Merged Trump Fires Comey....

William Parcher said:
This forum has no mission statement or stated theme. Therefore it has no identifiable purpose.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It's a continuation of the JREF forum which definitely had a stated purpose that attracted membership. It has the same purpose now. Unsupported claims about politics belong in the politics section.
 
a_unique_person said:
I could be wrong, but it's not every day the POTUS fires the head of the FBI.
Click to expand...
This is the second time in history. Bill Clinton fired the FBI director for petty corruption, e.g. using government money to upgrade his home. It was uncontroversial; Clinton wasn't being investigated.

There's a reason that FBI directors are supposed to serve a 10 year term.
 
Argumemnon said:
Of course it does. It's a continuation of the JREF forum which definitely had a stated purpose that attracted membership. It has the same purpose now. Unsupported claims about politics belong in the politics section.
Click to expand...
You can say that, but without a printed mission statement it really is a wandering blind drunk with no real purpose.
 
Puppycow said:
(Fixed link.)



Like I said, a gigantic hypocrite. But Democrats who were once calling for Comey to resign shouldn't forget that either.
Click to expand...

This is not hypocrisy.

It is not hypocrisy to say that Comey's actions were gravely wrong and he should resign and then months later to be concerned when Trump fires Comey (even putatively for those same actions) when the firing appears to be connected to the Russia investigation. Perhaps Comey's actions back then were a firing offence[1], but that does not mean that any firing of Comey is excusable just because you can point to that prior offence.

[1] I honestly have no idea. I vacillate on my opinion of Comey's actions.
 
Argumemnon said:
Isn't the purpose of the whole forum to examine claims? That's why we have sections for various topics.
Click to expand...

The people on the forum making a claim often point to the fact that some agency is investigating. But that isn't evidence, that is merely pointing to a group making claims themselves and haven't presented their evidence. At this stage, they are the equivalent​ of psychics right now.
 
varwoche said:
We know for a fact that...

  • Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
  • Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
  • Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
  • Manafort flat out lied about his deep Russian relationships
  • Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
  • Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
  • Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
  • Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day
  • Trump Jr acknowledged significant Russian money coming into the business, but Trump now denies
  • Trump openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton

"Lack of evidence"? On Planet X maybe.
Click to expand...

And none of that is evidence of stuff like collusion on the election. They are protesting Russian and like to lie about it. So what?
 
varwoche said:
This is the second time in history. Bill Clinton fired the FBI director for petty corruption, e.g. using government money to upgrade his home. It was uncontroversial; Clinton wasn't being investigated.

There's a reason that FBI directors are supposed to serve a 10 year term.
Click to expand...
And Clinton's firing of Sessions had a six month investigation and 161 page report.

https://lawfareblog.com/nightmare-scenario-trump-fires-comey-one-man-who-would-stand-him

He wasn't mad that Sessions wouldn't lie for him to give his false claims credibility and make an active investigation into the President go away.
 
Donald is at it on twitter again. He's a man-child, sheesuz on a stick! I hope the Senate finally appoints an independent investigator.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Donald is at it on twitter again. He's a man-child, sheesuz on a stick! I hope the Senate finally appoints an independent investigator.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting predicament. I wonder if he thought firing him for the reasons Democrats wanted him fired would work? It is hypocrisy that is the issue.

Though it is a tad bit hypocritical on Democrat's part.
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
I expect that Trump is the type of executive who always like to have some dirt on his key subordinates, so that he always has a ready rationale to excise any subordinate (or subordinates) any time that Trump considers it convenient to do so.
Click to expand...
They call that business. Also see business as usual, and taking care of business.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I'd think Washington area chiropractors are in boom times...

...treating for whiplash.

On both sides.

"Comey - Hero or Goat?"

From the left:

Declines to prosecute Hillary: Hero.

Informs congress of potential evidence coming to light in the investigation: Goat.

Fired by Trump: Hero.

And from the right, flip everything 180°.

Fascinating to watch, but in a "car wreck" sort of way.
Click to expand...

You forgot his villain for investigating the VP leaking classified information.
 
varwoche said:
I'm hopeful that this time it's a step too far, and that a special prosecutor will be appointed. This depends on republicans like McCain and Sasse gaining traction.
Click to expand...

Do we even have that law anymore? We don't have the one Starr used.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Okay, it is evidence in that it certainly doesn't eliminate the claims people are making. It also all absurdly consistent with so many other positions it is practically worthless.
Click to expand...

Notice that people are calling for an independent INVESTIGATION, not immediate impeachment or jailing.

Also, the FBI has a bunch of evidence that the Congressional Investigative Committees were in the process of negotiating access to when Comey was fired.

There is more than sufficient probable cause to justify a thorough investigation by an independent body. I'm not sure why you think the case needs to be fully proven right now.
 
Crossbow said:
Absolutely!

After all, please keep in mind that Trump is all about winning.
Click to expand...

And the great thing about corporate America is that even when you* lose you* win. Ask Mitt Romney.

*Please note that the "you"s in that sentence may refer to different people...
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
Notice that people are calling for an independent INVESTIGATION, not immediate impeachment or jailing.

Also, the FBI has a bunch of evidence that the Congressional Investigative Committees were in the process of negotiating access to when Comey was fired.

There is more than sufficient probable cause to justify a thorough investigation by an independent body. I'm not sure why you think the case needs to be fully proven right now.
Click to expand...

I agree there is sufficient evidence for an investigation. You are allowed to start the lowest level investigation on little more than a hunch and there is way more than that

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like the people I'm arguing with (Hercules, and others) simply see it as a question if there should be an investigation or not. I think they see it as a question of did or did not do it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Not in the sense that the president couldn't have them fires without cause.
Click to expand...


