In shock move, Trump fires FBI Director Comey

[tonray]

Trump better hope there really are no tapes. A law enacted and upheld by the Supreme Court makes destroying recordings made in the White House a crime and denies executive privilege in hiding their contents.

[boomerangutang]

48 minutes ago, tonray said:

Trump better hope there really are no tapes. A law enacted and upheld by the Supreme Court makes destroying recordings made in the White House a crime and denies executive privilege in hiding their contents.

Trumpsters are always sleazing around, just at the edges of legality.  Sometimes oozing into or sometimes just outside breaking laws, depending on one's loyalties. His nepotism and the emoluments clause are just two of scores of examples.

 

                         As for tapes.  Trump can ooze around that easy as pie.  If confronted, all he and his sheeple shielders have to say is:  "We didn't destroy any tapes."    And when the questioner includes CD's or thumb/hard drives or digital media into the mix, Trumpsters will come right back with:  "You asked about tapes.  You mentioned the word tapes.  We didn't hide or destroy any tapes.  There's no there there.  End of topic."  ....while slinking into another room and closing the door, or shirking away to hide in the bushes.

[iReason]

8 things that actually happened after Donald Trump fired James Comey

 

1) Donald Trump contradicted his entire White House team 

2) Donald Trump threatened to stop his administration talking to the press

3) The Deputy Attorney General 'threatened to resign'

...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-comey-fired-8-things-that-actually-happened-after-a7733646.html

[iReason]

Comey don’t play that: ex-FBI director defies Trump

 

Trump threatens Comey

"Donald Trump threatened James Comey with “tapes” of their conversations, after reports surfaced that Trump had demanded a personal loyalty pledge from the FBI director, and that Comey had refused to make such a pledge."

 

Comey: bring it on

"He hopes there are tapes. That would be perfect.

– an unnamed source close to James Comey, as cited by NBC News"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/may/12/james-comey-fbi-director-defies-trump

 

Put up or shut up.

[iReason]

Trump's Comey firing sets off new round of leaks

 

"Media reports about the run-up to Trump’s decision paint him as isolated and consumed by anger and paranoia, prompting questions from Trump allies about whose interests these government officials had in mind when they spoke to the press."
 

"And Trump’s abrupt firing of Comey appears to have stirred opposition from the former FBI director’s loyalists, who are pushing back on the administration's claims in the press."
 

"The conflict with Comey appears to have launched a new round of leaks from the Justice Department and the FBI."

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333031-trumps-comey-firing-sets-off-new-round-of-leaks

 

The inept clown is crumbling... 

[iReason]

JAMES CLAPPER: Comey was 'uneasy' about having dinner with Trump

 

"Clapper told MSNBC on Friday that Comey, the FBI director whom Trump abruptly ousted on Tuesday, had mentioned he was invited to the White House for dinner shortly after Trump's inauguration."

 

"He was uneasy with that because of even compromising — even the optics, the appearance of independence not only of him, but of the FBI," Clapper said."

 

"Clapper said Comey accepted Trump's invitation out of "professional courtesy."

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-clapper-comey-uneasy-dinner-with-trump-2017-5

 

Trump's invitation.

[Thakkar]

Lemme get this straight.

 

Trump:

*Fires the acting AG who warns him that keeping Mike Flynn as Nat. Security Advisor is a security risk.

 

*Fires the guy investigating connections between his campaign and Russian interference in the American election.

 

*Lies about reasons for the firing, then admits on TV the real reason, that being that Comey was investigating his ties to Russia.

 

*Publicly threatens the guy, implying he has recorded their conversation.

 

*The next day invites the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador, who is also Russia's spy master in America, into the Oval Office. Trump furthermore kicks the American press out of his office while inviting the Russian press to remain.

 

And Hillary should be locked up for using a private email server—something Republican Sec of State had also done?

[boomerangutang]

10 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Lemme get this straight.

 

Trump:

*Fires the acting AG who warns him that keeping Mike Flynn as Nat. Security Advisor is a security risk.

 

*Fires the guy investigating connections between his campaign and Russian interference in the American election.

 

*Lies about reasons for the firing, then admits on TV the real reason, that being that Comey was investigating his ties to Russia.

 

*Publicly threatens the guy, implying he has recorded their conversation.

 

*The next day invites the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador, who is also Russia's spy master in America, into the Oval Office. Trump furthermore kicks the American press out of his office while inviting the Russian press to remain.

 

And Hillary should be locked up for using a private email server—something Republican Sec of State had also done?

                    Pence had also been using an non-secure email server for many moons.  The difference with his use and Hillary's, it was shown Pence had unwittingly discussed top terrorist suspects on his public email account.

 

                      Things are heating up within the beltway, day by day.  Now, a special branch of the Commerce Dept is officially investigating Trump for money laundering.   I won't be surprised if Kushner and Ivanka get caught in that net.   Interesting times ahead.

 

                     I think that's what spooks Trump the most: if his beloved daughter gets found out for illegal activity.   To Trump, that's more important than staying in the Oval Office.

 

 

 

[iReason]

7 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Lemme get this straight.

 

Trump:

*Fires the acting AG who warns him that keeping Mike Flynn as Nat. Security Advisor is a security risk.

 

*Fires the guy investigating connections between his campaign and Russian interference in the American election.

 

*Lies about reasons for the firing, then admits on TV the real reason, that being that Comey was investigating his ties to Russia.

 

*Publicly threatens the guy, implying he has recorded their conversation.

 

*The next day invites the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador, who is also Russia's spy master in America, into the Oval Office. Trump furthermore kicks the American press out of his office while inviting the Russian press to remain.

 

And Hillary should be locked up for using a private email server—something Republican Sec of State had also done?

 You're almost there:  

 

Preet Bharara, Sally Yates and James Comey: Fired while investigating Donald Trump

 

What was he investigating?

 

"Bharara's office had many investigations ongoing at the time of his firing, including one involving Trump favorite Fox News."

 

"And then there's the President's claim that he was wiretapped in Trump Tower on orders of then-President Obama, whose investigation led back to the Southern District of New York."

 

"Trump has undoubtedly decided that he wants his own pick rather than the choice of Senate adversary (and minority leader) Chuck Schumer in place as the top federal prosecutor in New York," CNN legal analyst Paul Callan wrote in March.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/comey-yates-bharara-fired-after-investigations/

[mogandave]

Trump better hope there really are no tapes. A law enacted and upheld by the Supreme Court makes destroying recordings made in the White House a crime and denies executive privilege in hiding their contents.

Unless you pack the Supreme Court and fire the director of the FBI.

[tonray]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Unless you pack the Supreme Court and fire the director of the FBI.

 

You have to win elections...that's the bottom line

[FritsSikkink]

Here you go: no ties with Russia, don't think so

 

https://zembla.vara.nl/dossier/uitzending/the-dubious-friends-of-donald-trump-the-Russians

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Crowes said:

 

I agree, lets ditch the system that has worked for over 200 years just because our candidate lost.

Changing the system so the President is the one receiving the most popular votes instead of electoral votes would have changed three presidential elections in the nineteenth century.  Since then the only elections that would have been changed would have been Bush vs Gore in 2000 and Trump vs Clinton in 2016.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote   

 

I won't comment on the eighteenth century elections but I would have been more than happy to go with the popular votes in the two recent elections.

[iReason]

Fired US attorney: No one believes Trump's explanation for firing Comey

 

"Fired U.S. attorney Preet Bharara blasted President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey on Thursday and questioned whether anyone believed Trump's stated reasoning for the firing."

 

"Whatever one's opinion of Comey, does anyone still believe that the STATED reason for Comey's firing was the ACTUAL reason?" Bharara asked on Twitter. "Anyone?"

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/332888-preet-bharara-no-one-believes-trumps-stated-reason-for-firing-comey

 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[iReason]

Get your popcorn: James Comey is insisting that his final Trump-Russia testimony be in public

 

"Earlier today James Comey rebuffed a Congressional request to testify in a closed hearing on Tuesday about the investigation Donald Trump just fired him from. And it’s partly because he wants his testimony to be in public hearings so everyone can watch live on television."

 

"Palmer Report has already pointed out that Comey probably turned down the request to testify partly because he wants to be subpoena’d instead, which would legally compel him to testify, thus freeing him up legally to discuss more sensitive aspects of the Trump-Russia investigation (link)."

 

http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/popcorn-james-comey-public/2796/

 

[iReason]

"In a desperate cover-up mode at the moment..."

 

 

[funandsuninbangkok]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Changing the system so the President is the one receiving the most popular votes instead of electoral votes would have changed three presidential elections in the nineteenth century.  Since then the only elections that would have been changed would have been Bush vs Gore in 2000 and Trump vs Clinton in 2016.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote   

 

I won't comment on the eighteenth century elections but I would have been more than happy to go with the popular votes in the two recent elections.

