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

[bubbabgone]

NO, NO, NO....We already have 3 separate investigations going on....There is NO underlying crime that has been offered here....The only reason liberals want so badly to have an SP, is so that they can drag this out for the entire four years, and tag some process charge on someone insignificant, so that they can all go "SEE, WE KNEW IT!"

Of course.
Remember right after the election?
Given they control no branches of the Federal Government the Party leaders were being asked what do they intend to do to become relevant?
They decided on Resistence and Russia.

 

[Rogue Valley]

This is today, Cardinal, not a month ago, in case you aren't up on current events.

Lol. From someone constantly dredging up Obama and Hillary. The hypocrisy here is priceless!

 

[jmotivator]

Well, OK, it wasn't a letter and it wasn't to Congress, but I'm sure you're right the Congress got copies as did the press, so it was also a letter to the press and to you and me, since we got electronic copies. But now we know what we're talking about - the Rosenstein memo!

And I understand your desperate need to make the discussion about semantics.

You made the claim that the memo outlined the reasons Trump fired Comey. TRUMP tells us that is false, a lie. He said, repeatedly, in several ways, that he (Trump) had decided to fire Comey, before that Monday meeting, before the memo, and "regardless of recommendations." Etc.

I did, and it did. The memo detailed the reasons why Comey was no longer trusted to lead the FBI and the DOJ. That Trump said that he had made up his mind does not mean that he wasn't operating on the very same well-documented failings by Comey. You seem to think Trump's statement and the DOJ reasoning were mutually exclusive, it isn't.

I suggest if you want to assert the reasons Trump fired Comey, quote Trump, and not the letter [sic] Trump tells you had NOTHING to do with his decision!

This is funny because YOU haven't quoted Trump's reasons for firing Comey. My assertion is that he was operating on all the same information that the DOJ memo detailed, and was well documented, but that that information was enough in his opinion to fire Comey even if the DOJ decided that it wasn't.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, OK, it wasn't a letter and it wasn't to Congress, but I'm sure you're right the Congress got copies as did the press, so it was also a letter to the press and to you and me, since we got electronic copies. But now we know what we're talking about - the Rosenstein memo!



You made the claim that the memo outlined the reasons Trump fired Comey. TRUMP tells us that is false, a lie. He said, repeatedly, in several ways, that he (Trump) had decided to fire Comey, before that Monday meeting, before the memo, and "regardless of recommendations." Etc.

And saying, "isn't proof that his reason for firing Comey were other than what was detailed in the memo." is first of all, gibberish, and also just another attempt on your part to move the goal posts and/or shift the burden of proof. I suggest if you want to assert the reasons Trump fired Comey, quote Trump, and not the letter [sic] Trump tells you had NOTHING to do with his decision!

Jasper buddy ...
Why do you think Sessions wrote the letter to Trump and Rosenstein wrote the memo to Sessions?

 

[JasperL]

Since no such evidence has been announced or presented, and all supposed evidence has been refuted, and every official has gone on record to say they have found no evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, you have no basis for that belief. But since Cardinal seem to believe every Trump collusion story that comes down the pike, even though they are all eventually debunked, I actually have evidence to support my conclusion that Cardinal would never accept the truth.

Until the FBI announces its findings, nothing can be officially "debunked." And until the findings are announced, you actually don't have "evidence" to support your conclusion about invented reactions to unknown future events. Give me a break... :roll:

Besides, you said the investigation is already over, and all in the hands of some Grand Jury, so we just have a few more days to wait for the official announcements! Cannot wait! Trump will be soo happy too that it's over. If he'd just checked with you, no need to fire Comey, and he could have avoided all this negative publicity. Too bad for Trump.

 

[jmotivator]

Lol. From someone constantly dredging up Obama and Hillary. The hypocrisy here is priceless!

Soooo.. it is your argument that someone wishing to discuss the state of the FBI investigation today can not choose to have a separate conversation about the history of James Comey's job as Director of the FBI.. because his record as FBI Director didn't happen today?

Pro tip: When we are talking about the state of the investigation TODAY we discuss what is happening today, when we are discussing the reasons for firing Comey we are not limited to what Comey did today.

 

[JasperL]

Jasper buddy ...
Why do you think Sessions wrote the letter to Trump and Rosenstein wrote the memo to Sessions?

I'm a little lost about your question. Trump told is the memo served no real purpose. So I can only guess the reason Trump asked for it, and for Sessions' recommendation. I can only guess a pretty hilariously failed attempt at CYA, to pretend that the firing was based on sober analysis by a guy who the public and Congress respects, Rosenstein. But then Trump stomps all over that BS, threw Spicer, Sanders, Pence and others who'd lied on his behalf under the bus, then backs up and runs over them again, and admits he couldn't have cared less what Rosenstein's memo said!

So I cant' figure out what the hell Trump was thinking. If you can, let us all know!

 

[Cardinal]

Come on man...You don't have an opinion on that? Really? :roll:

I gave you my answer: when the investigation is complete. It's not up to me to decide when the investigation has, of its own accord and without interference, successfully concluded.

Oh come on! If Trump said that the sky was blue, you libs would scream "lie" and say it was purple.....

In the first 100 days alone he told 477 falsehoods or misleading statements. That has consequences.

You are just plain wrong on that....“there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI director.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-independent-is-the-fbis-director

I didn't say there were. Read my actual words.

Are you talking about Trump? Or Bill Clinton when he fired Willian Sessions?

That depends: is this thread about Trump or is it about Clinton?

That's just a pre emptive excuse for not accepting any final determination from the FBI that doesn't recommend charges against Trump....Plus, it's pretty insulting to the dedicated career investigators that have been working on this from the start, and never stopped, regardless of the bogus claim of Comey's firing affecting the investigation...

Now perhaps you begin to understand the consequences of Trump's actions. Before Tuesday, I assumed that the FBI was an institution politically independent of the President. If the FBI came out and said, "Well everybody, we've concluded that everybody is innocent," I would have accepted it because the political independence of the FBI was my starting assumption. That was then. Now I don't know what to expect. Trump's actions have consequences, a fact that seems to surprise and annoy you.

You have two things here:

1. The FBI director CAN be fired by the President....like it or not.

I never stated otherwise. Go back and read my actual words.

2. Loyalty oaths are NOT a part of the job,

They are now. As I said, tradition can be upended and new ones created in an instant.

and were not asked for by this President according to WH spokesman....

It's Comey's word vs Trump's, and I'm inclined to take Comey's word over a man who's lied 477 times in the first 100 days of office alone, to say nothing of the deception that came out of the White House over the past week.

Being a liar has consequences, a fact that seems to surprise and annoy you.

If the measure is having YOU trust him, then I am not holding my breath....

Okay.

 

[Parrish]

Well done, Cardinal!

 

[jmotivator]

Until the FBI announces its findings, nothing can be officially "debunked." And until the findings are announced, you actually don't have "evidence" to support your conclusion about invented reactions to unknown future events. Give me a break... :roll:

Nope. All of the rock solid evidence that people have tried to throw at Trump thus far has been proven to be false. Hell, there were 3 separate erroneous reports on the Comey firing that people were posting, all of which have been proven false. And that is just the last 24 hours.

Comey asked for more funding for Trump investigation: False.

Rosenstein Threatened to resign after memo was used to fire Comey: False.

Comey's firing will impede Russia investigation: False.

Besides, you said the investigation is already over, and all in the hands of some Grand Jury, so we just have a few more days to wait for the official announcements! Cannot wait! Trump will be soo happy too that it's over. If he'd just checked with you, no need to fire Comey, and he could have avoided all this negative publicity. Too bad for Trump.

The only known active investigation has move to the grand jury. I asked you for evidence of any other active investigations and I am still waiting.

 

[bubbabgone]

I'm a little lost about your question. Trump told is the memo served no real purpose. So I can only guess the reason Trump asked for it, and for Sessions' recommendation. I can only guess a pretty hilariously failed attempt at CYA, to pretend that the firing was based on sober analysis by a guy who the public and Congress respects, Rosenstein. But then Trump stomps all over that BS, threw Spicer, Sanders, Pence and others who'd lied on his behalf under the bus, then backs up and runs over them again, and admits he couldn't have cared less what Rosenstein's memo said!

So I cant' figure out what the hell Trump was thinking. If you can, let us all know!

Look at it this way.
Say you hire a plumber to unclog your shower drain and also change your lead pipes to PVC but he ****s up the upstairs shower drain and that night your living room floods.
You're ready to cancel your initial agreement and send him packing.
In the meantime you mention him to friends and they send you emails describing how he ****ed up their plumbing too.
You fire him.
You were going to fire him without their input but he's still fired and everyone's reasons are still valid.
The guy's a bad plumber.

 

[JasperL]

And I understand your desperate need to make the discussion about semantics.

You mischaracterized the memo to the AG as a letter to Congress, so my confusion was due to your error. But you're right, we are on the same page now!

I did, and it did. The memo detailed the reasons why Comey was no longer trusted to lead the FBI and the DOJ. That Trump said that he had made up his mind does not mean that he wasn't operating on the very same well-documented failings by Comey. You seem to think Trump's statement and the DOJ reasoning were mutually exclusive, it isn't.

You seem confused about who bears the burden of proving an assertion. If you make the assertion, it is your burden to prove true, not mine to prove false.

This is funny because YOU haven't quoted Trump's reasons for firing Comey. My assertion is that he was operating on all the same information that the DOJ memo detailed, and was well documented, but that that information was enough in his opinion to fire Comey even if the DOJ decided that it wasn't.

I linked to Trump's response, quoted some of it, Trump said the memo had no bearing on his decision. We have multiple reports that Trump was angry about the Russian investigation, Comey's unwillingness to back Trump up on his BS wiretapping claims, that he would scream at the TV when Comey came on the air talking about Russia. His own spox say they want to 'move on' from a bogus Russia investigation, etc. and Trump has repeatedly called the Russia investigation bogus.

What we don't have any record of is that in May 2017 Trump gave a damn about what happened in July 2016 or October 2016, the latter acts by Comey he PRAISED.

Now as a rational adult, given what is in the public record, what should we conclude about Trump's reasons for firing Comey? Old news about acts nearly a year ago and that were fully known when Trump made the decision to retain Comey, OR the ongoing Russia investigation that infuriated Trump?

BTW, as you know, the "DoJ" can't fire Comey, so explain what you mean there...

 

[JasperL]

Look at it this way.
Say you hire a plumber to unclog your shower drain and also change your lead pipes to PVC but he ****s up the upstairs shower drain and that night your living room floods.
You're ready to cancel your initial agreement and send him packing.
In the meantime you mention him to friends and they send you emails describing how he ****ed up their plumbing too.
You fire him.
You were going to fire him without their input but he's still fired and everyone's reasons are still valid.
The guy's a bad plumber.

I'm not going to address your hypothetical because we have an actual event with actual quotes by Trump saying the Rosenstein memo, and letter from Sessions, were both pointless exercises and had no bearing on his decision. And of course we all knew that immediately, even before Trump himself called BS on the story his own WH was peddling Tuesday and Wednesday but Trump made it official.

What's incredible is even with Trump saying, paraphrased, "the memo was pointless" you're still arguing the memo was the basis for the firing. Trump tells you you're wrong! I can't do better than that!

 

[prometeus]

One reason is because any little thread that liberal democrats can pull on during this Presidency, you can bet your bottom dollar, they will make a mountain out of it.

Yea, some anyway, but the simplest thing would be to just call in all the "investigators" and have them declare the truth that there is nothing, end of story.

 

[prometeus]

Look at it this way.
Say you hire a plumber to unclog your shower drain and also change your lead pipes to PVC but he ****s up the upstairs shower drain and that night your living room floods.
You're ready to cancel your initial agreement and send him packing.
In the meantime you mention him to friends and they send you emails describing how he ****ed up their plumbing too.
You fire him.
You were going to fire him without their input but he's still fired and everyone's reasons are still valid.
The guy's a bad plumber.

So why would you wait till next Christmas to fire him?

 

[JasperL]

Nope. All of the rock solid evidence that people have tried to throw at Trump thus far has been proven to be false.

The investigation hasn't been concluded or the findings announced. You have no idea what allegations are true or false. More importantly, you're speculating on what someone's reaction will be to an UNKNOWN future event. We don't know what the FBI will conclude, or what evidence they will release to support their findings, so how can there exist any evidence about what my reaction will be to that unknown future event announcing unknown findings?

Just as plausibly, I can assert YOUR reaction will be to keep your lips firmly attached to Trump's ample backside, cause...REASONS! :roll:

Hell, there were 3 separate erroneous reports on the Comey firing that people were posting, all of which have been proven false. And that is just the last 24 hours.

Comey asked for more funding for Trump investigation: False.

Rosenstein Threatened to resign after memo was used to fire Comey: False.

Comey's firing will impede Russia investigation: False.

Even if those were proven "false", and the links certainly don't demonstrate that, they are not relevant to anything except more 'SQUIRREL!' diversions.

The only known active investigation has move to the grand jury. I asked you for evidence of any other active investigations and I am still waiting.

One piece of evidence was the article you posted to prove your claim that the investigation had concluded said nothing of the sort and, in fact, repeatedly debunked your claim. Again, you seem confused about the burden of proof here.

 

[jmotivator]

You mischaracterized the memo to the AG as a letter to Congress, so my confusion was due to your error. But you're right, we are on the same page now!

I see you still find semantics to be important.

Any port in a storm, I suppose.

You seem confused about who bears the burden of proving an assertion. If you make the assertion, it is your burden to prove true, not mine to prove false.

So, it is your position that YOU can guess at Trump's motives for Comey's firing but I can't? I am going with the detailed reasoning as compiled by the Deputy AG. You are going by absolutely nothing based on what you have provided thus far.

I linked to Trump's response, quoted some of it, Trump said the memo had no bearing on his decision. We have multiple reports that Trump was angry about the Russian investigation, Comey's unwillingness to back Trump up on his BS wiretapping claims, that he would scream at the TV when Comey came on the air talking about Russia. His own spox say they want to 'move on' from a bogus Russia investigation, etc. and Trump has repeatedly called the Russia investigation bogus.

The quote you provide didn't include his reasons for firing Comey. If you have that then post it. The burden to provide proof is on you, after all.

What we don't have any record of is that in May 2017 Trump gave a damn about what happened in July 2016 or October 2016, the latter acts by Comey he PRAISED.

Why wouldn't he praise Comey for the October statement? If you thought that his July statement was idiotic then of course you praised his October statement that they were taking a second look. The October statement wouldn't have been necessary had Comey behaved like a real FBI Director and not given the bizarre July press conference.

Now as a rational adult, given what is in the public record, what should we conclude about Trump's reasons for firing Comey? Old news about acts nearly a year ago and that were fully known when Trump made the decision to retain Comey, OR the ongoing Russia investigation that infuriated Trump?

We would conclude that Comey has had a long history of injecting himself into the news when he has no place, and speaking publicly in ways that his Democrat and Republican bosses had serious problems with, AND has presided over an FBI that appears to be leaking like a sieve.

BTW, as you know, the "DoJ" can't fire Comey, so explain what you mean there...

I know they can't, they can give recommendations, the DOJ gets to decide what it will or won't recommend. It would always be Trump's decision, and he made it.

 

[JasperL]

So, it is your position that YOU can guess at Trump's motives for Comey's firing but I can't? I am going with the detailed reasoning as compiled by the Deputy AG. You are going by absolutely nothing based on what you have provided thus far.

Great, you're going with the memo Trump tells you had no bearing on his decision. Irrational, but at least you're honest about your irrationality!

And no, I'm going by Trump's own words, actually. We know he's angry about the Russia investigation, he tells us this regularly, there are reports from the WH that indicate this story hanging around is a constant source of rage for the POTUS, he gets angry enough to scream at the TV, and more, and since Comey is heading up that investigation, seems reasonable to guess that's why Comey was fired.

The quote you provide didn't include his reasons for firing Comey. If you have that then post it. The burden to provide proof is on you, after all.

Why wouldn't he praise Comey for the October statement? If you thought that his July statement was idiotic then of course you praised his October statement that they were taking a second look. The October statement wouldn't have been necessary had Comey behaved like a real FBI Director and not given the bizarre July press conference.

We would conclude that Comey has had a long history of injecting himself into the news when he has no place, and speaking publicly in ways that his Democrat and Republican bosses had serious problems with, AND has presided over an FBI that appears to be leaking like a sieve.

I know they can't, they can give recommendations, the DOJ gets to decide what it will or won't recommend. It would always be Trump's decision, and he made it.

I don't have anything else new to add. It appears you're trolling at this point. Pretty much anyone with any objectivity knows the reason Comey is gone is how he was handling the Russia investigation, not how he handled the Clinton email scandal in July. If you ACTUALLY disagree, if you actually believe Trump made a principled decision about the good of the FBI or how Comey dealt with Clinton, that's fine but I really don't care because I have eyes, ears and a functioning ability to reason and it's a ludicrous notion IMO.

The bottom line is no matter the 'reason' Trump fired the guy in charge of investigating Trump, that as precedent is incredibly dangerous to the idea of being able to hold the WH accountable for possible wrongdoing. Again, if you actually cannot recognize the potential problem, that's too bad, but I don't care because principled people of integrity across the ideological spectrum recognize it's obviously a worrisome development because it objectively IS.

 

[notquiteright]

I think if we get an FBI Director who is more interested in the law than in the politics it will help resolve the investigation. Comey was more of a politician than he was a police officer. And by saying "politician" I am not claiming he batter for either of the two major parties, his actions seemed more geared towards protecting his position as FBI director than anything else.

I'd say anyone who thinks a high ranking government official (and most Military Generals/Admirals) are not 'politicians' is beyond naive. I'd say 99% of the people in such positions are geared toward gaining high office and keeping it.

This isn't Comey being distracted by politics- i'd say this is an administration that thought they were above the law- I seem to recall candidate Trump making some insane claim he could kill someone and people would still flock to him... :shock:

I think if we get a President who is more interested in the law than in childish tweets and bald faced lies it would help avoid such investigations... eace

 

[j-mac]

I gave you my answer: when the investigation is complete. It's not up to me to decide when the investigation has, of its own accord and without interference, successfully concluded.



In the first 100 days alone he told 477 falsehoods or misleading statements. That has consequences.



I didn't say there were. Read my actual words.



That depends: is this thread about Trump or is it about Clinton?



Now perhaps you begin to understand the consequences of Trump's actions. Before Tuesday, I assumed that the FBI was an institution politically independent of the President. If the FBI came out and said, "Well everybody, we've concluded that everybody is innocent," I would have accepted it because the political independence of the FBI was my starting assumption. That was then. Now I don't know what to expect. Trump's actions have consequences, a fact that seems to surprise and annoy you.



I never stated otherwise. Go back and read my actual words.



They are now. As I said, tradition can be upended and new ones created in an instant.



It's Comey's word vs Trump's, and I'm inclined to take Comey's word over a man who's lied 477 times in the first 100 days of office alone, to say nothing of the deception that came out of the White House over the past week.

Being a liar has consequences, a fact that seems to surprise and annoy you.



Okay.

Cardinal, I am increasingly disappointed in those liberals that used to be at least attempting to discuss things with an open mind. However, what I see of your posting here is really little more than a man that has his mind made up, and regardless of fact, or even simple civil discussion, you have walled yourself off, and decided that the only outcome is for the President to leave office immediately in shame, and, or in handcuffs....I see NO thought to any sourcing other than what fits your predetermined narrative, and NO willingness to argue in any faith at all like we used to...So, when Parrish says "well done"? What is "well done"? Your steak? or is it the narrative, pushed by such dolts as Matthews, Maddow, and CNN are the ONLY things that go through your mind?

Sorry, I am not here anymore to waste time battling talking points from prime time cable news hacks, regurgitated into arguments that you can't even formulate your own opinion on...Hopefully, when the simmer level gets turned down just a bit, we can return to a level of discussion more fitting the intelligent guy I know you are....

For that I am hopeful....:2wave:

 

[Cardinal]

Cardinal, I am increasingly disappointed in those liberals that used to be at least attempting to discuss things with an open mind. However, what I see of your posting here is really little more than a man

I see no reason to read beyond this point. When you've grown frustrated with a discussion it's acceptable to concede or simply not respond. Pouting isn't necessary and it doesn't reflect well on you.

that has his mind made up, and regardless of fact, or even simple civil discussion, you have walled yourself off, and decided that the only outcome is for the President to leave office immediately in shame, and, or in handcuffs....I see NO thought to any sourcing other than what fits your predetermined narrative, and NO willingness to argue in any faith at all like we used to...So, when Parrish says "well done"? What is "well done"? Your steak? or is it the narrative, pushed by such dolts as Matthews, Maddow, and CNN are the ONLY things that go through your mind?

Sorry, I am not here anymore to waste time battling talking points from prime time cable news hacks, regurgitated into arguments that you can't even formulate your own opinion on...Hopefully, when the simmer level gets turned down just a bit, we can return to a level of discussion more fitting the intelligent guy I know you are....

For that I am hopeful....:2wave:

 

[j-mac]

Yea, some anyway, but the simplest thing would be to just call in all the "investigators" and have them declare the truth that there is nothing, end of story.

But would that even be acceptable? I see you added quotation marks around investigators, not only insulting to those doing the work on this case, but lending that you won't believe anything other than your desired outcome....That's not in any way open to fact.

 

[j-mac]

I see no reason to read beyond this point. When you've grown frustrated with a discussion it's acceptable to concede or simply not respond. Pouting isn't necessary and it doesn't reflect well on you.

*sigh, shaking head....

 

[Erod]

As long as you accept that he fired Comey to shut down the investigation you make my point for me. Thank you for your cooperation.




Your inability to form a cogent argument is duly noted.

Cardinal claiming his participation trophy. How cute.

 

[MAGAnificent]

OMG.



White House: Removing Comey will help bring Russia investigation to end - CNNPolitics.com

Congressional Republicans will be working overtime to rationalize putting off an independent investigator after this admission.

I am still waiting for an independent prosecutor to look into Obama's IRS scandal, Obama's Fast and furious scandal, Hillary's email scandal, and Hillary's Clinton foundation scandal. When those are appointed, then you can talk. In the meantime, why ask the Trump administration to do something Obama refused to do?