Jump to content

Trump Fires James Comey!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 509
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The one and only Mark Steyn..........

 

Posse Comey Tantrum

by Mark Steyn

I'll say this for the suddenly departed FBI honcho James Comey: He's caused enough cases of whiplash to collapse Obamacare before the end of the week.

The left in particular likes its cardboard heroes and cartoon villains drawn in bright Sharpie colors, and Comey insists on jumping back and forth between one role and the other like a movie stuntman leaping the roofs from northbound to southbound train.

*Comey's not going to charge Hillary? What a stand-up guy! The very model of a dedicated public servant!

*Comey's re-opened the Hillary investigation? What a partisan hack! He's just thrown the election to Trump! This is literally a police state!

*Comey's investigating Trump's ties to Russia? Thank God! This career civil servant is all that stands between us and that fascist dictator!

*Comey's fingering Huma Abedin for forwarding emails to Carlos Danger? God, this Trump stooge won't let up, will he?

*Trump's fired Comey? How dare he? This is a crisis for the integrity of our institutions...

Not surprisingly it's hard for these poor folk to keep up - to the point where Stephen Colbert had to rebuke his audience for cheering his announcement that Comey had been fired. That would have been the appropriate reaction had Obama done it circa November 1st last year. But now it's a constitutional outrage.

As it turns out, he misspoke somewhat on the matter of Huma Abedin sending classified emails to her spambot penis of a hubby to print out during breaks from sexting middle-schoolers. Which is how we arrive at the brain-exploding scenario of Trump firing Comey for being unfair to Hillary. Boy, that Putin is always nine chess moves ahead, isn't he?

Back in the real world, the memorandum from Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, outlining the case for firing Comey, lays bare the FBI Director's brazenness:

The
dir
ector was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July
5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is
not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At
most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.

 

 

That's true. If the County Attorney has a conflict of interest, the Sheriff doesn't unilaterally step in and assume the role of prosecutor.

MORE AT THE LINK:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I supposed to gain from a cryptic statement like this? Talk to me like a normal person if you have a point to make.

 

I'm talking to you like an adult, rather than spoon feeding you bias. You're focused entirely on a narrative that's been outwardly denied and rejected by every person in a position to know about collusion (even known liars such as Clapper recently said as much) and ignoring the real meat of the email scandal by referencing democratic talking points. This is because you are getting swept up in the smoke and poor reporting that seeks to trigger your emotional outrage in hopes of obscuring the actual issues and preventing you from drawing your own rational deductions.

 

I've linked stories up thread for you to consider the bigger picture. This isn't about improper emailing or record keeping as much as it is about the fundamental corruption of the CF and how that implicates many people still in positions of power today. The most recent email releases, from just last week, show a clear connection between the CF and human trafficking in Haiti. A little digging into those matters and you'll find (underneath the right wing spin which most certainly exists around this issue every bit as much as the left wing spin exists around the other issues mentioned previously) what's actually at issue with that investigation.

 

Remember how Trump responds to "beautiful babies" being abused.

 

I think he used 'massacre' in reference to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.

 

He absolutely was referencing that.

 

But like all things Podesta, he stepped on his dick in the process of making that reference.

 

***********************************************

:lol: And they trot out Huckabee instead of Spicer for this presser.

 

The trolling level has reached epic.

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

the best way to summarize this "story" from the nyt is to copy and paste the title at the top of the page: Politics

 

 

 

The much maligned press has been consistently ahead of the curve on Trump and gang. NYTimes has been doing a great job in spite of the feet dragging of these investigations in the House, Senate and by the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was willing to give Comey the benefit of the doubt RE: the election: as head of the FBI you could argue he had a responsibility to inform Congress and the general public about purported malfeasance on the part of the DNC.

 

More importantly, I think, is that he'd previously testified to Congress that he'd inform them of any new information that developed. That he then developed new information from a different investigation two degrees removed from Clinton two weeks before the election was something of a bit of bad luck that boxed him in to a corner w/r/t his promise to Congress.

 

Which is not to exonerate him - he did create the box he got stuck in. (It's not to exonerate Clinton, Abedin, or Weiner either - they're the !@#$ing nitwits that grossly mismanaged government records to begin with.) And he certainly could have handled it better - say, notifying the appropriate Congressional leadership via a private letter, and letting THEM take the responsibility of leaking it rather than publishing it himself. Or just hold the info until after polling, and say "I never said when I'd inform you." But really, he left himself with no good options the moment he decided to keep Congress informed.

 

 

Similarly the recommendation, which Trump publicly agreed with IIRC. His (Comey's) being a prosecutorial background...while it may not have been within his purview to make such a claim, it's not difficult to view his actions as expedient albeit sloppy. Neither of which, IMO, really warranted his firing which is what makes the timing of this move seem odd.

 

It seems less "odd," and more just "recklessly stupid," when you remember that Trump built his current image based on a reality TV show where he peremptorily fired people. We don't need some ridiculously convoluted "Yamchurian Candidate" conspiracy to explain this. He's playing the dumbass TV character we've seen him play for a decade.

Yeah, because that's his job. He doesn't need any help.

 

Well...yeah. Frickin' duh. Although I don't think Trump "lies," per se. That implies intent to deceive. Rather, I think he lives in a personal reality where "truth" is a very fungible and malleable thing (i.e. an "It was true back when I said it" sort of thing.)

 

And that's probably worse. Dealing with a liar is easy. Dealing with a schizophrenic is a LOT more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

timing means a lot though.

 

 

The reasoning is preposterous. They're saying it's because of how Comey mishandled going public with information on the Clinton email investigation. The same information that Trump continually pointed out in his speeches and tweets to gain an advantage.

 

If that's the reason, he should have been fired on Jan. 20. It's just not credible. Obviously Trump is feeling the heat that the FBI is getting close to the truth on the Russia connection, and hopes to replace him with a puppet. Now it's time for Republicans in Congress to support a special prosecutor or independent council.

 

 

 

Exactly.

You know one of the things that I've been doing here for 10 years is demanding alternatives from Liberals. It's almost gotten boring. But, here we go again:

 

Hey clowns: what is the alternative to firing him after a newly confirmed(94-6) Deputy Secretary of State completes his first assignment quickly(for once in government) and recommends immediate termination?

 

What is the alternative solution for Trump? Not firing him? Delaying firing him? Oh, I'm so sure that if Trump delayed firing him after getting the letter, THAT would "prove"(to you idiots) Trump is trying to buy Comey off to not find the Russian collusion.

 

Better: You are (hilariously) arguing that if Trump had fired Comey on day 1....

...that you WOULDN'T be talking about the Russian investigation as the "real reason he was fired"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If Trump fired Comey 3 months from now...you'd STILL be claiming it was because of the Russia investigation.

 

Trump could promote Comey to General of the Armies...and you'd say it was because Trump was trying to buy him off to avoid the Russia investigation.

 

Hey clowns: it's been literally forever, and unlike Clinton/Podesta, we have no evidence in hand for any Russian collusion. With the amount of leaking that has gone on? If there was something, you'd have heard it on CNN, months ago.

 

This is why PPP has become too easy, and I have become disinterested: you people don't even try to come up with good arguments anymore.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like the Koch Brothers has informed the GOP to brush it off as no big deal. The Dems reaction is typical even though they wanted him gone in October/November '16. The media on cue compared it to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. What story can you trust for his firing?

 

The official one from the White House? - God no. Them caring about the integrity of the FBI is like Saul Goodman worrying about the integrity of the rule of law. If the Report that Comey needed extra resources for the Russian probe is true that seems like a plausible reason. Who knows though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The much maligned press has been consistently ahead of the curve on Trump and gang. NYTimes has been doing a great job in spite of the feet dragging of these investigations in the House, Senate and by the President.

:lol:

 

Trump won the election, when the NYT gave him a 1.2% chance of winning it...and you call that: ahead of the curve?

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like the Koch Brothers has informed the GOP to brush it off as no big deal. The Dems reaction is typical even though they wanted him gone in October/November '16. The media on cue compared it to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. What story can you trust for his firing?

 

The official one from the White House? - God no. Them caring about the integrity of the FBI is like Saul Goodman worrying about the integrity of the rule of law. If the Report that Comey needed extra resources for the Russian probe is true that seems like a plausible reason. Who knows though.

 

Don't believe any of them. They're all liars and crooks.

 

Trust yourself and your own discernment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't believe any of them. They're all liars and crooks.

 

Trust yourself and your own discernment.

 

The problem with that advice is that the vast majority of people have only secondhand knowledge, at best, and GIGO applies: the best discernment in the world doesn't mean anything when you simply don't know ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The much maligned press has been consistently ahead of the curve on Trump and gang. NYTimes has been doing a great job in spite of the feet dragging of these investigations in the House, Senate and by the President.

 

It would seem the NYT covers stories that match your worldview. This story says "Someone said this!", but "Someone else said that!" and "we're not saying it could be a problem, but it could be".

 

And nothing new is learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Trump won the election, when the NYT gave him a 1.2% chance of winning it...and you call that: ahead of the curve?

 

:lol:

Oh ya, I see now, Trump is more trustworthy. He's not lying, he's just not in touch with reality or something, so its not lying or something.

 

:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like the Koch Brothers has informed the GOP to brush it off as no big deal. The Dems reaction is typical even though they wanted him gone in October/November '16. The media on cue compared it to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. What story can you trust for his firing?

 

The official one from the White House? - God no. Them caring about the integrity of the FBI is like Saul Goodman worrying about the integrity of the rule of law. If the Report that Comey needed extra resources for the Russian probe is true that seems like a plausible reason. Who knows though.

Yeah, let's speculate....

 

...instead of going with the most likely scenario.

 

A guy gets a new job, and, in order to impress his boss, he does it quickly and competently. So competently(by asking multiple former DOJ lifers and ex-AGs for their guidance), that he produces a quality deliverable that must be acted on immediately, or the bosses risk looking like fools.

 

That's what happened here. Again I ask: what happens if this letter was delivered, and Trump did nothing with it?

 

Again I say: The NYT would be telling us that Trump was protecting Comey because Comey promised to do nothing on the Russia investigation AND, that Trump was paying him back for informing Congress 10 days before the election.

 

The simple fact is: Comey had to go, but, Trump didn't fall into the trap of firing him immediately....and the left is just pissed that its poorly constructed trap failed miserably.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would seem the NYT covers stories that match your worldview. This story says "Someone said this!", but "Someone else said that!" and "we're not saying it could be a problem, but it could be".

 

And nothing new is learned.

Ya, the Russian investigation is just fake news :bag:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh ya, I see now, Trump is more trustworthy. He's not lying, he's just not in touch with reality or something, so its not lying or something.

 

:doh:

You made a claim about the media being ahead of the curve...I refuted that, and instead of dealing with said refutation, you change the subject.

 

What ever happened the "NYT being ahead of the curve"? And better: why did you delete your post? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know when the media was ahead of the curve?

 

When the Bernie Sanders supporters at the NYT broke the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal.

 

That was the last time they were ahead on anything. They were all behind Catherine Herridge on Benghazi. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into covering that story. Just like they have been dragged, kicking and screaming into covering the only real story about Russia: somebody spied on a US citizen for political motivation, and then leaked the classified information they created, by doing the spying in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...