Comey fired
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 4:50 pm
He would have lost his job if Clinton had won, too.
That may well be correct. Ironically, the Deputy Attorney General appears to have recommended his firing because of what he said publicly about the investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails and I can't disagree with that rationale. I'm very skeptical that this was Donny's actual reason for pulling the trigger and I expect the Senate to vet the new Director very, very carefully, but that is what the Deputy Attorney General wrote. --BobBeebs52 wrote:He would have lost his job if Clinton had won, too.
Exactly.Bob78164 wrote:That may well be correct. Ironically, the Deputy Attorney General appears to have recommended his firing because of what he said publicly about the investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails and I can't disagree with that rationale. I'm very skeptical that this was Donny's actual reason for pulling the trigger and I expect the Senate to vet the new Director very, very carefully, but that is what the Deputy Attorney General wrote. --BobBeebs52 wrote:He would have lost his job if Clinton had won, too.
But the rationale for firing Comey eludes me - the claim was that his handling of the Clinton emails was the reason; yet Trump extolled Comey back in October, saluting his courage, etc. Why the sudden change of heart?Beebs52 wrote:Exactly.Bob78164 wrote:That may well be correct. Ironically, the Deputy Attorney General appears to have recommended his firing because of what he said publicly about the investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails and I can't disagree with that rationale. I'm very skeptical that this was Donny's actual reason for pulling the trigger and I expect the Senate to vet the new Director very, very carefully, but that is what the Deputy Attorney General wrote. --BobBeebs52 wrote:He would have lost his job if Clinton had won, too.
Comey must have gotten too close to the truth about Russia. It was a Tuesday Night Massacre.earendel wrote:But the rationale for firing Comey eludes me - the claim was that his handling of the Clinton emails was the reason; yet Trump extolled Comey back in October, saluting his courage, etc. Why the sudden change of heart?
I think this will accelerate the process of people figuring out that when a sentence begins, "Trump said," there's no reason to bother reading the rest of the sentence. --Bobearendel wrote:But the rationale for firing Comey eludes me - the claim was that his handling of the Clinton emails was the reason; yet Trump extolled Comey back in October, saluting his courage, etc. Why the sudden change of heart?
Sure there is. The opposite is the truth.Bob78164 wrote:I think this will accelerate the process of people figuring out that when a sentence begins, "Trump said," there's no reason to bother reading the rest of the sentence. --Bobearendel wrote:But the rationale for firing Comey eludes me - the claim was that his handling of the Clinton emails was the reason; yet Trump extolled Comey back in October, saluting his courage, etc. Why the sudden change of heart?
White House press secretary Sean Spicer wrapped up his brief interview with Fox Business from the White House grounds late Tuesday night and then disappeared into the shadows, huddling with his staff behind a tall hedge. To get back to his office, Spicer would have to pass a swarm of reporters wanting to know why President Trump suddenly decided to fire the FBI director.
....
After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.
“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We'll take care of this. ... Can you just turn that light off?”
Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.
So here's the thing. It's pretty clear at this point that Republican members of Congress won't do anything to rein in Donny's excesses. Not unless their constituents require them to do so. My Congressional representatives are Democrats so I can already count on them to hold him accountable, but that's not going to be enough. In Texas, however, you have two Republican Senators, one of whom is up for re-election in 2018. I hope I can count on you to pressure them to start executing their role to impose checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and to follow through with a vote against them if they don't do so. Because I'm pretty sure nothing less than that will do the trick. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Exactly.Bob78164 wrote:That may well be correct. Ironically, the Deputy Attorney General appears to have recommended his firing because of what he said publicly about the investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails and I can't disagree with that rationale. I'm very skeptical that this was Donny's actual reason for pulling the trigger and I expect the Senate to vet the new Director very, very carefully, but that is what the Deputy Attorney General wrote. --BobBeebs52 wrote:He would have lost his job if Clinton had won, too.
Seriously, bless your heart. I mean that in the suthren way. Give it up.Bob78164 wrote:So here's the thing. It's pretty clear at this point that Republican members of Congress won't do anything to rein in Donny's excesses. Not unless their constituents require them to do so. My Congressional representatives are Democrats so I can already count on them to hold him accountable, but that's not going to be enough. In Texas, however, you have two Republican Senators, one of whom is up for re-election in 2018. I hope I can count on you to pressure them to start executing their role to impose checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and to follow through with a vote against them if they don't do so. Because I'm pretty sure nothing less than that will do the trick. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Exactly.Bob78164 wrote:That may well be correct. Ironically, the Deputy Attorney General appears to have recommended his firing because of what he said publicly about the investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails and I can't disagree with that rationale. I'm very skeptical that this was Donny's actual reason for pulling the trigger and I expect the Senate to vet the new Director very, very carefully, but that is what the Deputy Attorney General wrote. --Bob
Our two Republican Senators here are quite critical of Trump.Bob78164 wrote:So here's the thing. It's pretty clear at this point that Republican members of Congress won't do anything to rein in Donny's excesses. Not unless their constituents require them to do so. My Congressional representatives are Democrats so I can already count on them to hold him accountable, but that's not going to be enough. In Texas, however, you have two Republican Senators, one of whom is up for re-election in 2018. I hope I can count on you to pressure them to start executing their role to impose checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and to follow through with a vote against them if they don't do so. Because I'm pretty sure nothing less than that will do the trick. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Exactly.Bob78164 wrote:That may well be correct. Ironically, the Deputy Attorney General appears to have recommended his firing because of what he said publicly about the investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails and I can't disagree with that rationale. I'm very skeptical that this was Donny's actual reason for pulling the trigger and I expect the Senate to vet the new Director very, very carefully, but that is what the Deputy Attorney General wrote. --Bob
Words are wind. What will they do about it? --BobBob Juch wrote:Our two Republican Senators here are quite critical of Trump.Bob78164 wrote:So here's the thing. It's pretty clear at this point that Republican members of Congress won't do anything to rein in Donny's excesses. Not unless their constituents require them to do so. My Congressional representatives are Democrats so I can already count on them to hold him accountable, but that's not going to be enough. In Texas, however, you have two Republican Senators, one of whom is up for re-election in 2018. I hope I can count on you to pressure them to start executing their role to impose checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and to follow through with a vote against them if they don't do so. Because I'm pretty sure nothing less than that will do the trick. --BobBeebs52 wrote:
Exactly.
John McCain will say some tough things before he inevitably toes the party line.Bob Juch wrote:Our two Republican Senators here are quite critical of Trump.Bob78164 wrote:So here's the thing. It's pretty clear at this point that Republican members of Congress won't do anything to rein in Donny's excesses. Not unless their constituents require them to do so. My Congressional representatives are Democrats so I can already count on them to hold him accountable, but that's not going to be enough. In Texas, however, you have two Republican Senators, one of whom is up for re-election in 2018. I hope I can count on you to pressure them to start executing their role to impose checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and to follow through with a vote against them if they don't do so. Because I'm pretty sure nothing less than that will do the trick. --BobBeebs52 wrote:
Exactly.
In the words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise."Bob78164 wrote:The President of the United States directly attempted to interfere with the investigation into Michael Flynn. This is pretty much exactly what Richard Nixon faced impeachment for. --Bob
We also heard Michelle Obama has a penis. I'll give this the same amount of credibility.silverscreenselect wrote:Now, we hear that Trump described Comey as a "nut job" to the visiting Russians and that dismissing him meant that the pressure of the FBI investigation had been taken off. Not surprisingly, Comey has now agreed to testify before the open Senate in a session that I'm sure will get extensive coverage.
It's significant that the White House didn't deny the "nut job" story, nor another one that a current White House official is now under investigation in the probe (since the story said current, it doesn't refer to Flynn or Manafort).
Deep Throat was an unnamed source for decades, but he revealed some pretty accurate information. Naming the source means the source no longer works in the Trump administration.BackInTex wrote: BTW, what are the sources? Unnamed, I'll bet. Because the sources weren't even there.
They didn't need to be there. There's a transcript. Two, if you count the Russians'. --BobBackInTex wrote:We also heard Michelle Obama has a penis. I'll give this the same amount of credibility.silverscreenselect wrote:Now, we hear that Trump described Comey as a "nut job" to the visiting Russians and that dismissing him meant that the pressure of the FBI investigation had been taken off. Not surprisingly, Comey has now agreed to testify before the open Senate in a session that I'm sure will get extensive coverage.
It's significant that the White House didn't deny the "nut job" story, nor another one that a current White House official is now under investigation in the probe (since the story said current, it doesn't refer to Flynn or Manafort).
BTW, what are the sources? Unnamed, I'll bet. Because the sources weren't even there.
Who transcribed? How were they transcribed? From a tape, memory, or live? Have they been published? Are they word for word the same?Bob78164 wrote: They didn't need to be there. There's a transcript. Two, if you count the Russians'. --Bob
Putin has already volunteered to make his version of the transcript public to "prove" that Trump didn't reveal any sensitive information or do anything untoward during the meetings. Not the recordings but the transcript.Bob78164 wrote: They didn't need to be there. There's a transcript. Two, if you count the Russians'. --Bob