grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 He didn't based upon the memos and email that he circulated within the FBI. The reason to keep it in house within the bureau and not let "everyone" know would have been to not impede their investigation. Do you have a copy of the memos and email that he circulated within the FBI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Do you have a copy of the memos and email that he circulated within the FBI? Do I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Do I? Okay, notfernuthin', but is your reading comprehension SO bad that you need clarification on his simple question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Do you have a copy of the memos and email that he circulated within the FBI? The House Oversight Committee requested the memos by May 24. We'll have them within a week. Seems likely to me that Comey specifically had this memo leaked so that Congress would subpoena all his memos and also have him testify in public. The news cycle on this is just beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Do I? OK, let me make it simple for you. What makes you believe that those memos and emails exist? How do you know for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 OK, let me make it simple for you. What makes you believe that those memos and emails exist? How do you know for sure? It's my active imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Bolshevik! He took 18 days to take action after being informed of Flynn's criminal behavior by the then acting AG. Were it not for the Washington Post article that came out, he could easily still be on the job as NSA. Would that be the same acting AG that publicly refused to do her job as a partisan stunt (and was fired for it)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 It's my active imagination. This is the kind of thing that gator does. You posted a serious allegation, got pressed on it and then instead of backing it up, you tried to laugh it off. Own your schit and please don't be another gator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 This is the kind of thing that gator does. You posted a serious allegation, got pressed on it and then instead of backing it up, you tried to laugh it off. Own your schit and please don't be another gator. No, you ask really stupid questions. Just pointless, stupid questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Would that be the same acting AG that publicly refused to do her job as a partisan stunt (and was fired for it)? As a principled career prosecutor, I wouldn't characterize it as a partisan stunt. In fact the EO was withdrawn because it couldn't pass the test of being constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 As a principled career prosecutor, I wouldn't characterize it as a partisan stunt. In fact the EO was withdrawn because it couldn't pass the test of being constitutional. As a career prosecutor, you should know that it is not her decision to make. That is for the courts to decide. What was her decision to make was to use her defiance as a liberal publicity stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 As a principled career prosecutor, I wouldn't characterize it as a partisan stunt. In fact the EO was withdrawn because it couldn't pass the test of being constitutional. You should take your partisan glasses off. It couldn't get past the 9th Circuit, a court so liberal it makes Maxine Waters seem like a Goldwater Girl. I think the Supreme Court will look at it a tad differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) As a career prosecutor, you should know that it is not her decision to make. That is for the courts to decide. What was her decision to make was to use her defiance as a liberal publicity stunt. Your take is fine, but her judgment was vindicated. Her oath is to the law and constitution and not to who sits in the oval office for a four year term. You should take your partisan glasses off. It couldn't get past the 9th Circuit, a court so liberal it makes Maxine Waters seem like a Goldwater Girl. I think the Supreme Court will look at it a tad differently. The 1st EO was withdrawn because it was hastily written crap. We'll see about the 2nd. Edited May 17, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Your take is fine, but her judgment was vindicated. Her oath is to the law and constitution and not to who sits in the oval office for a four year term. The 1st EO was withdrawn because it was hastily written crap. We'll see about the 2nd. The first was withdrawn and replaced with one very similar but one that should have satisfied the court's objections to the first EO. The court found a way to strike that down too. It doesn't matter though. This isn't about the law anymore, it's all about Trump. Just ask the ACLU attorney who said he'd have no objections to the EO if Hillary had made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Have you ever dealt with classified information? If not, then I understand why you see no room for "nuance". No, I haven't. I've never experienced the nuance between being fired and being employed before either. Either I was employed or I wasn't. And what I'm saying is that if these distractions were fake, GOP wouldn't pay attention to them. Yes Trump is despised for valid reasons. But he lacks a basic element of maturity to move on and focus on the big picture. Everything that's been happening over the past month is self inflicted, and he makes things worse by doubling down and giving his opponents ample ammo to continue the attacks. Listen to Ryan's & Thune's comments today. They're tired and want the self-inflicted distractions to go away I get all that. I believe I've gone out of my way to state that Trump brings much of this on himself. That aside, the sheer volume of the anti-Trump machine is reaching a deafening pitch, and in my opinion, has begun to drown out much of the legitimate criticism of Trump and his administration. Congressional Republicans are routinely portrayed in the news as the stereotypical 'tax cuts for the rich, throw grandma over the cliff, foreigner-hating Scrooges that want to starve children and poison the water' villains, and they're justifiably reluctant to be tied directly to Trump. You can loathe the man for who and what he is, but I would prefer he be judged honestly. There's plenty there to criticize between his policy proposals and his amateurish demeanor without the constant call for special prosecutors to investigate accusations based upon anonymous sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 The first was withdrawn and replaced with one very similar but one that should have satisfied the court's objections to the first EO. The court found a way to strike that down too. It doesn't matter though. This isn't about the law anymore, it's all about Trump. Just ask the ACLU attorney who said he'd have no objections to the EO if Hillary had made it. This must be complete BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 No, I haven't. I've never experienced the nuance between being fired and being employed before either. Either I was employed or I wasn't. I get all that. I believe I've gone out of my way to state that Trump brings much of this on himself. That aside, the sheer volume of the anti-Trump machine is reaching a deafening pitch, and in my opinion, has begun to drown out much of the legitimate criticism of Trump and his administration. Congressional Republicans are routinely portrayed in the news as the stereotypical 'tax cuts for the rich, throw grandma over the cliff, foreigner-hating Scrooges that want to starve children and poison the water' villains, and they're justifiably reluctant to be tied directly to Trump. You can loathe the man for who and what he is, but I would prefer he be judged honestly. There's plenty there to criticize between his policy proposals and his amateurish demeanor without the constant call for special prosecutors to investigate accusations based upon anonymous sources. If this were empty smoke Ryan and Thune would have been silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 This must be complete BS Try this on for size, you dumbass. Have you ever thought that maybe you should check things out before opening your mouth. You know, there is a world outside of Huffington Post. http://ijr.com/opinion/2017/05/265638-aclu-lawyer-makes-bizarre-admission-travel-ban-court-course-trump/ This is, essentially, what ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat admitted yesterday during an en banc hearing on the travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, during an exchange with Judge Paul Niemeyer (video above thanks to NTK network): JUDGE NIEMEYER: We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump, won the presidency, and then chose to issue this particular order...Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored? OMAR JADWAT: Yes your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional. This was a huge - and potentially costly - admission by Jadwat. It effectively conceded that the executive order is, in fact, facially constitutional; that is, he agreed that nothing about the text of the order is illegal (so much for the passionate arguments about statutory violations or due process rights!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 If this were empty smoke Ryan and Thune would have been silent. Perhaps. There's just too much $#%@ being shoveled lately for me to buy into anything until I see that it's for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 This is the kind of thing that gator does. You posted a serious allegation, got pressed on it and then instead of backing it up, you tried to laugh it off. Own your schit and please don't be another gator. This isn't the Titanic vault opening: The memo will be released in short order and its contents have been read aloud to a reporter, and comfirm d by multiple sources. Could they all be lying? I guess, but it's highly unlikely. And given Trump is Trump, do you really think he met with Comey and only subtly nudged him about the Flynn investigation, being careful and tactful in his practice of diplomatic artistry not to get to close to a dangerous line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts