Director Comey FIRED!!!

[Dddrees]

Yup, the Russians tried to affect our elections and everyone elses as well. 2016 wasn't an outlier in this respect. The fact that Putin thought he could do so with utter impunity is evidence of Obama's total impotence on foreign policy. Putin pwn'ed Obama like a rube left, right and center on the world stage. Why should this have been any different in his thought process?

By the way. Clinton's email server was a JOKE!!! It isn't a question of who hacked it... the easier question, and shorter answer, was who didn't?



Please, tell us ONE person who colluded with Russians to affect the election and how? Even the one possible lead from the trashy pee-memo turned out to be someone else with the same last name.

Perhaps VP Pence emailed Russian hackers and told them Podesta's email password was "password"?

Unfortunately for the President it's no longer just the possibility of collusion it's the possibility of obstruction of justice as well. This would be because of his actions as wll if found to be true. If he or his campaign didn't collude with the Russians he with his own actions could still end up being found guilty of something. Why he might obstruct justice if he didn't collude is anyone's guess but it's still against the law. This is the very reason Nixon was forced to resign.

 

[Dddrees]

The President at least seems to be back to full tilt.

The greatest witch hunt in history.

All I can say is enjoy sleeping in the bed you made Mr. President.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Unfortunately for the President it's no longer just the possibility of collusion it's the possibility of obstruction of justice as well. This would be because of his actions as wll if found to be true. If he or his campaign didn't collude with the Russians he with his own actions could still end up being found guilty of something. Why he might obstruct justice if he didn't collude is anyone's guess but it's still against the law. This is the very reason Nixon was forced to resign.

By Comey's own sworn testimony before congress on May 3rd, he encountered NO obstructions in his Russia investigation. Did he lie to congress?

What happened that he can go backwards in time to portray his February 16th conversation with Trump as obstruction?

Solely butt-hurt over being fired and out of the game.

ETA: Comparing, and I'll paraphrase, "Gee, I just fired the guy yesterday in front of the whole nation. Humiliating. Don't you think he's suffered enough?" to Nixon's ordering DoJ to halt that investigation, and immediately firing prosecutors and the AG when they said they wouldn't, is nothing short of laughable kool-aid drinking delirium.

 

[oldpink]

And what about the few Republicans at this point that also find fault with Trump, are they leftist as well? As much as you would like to believe that only a leftist could find fault with your boy there are some reasonable people on the right that find some very serious reasons to find fault with someone so flawed.

They are all opposing him because they are part of their establishment, formed over decades, an establishment that they see as threatened by someone they view as an interloper determined to upend it.
What does that say about you?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What does that say about you?

Going to interject and respond with, "Nothing."

Calling people leftist because they're not a big fan of how Trump is running things got boring about a year ago. It's a lazy way to shut down a conversation.

 

[miguel]

Pull the plug on the swamp and pull the plugs on those 16s, Mr. President!

 

[Dddrees]

By Comey's own sworn testimony before congress on May 3rd, he encountered NO obstructions in his Russia investigation. Did he lie to congress?

What happened that he can go backwards in time to portray his February 16th conversation with Trump as obstruction?

Solely butt-hurt over being fired and out of the game.

ETA: Comparing, and I'll paraphrase, "Gee, I just fired the guy yesterday in front of the whole nation. Humiliating. Don't you think he's suffered enough?" to Nixon's ordering DoJ to halt that investigation, and immediately firing prosecutors and the AG when they said they wouldn't, is nothing short of laughable kool-aid drinking delirium.

Who knows and he's certainly gotten it wrong when testifying before congress before. The Uma Aberdeen information wasn't entirely accurate. You could say it just wasn't technically accurate but the testimony certainly made it sound a lot different from what actually took place. But backing up data is a lot different from forwarding information. In fact in most cases backing up can make it more difficult to determine what exactly is included in the data.

Even so I would agree this is much different. I could probably come up with a few reasons why he might not disclose that he was pressured but I don't know why. I don't think this means it's not possible it still may have happened. Actually because the special counsel has been assigned we may have to wait to find this out. Heck because of the special counsel it could take awhile before the public has this specific answer. It just depends on how the investigation is handled and what the congress may or may not do along the same lines.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yup, the Russians tried to affect our elections and everyone elses as well. 2016 wasn't an outlier in this respect. The fact that Putin thought he could do so with utter impunity is evidence of Obama's total impotence on foreign policy. Putin pwn'ed Obama like a rube left, right and center on the world stage. Why should this have been any different in his thought process?

By the way. Clinton's email server was a JOKE!!! It isn't a question of who hacked it... the easier question, and shorter answer, was who didn't?



Please, tell us ONE person who colluded with Russians to affect the election and how? Even the one possible lead from the trashy pee-memo turned out to be someone else with the same last name.

Perhaps VP Pence emailed Russian hackers and told them Podesta's email password was "password"?



I'd like to associate myself with these remarks! Well said.

How would I know?... it's an allegation leveled against the current administration by people who have access to the sensitive information, concerning, that neither of us have. I didn't say it was factual, I said "the idea." Just as you can't tell me there wasn't any collusion, I can't tell you that there is.... but what I can say with certainty, is that someone with power thinks that there's enough information around that an official (and now independent) investigation should be pursued.

 

[oldpink]

Going to interject and respond with, "Nothing."

Calling people leftist because they're not a big fan of how Trump is running things got boring about a year ago. It's a lazy way to shut down a conversation.

No, what's lazy is all the bellyaching, whining, calling people nazis, shutting down normal debate, hitting people with bike locks, all because the left's candidate didn't win.
NONE Of this **** ever happens when a Demoncrap wins, only a Republican.
Much of it happened with GWB, none happened with BHO, and the intensity has doubled, then trebled, then quadrupled with Trump.
Lazy, stupid, violent *******s, all of them.
It must be a slow day over at DailyKOS.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Who knows and he's certainly gotten it wrong when testifying before congress before. The Uma Aberdeen information wasn't entirely accurate. You could say it just wasn't technically accurate but the testimony certainly made it sound a lot different from what actually took place. But backing up data is a lot different from forwarding information. In fact in most cases backing up can make it more difficult to determine what exactly is included in the data.

Even so I would agree this is much different. I could probably come up with a few reasons why he might not disclose that he was pressured but I don't know why. I don't think this means it's not possible it still may have happened. Actually because the special counsel has been assigned we may have to wait to find this out. Heck because of the special counsel it could take awhile before the public has this specific answer. It just depends on how the investigation is handled and what the congress may or may not do along the same lines.

Wait a second... this is the same Comey who famously threatened to resign when Bush officials attempted to get AG Ashcroft to re-authorize, i.e. continue, a policy that was all ready in place, a dated back to the Clinton Administration, IIRC. His memo was classic CYA... IMO, he knew that the only thing stopping Trump from giving him a richly deserved firing WERE the Flynn and Russian collusion investigations. In the end, Trump fired him in spite of it.

How would I know?... it's an allegation leveled against the current administration by people who have access to the sensitive information, concerning, that neither of us have. I didn't say it was factual, I said "the idea." Just as you can't tell me there wasn't any collusion, I can't tell you that there is.... but what I can say with certainty, is that someone with power thinks that there's enough information around that an official (and now independent) investigation should be pursued.

It's all in the leaks, or rather the lack of leaks of substance, Kut. Elsewhere, it's reported (leaked) that there were 18 contacts between the Trump team and the Russian Ambassador and Russian business people. From those 18 meetings, phone calls and emails, apparently all surveilled as the leakers knew the details of the ongoing discussions, nothing unusual. Just discussions of repairing relations, and allying against ISIS and China's increased influence. No election influence talk, none.

And, from that leak, we now know that the surveillance goes back to March of last year, the first contact... so we are now 14 months in and there is no nefarious conduct unearthed. At some point, someone needs to step up and say they've looked at everything and there was no election collusion. IMO, that person will be Special Counselor Mueller, whom I believe Rosenthal appointed because there isn't anything that has been found. And since he authored the Comey should be fired memo, Dems would yell cover-up if he was the one to report that. If there was something there, Rosenthal would move forward with it and be applauded.

Does anyone doubt Mueller's integrity? Guess what? If there's nothing there, and he says so, those Dems applauding his appointment today, will still yell cover-up when he announces it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Does anyone doubt Mueller's integrity? Guess what? If there's nothing there, and he says so, those Dems applauding his appointment today, will still yell cover-up when he announces it.

Oh, absolutely. Everything will be a scandal, in perpetuity. We'll never be in a normal state of politics again.

 

[spec4]

If Mueller is as squared away as I hope he is, he won't put up with much BS from the left trying to sensationalize his investigation. For us, if Trump is found guilty (and I don't think he will be), we get Pence and the libs will not be happy with that. If he is found innocent, he continues in office to cause the explosions of liberal heads. Isn't this a win-win for conservatives?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If Mueller is as squared away as I hope he is, he won't put up with much BS from the left trying to sensationalize his investigation. For us, if Trump is found guilty (and I don't think he will be), we get Pence and the libs will not be happy with that. If he is found innocent, he continues in office to cause the explosions of liberal heads. Isn't this a win-win for conservatives?

This being a good thing, and deflating the hysteria depends on two assumptions:

A. Trump stays quiet about it.
B. No more leaks come out regarding this.

Not sure I'd bet on those.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This being a good thing, and deflating the hysteria depends on two assumptions:

A. Trump stays quiet about it.
B. No more leaks come out regarding this.

Not sure I'd bet on those.

I think the recent "18 contacts, calls and emails" leak might be a last gasp on that front (Trump will no doubt Tweet new scandals into life). I think the #RESIST leakers were holding out hope of a "smoking gun" or at least the words "Clinton", "election" or "email" being uttered during those contacts. No mas, poor souls.

There will no doubt be dribbles about Trump people who had business dealings with Russia and actually exchanged money for goods and services. GASP! GOOD LORD!

And, why would Trump put people who actually knew something about dealing with Russia and Russians on his Russia team? OMG! THAT'S INSANE!

And, stock up on popcorn for the Comey testimony and other memos. Lol!

 

[Dddrees]

No, what's lazy is all the bellyaching, whining, calling people nazis, shutting down normal debate, hitting people with bike locks, all because the left's candidate didn't win.
NONE Of this **** ever happens when a Demoncrap wins, only a Republican.
Much of it happened with GWB, none happened with BHO, and the intensity has doubled, then trebled, then quadrupled with Trump.
Lazy, stupid, violent *******s, all of them.
It must be a slow day over at DailyKOS.

Not everybody who has a problem with Trump is a leftist. Some who have a problem with Trump also have a problem with Hillary or even Obama. So you can jump up and down and shoot until your blue in the face, but he was right it's lazy.

 

[oldpink]

Not everybody who has a problem with Trump is a leftist. Some who have a problem with Trump also have a problem with Hillary or even Obama. So you can jump up and down and shoot until your blue in the face, but he was right it's lazy.

Your problem is that you're an establishmentarian who feels threatened by the specter of the swamp getting drained, more than likely a Bushie.
I thought I already explained that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Your problem is that you're an establishmentarian who feels threatened by the specter of the swamp getting drained.
I thought I already explained that.

What label would you put on someone that notices the hypothetical "swamp" isn't really being "drained"... but filled with more establishment-types? I mean, I'm sure we can be picky with our examples and say "this one was drained" but "this one was added"...

The more honest approach would be to acknowledge both, yeah?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Unfortunately for the President it's no longer just the possibility of collusion it's the possibility of obstruction of justice as well. This would be because of his actions as wll if found to be true. If he or his campaign didn't collude with the Russians he with his own actions could still end up being found guilty of something. Why he might obstruct justice if he didn't collude is anyone's guess but it's still against the law. This is the very reason Nixon was forced to resign.

So why did Trump ask Comey to stop the Flynn investigation.

No, there's really not, unless you simply don't believe the allegations. The idea of a foreign power working to undermine our elections, with the help of Americans involved in the political process is a very big deal.

Do you remember when Comey ran up the Hill to tell Congress about the new findings in the HRC investigation because he felt it was so important that he had to tell them immediately?

Wouldn't you think he would have done the same with President Trump telling him to stop an investigation into Flynn? There would be nothing more important for Congress to be made aware of than information such as this.

Something doesn't reconcile in this ledger.

If anyone has a credibility problem, it is the NYT Times, WAPO, etc. At this point there is absolutely no reason to believe the allegations...and the circumstances point to the contrary as noted above.

 

[Dddrees]

Your problem is that you're an establishmentarian who feels threatened by the specter of the swamp getting drained, more than likely a Bushie.
I thought I already explained that.

When you run out of labels and sorry *** excuses for not being able to have any type of meaningful discussion please get back with us. Until then please go back to burying your head in the sand. I must say I think you've found your perfect President.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you remember when Comey ran up the Hill to tell Congress about the new findings in the HRC investigation because he felt it was so important that he had to tell them immediately?

Wouldn't you think he would have done the same with President Trump telling him to stop an investigation into Flynn? There would be nothing more important for Congress to be made aware of than information such as this.

Something doesn't reconcile in this ledger.

If anyone has a credibility problem, it is the NYT Times, WAPO, etc. At this point there is absolutely no reason to believe the allegations...and the circumstances point to the contrary as noted above.

I'm going out on a limb and going to guess that there's plenty of information of which this investigation is based, that isn't publicly available, given the nature of the allegations. Unless you're privy to that info, it isn't reasonable to say that the investigation doesn't have merit.