I'm not even sure the president couldn't fire a special prosecutor for any old reason. Constitutionally, it's supposed to be a gentlemen's agreement, but technically it's under the executive branch, by constitutional design, and the president can fire that person. The constitution does not authorize the legislative branch to interfere with a core executive branch power.

Probably would roll out like this:

President fires the new-and-improved-unfirable special prosecutor anyway.

Congress: "He can't fire this executive-branch underling!"

Pres: "Yes, I can. I am the head of the executive branch, and I enforce the laws."

Supreme Court: "He's right."

Congress: "Fine, let's start impeachment proceedings."

Prest: "I resign effective 3:33 AM tomorrow morning, after one last tweet."
 
logger said:
Because key issues were not resolved. Like who ordered the stand down.
Click to expand...

The problem with finding out who ordered the stand down is that no stand down was ordered. Even the House GOPers had to admit that in their reports...
 
Beerina said:
I'm not even sure the president couldn't fire a special prosecutor for any old reason. Constitutionally, it's supposed to be a gentlemen's agreement, but technically it's under the executive branch, by constitutional design, and the president can fire that person. The constitution does not authorize the legislative branch to interfere with a core executive branch power.

Probably would roll out like this:

President fires the new-and-improved-unfirable special prosecutor anyway.

Congress: "He can't fire this executive-branch underling!"

Pres: "Yes, I can. I am the head of the executive branch, and I enforce the laws."

Supreme Court: "He's right."

Congress: "Fine, let's start impeachment proceedings."

Prest: "I resign effective 3:33 AM tomorrow morning, after one last tweet."
Click to expand...

Under the special prosecutor act, the president couldn't fire the person.
 
Puppycow said:
Oh, by the way:


James Comey’s Testimony on Huma Abedin Forwarding Emails Was Inaccurate

He said she forwarded "hundreds of thousands" of classified e-mails to Weiner. It was only a small handful and only a couple of them may have contained classified information. This was testimony under oath.

This was last week, not months ago.
Click to expand...

One misstatement in a hearing that was since corrected?

You can't seriously be buying this excuse can you?:eek:

Trump was giddy over Comey when all those Clinton actions occurred.
 
TraneWreck said:
Great New Yorker piece on this:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-...tacked-american-democracy?mbid=social_twitter

We haven't spent a lot of time discussing Sessions role in this, but holy **** - the guy had to recuse himself from the investigation because he lied to the Senate (I mean, misrepresented facts...) and he's the one supposedly justifying Comey's dismissal.

This whole thing stinks.
Click to expand...

It's OK. The whole Sessions perjury think happened weeks ago and so has been completely forgotten - IIRC buried by Trump's claims that he was being bugged on Obama's orders.

It may stink but almost literally no-one seems to care :(
 
The Don said:
It's OK. The whole Sessions perjury think happened weeks ago and so has been completely forgotten - IIRC buried by Trump's claims that he was being bugged on Obama's orders.

It may stink but almost literally no-one seems to care :(
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of people care. Just not Congress Republicans.

Maybe it's time to drain the swamp? For real this time.
 
The Don said:
It's OK. The whole Sessions perjury think happened weeks ago and so has been completely forgotten - IIRC buried by Trump's claims that he was being bugged on Obama's orders.

It may stink but almost literally no-one seems to care :(
Click to expand...

It stinks but it's buried under a pile of crap, camouflageing the smell.
 
uke2se said:
Quite a lot of people care. Just not Congress Republicans.

Maybe it's time to drain the swamp? For real this time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe I was going overboard there :o

IMO well over 50% of the electorate (I'd estimate 75%+) don't because either they simply don't care about "politics" and/or they are enthusiastic GOP/Trump supporters.

The news media don't really seem to care otherwise they'd be making a much bigger deal of things.
 
Puppycow said:
Maybe it doesn't actually matter. Legitimate grounds to dismiss him existed. But please elaborate the real reason as you see it.
Click to expand...

Trump's letter was too thinly disguised to be credible. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

And in this case the technically correct interpretation of that quote applies:
Gertrude [the queen] says that Player Queen affirms so much as to lose credibility. Her vows are too elaborate, too artful, too insistent.
Click to expand...

He couldn't even leave out the, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation." It's obvious he is being investigated. There have, just in the last few days, been calls from the Senate to investigate Trump's financial connections to Russia.

Blaming it on Clinton issues and thinking the Democrats would cheer is the epitome of stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
...

Like I said, a gigantic hypocrite. But Democrats who were once calling for Comey to resign shouldn't forget that either.
Click to expand...

We aren't. But Trump apparently thought we'd be so happy about Comey getting his due (IMO for breaking a longstanding protocol of not doing anything that might affect an election) that we wouldn't notice Trump's real reason. Why you are buying the faux reason defies the evidence and common sense.
 
Good morning. This morning Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, dismissed a question by a reporter with a sarcastic remark about the firing of Comey. I wonder if this firing, at this time, was done for "Entertainment" purposes like the most polite missile strike was on Syria was for the Chinese President was? Will they be having a big beautiful piece of chocolate cake when Trump meets with Sergey Lavrov?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
We aren't. But Trump apparently thought we'd be so happy about Comey getting his due (IMO for breaking a longstanding protocol of not doing anything that might affect an election) that we wouldn't notice Trump's real reason. Why you are buying the faux reason defies the evidence and common sense.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that isn't the real reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom