Trump fires James Comey
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Given that Trump and his team (and possibly Rand and other R candidates) were spied on by the previous administration, you don't think something about Russian collusion would've been released prior to 11/08/16? Our intelligence community leaks like a sieve, but we're to believe there is a pot of impeachment gold at the end of the rainbow. They just wanted Trump to be elected first and nominate Gorsuch before they dropped the hammer. I don't see how anyone can simultaneously believe Trump is a bumbling fool but somehow managed to not get caught by Obama's spying while he was taking secret meetings with Putin.
With all of the judges, Obamacare and supposedly wwiii on the line IMO it would have come out before the election.
100%.
The deep state literally tried almost everything to get Hillary elected, including giving her debate questions in advance, and giving her a debate podium she could read answers from (her first debate with Trump, in which she had the special podium, had 84 million viewers - that's how important it was):
Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon and The Washingtonpost, on his way to becoming the world's richest man) had 20 reporters working full time to research every aspect of Trump's life six months before the election.
Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...to-every-phase-of-trumps-life/article/2591021
The deep state had all the time it needed to leak evidence of Trump collusion with Russia (and an eager corporate media ready to report it).
But like James Clapper said (a man with access to everything):
Last edited:
You like quoting Clapper now, but were lumping him into the deep state when you didn't like what he said about Russian hacking the DNC.
You've gone from swallowing one conventional narrative wholesale and completely to swallowing a different, but fully formed directionally oppositional narrative wholesale and completely.
What it looks like you missed is critical analysis and actual thinking for yourself.
There is a third way.
You've gone from swallowing one conventional narrative wholesale and completely to swallowing a different, but fully formed directionally oppositional narrative wholesale and completely.
What it looks like you missed is critical analysis and actual thinking for yourself.
There is a third way.
Rand is still waiting for his answer and it fits the Obama administration's M.O. so I'm guessing yes at this point.
I'm not completely buying into any narrative, other than the deep state desperately wanted Hillary to win the election -- and did everything it could to help her. (Short of manipulating ballots)
Did these deep state spokespeople not make it crystal clear what the desired outcome was?
My hot take, gut level, instinct/impression/feeling re: Trump firing Comey.
Caveat: That's all it is. Not saying it's accurate/true or that it is evidence based or anything else.
Trump didn't fire Comey to impede the Russian investigation.
I don't believe for a second the proffered basis of the AG's office is the actual reason either.
I believe that Trump decided to fire Comey the second Comey testified that there was no evidence supporting Trump tweets that Obama wiretapped Trump Towers. He continues to strike me as the type that takes such contradiction of his statement very personally and feels them very deeply. I think he has carried a grudge from that moment forward and has been lying in wait for any reason....no matter how implausible or nonsensical....to get rid of an "employee" of his that dared to flatly contradict him.
I don't think he gives a crap about the political ramifications. I'm not even sure he considered them. If he did, the fact that the next FBI Director may be skittish about continuing a full bore investigation because of the allegations and impressions as to why Comey was fired would like be viewed as a positive.
It feel like this was deeply personal and is revenge based. No "employee" of the Donald is going to publicly say the Donald is wrong and get away with it.
Caveat: That's all it is. Not saying it's accurate/true or that it is evidence based or anything else.
Trump didn't fire Comey to impede the Russian investigation.
I don't believe for a second the proffered basis of the AG's office is the actual reason either.
I believe that Trump decided to fire Comey the second Comey testified that there was no evidence supporting Trump tweets that Obama wiretapped Trump Towers. He continues to strike me as the type that takes such contradiction of his statement very personally and feels them very deeply. I think he has carried a grudge from that moment forward and has been lying in wait for any reason....no matter how implausible or nonsensical....to get rid of an "employee" of his that dared to flatly contradict him.
I don't think he gives a crap about the political ramifications. I'm not even sure he considered them. If he did, the fact that the next FBI Director may be skittish about continuing a full bore investigation because of the allegations and impressions as to why Comey was fired would like be viewed as a positive.
It feel like this was deeply personal and is revenge based. No "employee" of the Donald is going to publicly say the Donald is wrong and get away with it.
I know, that's why I used the word. Call it an educated guess. It's all we have to go on at this point, past behaviors and leaks of Trump names being unmasked.
You say you are not completely buying to any narrative. At the same time, you consistently spam this board with a very particular narrative without questioning it and then defend that narrative when it is itself questioned.
So your actions are speaking louder than your words, IMO.
I'm assuming you know that "Trump names being unmasked" is not equivalent to "Trump and his team being spied on by the previous administration"?
I assume you know that it's been well documented that Obama (or his henchmen) spied on everyone under the sun? No way I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I know it's not been proven yet. Bureaucratic investigations take a lot of time unless you aren't truly investigating and have a pre-determined outcome (see Comey's email investigation). I think it's pretty telling that Rand's question has not been answered yet.
interesting
it's so petty i would like to call bs
then i think about newts swamp draining/not draining tweets
the way mitt romney was paraded around trump tower post election
hell even his tv show lol
and it does make sense
I agree with 90% of this and you're exactly right about Biff's psyche. I think that Comey not publicly disavowing russian investigations and gathering momentum of the Flynn stuff WAS a factor though.
My initial reaction is pretty close to this, which should be plenty concerning on its own without the silly team hyperbole that has followed - which in my opinion has and continues to give Trump cover to do things exactly like this because wolf has been cried too many times. Scandal fatigue.
I think this is probably a primary motivating factor. I know the FBI is a cluster, and has been since Clinton screwed them up during his term of office. They need a major overhaul. The FBIs own incompetence is partly to blame to 9/11, and though there have been attempts to fix them by Bush and Obama they both failed. The next FBI director needs to be less interested in political scandal and more interested in bringing back the FBIs bread and butter. They need to become experts on domestic law enforcement again. They left that behind in the 90s and never looked back. It will be interesting to see which direction Trump takes this prestigious organization. It cannot ill afford another bad leader that has the FBI embroiled in politics as usual. If that happens the organization will need to be completely scrapped and done away with.
Does this mean you are ready for an independent investigation?
Oh hell no. Conceal. Cover up and then claim not enough evidence. This is such a clumsy, transparent cover up. And it'll work and Russia will be a bleeding sore for years and Biff will claim to be the victim.
Lost in the partsion bickering over who hates Comey more, and when...
An FBI Director with the balls to publically investigate the most powerful member of both parties was fired...
I think it's possible the big loser here is the American public in general, and that would have been true had he been fired in January by a President Clinton also.
An FBI Director with the balls to publically investigate the most powerful member of both parties was fired...
I think it's possible the big loser here is the American public in general, and that would have been true had he been fired in January by a President Clinton also.
Agreed. Theoretically, the FBI director can hold the job for 10 years to insulate him against political pressure. Now Trump is going to want to replace him with "his guy", and Congress only needs a majority vote to pass the new guy through. If they vote along party lines, it seems very realistic that the new director will be beholden to team Trump. How is that a good thing for our country?
Definition of checks and balances
: a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from exerting too much power
I am sorry I missed the FBI as a branch of government. If Trump took out Congress or the SCOTUS then ok. Look I am not some Trump homer. I think the guy is crazy and have for a long time. I voted for Cruz then Trump in the general because I feared Hillary far more then Trump. Now that that is established I don't get all this hoopla about Trump firing Comey. If Trump is in conclusion with Russia then where are the facts? Is Trumps tax's the bible? I just would think with all the whistle blowing in today's age that someone would leak something if there was this big conspiracy. I just don't see how this ensures that Trump's "Russia" what ever will never see the light of day. Comey acted like a total donkey in how he handled the Hillary stuff. I think this is evident not matter what political party you belong to.
Why is that bad?
Because you don't want investigative bodies beholden to people they might end up investigating. It biases and prejudices the investigation and damages it's credibility.
Would you want the judge in your divorce case to be sleeping with your soon to be ex-wife as he decided the case?
I guess I just don't buy into Trump hiding some big Russian connection to Russia's government. Does he have dealings with investors most likely. I also don't think even though he might have Russian investors that means they get to tell him how to run things. IMO Trump is way way to head strong to ever let anyone tell him how to do something. That is the point I am trying to make. Its not like he canned the whole FBI.
It shouldn't matter if you believe it or not. You should want an unbiased individual leading an investigation if there is going to be an investigation. Otherwise, what is the point of an investigation? If the lead guy is in Trump's pocket, it seems likely that the investigation would not amount to anything in the end.
As to your arguments/opinions concerning Trump and a Russian connection....
-What if Trump doesn't have a connection to Russia, but some individuals who do/did were working with the Russians to get Trump elected while giving Russia assurances that they would be part of the administration and do what they could, behind the scenes, to help Russia?
-What if Trump borrowed millions from Russian banks and is having a tough time paying them back? Might he be in position to find a way to trade some favors for leniency on payment? Is is possible that the Russian government might intervene on his behalf and do what is needed to make the Russian bankers happy while holding it over Trump's head?
-What if 75% of the investors in Trump's business dealings are Russian citizens/companies? Might he want to improve relations with Russia to make them happy and keep the money flowing?
I'm not saying any of those things are true. I'm just saying, that, for Trump, it is all about business and the bottom line. He may be headstrong, but that doesn't mean that there are not companies/individuals that he is beholden to. He wants us all to believe that he is a multi-billionaire, and that makes him completely independent and immune to being pressured/blackmailed, but we don't know that for sure. We probably would know one way or the other if he would release his tax returns, but he refuses to do so.
Maybe, a fair and legitimate investigation will turn up nothing. Maybe it will turn up something. Maybe Trump was worried that it would turn up something and canned the guy in charge so he could have more control over the investigation.
Or, maybe he just didn't like Comey, and wanted to replace him with someone that he thought would do a better job. However, if that were the case, it seems like he would have had someone in mind and we would know who he wanted to put in charge already.
Can we move on from the Russian thing. There is nothing there and saying Russia influenced the election is like saying a fly landed on my sandwich and started an earthquake. The election is over. Trump won.
Every time I hear all of the complaining about Russia all I hear is how it was the refs fault we lost. Look at who is leading this charge: Maxine Waters and what Eliga Cummings? You might as well throw in Pelosi just to bring in some sanity.
I don't care if Russia did do it. Thanks Mr Pooty for no HRC. I would say the same about old Bern as well.
The investor thing is yawnable and nothing compared to the Clinton foundation even if where to be true. It's more than time to move on and give Trump a chance.
Every time I hear all of the complaining about Russia all I hear is how it was the refs fault we lost. Look at who is leading this charge: Maxine Waters and what Eliga Cummings? You might as well throw in Pelosi just to bring in some sanity.
I don't care if Russia did do it. Thanks Mr Pooty for no HRC. I would say the same about old Bern as well.
The investor thing is yawnable and nothing compared to the Clinton foundation even if where to be true. It's more than time to move on and give Trump a chance.
