President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: face23785

I can't answer that is not no. He didn't hear it? The answer is no. He did hear it the answer is yes.
I can't answer doesn't as a rule answer a question.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

But he did ask them to do that.
It doesn't matter what was in the emails. Trump asked them to continue hacking when the DNC emails were being released and everybody including trump knew it was Russia. Otherwise why would trump make his appeal to Russia. Right there on the tv for all to see and hear?

It absolutely does matter what was in the emails. The DNC emails were an attack on democracy because they were stolen political documents involved in an ongoing political process. If Clinton's deleted emails were just about yoga and weddings, that's not political, that's not part of our democracy, he was asking them to hack a bunch of nonsense that were just personal materials. That's not an attack on democracy. Unless she lied about what was in them.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't get it...does it matter why he fired him? He can fire him for any reason other than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

I guess I am not seeing why it even matters and is worth probing.

He can fire the Director of FBI for any reason?...Sure..Though the only other time it was done, the Dir. was using tax payer funds for home improvement and lied on tax returns etc.

Obstructing or attempting to obstruct Justice is illegal...

Where those two actions intersect is what got Nixon impeached following the Saturday Night Massacre where Nixon fired his AG and Deputy AG when they refused to fire the Special Prosecutor investigating him.

Interesting Side Note:
Trump Friend/advisor/subject of FBI investigation...Roger Stone was a Nixon Advisor and loyalist. He even got a picture of Nixon Tattooed on his back after the scandal..

a reply to: Sillyolme

there's a out there of trump saying Russia did the hacking, and then real quick says "probably" did it. it's hysterical.

a reply to: Indigo5

Ah, so you are saying he was perhaps attempting to obstruct justice. But the FBI would still be investigating, even with Comey gone though? So that seems a huge stretch to me.

It wasn't Comey doing the investigating, it's the FBI.

ETA: Also, I know a lot about Roger Stone. I read up on him back when he and Trump had their falling out during his campaign.

a reply to: face23785


I am pretty sure asking the Russian FSB to help you win an election via hacking is an "attack on our democracy" any way you slice it...

You seem to be making some strange arguments..

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't get it...does it matter why he fired him? He can fire him for any reason other than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

I guess I am not seeing why it even matters and is worth probing.

He can fire the Director of FBI for any reason?...Sure..Though the only other time it was done, the Dir. was using tax payer funds for home improvement and lied on tax returns etc.

Obstructing or attempting to obstruct Justice is illegal...

Where those two actions intersect is what got Nixon impeached following the Saturday Night Massacre where Nixon fired his AG and Deputy AG when they refused to fire the Special Prosecutor investigating him.

Interesting Side Note:
Trump Friend/advisor/subject of FBI investigation...Roger Stone was a Nixon Advisor and loyalist. He even got a picture of Nixon Tattooed on his back after the scandal..

The ardently Democrat acting Director of the FBI just testified to Congress that the Bureau's investigation into Trump/Russia will not be impacted in any way by Comey being fired. He further testified that no special prosecutor is needed.

Narrative busted.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: face23785


I am pretty sure asking the Russian FSB to help you win an election via hacking is an "attack on our democracy" any way you slice it...

You seem to be making some strange arguments..

If the emails were just about yoga and weddings, how would they help Trump win the election? You're backing yourself into a corner here. Either they were no big deal or she lied about what was in them. Which is it?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

Ah, so you are saying he was perhaps attempting to obstruct justice. But the FBI would still be investigating, even with Comey gone though? So that seems a huge stretch to me.

It wasn't Comey doing the investigating, it's the FBI.

ETA: Also, I know a lot about Roger Stone. I read up on him back when he and Trump had their falling out during his campaign.

Correct, and Trump also said this morning he hasn't spoken to Stone in months. Not that I take everything he says at face value, but I'm sure the media would be all over it if there was any evidence he has spoken to him recently. So unless some reporting emerges that he's lying, another brainless conspiracy theory down the drain.

a reply to: knoxie

His bumper sticker should say soap and suds.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

Ah, so you are saying he was perhaps attempting to obstruct justice. But the FBI would still be investigating, even with Comey gone though? So that seems a huge stretch to me.

It wasn't Comey doing the investigating, it's the FBI.

That is certainly an argument being sold...But where does that end? As long as the FBI has one agent assigned to the case he can fire away?

If clear intent to impede the investigation by removing the Head of the FBI is demonstrated?

Is the argument that the head of the FBI is irrelevant to the FBI's work? Or does "obstruction of justice" only stick when it is proven successful? Attempted murder?

I would argue that anyone convicted of "Obstruction of Justice"...was obviously unsuccessful given their conviction.

So the defense that the FBI is still investigating is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

Ah, so you are saying he was perhaps attempting to obstruct justice. But the FBI would still be investigating, even with Comey gone though? So that seems a huge stretch to me.

It wasn't Comey doing the investigating, it's the FBI.

That is certainly an argument being sold...But where does that end? As long as the FBI has one agent assigned to the case he can fire away?

If clear intent to impede the investigation by removing the Head of the FBI is demonstrated?

Is the argument that the head of the FBI is irrelevant to the FBI's work? Or does "obstruction of justice" only stick when it is proven successful? Attempted murder?

I would argue that anyone convicted of "Obstruction of Justice"...was obviously unsuccessful given their conviction.

So the defense that the FBI is still investigating is irrelevant.

It was just testified to Congress that no one has been removed from the investigation. Stop making things up. There's no obstruction of justice going on here. You're embarrassing yourself.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't get it...does it matter why he fired him? He can fire him for any reason other than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

I guess I am not seeing why it even matters and is worth probing.

He can fire the Director of FBI for any reason?...Sure..Though the only other time it was done, the Dir. was using tax payer funds for home improvement and lied on tax returns etc.

Obstructing or attempting to obstruct Justice is illegal...

Where those two actions intersect is what got Nixon impeached following the Saturday Night Massacre where Nixon fired his AG and Deputy AG when they refused to fire the Special Prosecutor investigating him.

Interesting Side Note:
Trump Friend/advisor/subject of FBI investigation...Roger Stone was a Nixon Advisor and loyalist. He even got a picture of Nixon Tattooed on his back after the scandal..

The ardently Democrat acting Director of the FBI just testified to Congress that the Bureau's investigation into Trump/Russia will not be impacted in any way by Comey being fired. He further testified that no special prosecutor is needed.

Narrative busted.

What narrative? And how was it "busted"?

Confused by your posts..

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

Ah, so you are saying he was perhaps attempting to obstruct justice. But the FBI would still be investigating, even with Comey gone though? So that seems a huge stretch to me.

It wasn't Comey doing the investigating, it's the FBI.

That is certainly an argument being sold...But where does that end? As long as the FBI has one agent assigned to the case he can fire away?

If clear intent to impede the investigation by removing the Head of the FBI is demonstrated?

Is the argument that the head of the FBI is irrelevant to the FBI's work? Or does "obstruction of justice" only stick when it is proven successful? Attempted murder?

I would argue that anyone convicted of "Obstruction of Justice"...was obviously unsuccessful given their conviction.

So the defense that the FBI is still investigating is irrelevant.

It was just testified to Congress that no one has been removed from the investigation. Stop making things up.

You should Google the name James Comey?

McCabe quashes trumps claim that Comey had lost the confidence of the bureau. Says Comey is held in the highest regard by himself and the department.

a reply to: face23785

I'll be honest. I just could not care less about Comey getting fired or anyone's dander getting fluffed up at the thought of justice obstruction.

Partisans are just so flipping selective in their outrage that I don't even believe in their outrage anymore. I didn't see many Democrats giving a flying fig when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch. So why on earth would they care about Comey getting fired? Even if the new FBI director publicly announces that an investigation into Trump's ties with Russia is now closed, that Trump was just reckless in telling Russia to hack and find those 30,000 emails, and that Trump didn't intend to do anything illegal...well, I am just completely apathetic, at this point.

The FBI usually covers up the crimes of the powerful...that's what they've been doing for decades. I dont' know why I am suddenly supposed to care now.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Well I'm sixty so I lived that history.
And I was just as engaged in politics then as I am now.
Not to mention all the rehashing being done now with old footage.
It's quite nostalgic actually.
Names I hadn't thought about in years.

To date there's zero evidence available of the Trump/Russia connection, as testified before Congress by numerous IC official and admitted by numerous Dem officials.

Two members of the committees have said publicly that they've viewed evidence of the non-circumstantial variety that suggested collusion.

But they are dems, so zees mus be fek noos...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't get it...does it matter why he fired him? He can fire him for any reason other than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

I guess I am not seeing why it even matters and is worth probing.

He can fire the Director of FBI for any reason?...Sure..Though the only other time it was done, the Dir. was using tax payer funds for home improvement and lied on tax returns etc.

Obstructing or attempting to obstruct Justice is illegal...

Where those two actions intersect is what got Nixon impeached following the Saturday Night Massacre where Nixon fired his AG and Deputy AG when they refused to fire the Special Prosecutor investigating him.

Interesting Side Note:
Trump Friend/advisor/subject of FBI investigation...Roger Stone was a Nixon Advisor and loyalist. He even got a picture of Nixon Tattooed on his back after the scandal..

The ardently Democrat acting Director of the FBI just testified to Congress that the Bureau's investigation into Trump/Russia will not be impacted in any way by Comey being fired. He further testified that no special prosecutor is needed.

Narrative busted.

What narrative? And how was it "busted"?

Confused by your posts..

Lol so now you're gonna play dumb? Your pretending you don't know what I mean is pathetic and childish. The narrative that Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation is false and you know it's false yet you still continue to dishonestly insinuate it. Stop lying.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

Ah, so you are saying he was perhaps attempting to obstruct justice. But the FBI would still be investigating, even with Comey gone though? So that seems a huge stretch to me.

It wasn't Comey doing the investigating, it's the FBI.

That is certainly an argument being sold...But where does that end? As long as the FBI has one agent assigned to the case he can fire away?

If clear intent to impede the investigation by removing the Head of the FBI is demonstrated?

Is the argument that the head of the FBI is irrelevant to the FBI's work? Or does "obstruction of justice" only stick when it is proven successful? Attempted murder?

I would argue that anyone convicted of "Obstruction of Justice"...was obviously unsuccessful given their conviction.

So the defense that the FBI is still investigating is irrelevant.

It was just testified to Congress that no one has been removed from the investigation. Stop making things up.

You should Google the name James Comey?

He wasn't the investigating agent. The dozens of agents who actually were doing the investigation are still doing it. That was just confirmed to Congress in public. Keep it up with the false narrative though. It's sad.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Well I'm sixty so I lived that history.
And I was just as engaged in politics then as I am now.
Not to mention all the rehashing being done now with old footage.
It's quite nostalgic actually.
Names I hadn't thought about in years.

To date there's zero evidence available of the Trump/Russia connection, as testified before Congress by numerous IC official and admitted by numerous Dem officials.

Two members of the committees have said publicly that they've viewed evidence of the non-circumstantial variety that suggested collusion.

But they are dems, so zees mus be fek noos...

Oh ok so the agency heads who testified they're not aware of any evidence were lying? Got it. And Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration that just got out of control when some folks who happened to have RPGs in the back pocket got a lil rowdy. Keep up the good work.

a reply to: Indigo5

Eh, like I said...it's selective partisan outrage. Does it actually deserve outrage? Probably. But this is the bed Democrats made for themselves. And before then, it was Republicans that made the bed...and so on.

I'm not holding my breath that any partisan is going to put a stop to the corruption in the White House and at the FBI. I've been burned too many times.