Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth


You forgot to include a link to your excerpt?


I will respond when you provide citation..

www.mcclatchydc.com...

By the way , it also says

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said one of his biggest takeaways was that Rosenstein had said he had no evidence that Comey had asked for more resources for the investigation before he was fired.

Looks like that angle is well and truly debunked.

Oh..with COmey testifying next week, I guess we will see.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: alphabetaone

Trump is gonna wreck them. Oh it will be glorious. They are spooked as hell and they need an american "official" to read them bed time stories...wait i meant provide serious unsourced material to damage Trump. Watching them squirm is really satisfactory.

I think you might want to get used to saying "President Pence"...just a suspicion.

I'll use the phrase the right wing used on OBama. "Not my president"

originally posted by: Mordekaiser

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It's more about perceived wrongs. And that's why she lost.

No, Comey made it clear she broke the law.

Laws were broken.

Then there were laws broken by her.

The laws broke by her are less revealing and incriminating. Almost more like 'Technical Fouls', that full sentence carrying weight. Comey recommended no charges for these laws.

People are pissed because of the other broken laws. Even if they're mindless sharks and don't know anything other than "I should be mad laws were broken argh!!!"

Some of these mindless sharks are extra pissed she's getting away too.

I'm mad over it because if a private citizen did what she did they'd be rotting in a jail cell.

a reply to: UKTruth

It's an analogy. What do you do when the minimum sentence clearly is too high for a unique instance? Follow the law to the T? Something already ambiguous with min/max sentence for THE SAME CRIME in the first place? The truth is all cases are unique and should be viewed as such with LESS overbearing. Why have a judge at all if we can scream 'hurdur lawbook'?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth


You forgot to include a link to your excerpt?


I will respond when you provide citation..

www.mcclatchydc.com...

By the way , it also says

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said one of his biggest takeaways was that Rosenstein had said he had no evidence that Comey had asked for more resources for the investigation before he was fired.

Looks like that angle is well and truly debunked.

Oh..with COmey testifying next week, I guess we will see.

I am glad you are finally waking up and waiting for actual testimony. If Comey can verify that he asked for resources and was refused then that will clear it up in your favour. As it stands, that whole narrative, dined on for over a week even after the DoJ said it was incorrect, is bunk.

a reply to: anonfamily

Oh yeah after trump told him what to write. You're in the dark. Trump SAID it was because of the Russia probe. Twice now...

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: UKTruth

It's an analogy. What do you do when the minimum sentence clearly is too high for a unique instance? Follow the law to the T? Something already ambiguous with min/max sentence for THE SAME CRIME in the first place? The truth is all cases are unique and should be viewed as such with LESS overbearing.

You are talking about punishment/sentencing. That is not relevant to the fact she broke the law.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: DJW001


And now this from the CONSERVATIVE The Hill


WH lawyers consulting experts on impeachment proceedings: report
thehill.com...

It sounds like they're just brushing up on the subject. While I could see Trump being impeached, because I think he's the sort of person that would abuse his authority, I don't think any stories the public has been informed of yet go far enough to be impeachable. If something comes from the Russian connection, that would be enough. But it's too early to say yet.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: UKTruth

It's an analogy. What do you do when the minimum sentence clearly is too high for a unique instance? Follow the law to the T? Something already ambiguous with min/max sentence for THE SAME CRIME in the first place? The truth is all cases are unique and should be viewed as such with LESS overbearing.

You are talking about punishment/sentencing. That is not relevant to the fact she broke the law.

Yeah it is, do you recommend burglary when someone forgot to tell their friend they were going to borrow a video game controller?

Recommending charges is part of the system. The police don't just nilly write a Battery ticket either for a slap. I personally was assaulted and had no response to the two women, and because of the circumstances, giving the cops the look, 'they're stupid' they took me to the hospital and instead wrote ME the ticket for misdemeanor, but treated several bite wounds for free.

If you think the book is how people need to act, then obviously my question is how much faith do you put in the laws written, we already have numerous in the USA that are meaningless, broken often, and do not have relevance to this not just in specific instance, but TIME PERIOD, aka we still have 'horse' laws on local levels that are absurd. Another favorite is one relating to Icecream, in your back pockets, on Sundays. Illegal.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: UKTruth

It's an analogy. What do you do when the minimum sentence clearly is too high for a unique instance? Follow the law to the T? Something already ambiguous with min/max sentence for THE SAME CRIME in the first place? The truth is all cases are unique and should be viewed as such with LESS overbearing.

You are talking about punishment/sentencing. That is not relevant to the fact she broke the law.

Yeah it is, do you recommend burglary when someone forgot to tell their friend they were going to borrow a video game controller?

Recommending charges is part of the system. The police don't just nilly write a Battery ticket either for a slap. I personally was assaulted and had no response to the two women, and because of the circumstances, giving the cops the look, 'they're stupid' they took me to the hospital and instead wrote ME the ticket for misdemeanor, but treated several bite wounds for free.

If you think the book is how people need to act, then obviously my question is how much faith do you put in the laws written, we already have numerous in the USA that are meaningless, broken often, and do not have relevance to this not just in specific instance, but TIME PERIOD, aka we still have 'horse' laws on local levels that are absurd. Another favorite is one relating to Icecream, in your back pockets, on Sundays. Illegal.

Whether laws are just or not is not relevant to the fact that Hillary broke the law.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

The Hill is conservative?

They're pretty middle of the road. One of the most cited sources on both sides.

From a source of a source of a source of course says Mr. Ed the talking horse.

Who wee you all are wound up.

Right off the proverbial bridge.

So let me get this straight,

Trump meets Muh Russians and says derogatory things about Comey while only photogs present but an UNAMED source claims.

Then Spicer not entertaining the crap, doesn't refute and that's what we're basing this on........steeretccch.

Yall gotta get over this, may I suggest nearest mental health organization

I think you can 411 the number but emergency service such as a wambulance is always available st 911.

This is making yalls chosen party look petty.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, so did I, yesterday, Jaywalking.

The ambiguity is why it's clear it's a witch-hunt, you get specific and you lose everyone.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: DJW001


And now this from the CONSERVATIVE The Hill


WH lawyers consulting experts on impeachment proceedings: report
thehill.com...

It sounds like they're just brushing up on the subject. While I could see Trump being impeached, because I think he's the sort of person that would abuse his authority, I don't think any stories the public has been informed of yet go far enough to be impeachable. If something comes from the Russian connection, that would be enough. But it's too early to say yet.

Actually colluding with Russia is not even a crime and would unlikely be grounds for impeachment, unless there was coordination in arranging an illegal act, like a hack.

The collusion element of liberal attacks seems to be dying a death. The new focus seems to be obstruction of justice, maybe because liberals know from intelligence briefings that the collusion propaganda is drawing it's last breaths and Trump's associates are going to be found innocent. New propaganda to replace the old... propaganda lifecycle management.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

The Hill is conservative?

They're pretty middle of the road. One of the most cited sources on both sides.

When did "middle of the road" become conservative? The charge was that The Hill was conservative.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, so did I, yesterday, Jaywalking.

The ambiguity is why it's clear it's a witch-hunt, you get specific and you lose everyone.

Cool, so she broke the law then. We agree.

a reply to: UKTruth

You must not understand the USA attitude.

Do they have Jaywalking there?

Ever smoke pot?
Speed?(edit:I mean driving rofl)

We take pride in #ng the government. Being illegal is an actual part of the thrill. You guys just think you're cool.

I run red lights in the middle of no where too. Come get me coppers.

a reply to: UKTruth

No it's reaching a level of absolute tragedy. People in the Whitehouse are rewriting their resumes and obtaining letters of reference. I'm gonna say this, for someone who supposedly has nothing to hide he sure as hell is acting like someone who has something to hide.
His own behavior has brought this down on him.

I'm dreading what he might say or do on this trip. I mean he called out mosques as a breeding g ground of terrorism and he upbraided the pope and now he visits the land of Mecca and Vatican City.
He gots him some kahunas...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Replace 'mosques' with 'religion' and he's perfect tho.

Congress did not sanction any investigation on Trump. Comey personally chose to do investigation using FBI's resources. That's his own fault for getting fired. And good riddance I say.