• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In Regards to Comey Being Fired

Do You Agree With Comey Being Fired?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 44.6%

  • No

    Votes: 26 31.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 20 24.1%
  • Total voters
    83
Mac77 said:
Your thought process is based on liberal lies.

What you are hearing is unsourced rumors being pushed by the liberal news media
Click to expand...
Oh, that is a regressive alt fact. The FISA court granted taps: they don't do that without a lot of evidence.
 
JamesBY said:
Eight investigations led by the Trey himself came up with nothing.
Click to expand...

Not really. You don't necessarily need a crime for an investigation. We found that security was mishandled, and requests to Hillary fell on deaf ears.
 
Anthony60 said:
Not really. You don't necessarily need a crime for an investigation. We found that security was mishandled, and requests to Hillary fell on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
Yeah, really. They found nothing culpable. They found the men were dead before the alarms reached listening ears. No, really, Anthony60, no.
 
JamesBY said:
Oh, that is a regressive alt fact. The FISA court granted taps: they don't do that without a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...


The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be.

National Review | Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, Policy & Current Events

"To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).

*

That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes."
 
akyron said:
The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be.

National Review | Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, Policy & Current Events

"To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).

*

That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes."
Click to expand...
So now the FISA courts are being attacked. I wonder if Republicans, and the Democrats who support the growth of such courts the last thirty years, are attacking them.

The courts require quite a lot of evidence before they issue warrants.
 
Mac77 said:
2 and 4 in my opinion

But of course there are other liberal lies that may have lured you off course

Such as trump demaned that comey be loyal to him personsally

Or that comey asked for more money to expand the russia investigation

Or the asst attorney general threatened to quit

All unsourced liberal lies by the anti trump news media
Click to expand...

Trumps pretty much made it clear how he feels about the investigation. He's called it fake and a waste of time and money and a fraud on the taxpayers or words to that effect.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground to say that Trump doesn't like the investigation and would prefer it go away for whatever reason.

On 4 that's Comey's reputation as stated by people who know and have worked with him. I don't know the man personally but everything I've read indicates that he's a straight shooter.
 
JamesBY said:
Yeah, really. They found nothing culpable. They found the men were dead before the alarms reached listening ears. No, really, Anthony60, no.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are dismissing the men killed by mortar fire at the CIA annex. No, really, nice.
 
JamesBY said:
What a silly conclusion by you, completely unfounded on the actual evidence at the hearings. Run along, Tony.
Click to expand...

You said "They found the men were dead before the alarms reached listening ears." Of course you want me to "run along". So you can run away.
 
JamesBY said:
Oh, that is a regressive alt fact. The FISA court granted taps: they don't do that without a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...

Obama bypassed the FISA court by using NSA recordings of foreigners who do not have FISA protection and are speaking to political enemies of interest in the republican party.

Its interesting that Flynn has not been charged with any actual crime as a result of being unmaked by the obama adminstration

And he won't be charged with treason because he didn't commit any crime other than try to conceal the contact from trump

Which was unethical

But leaking that informatiom to the media was a crime

And unmasking flynn was as unethical as what flynn did
 
Anthony60 said:
You said "They found the men were dead before the alarms reached listening ears." Of course you want me to "run along". So you can run away.
Click to expand...
How silly that you would condemn people for being unable to respond to bring to life the men who were already dead. Benghazi is only for squabbling now, nothing else.
 
JamesBY said:
How silly that you would condemn people for being unable to respond to bring to life the men who were already dead. Benghazi is only for squabbling now, nothing else.
Click to expand...

Nice straw man, and you continue to ignore those at the CIA annex.
 
Anthony60 said:
Nice straw man, and you continue to ignore those at the CIA annex.
Click to expand...
Your straw burns every time you bring it up. You clearly don't know the story and won't learn. Eight Benghazi hearings later and you are all "nuh uh." OK.
 
Moderate Right said:
What say you?
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with him being fired. I think he should have been fire when he said "we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" or that none of the emails were intentionally deleted to conceal them in some sort of way. That right there revealed that he was nothing more than an Obama stooge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom