White House: Removing Comey will help bring Russia investigation to end

[JasperL]

Now why would you use December as your cutoff date? Did you look for the latest date any Democratic expressed no confidence or called for him to go? Why December? November, it was okay, but December, verboten. You're a riot. And still wrong about it.

Something significant happened in January....hmmmm, what could it be....OH YEAH, that's when Trump took office!! I said it right there in the part you quoted.

But anyway, you can't make claims about incriminating statements and what they suggest to you without noting exactly what statements you're referring to. You want people to assume what you're referring to? That's the lazy part.
And you were dancing between topics ... reasons for Trump firing Comey and also when the Democratics stopped asking for Comey's head.

iow, you have to show the topic you choose to opine on, the statement chain that you think supports the opinion, and how you think it definitively supports it.

Otherwise you run the risk of looking intentionally vague.

To be honest, I'm lost about what we're debating at this point. eace

 

[Tigerace117]

What "Facts"?

I'm not suprised somebody whose "very conservative" still has his head in the sand.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Sorry kiddo, you're completely full of ****.

You have a lot to learn.....sport.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I'm being entirely accurate. I could find the quotes of both Trump and Sessions praising Comey's letter in October, but they've both been all over the news this past week. I don't watch TV and I've seen them many times linked in news stories. If you doubt it, any search will locate them.

And it's just fact that calls for Comey to resign ended before inauguration. Sure, lots of Democrats wanted him fired for the October Surprise memo to Congress, but after Clinton lost and Trump took office, and Comey's FBI was running a serious inquiry into Russia (at a time when the House inquiry devolved into a sick joke and the Senate inquiry is woefully underfunded and moving at a turtle's pace) NO democrats wanted him fired and for Trump to appoint a Trump ass kisser into that position and threaten that serious investigation. I've seen NO quotes from any Democrat after about December calling for Comey's firing NOW - the context changed. It's very simple, obvious, and because the context change, Democrats' opinions changed. So did the opinions of lots of Republicans who wanted him fired for letting Clinton off in July.

Here's the bottom line, it's not hypocritical to change your mind when facts change. Only morons are wedded to opinions even as the facts or their understanding of them move.

It is quite amusing that you are attempting to slam the republicans for doing the same thing the democrats have been doing. Do you understand anything about politics at all? it all depends on who's ox is being gored at the time. And there has been hard criticism of Comey by the democrats since Trump took office....including just days before Comey was fired. Just look up the Comey testimony to Congress days before the firing. The democrats are still quite butthurt that Comey kept Hillary's email scandal in the news by reopening the investigation days before the election. republican criticism of Comey mostly had to do with the fact that he resisted looking into the leaks and unmasking of classified conversations, which were a felonious violation and abuse of the Patriot Act. It was that and Comey's overstepping his bounds on the day in July when he held the presser stating that he would not seek an indictment against Hillary that led to his firing. And it's quite clear that Hillary would have fired him almost immediately if she had managed to sleaze her way into the White House.

 

[MAGAnificent]

It should've been Sanders vs. Trump. All these fat & sassy conservatives would've been sucking their thumbs, pouting right now.

At least that would have been a legitimate race. Sanders would not have cheated his way in as Hillary did. However the end result would still have been a Trump victory and it would have been democrats sucking their thumbs. While the hard left would have went gaga for Bernie Sanders blatant socialism, mainstream America would have rejected it. he may have done even worse then Hillary.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Especially because I think there was a decent amount of right-wingers that actually liked Sanders and would have been supportive of his economic policies that help the lower classes. The diehards would have been incensed.

You are fantasizing a bit there. Liking Sanders and voting for him are quite different. I liked Sander's straight forward honesty. If Sanders told you where he stood on an issues, you believed that it came from the heart. Hillary on the other hand would say whatever she thought would get her elected. Examples were when she attempted to walk back stances she had taken in the 2008 race when she ran in 2016. However liking Bernie does not translate into accepting his big government socialist goals. I would never vote for Bernie. However I do respect him. Can't say the same thing for the Clinton clan.

 

[bubbabgone]

Something significant happened in January....hmmmm, what could it be....OH YEAH, that's when Trump took office!! I said it right there in the part you quoted.

To be honest, I'm lost about what we're debating at this point. eace

The Left was still bitching about Comey in January. And Trump taking office at the end of January wouldn't have changed that. They just had a more lucrative line of attack after that. One that required a change of heart on Comey.

I'm with you on that.
Have a good one.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Good afternoon, ObamacareFail. :2wave:

One of the best posts I've seen that's it's really not all about Trump - he is simply a handy excuse to blame because he has his own thoughts on what changes are necessary to benefit this Country, but he is still only one man! :!: The difference in his case is that he is backed by millions of voters who expect change to give them a fair shake, which they hope he can accomplish!

Perhaps what we should be asking is "who are the people behind the curtain that are fighting him with a lot of money in order to keep things stirred up, and how do they intend to benefit from all the chaos they have created as a result?" Could it be people in our own government, from both parties, that don't want the status quo upset because it benefits them more than the people who elected them; could it be a global group of very wealthy elites who want to rule the world, fulfilling their dream of a One-World Government; could it be that some hate our Constitution and Bill of Rights that have protected us for hundreds of years and want it trashed and destroyed; or something or someone else entirely? I've read most of these explanations, and most seem logical, but who knows?

Happy Mothers day, Polgara....

Those are all valid questions. I'll give my take on your main point. While the people behind the curtain attempting to obstruct and or destroy Trump are mostly democrats, there are sadly there are too many establishment politicians in both major parties that favor the status quo politics that allows them to build campaign war chests primarily through big donors while giving just lip service to the actual wishes of their constituents. That system has kept many of them in power for decades. They fear populist movements that may take politics back to what the founders intended.....congress critters would serve a term or two, then go back to the family law practice, farm, or other business. They never expected politicians to remain in office for 20, 30, and even in some cases, 50 years. Entrenched power is the greatest threat to this nation.

 

[JoeTrumps]

 

[Verax]

You are fantasizing a bit there. Liking Sanders and voting for him are quite different. I liked Sander's straight forward honesty. If Sanders told you where he stood on an issues, you believed that it came from the heart. Hillary on the other hand would say whatever she thought would get her elected. Examples were when she attempted to walk back stances she had taken in the 2008 race when she ran in 2016. However liking Bernie does not translate into accepting his big government socialist goals. I would never vote for Bernie. However I do respect him. Can't say the same thing for the Clinton clan.

Here in Utah, in the reddest of the red, Bernie had unexpectedly strong support. There were Bernie signs everywhere, next to the occasional confederate flag, I kid you not. Most of my conservative friends preferred Bernie but then voted for either McMullin or Trump as a last resort. People of all demographics are tired of getting economically fisted. Times have changed and the "free market" is never going to reward the lower classes ever again, that age is over. Now that globalization has taken power away from working class Americans, their only hope for a decent life is redistribution of wealth away from the crony tycoons.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Here in Utah, in the reddest of the red, Bernie had unexpectedly strong support. There were Bernie signs everywhere, next to the occasional confederate flag, I kid you not. Most of my conservative friends preferred Bernie but then voted for either McMullin or Trump as a last resort. People of all demographics are tired of getting economically fisted. Times have changed and the "free market" is never going to reward the lower classes ever again, that age is over. Now that globalization has taken power away from working class Americans, their only hope for a decent life is redistribution of wealth away from the crony tycoons.

Unfortunately for Bernie fans, socialism would get us to globalism even quicker. And I do not buy your suggestion that the free market is never going to reward the poor again. I also have doubts that you have conservative friends.

 

[JasperL]

It is quite amusing that you are attempting to slam the republicans for doing the same thing the democrats have been doing. Do you understand anything about politics at all? it all depends on who's ox is being gored at the time. And there has been hard criticism of Comey by the democrats since Trump took office....including just days before Comey was fired. Just look up the Comey testimony to Congress days before the firing. The democrats are still quite butthurt that Comey kept Hillary's email scandal in the news by reopening the investigation days before the election. republican criticism of Comey mostly had to do with the fact that he resisted looking into the leaks and unmasking of classified conversations, which were a felonious violation and abuse of the Patriot Act. It was that and Comey's overstepping his bounds on the day in July when he held the presser stating that he would not seek an indictment against Hillary that led to his firing. And it's quite clear that Hillary would have fired him almost immediately if she had managed to sleaze her way into the White House.

