didn't have any confidence in Comey anymore. He was thrown under the bus, now we'll see if we get proper investigations instead of piss conspiracies.

originally posted by: Spork
There is a saying...paraphrased; first rule of assassination, is to kill the assassins.

I think that's what just happened here - an attempt to shut up the knowledge by other means than the extreme of assassination. That must be one deep dark hole with many secrets that is being covered-up.


The news of the Comey firing deeply troubles me. I've been a long time lurker of many many years at ATS, but this story brought me out to post.

Due to your long time lurker status since 2005, you get your first star from me. I joined four years after you were here. (Though I lurked since about 2006 before joining) I respect the elders of ATS, regardless of political beliefs. Welcome to ATS 12 yrs ago!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Three big words here...

DRAIN THE SWAMP

originally posted by: Konduit
Damn, even Chucky Schumer said he didn't have any confidence in Comey anymore. He was thrown under the bus, now we'll see if we get proper investigations instead of piss conspiracies.

I haven't checked, but I bet his female Democrat colleagues haven't been so level-headed.

a reply to: Spork

Nice to see you're still around Spork

I still can't decide if this troubles me or not. In my opinion Comey should've been gone long ago. The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but question the timing. We'll see how it turns out I guess.

a reply to: Phage

Oh please. That's not the intent comey was talking about. He was talking about intent to break the law. You know that.

Did hillary know that she was forwarding secret materials to non-secret channels? Yes. So your intent is there. But that's not the only section of US 18 that she broke. She broke section 2071 as well.

Also, criminal intent was there. When she deleted half of the emails, many of which were found to contain classified information, she checked the box for criminal intent.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Oh please. That's not the intent comey was talking about. He was talking about intent to break the law. You know that.

No. He was talking about the law and that there was no evidence that she had any intent as specified by it.

When she deleted half of the emails, many of which were found to contain classified information, she checked the box for criminal intent.

She deleted them? If they were deleted, how were they found to have contained classified information?

See, the thing is, to bring a case to court there needs to be a certain level of evidence. According to Comey, that did not exist. Maybe the new DOJ will see it differently. Maybe they will lock her up. Big deal.

a reply to: Phage

If they were deleted, how were they found to have contained classified information?

Quit playing dumb.

He was talking about the law and that there was no evidence that she had any intent as specified by it.

Ok, if you want to be obtuse how about section 793(f)? Gross negligence is the only standard and she easily met that standard.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Up to 10 years per occurrence would add up when they found over one hundred of them.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Quit playing dumb.

As soon as you do.


Subsection (f) was part of the original (1950) law. It does not define "proper place", but email is sort of in a grey area. What is its proper place of custody? In 1950 it would be a (locked?) file cabinet or a safe. An email?

Pretty crappy law, actually. Probably needs updating. But there are more important matters. Right?

a reply to: Phage

Proper place is a network cleared for secret information. A non-secured network is not the proper place, the reasonable person standard would make this quite obvious. Further, this is all defined in each departments rules.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Proper place is a network cleared for secret information.

The law does not specify anything. Poorly constructed law, I guess. Or obsolete.

Further, this is all defined in each departments rules.

Perhaps so.
Are violations of departmental rules the same as violations of law? Perhaps if the violations had been known while she was in office she would have been disciplined.

a reply to: Wookiep

Yes mon they fake on many levels. Bad people.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dfairlite

Proper place is a network cleared for secret information.

The law does not specify anything. Poorly constructed law, I guess. Or obsolete.

Further, this is all defined in each departments rules.

Perhaps so.
Are violations of departmental rules the same as violations of law? Perhaps if the violations had been known while she was in office she would have been disciplined.

Im not done reading this report from the inspector generals office however it contradicts several things you said so far. As far as Comey i think everyone would agree he started playing politics and most likely caused Hillary to lose votes.

www.scribd.com...

a reply to: Phage

She signed a document saying she knew the rules.