President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

It is true that Comey is still limited in what he can say, but is noteworthy that he will still be there. We won't see him go off the handle or anything since he won't want to jeopardise anything in the investigation is my guess.

Just saw that this happened a few hours before the firing... http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn seeking business records, as part of the ongoing probe of Russian meddling in last year's election, according to people familiar with the matter. CNN learned of the subpoenas hours before President Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey.

The subpoenas represent the first sign of a significant escalation of activity in the FBI's broader investigation begun last July into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

The subpoenas issued in recent weeks by the US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia, were received by associates who worked with Flynn on contracts after he was forced out as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, according to the people familiar with the investigation.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Comey can't really say anything. Yates had to withhold plenty of information due to the public nature of her hearing and IMO that was one of the tipping points for Comey. Trumps team suddenly realised that they could get rid of Comey and not worry about blow back as he is very limited in what he can say.

IMO, Comey was a stooge, played by either the GOP or Trump or both and he has now passed his usefulness as he started to actually dig into things they rather he didn't.

I hope Comey, who stated that he felt nauseous when making the decision to reopen HC email so close to the election, sees that he has been played and he deserves no sympathy. He allowed himself to be compromised for political gain in deference to the rules that were in place exactly to avoid that.

Good man The Donald. Publically humiliate the head of the FBI. Way to go Champ!

The FBI is the intelligence service most likely to have kept an eye on Trump over the years. If they have any dirt on Trump at all, Comey will know about it. He might not be able to divulge it publically but in private to the right people...

dudara

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Comey can't really say anything. Yates had to withhold plenty of information due to the public nature of her hearing and IMO that was one of the tipping points for Comey. Trumps team suddenly realised that they could get rid of Comey and not worry about blow back as he is very limited in what he can say.

He is limited in what he can say in public. Depending on how he feels following this dismissal and on what he knows, he may well choose to find other channels. That after all, is where Watergate's Deep Throat came from.

jooksavage

The Trump administration thought the leaks were bad up to this point. They'll soon be up to their knees in leaked intel.

Mr.Micro

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good man The Donald. Publically humiliate the head of the FBI. Way to go Champ!

The FBI is the intelligence service most likely to have kept an eye on Trump over the years. If they have any dirt on Trump at all, Comey will know about it. He might not be able to divulge it publically but in private to the right people...

Well if they have anything, they are keeping it under wraps. The funny thing is, that is the thanks Comey gets for assisting Trump with his election, by the timing of going after Clinton. Good riddance, I say. The FBI, CIA and whoever are all partisan. Whatever else, Trump is a survivor.

Leroy42

jooksavage wrote: »

The Trump administration thought the leaks were bad up to this point. They'll soon be up to their knees in leaked intel.

I think the exact opposite. They have shown they will take out anybody that gets in their way. If Comey, a very high profile director, can simply be tossed aside, why would any mid-ranking officer dare to raise his head. And you could argue that Trump owed him something after the way he 'handled' the HC emails. But that got him nowhere.

This is a massive powerplay. AS GWB said, you are either with us or against us.

hmmm

The newspapers are going to have a field day tomorrow with headlines about the firing of Comey alongside pictures of Trump meeting Lavrov.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the exact opposite. They have shown they will take out anybody that gets in their way. If Comey, a very high profile director, can simply be tossed aside, why would any mid-ranking officer dare to raise his head. And you could argue that Trump owed him something after the way he 'handled' the HC emails. But that got him nowhere.

This is a massive powerplay. AS GWB said, you are either with us or against us.

What a load of conspiracy crack-pot nonsense. 'Take out anybody that gets in their way', what a loaded, misguided statement that is.

You do realise that nobody had any confidence in Comey anymore? Schumer, Clinton and senior Democrats called for his head and now Rosenstein, who was only appointed two weeks ago and who is a very distinguished lawyer, who worked under Obama and George W. Bush, agrees with the Democrats and recommended that he is fired.

This thread is a cesspit of rumour, speculation and crack-pot nonsense theories about Trump, a lot of it coming directly from you. Trump firing someone nobody had any confidence in is now considered a 'powerplay'. You couldn't make it up. The spin on this is hilarious.

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the exact opposite. They have shown they will take out anybody that gets in their way. If Comey, a very high profile director, can simply be tossed aside, why would any mid-ranking officer dare to raise his head. And you could argue that Trump owed him something after the way he 'handled' the HC emails. But that got him nowhere.

This is a massive powerplay. AS GWB said, you are either with us or against us.

Why did Mark Felt leak? There are surely dozens of individuals, either loyal to Comey or disgusted with Trump who can leak anonymously with relative impunity (since the inaguration, the NYTIMES and Washington post have been publishing stuff with an unprecedented, embarrassingly large number of WH insiders happy to verify).

In terms of Trump's gratitude to Comey - hill-watchers say he, like practically everyone else, expected Clinton to win. He would still be investigating failed candidate Trump's collusion with Russia and in the event that charges were brought, the FBI would be able to point to their Clinton investigation and say "well you know, it's not a partisan thing... look what we did to Hillary. "

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What a load of conspiracy crack-pot nonsense. 'Take out anybody that gets in their way', what a loaded, misguided statement that is.

You do realise that nobody had any confidence in Comey anymore? Schumer, Clinton and senior Democrats called for his head and now Rosenstein, who was only appointed two weeks ago and who is a very distinguished lawyer, who worked under Obama and George W. Bush, agrees with the Democrats and recommended that he is fired.

This thread is a cesspit of rumour, speculation and crack-pot nonsense theories about Trump, a lot of it coming directly from you. Trump firing someone nobody had any confidence in is now considered a 'powerplay'. You couldn't make it up. The spin on this is hilarious.

You think they got rid of Comey because he lost their confidence? Based on what? So far, Trump has fired Yates for failing to agree with his EO, called out judges as 'so-called' because they went against him, called on the 9th District court to be disbanded because he, incorrectly, blamed them for stopping another EO, called for the House and Senate rules to be changed since he couldn't get his healthcare bill through.

All the evidence points to Trump being very frustrated and unhappy with being continually blocked and questioned. He tried to cover up Flynn lying to the VP, and tried to cover up that he had links to Russia and Turkey. He continually calls the Russian investigations fake and called the recent hearings as a waste of taxpayers money.

You don't see any pattern there? Nothing at all? You think he got rid of Comey because he thinks the FBI needs to held in higher esteem. Trump? The man who started off his presidency called the IC as useless.

It is not that he is being fired, it is the timing and reason for it. Why do you believe he is being fired? It can't have anything to do with the HC emails, as he was lauded by both Trump and Sessions back in October about that.

None of the above is Spin. It is all facts. You prefer to ignore them all to look at Comey being fired in complete isolation. Taken in isolation, I agree that firing Comey is hardly even newsworthy. But we can't simply ignore what has already happened and pretend that patterns do not exist.

The letter they sent to Comey was mostly about HC emails, yet Trump still found time to mention that he was not under investigation personally. Again, you don't think that odd that he would even bring it up? Not his many years of great service, not his unwavering support for maintaining the idea of justice in the US. No, the only thing that Trump commends him on is something that relates to Trump directly.

Yet you don't think that Trump deciding to fire Comey has anything to do with the ongoing Russia investigations which effect Trump but on some email issue that is over and done with? We have amplpe evidence that the one thing that drives Trump, is Trump. Anything that he sees as negative to him needs to be tackled. From the lies about Obama hacking him, to the faintly childish claim that it was Obamas fault for not telling him in more grave tones that Flynn was a risk.

There is simply no denying that the key to understanding Trump is that every action that he takes is based on himself. Yet you want to ignore all that, you want to simply forgot that any of that is reality, in order to believe that Trump is working in the best interests of the FBI? This despite almost everything that Trump says being, at best, a spin on the truth?

jimmycrackcorm

Leroy42 wrote:

And that is why is looks up to Putin, Duterte, Kim-Jong Un etc. These are men that have complete control, what they say goes, and nobody dares to question. That is what he wants. So when he talks about the job being harder than he thought, it is not the workload, Trump appears to have a very good work ethic, it is the inability to simply get things done.

Nail on the head. I'd say trump hears about how Kim regularly executes his opponents and those of Putin also mysteriously die and wishes he could do the same. Limited only to being able to fire people.

Water John wrote:

Trump was searching for the last week as to how to justify the sacking. He can only come up with Clinton emails.

After the lavish praise at the time.

Leroy42 wrote:

But Comey can't really say anything. Yates had to withhold plenty of information due to the public nature of her hearing and IMO that was one of the tipping points for Comey. Trumps team suddenly realised that they could get rid of Comey and not worry about blow back as he is very limited in what he can say.

There's a lot of power in Comey not bring able to answer questions asked in certain ways. I'll expect the questioning and answers to markedly set out a lot of doubt about Trump having nothing to hide.

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well if they have anything, they are keeping it under wraps. The funny thing is, that is the thanks Comey gets for assisting Trump with his election, by the timing of going after Clinton. Good riddance, I say. The FBI, CIA and whoever are all partisan. Whatever else, Trump is a survivor.

If being a survivor is his primary quality then that's hardly a ringing endorsement of his suitability to be POTUS.

Water John

There is a frantic bid to stop investigations once they get to a certain point here. Nunnes taking a midnight stroll and jepordising the House of Reps investigation. Comey now as sopeonas are just issued.

Trump running around sticking his small fingers into holes in the dyke. Will run out of luck, at some point.
Not draining the swamp but raising the walls of it.

InTheTrees

dudara wrote: »

He is limited in what he can say in public. Depending on how he feels following this dismissal and on what he knows, he may well choose to find other channels. That after all, is where Watergate's Deep Throat came from.

He may be limited in what he can say publicly but they can hold a closed session if they need to hear sensitive testimony and there's also the various investigations that are ongoing.

InTheTrees

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Comey can't really say anything. Yates had to withhold plenty of information due to the public nature of her hearing and IMO that was one of the tipping points for Comey. Trumps team suddenly realised that they could get rid of Comey and not worry about blow back as he is very limited in what he can say.

Just because comey and Yates can't say certain things in public doesn't mean they cant say them at all. Yates, for instance testified in front of a committee publicly one day and behind closed doors the next.
So its not as though they are muzzled by secrecy. There's Senate and house members with as much security clearance that they can talk to.

Water John

AFAIK, Thursday is a closed session.

wonderfullife

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do you think the deputy attorney general who's a career politician and an Obama appointee is a Trump Stooge and is putting his career, along with Sessions, on the line? It was his recommendation Comey was fired, he was approved some 94-6 in the senate. As of today there's still no evidence of any collusion.

What absolute drivel is this?

Rosenstein was appointed by George W. Bush in 2005 to be the UDA for Maryland and confirmed by the Senate in July of that year.

If you're going to try make an argument defending Trump at least try use the truth and not #AlternativeFacts.

wonderfullife

Whatever about potential collusion or co-ordination with Russia, one thing is abundantly clear - stunning incompetence.

All Team Trump had to do was LEAK the Rosenstein memo to the media and/or ask him to make it public.

The news cycle then focuses squarely on Rosenstein and would have resulted in people from both sides calling for Comey's resignation.

The letter and memo actually released show Junior Infants level of stupidity and incompetence. It's actually an insult to Junior Infants.

"Comey assured me three times I'm not under investigation" - immediately raises questions on how/why/when the Director of the FBI was briefing the President on a counter-intelligence investigation into the President. If it's true, it shows shocking interference. If Trump is lying (more likely) then it's even worse.

To then try argue he fired Comey for being mean and unfair to Hillary is laughable.

The truth is this is about money. Whatever your feelings on Trump Team Treason, the bottom line is Comey was fired immediately after the FBI subponead financial detailed financial records from the Trump Team Orbit, which when properly investigated will likely show widespread bribery, corruption and money laundering.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

You think they got rid of Comey because he lost their confidence? Based on what? So far, Trump has fired Yates for failing to agree with his EO, called out judges as 'so-called' because they went against him, called on the 9th District court to be disbanded because he, incorrectly, blamed them for stopping another EO, called for the House and Senate rules to be changed since he couldn't get his healthcare bill through.

Trump fired Comey on a recommendation from Rosenstein for his handling of the Clinton email scandal. I don't think you really understand that point.

All the evidence points to Trump being very frustrated and unhappy with being continually blocked and questioned. He tried to cover up Flynn lying to the VP, and tried to cover up that he had links to Russia and Turkey. He continually calls the Russian investigations fake and called the recent hearings as a waste of taxpayers money.

What evidence is this? The Russian investigations are nonsense as they won't bring charges against a single person. What is the point in an investigation if nobody is to be held accountable? Senior Democrats have said for months that this invesitgation won't reveal any tangible evidence or a conviction. You would have to question the political motivation behind this investigation in the first place.

You don't see any pattern there? Nothing at all? You think he got rid of Comey because he thinks the FBI needs to held in higher esteem. Trump? The man who started off his presidency called the IC as useless.

No, he got rid of Comey because he received a recommendation from the assistant AG to do so.

It is not that he is being fired, it is the timing and reason for it. Why do you believe he is being fired? It can't have anything to do with the HC emails, as he was lauded by both Trump and Sessions back in October about that.

Actually, it has everything to do with that. Rosenstein was only appointed two weeks ago due to the Democrats trying to stonewall any Trump's appointments. If you're complaining about how long it took to get to this point your agnst should be towards the Democrats.

Why did Comey usurp the AG's authority and announce that the case into Clinton's emails should be closed without prosecution? He's tried to play both sides and different times and has lost.

None of the above is Spin. It is all facts. You prefer to ignore them all to look at Comey being fired in complete isolation. Taken in isolation, I agree that firing Comey is hardly even newsworthy. But we can't simply ignore what has already happened and pretend that patterns do not exist.

What facts have you presented to me? It's all your own spin and opinion.

The letter they sent to Comey was mostly about HC emails, yet Trump still found time to mention that he was not under investigation personally. Again, you don't think that odd that he would even bring it up? Not his many years of great service, not his unwavering support for maintaining the idea of justice in the US. No, the only thing that Trump commends him on is something that relates to Trump directly.

Yes, it's strange, like a lot of Trump's presidency. That doesn't make it a power grab, as you described it.

Yet you don't think that Trump deciding to fire Comey has anything to do with the ongoing Russia investigations which effect Trump but on some email issue that is over and done with? We have amplpe evidence that the one thing that drives Trump, is Trump. Anything that he sees as negative to him needs to be tackled. From the lies about Obama hacking him, to the faintly childish claim that it was Obamas fault for not telling him in more grave tones that Flynn was a risk.

Trump firing Comey is based on the recommendation of Rosenstein, who was appointed two weeks ago. You clearly don't have the full story otherwise you wouldn't be making baseless allegations and misrepresenting them as facts. Are you saying that Rosenstein is lying? or that he's being forced by the Trump administration to recommend that Comey is fired?

There is simply no denying that the key to understanding Trump is that every action that he takes is based on himself. Yet you want to ignore all that, you want to simply forgot that any of that is reality, in order to believe that Trump is working in the best interests of the FBI? This despite almost everything that Trump says being, at best, a spin on the truth?

Again, that's your opinion. Trump's responsibility is to the American people not the FBI.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Trump fired Comey on a recommendation from Rosenstein for his handling of the Clinton email scandal. I don't think you really understand that point.



What evidence is this? The Russian investigations are nonsense as they won't bring charges against a single person. What is the point in an investigation if nobody is to be held accountable? Senior Democrats have said for months that this invesitgation won't reveal any tangible evidence or a conviction. You would have to question the political motivation behind this investigation in the first place.



No, he got rid of Comey because he received a recommendation from the assistant AG to do so.



Actually, it has everything to do with that. Rosenstein was only appointed two weeks ago due to the Democrats trying to stonewall any Trump's appointments. If you're complaining about how long it took to get to this point your agnst should be towards the Democrats.

Why did Comey usurp the AG's authority and announce that the case into Clinton's emails should be closed without prosecution? He's tried to play both sides and different times and has lost.



What facts have you presented to me? It's all your own spin and opinion.



Yes, it's strange, like a lot of Trump's presidency. That doesn't make it a power grab, as you described it.



Trump firing Comey is based on the recommendation of Rosenstein, who was appointed two weeks ago. You clearly don't have the full story otherwise you wouldn't be making baseless allegations and misrepresenting them as facts. Are you saying that Rosenstein is lying? or that he's being forced by the Trump administration to recommend that Comey is fired?



Again, that's your opinion. Trump's responsibility is to the American people not the FBI.

Except Trump praised Comey for at least one of the incidents that Rosestein complained about. The final decision here is with Trump. Not Rosenstein. Trump should not take orders from Rosenstein.

Second of all the timing comes as the seponas were coming in. Trump says Comey lost the respect of Washington but Trump never had it. In fact it was a quality that helped get him elected.

Trump is in the very highest position in the US and has he has no clue as to what is going on. Every move needs to be met with absolute scrutiny.

Also claims of the Russian investigations being nonsense are ridiculous when they have found evidence of wrong doing and led to resignations already.

Who is to say there won't be more? (Also claims that an investigation is useless if it won't end in a conviction is hilarious from someone taking the Republican side of things).

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Trump fired Comey on a recommendation from Rosenstein for his handling of the Clinton email scandal. I don't think you really understand that point.

I already said that in isolation I would accept that. But suddenly Trump is taking recommendations from others, but when Obama recommended steering clear of Flynn, and then Yates did the same, then he decided he made up his own mind. Well that is convenient that suddenly Trump is working to what is right and just.

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What evidence is this? The Russian investigations are nonsense as they won't bring charges against a single person. What is the point in an investigation if nobody is to be held accountable? Senior Democrats have said for months that this invesitgation won't reveal any tangible evidence or a conviction. You would have to question the political motivation behind this investigation in the first place.

It is evidence of things that have actually happened, rather than your interpretation of something. How do you know nobody will be prosecuted? How can you possibly know that? you can't. you simply made that up. You then create a strawman argument about the investigations based on a premise that you made up. Well done you.

You have decided, without all the information, that nothing will come of the investigations. You then state that therefore the investigations themselves are worthless based on your own made up presumption of there outcome.

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No, he got rid of Comey because he received a recommendation from the assistant AG to do so.

And no other reason? You really think that Trump was happily sitting in the WH, delighted with Comey, until these letters crossed his desk. Then he suddenly had to act. Now, Spicer has already said that despite being warned by Obama in November about Flynn, when Yates told them in January then decided to wait for proof. Then after they were provided with proof they took a further 11 days to act. But in this case, Trump received a letter and immediately fired him! Come on now. This is evidence of Trump past behaviour, usually a pretty good indication of future behaviour. But in this case he acted straight away. Why the difference? Have you even asked yourself that question?

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Actually, it has everything to do with that. Rosenstein was only appointed two weeks ago due to the Democrats trying to stonewall any Trump's appointments. If you're complaining about how long it took to get to this point your against should be towards the Democrats.

Wait, what you are trying to blame the Democrats on this? Really? Apparently this is all about the e-mails, so what do you think Rosentein uncovered that wasn't known before?

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Why did Comey usurp the AG's authority and announce that the case into Clinton's emails should be closed without prosecution? He's tried to play both sides and different times and has lost.

Yeah, I agree with that. No sympathy for Comey from me.

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What facts have you presented to me? It's all your own spin and opinion.

I'm not going to list them again. They are clear facts as to what Trump has done, not possible in the future, not maybes. Trump has done those things. That makes them facts. What Trump says isn't a fact, you seem to be mixing up the two. Trump has been shown numerous times that what he says is nearly always the opposite of a fact.

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Yes, it's strange, like a lot of Trump's presidency. That doesn't make it a power grab, as you described it.

Ok, so what do you think it is?

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Trump firing Comey is based on the recommendation of Rosenstein, who was appointed two weeks ago. You clearly don't have the full story otherwise you wouldn't be making baseless allegations and misrepresenting them as facts. Are you saying that Rosenstein is lying? or that he's being forced by the Trump administration to recommend that Comey is fired?

Wow, you really like to make things up. Where did I even insinuate that Rosenstein was lying. I don't think I even mentioned the man. But who asked him to review the performance, what metrics did he use to come to the conclusion? Did he discuss this with those working directly with Comey, did he produce any evidence apart from his own view? Just because Rosenstein says it doesn't make it true (or false either) but its an opinion. Why not give him the chance to answer the criticism?

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again, that's your opinion. Trump's responsibility is to the American people not the FBI.

Oh my God, in the letter Trump claims he is doing it in the interests of the FBI. Have you even read it?

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Trump fired Comey on a recommendation from Rosenstein for his handling of the Clinton email scandal.

Well that's the whole point isn't it?

Its a completely nonsensical reason.

wonderfullife

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well that's the whole point isn't it?

Its a completely nonsensical reason.

His reasoning is summed up as "Comey was very mean and unfair to my opponent, the wonderful Hillary Clinton. Poor woman. Very unfair."

No rational, sane human being is buying that horse-manure.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The Russian investigations are nonsense as they won't bring charges against a single person.

Alternative facts huh? Flynn is being investigated by congress, the FBI, the CIA and the defense department.

seamus

A man who recused himself from an investigation due to personal conflict, recommended that the man who was leading that investigation, be fired, on the same day that a series of subpoenas were delivered on foot of that investigation.

Oh, and the President was the one being investigated. And the one who did the firing.

But yeah, it was totally the email thing. Totally.

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Trump fired Comey on a recommendation from Rosenstein for his handling of the Clinton email scandal. I don't think you really understand that point.

Trump/Sessions SAID he did the above. Do YOU understand the difference?
Please show me where you saw this recommendation: I saw it nowhere in any of the released documents.
Please note that even though Sessions recused himself from Trump/Russia (he's under investigation) he still signed the document to fire the Chief investigator in Trump-Russia.

What evidence is this? The Russian investigations are nonsense as they won't bring charges against a single person. What is the point in an investigation if nobody is to be held accountable? Senior Democrats have said for months that this invesitgation won't reveal any tangible evidence or a conviction. You would have to question the political motivation behind this investigation in the first place.

Can you substantiate your claim that 'Senior Democrats have said for months that this invesitgation won't reveal any tangible evidence or a conviction'?
Also which investigation are you referring to?

• FBI Investigation into Trump Russia?
• Republican dominated Senate investigation into Trump-Russia?
• Republican dominated House investigation into Trump-Russia?
• DOJ investigation into NY FBI?
• Pentagon investigation into Flynn monies from Russia?
• House Ethics investigation into Flynn?
• House Ethics investigation into Nunes?
• Perhaps its this FBI investigation on Donald Trump himself?
  
• Or perhaps you mean this one: broken around the same time as Trump finally flipped on Comey:
  Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation
  
  Do you understand what a Grand Jury is? Subpoenas have been issued, indictments will follow...and there will be convictions. There will be lots of convictions.

You want to know how bad it is for Trump?

Trump has made the calculation that however bad firing Comey looks, it's better than letting Comey continue to supervise the FBI investigation.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

I already said that in isolation I would accept that. But suddenly Trump is taking recommendations from others, but when Obama recommended steering clear of Flynn, and then Yates did the same, then he decided he made up his own mind. Well that is convenient that suddenly Trump is working to what is right and just.

If Flynn was such a threat to national security why did the Obama Administration give him security clearance? Rosenstein is in the job 2 weeks. Could you imagine what you and media would be saying if Sessions, alone, recommended that Comey be fired? The spin would be even worse than it already is now.

It is evidence of things that have actually happened, rather than your interpretation of something. How do you know nobody will be prosecuted? How can you possibly know that? you can't. you simply made that up. You then create a strawman argument about the investigations based on a premise that you made up. Well done you.

Nobody will be prosecuted because that's what they've been saying all along. Senior democrats have been saying this for a long time. For you to say that, just shows how little you know about the entire situation in the first place. What strawman argument have I created?

You have decided, without all the information, that nothing will come of the investigations. You then state that therefore the investigations themselves are worthless based on your own made up presumption of there outcome.

Again, this response just shows out of touch you're with the current information on the subject. Senior Democrats have accepted that there will be no prosecutions. It's hard to prosecute someone under the Logan Act, not that you'd be aware of that.

And no other reason? You really think that Trump was happily sitting in the WH, delighted with Comey, until these letters crossed his desk. Then he suddenly had to act. Now, Spicer has already said that despite being warned by Obama in November about Flynn, when Yates told them in January then decided to wait for proof. Then after they were provided with proof they took a further 11 days to act. But in this case, Trump received a letter and immediately fired him! Come on now. This is evidence of Trump past behaviour, usually a pretty good indication of future behaviour. But in this case he acted straight away. Why the difference? Have you even asked yourself that question?

Again, lot's of assumptions with little understanding of how politics actually works. You're making the incredibly stupid assumption that you have to react to everything in the same way, every time. One example is a poor statistical basis for a silly assumption.

Wait, what you are trying to blame the Democrats on this? Really? Apparently this is all about the e-mails, so what do you think Rosentein uncovered that wasn't known before?

What are you asking here? Rosenstein was asked to carry out a review of public confidence in the FBI. The result was his findings. I'm not trying to blame anyone. You're the one attempting to apportion blame onto people without clearly understanding all of the facts.

I'm not going to list them again. They are clear facts as to what Trump has done, not possible in the future, not maybes. Trump has done those things. That makes them facts. What Trump says isn't a fact, you seem to be mixing up the two. Trump has been shown numerous times that what he says is nearly always the opposite of a fact.

So no facts then?

Ok, so what do you think it is?

The POTUS firing the FBI director. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Wow, you really like to make things up. Where did I even insinuate that Rosenstein was lying. I don't think I even mentioned the man. But who asked him to review the performance, what metrics did he use to come to the conclusion? Did he discuss this with those working directly with Comey, did he produce any evidence apart from his own view? Just because Rosenstein says it doesn't make it true (or false either) but its an opinion. Why not give him the chance to answer the criticism?

So what you support what Rosenstein reported but are critisicising Trump for implementing his recommendation? Why are you trying to appear very matter-of-fact when it's very clear that you have very little understanding of the memo and the facts and context surrounding it? Eric Holder and Jamie Gorelick and Rosenstein have all essentially said the same thing.

Oh my God, in the letter Trump claims he is doing it in the interests of the FBI. Have you even read it?

Yes, I have read it. I'm not disputing the fact that he said that in the letter. My point is that Trump shouldn't be pretending to be doing things in the interests of the FBI. His interest should be the American people.

jooksavage

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Incredibly misleading post. Sessions didn't write the report.

This forum used to be better than cringey liberal sh1tposting.

If all else fails call someone a liberal. There isn't anything remotely "conservative" about Trump or his unseemly mess of an administration.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If Flynn was such a threat to national security why did the Obama Administration give him security clearance? Rosenstein is in the job 2 weeks. Could you imagine what you and media would be saying if Sessions, alone, recommended that Comey be fired? The spin would be even worse than it already is now.




Nobody will be prosecuted because that's what they've been saying all along. Senior democrats have been saying this for a long time. For you to say that, just shows how little you know about the entire situation in the first place. What strawman argument have I created?



Again, this response just shows out of touch you're with the current information on the subject. Senior Democrats have accepted that there will be no prosecutions. It's hard to prosecute someone under the Logan Act, not that you'd be aware of that.



Again, lot's of assumptions with little understanding of how politics actually works. You're making the incredibly stupid assumption that you have to react to everything in the same way, every time. One example is a poor statistical basis for a silly assumption.







What are you asking here? Rosenstein was asked to carry out a review of public confidence in the FBI. The result was his findings. I'm not trying to blame anyone. You're the one attempting to apportion blame onto people without clearly understanding all of the facts.




So no facts then?




The POTUS firing the FBI director. Nothing more. Nothing less.




So what you support what Rosenstein reported but are critisicising Trump for implementing his recommendation? Why are you trying to appear very matter-of-fact when it's very clear that you have very little understanding of the memo and the facts and context surrounding it? Eric Holder and Jamie Gorelick and Rosenstein have all essentially said the same thing.




Yes, I have read it. I'm not disputing the fact that he said that in the letter. My point is that Trump shouldn't be pretending to be doing things in the interests of the FBI. His interest should be the American people.

Why did Trump change his mind? He was entirely ok with the help Comey gave him in the election. Not a complaint until now. Trump has been in office for months and now he does as one person instructs? And you don't think it seems off?

Dismissing things as liberal is not going to help your case. Again the Russian investigation has made heads roll. No convictions so far but some sackings have come about due to it. Worth while enough for me if it gets some people abusing their power out of office.

Christ Trump loves hiding behind others. Rosenstein's letter caused the firing, Obama's list caused those countries to be banned, Obama gave Flynn security clearance therefore it was cool to pit him in a major role in spite of warnings against it. Bit of a lick spittle president if you ask me. Has he made any decisions we can attribute to him?

aloyisious

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If Flynn was such a threat to national security why did the Obama Administration give him security clearance? .

The Obama Admin fired Flynn in 2013 or 2014. Gen Flynn (even being retired ) due to his general staff officer rank was on the Reserve Officers list and given security clearance in line with that position. Don, despite Barack's (with an employer's past experience of Flynn) advice NOT to hire Dlynn went ahead and did that in 2017, and appointed him as his Nat Sec Advisor to boot. I am mindful that Don is a very strong-willed "I'm my own man" person and may have done so just because of Barack's advice. That new job would have entitled Flynn to greater security clearance than he already held. It must follow that Don would have approved the increased security clearance.