President Trump Fires FBI Director Comey

shakeysix said:

But Buzhi--we did not have access to instant media, personal cell phones, the internet back then. Most political protests were only shown as news bits. The network could decide the slant and tone they wanted to use when making the story. or even if they wanted to feature the story about the protest. Now, with personal phones filming the actual events and posting them to the gen public while the protest is in progress, there is less opportunity for glossing over public anger. Take a look at the films on the Townhall protests. They are much more authentic than the pumped up Fox views of the Tea Party Outrage--wide angle lens to magnify crowd size, palm tres in the background at a supposed Ohio Tea Party gathering. This anger is real and even the thickest conservative dolt has to realize that these folks are gonna vote! --s6

Click to expand...

They either haven't realized, despite a great deal of evidence, or they don't care...

I don't want to argue for pessimism here (though it's tempting cos I'm just such a blackhearted weasel), just for some kind of action. And I think we're kinda talking about the same thing, as far as that goes.

Yeah, wiretapping political opponents is pretty illegal, immoral, unethical. Good thing we got rid of that president.

And yall keep posting about investigations that have been concluded and no evidence was to be found. Any statement about new investigations was about Flynn, who did what he did under Obamas watch with a security clearance from Obama.

And Eric Trump discussing on a golf course that he has investments from russia quoted by a random person...

Ill just leave this here https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...ssia-bombshells-progressives-yawned-over/amp/

Fabio_of_Mullets said:

Yeah, wiretapping political opponents is pretty illegal, immoral, unethical. Good thing we got rid of that president.

Click to expand...

Please cite your sources about Obama wiretapping his opponents. Or did you mean Nixon?

Fabio_of_Mullets said:

Yeah, wiretapping political opponents is pretty illegal, immoral, unethical. Good thing we got rid of that president.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to cite something.

And yall keep posting about investigations that have been concluded and no evidence was to be found.

Click to expand...

No, these are ongoing investigations. You've been shown a direct quote from the head of the FBI saying that there are ongoing investigations. I do not know how to show that to you further.

Is it your opinion that there is no ongoing investigation, despite Comey's testimony to the contrary, or that there shouldn't be one?

Your one link, from a non-credible source, doesn't support either position even if it contains factual information; I can't figure out what your argument is.

Breitbart? Your source is Breitbart?


How about some Dylan to calm our souls?

... Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
(That's us)
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no telling who that it's naming
For the loser now will be later to win
Cause the times they are a-changing

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's the battle outside raging... --Bob Dylan

Fabio_of_Mullets said:

Ill just leave this here https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...ssia-bombshells-progressives-yawned-over/amp/

Click to expand...

Is there anyone here who couldn't have guessed Breitbart would be the primary source for all these comments?

Bet on the National Inquirer. Shucks.

-cb

Fabio_of_Mullets said:

Yeah, wiretapping political opponents is pretty illegal, immoral, unethical. Good thing we got rid of that president.

And yall keep posting about investigations that have been concluded and no evidence was to be found. Any statement about new investigations was about Flynn, who did what he did under Obamas watch with a security clearance from Obama.

And Eric Trump discussing on a golf course that he has investments from russia quoted by a random person...

Ill just leave this here https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...ssia-bombshells-progressives-yawned-over/amp/

Click to expand...

Apparently for Trump supporters, fake news is anything that doesn't parade around going "TRUMP IS THE GREATEST!!!!1!" Because Breitbart is sort of the definition of fake news.

I presume that the dig about "wiretapping" is at Obama, who Trump claimed had put a "wiretapp" on Trump Tower. Except that Trump had absolutely no proof of Obama had done any such thing, so his apologists moved it to wiretapping meant government surveillance in general, and maybe not of Trump, but of anyone associated with him, even if it was under a legal (and entirely justified) surveillance of foreign agents. So, Republicans found themselves frothing at the mouth that law enforcement under the Obama administration had the incredible nerve to accidentally come across Trump people talking to foreign agents. How dare they! Surely they should stop surveillance of all foreign operatives if there was the chance that they might be heard talking to Trump staffers. Because we must accept that anything they do is completely on the up-and-up, even if it looks incredibly suspicious.

One would think that Trump supporters would welcome a full airing of these issues so they could be finished, but instead they, like their leader, prefer to bob and weave while throwing word salad everywhere.

Fabio_of_Mullets said:

Your right, I should just get info from people who donated to Hillarys campaign, and are trying to discredit the new administration By Any Means Possible. Such good articles like how trump eats his steak, why is Melanias arms folded in this picture?, Milk is racist...

This is fun.

Click to expand...

Try. Try to produce a coherent argument based on something you can find in several credible sources. Please. I'm genuinely asking; I don't want to live in an echo chamber, but every time this happens, people refuse to try and just leave...

Breitbart is not a credible source because they don't attempt fact-checking. Try a source that does. Try using these sources to substantiate an opinion on whether or not there should be an investigation into the Russian involvement in the election and possible connections to White House staff.

rugcat said:

... The only reason Richard Nixon was forced out was that actual tapes existed of him discussing means of obstructing the Watergate investigation with his stooges. Archibald Cox was fired for his continuing efforts to to pry those out of the White House.

When the tapes were finally divulged by direct order from the court, that's the point where Republicans who originally opposed his impeachment flipped and announced they would now support it, which led to Nixon's resignation

And today's Republican Party is even less ethical and moral than the party of the 70s – back then there actually were at least some decent legislators who belonged to the Republican Party.

The only result of the Russian investigation that might get Donald Trump impeached would be video evidence of him discussing election strategies with Russian operatives, and even then, Trump would deny that it was him on those recordings and that it was all faked. Getting 67 votes would be difficult, if not impossible, even if it got as far as the Senate.

I do believe it would cost him, and many other Republicans, reelection in 2020, but that's about the best we can hope for.

Click to expand...

There are many differences with Watergate. For one it started with burglars caught in the act. And there were the tapes and the Congress was different then.

But that doesn't mean Trump doesn't also have his own achilles' heel. For one, he can't shut up, can't help himself doing stupid things like this poorly thought out timing and believing making it about Comey/Clinton would distract everyone from Trump/Russia. That's not happening.

Two, his finances are going to come out.

Three, he fired Flynn who is already asking for immunity to testify. That's an ace in the hole.

Four, there are spy agencies looking into Russian interference in addition to the FBI. We've not heard much from the CIA in this. Clapper (National Intelligence) said there was an investigation he couldn't comment on. We've heard from GCHQ in the UK. And the recent suspected Russian interference in the French election surely is being investigated.

So while we don't have the tapes and burglars in jail, we have a foreign state involved, and lots of overlapping investigations, most of which Trump does not have authority over.

Oh yeah, and John Dean is on MSNBC reminding us how Nixon and Trump both blatantly blundered.

Edited to add: And the leaks, there are so many disgruntled or concerned leakers both in the White House and surely there will be some in the FBI. Comey was speaking to employees when he was informed he was fired.

And this kind of arrogance! Russian foreign minister is sarcastic to reporters when asked about the Comey affair as the minister is meeting with Trump. That's going to piss lots of people off.

shakeysix said:

Breitbart? Your source is Breitbart? ...

Click to expand...

Sigh.

Nice Dylan reference though.

buzhidao said:

Okay. So what do you suggest we do, then?

Click to expand...

I'd suggest not placing much of your faith and hope in any online petitions generated by progressive groups becoming the irresistible force which moves the immovable Republican congressional majorities to turn on one of their own, even if his last name is Trump.

It's not that this is an exercise in forgone conclusions. Pressuring politicos has merit. Vacillating Dems are likely to go squishy if they put Trump and the Republicans on blast only to look over their shoulder and find they're standing out there all by themselves. Writing and calling your Republican senator/representative to do the right thing is not a waste of time, but if you have a Democratic senator or representative, they need to hear from you too and instructed to keep pushing and not let up on the many transgressions of Trump.

Pressure has to be exerted on both parties. One to grow a pair and the other not to let them shrivel away.

How do they become "prodded"?

Click to expand...

When it's their asses on the line. If you're a Democrat in a red state up for reelection, is making the firing of James Comey a big deal really the hill you want to plant your flag and die on? If you're a Republican in a red or blue state, is making the firing of James Comey a big deal and taking on Trump, really the sort of independence you want to display?

Everybody's hyped today over Comey getting cracked, but everybody was hyped over the House pushing Trumpcare through, and where are all those headlines today? Gone, gone, gone. Done moved on. This is what McConnell and Trump are counting on.

Politicians rarely act out of motivated by a desire to what's right. Most of the time they take a stand because its been proven safe to do so. How does one go about making it safe for chickenshit politicians? Only two or three ways I can think of:

1. You buy them and keep the receipt.
2. You make them aware going against you and all your-like-minded friends would prove to be a terrible, terrible mistake.
3. You make it the politically savvy (and safe) thing for them to do. Or the thing to do which best ensures their continued survival.

How do you do that? By selecting a target and taking the target out. That takes money, organization, commitment, strategy, a viable candidate and a lot of hard work and luck. There's really no other way that doesn't require outright anarchy.

What are you doing, specifically?

Click to expand...

Specifically? Sitting on my ass opining about a fascinating subject which could possibly morph into the greatest Constitutional crisis in four decades. In other words: same thing you're doing.

What are you suggesting?

Click to expand...

Don't follow me. I'm lost too.

buzhidao said:

Okay. So what do you suggest we do, then?



How do they become "prodded"?

What are you doing, specifically? What are you suggesting?

Click to expand...

Phone calls are currently more effective than any other method.

Call your elected officials and politicians.

nighttimer said:

I'd suggest not placing much of your faith and hope in any online petitions

Click to expand...

Okay. I don't.

I do recommend calling.

Sorry, I meant to highlight that part of your response, that seemed to suggest calling/contacting representatives was worthless, not the petitions bit.

It's not that this is an exercise in forgone conclusions. Pressuring politicos has merit. Vacillating Dems are likely to go squishy if they put Trump and the Republicans on blast only to look over their shoulder and find they're standing out there all by themselves. Writing and calling your Republican senator/representative to do the right thing is not a waste of time, but if you have a Democratic senator or representative, they need to hear from you too and instructed to keep pushing and not let up on the many transgressions of Trump.

Pressure has to be exerted on both parties. One to grow a pair and the other not to let them shrivel away.

Click to expand...

Well, agreed, ballsack metaphor excluded, but point taken. Possible I misread your post, in this case.

Specifically? Sitting on my ass opining about a fascinating subject which could possibly morph into the greatest Constitutional crisis in four decades. In other words: same thing you're doing.

Click to expand...

Well...I call, I write, I donate money.* Mostly I am sitting on my ass at present, true, and I doubt anything I did today made much of a difference. Was just wondering, since you seemed not to put any stock in the calling and whatnot (by the previous post--as I said, may have misread), if there were more effective, concrete-action-type alternatives.

But, in any case, every bit of pressure matters, I'm hoping.

Unless nothing matters, in which case, a phone call, email, fax, etc still won't hurt.

*I really don't mean this in a "wooey-oo I'm so great I'm so upstanding let me swan about with a tiara made of tinfoil poops" sort of way. I'm just sort of listing the things I know to do that I can do...

I have Cory Gardner's Denver and DC offices on my speed dial. I leave him a message... oh, every three days or so asking him to stand up and represent Colorado instead of Trump.

He never will, but I call.

I call and write to Michael Bennet occasionally, too, but he's basically 100% in agreement with my positions, so I don't bug him as often.

I thought I might point out that Trump's letter firing Comey is one time that "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" can be used consistent with its true meaning.

From multiple cites, the wording in Trump's letter:

"I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation,"

Click to expand...

From the link:

By "protest," Gertrude doesn't mean "object" or "deny"—these meanings postdate Hamlet. The principal meaning of "protest" in Shakespeare's day was "vow" or "declare solemnly," a meaning preserved in our use of "protestation." When we smugly declare that "the lady doth protest too much," we almost always mean that the lady objects so much as to lose credibility. Gertrude says that Player Queen affirms so much as to lose credibility.

Click to expand...

It's a great teachable moment re the quote.

"This is either the end of Trump or the end of Democracy."
"You cannot fire the man who is investigating you! Even the dumb people will understand what you at trying to get away with." --Keith Olbermann

Maybe it is time to let Keith out of the dungeon and back into the light. He doesn't seem nearly as wild eyed as he did when the exact middle was the fashion for Democrats.

Why not. Bill Kristol and Kellyanne Conway have been let out.

You'd think that the Democrats would be happy that Comey is gone. While they loved him in July of last year when he said that Clinton did not break the law, they hated him in late October when he reopened the investigation into her emails. They blamed him, in large part, for Clinton's loss. As recently as 10 days ago Clinton herself blamed Comey for her loss.

Did Trump,handle this in the best way? No.
Was the timing of the firing well planned and executed? No.
Was he fired because of the Russian investigation? Doubtful (just because the boss is gone doesn't mean the work stops).
However, if Trump did fire him in an attempt to save his skin he will be caught. There are enough Trump haters on both sides of the aisle (not to mention most of the media) to nail him, if guilty.

Gregg said:

You'd think that the Democrats would be happy that Comey is gone.

Click to expand...

I'm glad he's gone. He should've been fired months ago. If he didn't intend to influence the election in the way he both "revealed" a Clinton non-issue and concealed knowledge of Trump issues, then he's the world's biggest idiot.

That doesn't mean I think his firing now is commendable. The timing and Trump's stated reasons for it are both too precious for belief.

Gregg said:

Did Trump,handle this in the best way? No.
Was the timing of the firing well planned and executed? No.
Was he fired because of the Russian investigation? Doubtful (just because the boss is gone doesn't mean the work stops).

Click to expand...

Do you think Trump acts rationally, with forethought? I think he constantly shoots from the hip, from raw emotion.

Gregg said:

However, if Trump did fire him in an attempt to save his skin he will be caught. There are enough Trump haters on both sides of the aisle (not to mention most of the media) to nail him, if guilty.

Click to expand...

You have far more faith in the system than I do. I'd love to believe he'll be brought down, like Nixon, but at the moment the GOP seems solidly lined up behind him, and short of a miraculous defeat in 2018 that installs Democratic majorities in both House and Senate, I don't see that changing, nor any way to force a change.

Gregg said:

You'd think that the Democrats would be happy that Comey is gone. While they loved him in July of last year when he said that Clinton did not break the law, they hated him in late October when he reopened the investigation into her emails. They blamed him, in large part, for Clinton's loss. As recently as 10 days ago Clinton herself blamed Comey for her loss.

Click to expand...

Once again, it's not about Comey.

Yes, he fucked up. Yes, he probably deserved to be fired.

But the fact that the man got fired while leading an investigation into the inner circle of the man that fired him...is highly suspect.

Was he fired because of the Russian investigation? Doubtful (just because the boss is gone doesn't mean the work stops).

Click to expand...

I dunno; sources suggest it's the opposite of doubtful.

But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.
The known actions that led to Comey’s dismissal raise as many questions as answers. Why was Sessions involved in discussions about the fate of the man leading the FBI’s Russia investigation, after having recused himself from the probe because he had falsely denied under oath his own past communications with the Russian ambassador?
Why had Trump discussed the Russia probe with the FBI director three times, as he claimed in his letter dismissing Comey, which could have been a violation of Justice Department policies that ongoing investigations generally are not to be discussed with White House officials?

And how much was the timing of Trump’s decision shaped by events spiraling out of his control — such as Monday’s testimony about Russian interference by former acting attorney general Sally Yates, or the fact that Comey last week requested more resources from the Justice Department to expand the FBI’s Russia probe?

Click to expand...

And if he appoints someone dedicated to not investigating him, why wouldn't the work stop?

Granted, that stuff isn't proof. But shouldn't the firing, then, at least be investigated? Because if he did fire him for the Russia investigation, isn't that criminal obstruction of justice?

And, honestly, what is the reasoning for *not* doing this via independent commission/special prosecutor?

However, if Trump did fire him in an attempt to save his skin he will be caught. There are enough Trump haters on both sides of the aisle (not to mention most of the media) to nail him, if guilty.

Click to expand...

Again, we cannot simply count on people to do the right thing. It's not impossible, granted, but we have to apply pressure if we want things to happen.

MaeZe said:

Three, he fired Flynn who is already asking for immunity to testify.

Click to expand...

I'm puzzled by the resistance to giving Flynn immunity for his testimony. If granted immunity, he would be required to testify under oath, and in hazard of perjury if he lies or obfuscates. The very fact that he asked for immunity is an indication that he knows stuff that would place him in legal jeopardy if found out.

caw

Gregg said:

You'd think that the Democrats would be happy that Comey is gone. While they loved him in July of last year when he said that Clinton did not break the law, they hated him in late October when he reopened the investigation into her emails. They blamed him, in large part, for Clinton's loss. As recently as 10 days ago Clinton herself blamed Comey for her loss.
.

Click to expand...

Democrats' concern about this move is only puzzling if it's framed in the context of the narrative that "all Democrat opposition to DT is just sour grapes and being sore losers." Sadly, that's the narrative that's been pushed.

The thing is, that's not where Democrats are truly coming from; it's just a convenient way for the right to dismiss their concerns.

If, hypothetically, tomorrow DT suddenly turned around and began acting in a thoughtful and rational manner, if he suddenly began to treat his position as a responsibility and a burden to be taken seriously, rather than a prize in a contest, a feather in his cap to brag about, a source of the constant attention he so craves, in short, if he proved himself a good leader worthy of the title he now bears, I, for one, would be tickled pink.

I don't want the president to be a bloviating blowhard with an ego fifty times the size of his brain, conflicts of interest out the wazoo, and zero moral compass. If DT were in office as a Democrat, I'd find him just as abhorrant.

Perhaps Comey's firing will melt the snow that has blanketed the common ground the right seems to have forgotten they share with the left. Everybody wants a strong economy with lots of good jobs. Nobody wants poisoned water and air. Everybody wants their loved ones to have full bellies, good educations, healthcare when they're sick, and a safe place to call home. And no matter what nonsense people spout about "lazy losers sucking the government teat," everybody has the pride and the drive to earn those things for themselves. Now, not everybody has the MEANS to do so, but no child grows up dreaming of becoming a mooch. Give people the opportunity to thrive on their own, to have pride in their work and their community, and they'll run with it. Some people, due to whatever circumstances life has saddled them with, just need a bit more help on the front end. And we live in a place with the resources to provide that to every citizen and then some.

The left isn't upset because their "team" lost, they're legitimately terrified because every day that DT is in office, these basic things are becoming less available and less secure, and once they're gone, getting them back won't be easy.

Building is hard. Destroying is as simple as lighting a match.

Gregg said:

You'd think that the Democrats would be happy that Comey is gone. While they loved him in July of last year when he said that Clinton did not break the law, they hated him in late October when he reopened the investigation into her emails. They blamed him, in large part, for Clinton's loss. As recently as 10 days ago Clinton herself blamed Comey for her loss.

Did Trump,handle this in the best way? No.
Was the timing of the firing well planned and executed? No.
Was he fired because of the Russian investigation? Doubtful (just because the boss is gone doesn't mean the work stops).

Click to expand...

You had me until you made that last easily refuted assertion. Just because the boss doesn't realize his transparent actions were transparent, doesn't mean the boss isn't stupid enough to have done it.

Gregg said:

However, if Trump did fire him in an attempt to save his skin he will be caught. There are enough Trump haters on both sides of the aisle (not to mention most of the media) to nail him, if guilty.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

blacbird said:

I'm puzzled by the resistance to giving Flynn immunity for his testimony. If granted immunity, he would be required to testify under oath, and in hazard of perjury if he lies or obfuscates. The very fact that he asked for immunity is an indication that he knows stuff that would place him in legal jeopardy if found out.

caw

Click to expand...

I think it's just a matter of timing. Why give Flynn immunity before you've established the case against him (your leverage) and what he can testify to. Just because he says he has a story to tell doesn't mean he has something worth the trade.

It's wise to wait before accepting the deal.

- - - Updated - - -

blacbird said:

I'm puzzled by the resistance to giving Flynn immunity for his testimony. If granted immunity, he would be required to testify under oath, and in hazard of perjury if he lies or obfuscates. The very fact that he asked for immunity is an indication that he knows stuff that would place him in legal jeopardy if found out.

caw

Click to expand...

I think it's just a matter of timing. Why give Flynn immunity before you've established the case against him (your leverage) and what he can testify to. Just because he says he has a story to tell doesn't mean he has something worth the trade.

It's wise to wait before accepting the deal.