LMAO, and the Russia investigation that Trump tweeted about, whined about in public regularly, was by all accounts obsessed with, that caused Trump to yell at the TV set didn't have a thing to do with the firing. Got it!

And the problem is even IF the Russia investigation wasn't the reason for the firing, the bottom line is the President just fired the guy investigating the President. It's not normal...

 

[Verax]

Unfortunately for Bernie fans, socialism would get us to globalism even quicker. And I do not buy your suggestion that the free market is never going to reward the poor again. I also have doubts that you have conservative friends.

Social Democracy actually protects against the ills of globalism in that more money is distributed to the lower classes which means more money is distributed at the community level which makes them more robust and self sufficient. The free market is going to reward the poor, just not those in the US. Rather markets such as China, India, and Brazil will grow as they are far superior for purposes of exploitation. I have doubts you have friends whatsoever.

 

[JasperL]

The Left was still bitching about Comey in January. And Trump taking office at the end of January wouldn't have changed that. They just had a more lucrative line of attack after that. One that required a change of heart on Comey.

I'm with you on that.
Have a good one.

Comey and Trump were praising Comey in October and November. And Trump taking office at the end of January wouldn't have changed that. Trump just had a more lucrative line of attack after that. One that required a change of heart on Comey to "YOU'RE FIRED!"

 

[bubbabgone]

Comey and Trump were praising Comey in October and November. And Trump taking office at the end of January wouldn't have changed that. Trump just had a more lucrative line of attack after that. One that required a change of heart on Comey to "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Are you feeling all right? Past your bedtime?

Trump had been praising Comey and damning Comey all along, as is his wont on many things, until he finally settles on something.
The reasons for Comey getting fired were numerous.
Many were detailed in the Rosenstein memo, which Trump acknowledged, while saying he was going to fire Comey anyway.
Hey !!! I think that may have been what the debate was about.

 

[JasperL]

Are you feeling all right? Past your bedtime?

No, I'm good, thanks though. Just pointing out what you said about "Democrats" is easily turned back on Trump and Sessions with hardly any effort. They both were praising Comey, and Trump made a positive decision to retain Comey despite knowing about the great thing he did for Trump in October and the bad thing he did for Trump in July.

Trump had been praising Comey and damning Comey all along, as is his wont on many things, until he finally settles on something.
The reasons for Comey getting fired were numerous.

Interesting. So someone's opinion on Comey isn't black OR white, good OR bad, competent OR incompetent? I agree. You're allowing Trump to reasonably believe in January 2017 that although he made a mistake in July, Comey was still competent to lead the FBI, and so he decided to not fire him. At some point his judgment changed because Comey wasn't kissing the Donald's fat rear end and closing down the Russia investigation to pursue leaks like Trump wanted, and Trump fired him. This is OK in your view.

What's pathetic is you can't admit or acknowledge that a person (e.g. a Democrat) can believe in November that Comey made a reckless (and fireable) decision to be his own October Surprise in November AND that his independence once Trump retained him and he was leading the ONLY real investigation into Trump and Russia and that despite his October decision lead to a different conclusion that he should NOT be fired 108 days into the administration so Trump can install a lackey in that seat. In other words, when facts and circumstances change, reasonable people often come to different conclusions. Trump did that and you say fine. Democrats do that and you scream HYPOCRITE!!!!

Many were detailed in the Rosenstein memo, which Trump acknowledged, while saying he was going to fire Comey anyway.
Hey !!! I think that may have been what the debate was about.

Trump fired him because of Russia, specifically, and more broadly because Trump believes the FBI director should essentially act as a political appointee and jump when Trump says Jump, kiss Trump's rear end when offered, speak no ill of the POTUS, etc. We all know that. If you want to pretend it was something else, that's fine, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, I'm good, thanks though. Just pointing out what you said about "Democrats" is easily turned back on Trump and Sessions with hardly any effort. They both were praising Comey, and Trump made a positive decision to retain Comey despite knowing about the great thing he did for Trump in October and the bad thing he did for Trump in July.



Interesting. So someone's opinion on Comey isn't black OR white, good OR bad, competent OR incompetent? I agree. You're allowing Trump to reasonably believe in January 2017 that although he made a mistake in July, Comey was still competent to lead the FBI, and so he decided to not fire him. At some point his judgment changed because Comey wasn't kissing the Donald's fat rear end and closing down the Russia investigation to pursue leaks like Trump wanted, and Trump fired him. This is OK in your view.

What's pathetic is you can't admit or acknowledge that a person (e.g. a Democrat) can believe in November that Comey made a reckless (and fireable) decision to be his own October Surprise in November AND that his independence once Trump retained him and he was leading the ONLY real investigation into Trump and Russia and that despite his October decision lead to a different conclusion that he should NOT be fired 108 days into the administration so Trump can install a lackey in that seat. In other words, when facts and circumstances change, reasonable people often come to different conclusions. Trump did that and you say fine. Democrats do that and you scream HYPOCRITE!!!!



Trump fired him because of Russia, specifically, and more broadly because Trump believes the FBI director should essentially act as a political appointee and jump when Trump says Jump, kiss Trump's rear end when offered, speak no ill of the POTUS, etc. We all know that. If you want to pretend it was something else, that's fine, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

Oooohhh ... you meant Sessions and Trump were praising Comey.

Trump said that very thing. That Comey effed up in July but had guts in October so he didn't can him like the Dems wanted until their Party couldn't do it any longer. Then Comey became untouchable to The Resistance. He didn't discount any reason. He brought up the Russia probe because that was something the Letter & Memo didn't address.
The probe had been going on for too long without resolution and I can think of 2 things in particular that were reasons enough to fire Comey.
1 - his offer to the Obama Administration to write an op-ed about Russian tampering.
2 - even entertaining a thought of paying Steele $50K for the dossier or using him in their investigation.

One final thing, I'm worried you're a bit too focused on Trump's rear end.

 

[JasperL]

Oooohhh ... you meant Sessions and Trump were praising Comey.

Trump said that very thing. That Comey effed up in July but had guts in October so he didn't can him like the Dems wanted until their Party couldn't do it any longer.

That's right - in January, Trump's opinion of Comey was high enough that he made a positive decision to retain him as FBI Director despite what happened in July. He then changed him mind and fired him, which is OK if you are republican, but evidence of HYPOCRISY if a democrat.

Then Comey became untouchable to The Resistance. He didn't discount any reason. He brought up the Russia probe because that was something the Letter & Memo didn't address.
The probe had been going on for too long without resolution and I can think of 2 things in particular that were reasons enough to fire Comey.
1 - his offer to the Obama Administration to write an op-ed about Russian tampering.
2 - even entertaining a thought of paying Steele $50K for the dossier or using him in their investigation.

So you bring up the Russia investigation as the reason for Trump firing him. I agree - it's obvious to everyone not a Trump cultist.

But your reasons don't make sense. First of all, on what basis has the Russia probe gone on too long? How long should have it lasted, and why do you believe you can know the precise period of time that is appropriate and beyond that is "too long" for something as broad as the one the FBI is conducting as we speak?

Also, on the opinion piece, he proposed a course of action, Obama said no, and that was that.

And why would paying Steele or using his dossier be a fireable offense, particularly using the dossier? You're not part of the investigation, but seem to know what part of the dossier is false, how they used the dossier, and that their use of it was somehow inappropriate. Steele has a good reputation, so how do you know that interviewing him, getting details about his sources, how he came to his conclusions, which conclusions might be solid and which one closer to pure speculation, and more, would be fruitless? Those are as baseless conclusions as your hilariously baseless conclusion that the probe had gone on "too long" which you have no way in the world of knowing, unless you are part of the FBI team doing the investigation, which I don't think is true.

 

[bubbabgone]

.....

So you bring up the Russia investigation as the reason for Trump firing him.

No, I said it's one one the reasons and he brought it up because it's one that wasn't addressed in the memo. Pretty good memo though, huh.

But your reasons don't make sense. First of all, on what basis has the Russia probe gone on too long? How long should have it lasted, and why do you believe you can know the precise period of time that is appropriate and beyond that is "too long" for something as broad as the one the FBI is conducting as we speak?

Relax. I was talking about how he viewed the investigation as going on too long without resolution. After all, it started when he was just a candidate.
btw, just what is being investigated, anyway?

Also, on the opinion piece, he proposed a course of action, Obama said no, and that was that.

I never understood why Obama said NO. Any ideas?

 

[MAGAnificent]

LMAO, and the Russia investigation that Trump tweeted about, whined about in public regularly, was by all accounts obsessed with, that caused Trump to yell at the TV set didn't have a thing to do with the firing. Got it!

And the problem is even IF the Russia investigation wasn't the reason for the firing, the bottom line is the President just fired the guy investigating the President. It's not normal...

However Trump did not fire the FBI. The investigation into whether or not there is anything to the partisan witch hunt suggesting Trump campaign collusion with Russia, will go on. It does not depend on a rogue FBI chief. The FBI chief serves at the pleasure of the President. You may not like the optics of when Comey was fired, however Trump. Even the usual squad of democrats like Chuckles Schumer and Nancy Bimbolosi wanted him gone, claiming that they had lost confidence in him.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Social Democracy actually protects against the ills of globalism in that more money is distributed to the lower classes which means more money is distributed at the community level which makes them more robust and self sufficient. The free market is going to reward the poor, just not those in the US. Rather markets such as China, India, and Brazil will grow as they are far superior for purposes of exploitation. I have doubts you have friends whatsoever.

That post is complete fantasy. The redistribution you are referring to under socialism amounts to little more then welfare entitlements. While those entitlements do put food on the table, they do not lift the poor out of poverty. And as far as the jobs going to China, India, Brazil, etc, you have only your socialist liberals in government to blame as the biggest incentive for corporations to move operations overseas is the stranglehold of high corporate taxes and capital gains taxes in this country.....not to mention bastard legislation like Obamacare. And do you have the foggiest clue why the Brits voted to leave the European Union? It is because that brand of social democracy has led to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels deciding things such as immigration policy for the UK.

 

[Verax]

That post is complete fantasy. The redistribution you are referring to under socialism amounts to little more then welfare entitlements. While those entitlements do put food on the table, they do not lift the poor out of poverty. And as far as the jobs going to China, India, Brazil, etc, you have only your socialist liberals in government to blame as the biggest incentive for corporations to move operations overseas is the stranglehold of high corporate taxes and capital gains taxes in this country.....not to mention bastard legislation like Obamacare. And do you have the foggiest clue why the Brits voted to leave the European Union? It is because that brand of social democracy has led to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels deciding things such as immigration policy for the UK.

Well of course ALL PROBLEMS are caused by socialist libruls. Even though the current system in the U.S. funnels almost all of the wealth to a tiny minority you think the welfare state is the problem. I'm curious, when are the Reagan tax cuts going to lift all boats and deliver everyone from poverty? Just need another tax cut to make it happen, right?

 

[JasperL]

However Trump did not fire the FBI. The investigation into whether or not there is anything to the partisan witch hunt suggesting Trump campaign collusion with Russia, will go on. It does not depend on a rogue FBI chief. The FBI chief serves at the pleasure of the President. You may not like the optics of when Comey was fired, however Trump. Even the usual squad of democrats like Chuckles Schumer and Nancy Bimbolosi wanted him gone, claiming that they had lost confidence in him.

First of all, you're glossing over the intent behind the FBI Director's 10-year term - he's NOT supposed to be treated like any other political appointee. And to suggest that the FBI investigation is a "partisan witch hunt" just reveals your own hopeless partisanship.

Second, that investigation MAY continue, and a legitimate one will only continue if the Congress and the public demand that Trump hire someone with integrity, and not some rear end kissing lackey that Trump can order around like a political appointee. If he appointed Rudy, for example, anyone trusting that a legitimate investigation will continue is a fool. Thankfully, I believe there are enough republicans who would refuse to confirm an idiot like Rudy.

I'm ignoring the 'but the Democrats!!' diversion.

 

[Moderate Right]

Trump's done. Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.

What did he obstruct? There were investigations before Comey. There are investigations after Comey.

 

[Moderate Right]

Trump is doing a fantastic job of keeping that cloud over his head without anybody's help.

Then why is the left helping him?