Many liberals ignorantly argue that changing the election process from one of electoral college to popular vote would grant them an automatic win. 

 

As usual they don't think things through. 

 

If the Presidential victory depended on gaining the most popular votes, the election campaigns would be very different. Trump, for example, would have spent time in eastern and Southern  California and Upstate New York where many Republicans and conservative Democrats live. As it was, he knew these states were a lost cause for the electoral college so he never visited them. 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Many liberals ignorantly argue that changing the election process from one of electoral college to popular vote would grant them an automatic win. 

 

As usual they don't think things through. 

 

If the Presidential victory depended on gaining the most popular votes, the election campaigns would be very different. Trump, for example, would have spent time in eastern and Southern  California and Upstate New York where many Republicans and conservative Democrats live. As it was, he knew these states were a lost cause for the electoral college so he never visited them. 

Nothing ignorant about the argument.  Both candidates would have changed their campaign strategy to focus on total votes instead of swing states.  Hillary would have campaigned more in states like Texas which have a significant Democrat leaning Hispanic population but not enough to overcome the white Republican majority. 

 

However since Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of almost three million, Trump would have been unlikely to overcome the gap after both candidates adjusted their strategy..

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Many liberals ignorantly argue that changing the election process from one of electoral college to popular vote would grant them an automatic win. 

 

As usual they don't think things through. 

 

If the Presidential victory depended on gaining the most popular votes, the election campaigns would be very different. Trump, for example, would have spent time in eastern and Southern  California and Upstate New York where many Republicans and conservative Democrats live. As it was, he knew these states were a lost cause for the electoral college so he never visited them. 

 

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Nothing ignorant about the argument.  Both candidates would have changed their campaign strategy to focus on total votes instead of swing states.  Hillary would have campaigned more in states like Texas which have a significant Democrat leaning Hispanic population but not enough to overcome the white Republican majority. 

 

However since Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of almost three million, Trump would have been unlikely to overcome the gap after both candidates adjusted their strategy..

Mesquite is a consistent  practitioner of motivated reasoning. 

[iReason]

1 hour ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

As it was, he knew these states were a lost cause for the electoral college so he never visited them. 

 

Ignorant posters just make things up.

And your post is a good example.

(As usual they don't think things through.)

 

Let's address your erroneous off-topic post re: N.Y. and California while we can:

 

Trump campaigns in California, denounces protesters at rally as 'thugs'

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-protests-idUSKCN0YP0FN

 

Clashes at Trump's California rally injure dozens

http://www.dw.com/en/clashes-at-trumps-california-rally-injure-dozens/a-19290151

 

What might a Trump rally in Syracuse look like? Rochester offers glimpse

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/04/what_might_a_trump_rally_in_syracuse_look_like_rochester_offers_a_glimpse.html

 

Donald Trump will campaign in Buffalo and Rochester ahead of NY primary

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/donald_trump_will_campaign_in_buffalo_next_week.html

 

Donald Trump will hold campaign rally in Syracuse next week

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/donald_trump_will_hold_campaign_rally_in_syracuse_next_week.html

 

Should have spent more time in N.Y.C. 

The guy couldn't even take his home town of Queens: 21.8%

Where he only scored 19% out of the five boroughs. His opponent took 79%

Let alone N.Y. State: 36.5%

http://abc7ny.com/politics/how-each-nyc-borough-voted-(hint-clinton-didnt-win-them-all)/1598306/

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

 

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, iReason said:

Fired US attorney: No one believes Trump's explanation for firing Comey

"Fired U.S. attorney Preet Bharara blasted President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey on Thursday and questioned whether anyone believed Trump's stated reasoning for the firing."

"Whatever one's opinion of Comey, does anyone still believe that the STATED reason for Comey's firing was the ACTUAL reason?" Bharara asked on Twitter. "Anyone?"

                           To answer Bharara's rhetorical question:  Yes, there are some people who believe Trump.  They're required to.  They have no choice, but to believe everything he utters and tweets.  They are: His immediate family and in-laws.  Everyone who surrounds him in the Oval Office, and his various spokespeople.  Also Republican heads of House and Senate.  

 

                               Ok, I know there's a difference between believing something and being required to believe it.   Religion is a mind-set which requires their respective adherents to believe a certain series of beliefs handed down from on high.  In that sense, Trump is a guru with a religion called Trumpism.  

 

                      I think the only chink in the armor of people required to believe Trump, is Sean Spicer.  I can see his face and body movements don't correspond to the words that are coming out of his mouth.   It's like a fat white man claiming he's a skinny black woman to a crowd of listeners.  He's doing it for the paycheck, but a big part of him would like to be 5,000 miles away driving a Winabego through a national park. 

[sirineou]

What is the objection to a special prosecutor ?

[heybruce]

46 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What is the objection to a special prosecutor ?

In 1994 Kenneth Starr was appointed special prosecutor to replace Robert Friske who was investigating questions about real estate investments made by the Clintons that became known as the Whitewater scandal.  Insufficient evidence was found to charge either of the Clintons of improprieties, but Starr was allowed to continue investigating anything that might have led to charges against the Clintons.

 

After four and a half years and at a cost of almost $80 million all that Kenneth Starr was able to pin on Bill Clinton was lying about receiving oral sex from a White House intern.

 

Imagine what such an unlimited investigation into Trump and family might uncover.  That's the unspoken objection the Republicans have to a special prosecutor.

[Thakkar]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In 1994 Kenneth Starr was appointed special prosecutor to replace Robert Friske who was investigating questions about real estate investments made by the Clintons that became known as the Whitewater scandal.  Insufficient evidence was found to charge either of the Clintons of improprieties, but Starr was allowed to continue investigating anything that might have led to charges against the Clintons.

 

After four and a half years and at a cost of almost $80 million all that Kenneth Starr was able to pin on Bill Clinton was lying about receiving oral sex from a White House intern.

 

Imagine what such an unlimited investigation into Trump and family might uncover.  That's the unspoken objection the Republicans have to a special prosecutor.

 

Admirably succinct. 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In 1994 Kenneth Starr was appointed special prosecutor to replace Robert Friske who was investigating questions about real estate investments made by the Clintons that became known as the Whitewater scandal.  Insufficient evidence was found to charge either of the Clintons of improprieties, but Starr was allowed to continue investigating anything that might have led to charges against the Clintons.

 

After four and a half years and at a cost of almost $80 million all that Kenneth Starr was able to pin on Bill Clinton was lying about receiving oral sex from a White House intern.

 

Imagine what such an unlimited investigation into Trump and family might uncover.  That's the unspoken objection the Republicans have to a special prosecutor.

I am sure the US can financially  afford an independent investigation , especially one of such  importance. I am not sure we can afford the current division. For better or for worst Trump is president. I wish he wasn't but he is. These clouds need to be removed . IMO an independent entity is the only way forward, this is not going away any time soon, and even if it does the results will for ever be tainted. 

[anon4546543]

17 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Thank you for your courtesy and yes 3m more for HC and it's a tragedy that the system is what it is . A goal, surely, must be to change that so it cannot happen again.

Now that the US has voted in the incumbent, who is totally against reform and is totally against media investigation, in fact any investigation and sacks anyone who is investigating.... Well sorry, the US is now what the majority voted for. (plus some  electoral college system which was supposed to provide protection to the constitution) 

 You got what you voted for and as anyone knows, you deserve what you get. 

[funandsuninbangkok]

12 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

Now that the US has voted in the incumbent, who is totally against reform and is totally against media investigation, in fact any investigation and sacks anyone who is investigating.... Well sorry, the US is now what the majority voted for. (plus some  electoral college system which was supposed to provide protection to the constitution) 

 You got what you voted for and as anyone knows, you deserve what you get. 

Yes we deserve what we voted for and all Americans will benefit from freedom to chose your own medical care, lower taxes, less regulation on business to promote a healthy economy and a strong military. 

 

MAGA!

 

 

[anon4546543]

31 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Yes we deserve what we voted for and all Americans will benefit from freedom to chose your own medical care, lower taxes, less regulation on business to promote a healthy economy and a strong military. 

 

MAGA!

 

 

Really. Since when have you started to get better health care. Since when have you gotten any lower taxes. Has business gotten any less regulation.

The military is booming on wasted crusades overseas. That does not benefit anyone, except the funeral parlours of wasted dead American lives. I love the military.

Hate to see lives wasted on futile American severe foreign policy.

Talk promises are good and get you excited. But the reality is that nothing of this is happening now and if it does ever happen, it won't be because of this joke of a president. Flip Flop

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Yes we deserve what we voted for and all Americans will benefit from freedom to chose your own medical care, lower taxes, less regulation on business to promote a healthy economy and a strong military. 

 

MAGA!

 

 

The majority didn't vote for the clueless orange fool, and you are confusing his words, which are plentiful, with his accomplishments, which are almost nonexistent.