Trump Just Fired FBI Director James Comey Who Was Actively Investigating His Campaign

Submitted by: fancylad 7 months ago in News & Politics


Trump was head over heels over Comey during the campaign trail leading up the the election with Hillary's emails, but it seems that he has no use for him anymore now that the FBI Director is investigating his ties with Russia and Putin. That said, Trump fired Comey this afternoon -- Comey got too close to the truth. 

Trump's reason for the firing? He based the flimsy decision on recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- two of Trump's boys.

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau," Trump wrote in Comey's termination letter, which was read to him over the phone.



Here's what Bernie Sanders had to say about it...

There are 127 comments:
Male 541
Has Trump said ANYTHING true in Office? I mean, other than "Yankees won" or "Nice day."?
0
Reply
Male 1,087
Would have really been nice to see his tax returns now. Think about this guys: you saw the worst of Hillary's campaign because she got hacked. Nothing found there holds a candle to what T Rump's been up to. No selling out to Russians, no using the state dept to funnel money to her hotel, no cutting business deals with the Chinese. You have to have a pretty low opinion of yourself to stay in the Republican party these days.
1
Reply
304
marsii You probably meant to say a pretty low IQ, and I'll agree with that. 
0
Reply
Male 4,363
marsii He has to sell out to the commies. Remember? They have the pee-pee tape.
1
Reply
Male 1,087
trimble No pee tape for her tho.
-1
Reply
Male 303
Hide what exactly? He doesn't do investigations, he directs. If there is something on Trump it doesn't matter if he is the boss or not. Do you have any check on reality and organizational structure?
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Fojos Do you?

Abruptly firing the head of an agency, without warning, has a chilling effect on everyone in that agency. It sends a clear message, namely: "If you want to have a long and successful career, watch where you step."
0
Reply
304
squrlz4ever Watergate 2.0.

He's literally going around firing anybody and everybody he can that's investigating him. 
1
Reply
Male 5,413
pleasestop Yep. Comey was the third one to get the axe. Trump neither desires nor understands the need for checks and balances. The same could also be said for many of his supporters.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
His replacements that are being described are Chris Christy, Sherrif Clark of Milwaukee and Trey Goudy.  Honestly if any of these 3 get the job you conservatives are completely blind, deaf and dumb.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
normalfreak2 What's wrong with Trey Gowdy. I can see him fill this position quite well...unless I'm missing something
0
Reply
Male 8,171
doiknowyou Did you watch the Benghazi hearings?  What a mess!  He's proven he can't run an independent investigation.  All he can do is run partisan witchhunts.  What did 8 years of hearings prove or do except keep Hillary from being elected?  NOTHING of substance came from those hearings in terms of finding a "crime".  Listen there's something there but it's not about Hillary it's about what the CIA was doing there and whatever OP they were doing.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
About time! He should have been fired the day after he let Hillary walk free from her blatant crimes.
https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch

His term as FBI boss was filled with scandals. Just like Obama's.

And the FBI did indeed 'wiretap' Trump's campaign:
https://news.grabien.com/story-fbis-comey-doesnt-deny-there-was-fisa-request-wiretap-trump
-1
Reply
Male 8,171
5cats How has your head not snapped off your shoulders yet? All of this spinning, I'm shocked you can even walk or type.  
1
Reply
Male 592
5cats  "That’s one of those subjects I can’t comment on one way or another. Please don’t interpret that in any way other than I just can’t talk about anything that relates to the FISA process in an open setting.”  - Comey

"I can't comment" is kind of like pleading the 5th.  You should not take it as evidence in either direction.
2
Reply
Male 4,099
muert 

I wouldn't akin it to taking the fifth. Taking the fifth is used to avoid self-incrimination and is optional. Not talking about "anything that relates to the FISA process in an open setting" is more of refusing to comment because it would violate the law on confidentiality.
1
Reply
Male 41,551
muert A great deal of evidence shows that the FBI pursued wiretap warrants for dozens of Trump's campaign members. Why not Trump himself if the DNC thought he was "being helped by the Russians"? 
Of which there is still zero evidence of, after 6+ months of intense searching...
And the leaked 'evidence' that sent that Flynn fellow packing? That was from surveillance, illegally leaked but available to many under last-minute rule changes made by Obama...
1
Reply
Male 8,171
5cats God so much bullshit.

Trump stated HE WAS BEING TAPPED.  Trump was NEVER  being tapped.  His campaign was.  Trump Tower wasn't
0
Reply
Male 1,087
Yeah, there's a difference between tapping the tower and tapping the Russian agents making deals for him.
-1
Reply
Male 41,551
normalfreak2 You claim Trump never once communicated with his campaign staff? That he never once did so from inside his HQ, Trump Tower? Never?

Well isn't that special!
0
Reply
Male 1,891
normalfreak2 A difference without distinction
0
Reply
Male 41,551
insaneai Exactly! The term "wiretapping" means "surveillance" for most of humanity.
Since "wiretapping" is an old, outdated method? Only older people use it as such these days... like... Donald! Lolz!

Only a low-IQ fucktard would BITCH like a baby over the uber-strict definition of a word like that in a case like this. In context Trump OBVIOUSLY referred to "surveillance" and not the very specific and no longer used method of physical "wire tapping" eh?
0
Reply
Male 8,171
insaneai Howso?  Colleagues of his were in contact with Foreign operatives, and those communications were intercepted.  How is that in the slightest wrong?  
0
Reply
Male 1,891
normalfreak2 "His campaign was." - so you're ok with the current administration wire tapping the opposition.  I'll try to remember that for the next election swing when the dems take power again and teh repubs come out with their "intelligence" only to watch the repubs take power again in another full swing of the pendulum.

NF2, I'd really just love to have you over for a cookout and back yard fire.  I don't always agree with you but I do enjoy the debate.  I'd also love to just learn who you are without the political bickering.  As a matter of fact, I'd like to meet all the I-A-B regulars with two rules:1. Have fun.  2. hand over your keys if you don't have a DD.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
insaneai You are welcome to my home any time insaneai.  if you ever are in the Chicago or Toronto Area let me know.

On topic, No I'm not okay with any administration tapping anyone without reason.  However, that's not what's at stake here.  

Here follow me for a bit here.  Ambassador Kisleak was being tapped, he's a foreign agent, our FBI and CIA wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't listening in to those conversations.  I'm all for our special agents spys doing what they have to within the confines of the Constitution.

Now here's what happened.  Gen Flynn after Trump get's elected and Obama imposes harsher sanctions, contacts the Ambassador and discusses with him to relax once his guy gets in office this will all go away.  ( I argue he didn't do this without Trump's express permission but I doubt that'll ever be proved)  Notice Putin didn't do what he NORMALLY does when America does something, Russia does something.  Their reaction was to do nothing, very uncharacteristic for Putin.  Why would he do nothing at that time?  That's not at all within Putin's character.  The thinking is, Flynn gave reassurances to the Ambassador, and let's not fool ourselves, both Russia spies and American spies now know that Flynn has had these discussions.  Pence comes out later after talking and learning information from Flynn that contradicts what both American Spies and Russian spies know to be NOT TRUE.

Can't you see how that possibility opens up a huge red flag and gives Russia spies information that Flynn is lying to the Vice President?  That's huge to know that weakness is there and can be used against Flynn in the future.  That's my concern with this situation.  
0
Reply
Male 1,891
normalfreak2 I read your response twice.  For the sake of argument, I will presume your research is sound.

1.  If we are spying on other countries, too effing bad.  The US Constitution applies to us, not them.
2.  If, in the course of this spying activity, we find that US players are communicating through unsanctioned channels and / or in violation of US law, they do not enjoy the protections of the US Constitution because they are accessing communications networks in other countries (refer back to 1).  - Basically, we are not tapping a US person or entity, we are tapping a foreign target; I see a huge difference in this distinction.

My previous interpretation of your stance and commentary is being revised.


-----on a personal note ----

Also, if I find that I will be heading to Chicago, I'd love to meet you in person and will post a message to you here.  If you find yourself in the Cleveland area, I'd love to have you over and show you a few things.  We have a lot of good food, nature preserves, museums, Science centers, music of all kinds, indoor parks etc.  

I haven't spent much time in Chicago since I was in high school when our culinary class spent a week there for the McCormick Center food show.  My last experience was driving through on my way to Montana last summer but that was all highway.  I may take a weekend off and 


0
Reply
Male 8,171
insaneai https://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/15/14620560/trump-flynn-russia-campaign


Heads up this is a LONG article with a lot of details.  It's strictly sticking to what we know now, I think it's comprehensive and factually sound. 

I think the article subheader labeled Scandal #2 is the one you should read.  I think this breaks down the issue I personally have, better than I can say it.
0
Reply
Male 1,891
normalfreak2 I see the conflict of interest in the issues of 1 and 2.  Especially 2.  Technically, Flynn was not in a position of power and had no authority to negotiate anything as far as I can tell.  I remember wondering if this was actually illegal because he was not acting with official authority.  I'm still undecided.

What really scares me is we are hoping for government to audit itself in essence.  It will either find that nothing happened or whatever does come out will do so only to further the agenda of the "side" that reveals the information.

The problem we face, as citizens, is that we need access to the information to determine if our government is operating appropriately.  The complication is: how do we get this information without sacrificing security? - I don't have the answer to that.

There is a lot of speculation and partial evidence that, in my mind, does not lead to a conclusion but rather a supposition.  There's enough to convince but not convict and I think that's where the politicians like to play.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
insaneai Really Trump brought this upon himself.  If he had simply stopped Lying over and over and over and simply stated he lost faith in James Comey this wouldn't have been an issue.  Everything to me screams of a cover up, this may end up or not being a case of  where the coverup may be worse than the crime.  

Trump went from Praising Comey over and over for his work on Hillary and allowing him to continue to work for a year then suddenly firing him and trying to blame the Deputy AG take the fall saying he made Trump fire Comey....This whole thing is stupid.  Trump played this completely wrong.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
insaneai LOL! That's hilarious. Trump's ego is so large he can't abide the idea of acting on someone's recommendation. He insists on taking full credit. OMG, you couldn't make this stuff up.

~Squrlz adopts Trump impersonation~ "No, no... that was all me. I did that. I knew what I wanted to do, and I did it. That's the way things work around here. Ignore those earlier stories that gave credit for the idea to someone else."
0
Reply
Male 8,171
insaneai WOW, Unbelievable.  I can't believe I just read that....

Sorry but not sorry, Trump is not qualified to be Commander and Chief.  Everything people call politicians and hate about Politicians Trump does in spades.  The worst part is he lies to our face and people STILL can't find fault with him.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
normalfreak2 I think we're seeing the beginning of the end here and I think even the GOP knows it. In the past 24 hours, I've seen a new conservative meme being tried out. It goes like this: "Donald Trump is not a Republican. He's a Democrat in disguise." Ergo, when the Titanic that is the Donald Trump presidency sinks, you can be sure that 5Cats and others on here will be referring to "the failed presidency of the Democratic President Donald Trump."

You watch and see. These people sling the propaganda and lies like nothing I've ever seen.
0
Reply
Male 1,891
squrlz4ever I went looking for an old video I posted from YouTube During the election showing Donald Trump on the Oprah Winfrey show saying that he'd run as a Rupublican.  I can't find it anymore.  What I do find is a mis-atrtibution to an interview in People magazine that is "debunked" by Snopes (it was never in People magazine.)

What I can find is a bunch of other edited videos that exclude this part now and others of people who are bitching about the net being scrubbed of the clip.
1
Reply
Male 5,413
insaneai Thanks for your thoughts. Trump absolutely ran as a Republican; that's not even remotely contestable.

That said, I recently watched an analysis of Donald Trump by a history professor, who explained why party affiliation is much less important for Trump than it is with more typical politicians. She made the case that Trump is a classic authoritarian, and that authoritarians, when they move into positions of power, share the following characteristics:

  • Interest in party is secondary; the emphasis is on the man himself (in this instance, it's the Trump brand);
  • Unlike regular politicians who speak about "serving the party," the authoritarian appraises the party's ability to serve him (if you'll remember, on several occasions, Trump made a big deal about whether or not the Republicans were treating him fairly and threatened to leave it if they didn't accord him sufficient respect); 
  • Loyalty to the authoritarian is paramount and this is evidenced by loyalty oaths and vague statements that so-and-so is "a good man" (i.e., he's loyal to me and I trust him); and
  • Authoritarians tend to test the limits and push their abuses of power further and further until they are removed from power.

If you'd like to watch the interview yourself, it's located here (interview with the history professor begins at around the 18:30 mark).
0
Reply
Male 1,891
squrlz4ever I agree on the points you made and sit back with a smug look on my face thinking "I voted for Gary Johnson".

-would drop the mic if I had one.
2
Reply
Male 8,171
squrlz4ever LOL Democratic Trump, HAHAHHAHA.  No the GOP and Conservatives get to OWN this.  They voted for this flaming pile of garbage.  Liberals didn't vote for this trash heap.  Democrats didn't vote for this.  All on the GOP and Conservatives.  Their hate of Hillary was larger than their love of country.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
normalfreak2 I know it's absurd, but be ready for the pivot. It's coming.

Remember the subprime loan disaster and the financial meltdown that followed? All of it--all of it--a creation of anti-regulation Republicans. It was 100% their handiwork. And they spun that into: "The Clinton administration forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was the fault of liberals who wanted to micromanage the economy and interfere with the private sector."
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Remember the subprime loan disaster and the financial meltdown that followed? All of it--all of it--a creation of anti-regulation Republicans. It was 100% their handiwork. 

I'm sorry little squirrel but you are the one who is wrong on this. Republicans tried countless times to increase regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and impose GSE reforms. It was always the Democrats who blocked it saying that Republicans were just fear-mongering or trying to hurt the poor and minorities. Their slogan was "Everybody deserves a home."

When Republicans would try to pass reforms like the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, it was Democrats who blocked it.

When  the Bush Administration sent Treasury Secretary John Snow to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises."  It was Democrats like Barney Frank (D-MA) who disagreed and said "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

When Republicans like Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb)  introduced a measure to create an independent federal regulator with enhanced authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank. Democrats like Harry Ried (D-Nev) that rejected the legislation reforming GSEs saying "The legislation from the Senate banking committee, passed today on a party line vote by the Republican majority, includes measures that could cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

http://www.upi.com/Dems-rip-new-Fannie-Mae-regulatory-measure/20231122581039/



And they spun that into: "The Clinton administration forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was the fault of liberals who wanted to micromanage the economy and interfere with the private sector."

Actually, the Clinton Administration was partly responsible because they pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working-class and middle-class families. Even Factcheck.org agrees with it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/
0
Reply
Male 1,891
normalfreak2 no argument on any of those points from me.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
normalfreak2 Oh? like Flynn? Who spoke once with a Russian guy about business, and met with the Russian ambassador ONCE along with 100 other people in an event organized by Obama's Office?

That sort of "Foreign Operative"? 

It's been 6+ months, every US Government agency has been scouring the globe for the smallest trace of "Russian interference" and exactly zero has been found or the MSM would be screaming about it. Give it up already.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
I see the Fox Propaganda Network is in full spin mode and those who hang on its every word have arrived here to regurgitate the talking points.

But there's no disguising this political dumpster fire. Never before in U.S. history has a president who is under FBI investigation fired the head of the FBI. And you don't suddenly fire the head of the FBI, with no successor in place, a day after subpoenas for a grand jury investigation have been issued unless you're verging on panic.

-1
Reply
Male 8,171
squrlz4ever Here's the thing, in that Memo released by the Deputy and Jeff Sessions NOTHING new was in those memo's.  What changed from Day 1 of Trump taking office and yesterday.  The Russia Investigation.  Yes Comey was guilty of being sloppy and doing things uncharacteristic that comes from the FBI, HOWEVER

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."

What in the world is that added in for?  That had NOTHING to do with any of the other information in this memo.  How can you ignore this giant flaming red flag?

This is about something that occurred on July the 5th of 2016, if that's the case, you let that FBI director know way ahead of time.  This came out of the blue, so Trump is firing James Comey for doing something wrong in Releasing information damaging Hillary Clinton or is he doing this because of Russia?  It can only be one of these two plausible conclusions.  The timing of this undercuts the validity of this.  An event on July 5th 2016 causes president Trump to Fire the individual May 9th 2017.  Does anyone not see an issue with this?
1
Reply
Male 4,363
I can't believe anyone thinks this is a bad thing. This guy has clearly been playing both sides of the fence during his entire tenure for who knows what gain. Probably career but either way, without doubt looking out for his own interest and not the US. Does anyone trust anything that comes out of his mouth? Or do both sides just parse out the stuff they don't like and ignore it?
1
Reply
Male 41,551
trimble Because Obama never replaced any of Bush's appointed people! Nope not even one!! He left every single Agency untouched!

"One rule for thee, another for me" DNC Mantra
0
Reply
Male 8,171
trimble I agree with you that he was playing both sides.  The issue is look at the letter written by Trump's team.  The information in that memo is dated May 9, ALL of that data is OLD from 2016 nothing new was described there.  Why is this paragraph included in this memo 

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the juddgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."

What in the world is that added in for?  That had NOTHING to do with any of the other information in this memo.  How can you ignore this giant flaming red flag?
1
Reply
Male 4,363
normalfreak2 Well yeah, it’s difficult to decipher what he says a lot of the time. His way of acknowledging that Comey was not investigating him? I dunno.

0
Reply
Male 8,171
trimble So let's hash this out.  The events in the  memo are from July 5th 2016.  Are you telling me Trump OUT OF THE Blue decided to fire Comey due to these actions  (about commenting on an active investigation in to Hillary Clinton)  on May 9th of 2017.  You can't see how the timing of this undermines the memo entirely?  You aren't this stupid, or are you?  Please tell me what other conclusion you can come to that doesn't make this look like he's firing Comey for investigating HIM.
2
Reply
Male 4,363
normalfreak2 That may be why he fired him who knows. He wasn't a very good director, a clown really. A Republican clown at that.  I don't know why people are acting like Trump canned Elliot Ness. Is Comey back to being a good guy now? Are you saying all this Russia stuff is going away now. Good, it was boring me.
1
Reply
Male 8,171
trimble The problem isn't that he canned him, it's HOW he did it.  The Memo states it's for stuff that happened of July 2016,  (IE FOR HELPING TRUMP WIN by discussing an active investigation into Hillary Clinton) but fires him the same day the memo is sent to Sessions then given to Trump the same day on May 9th nearly a year later.  Washington doesn't work like that my friend.  This is a TOP DOWN firing.  Not a bottom up firing. 

IT DOES NOT make sense to fire him for HELPING him win the election and letting him continue to serve in his capacity for nearly a year.  This should have been a day 1 thing if this was THAT big of a deal.  It clearly wasn't to Trump until yesterday.  What happened that caused this instant reaction?
3
Reply
Male 8,171
trimble The fact the President may be a "compromat" or that Russia did in fact screw with our elections bother you in the slightest?  Do you honestly believe Mike Flynn went "rogue" contacting Ambassador Kislieake
3
Reply
Male 4,363
normalfreak2 I think the Russians have been doing that for a long time and will continue.  Flynn has been on the radar as a high security risk since 2015 all the while with high security clearance. Our government sucks.
3
Reply
Male 4,099
I think the Russians have been doing that for a long time and will continue.

They have, in the hearing that just happened with Clapper and Yates on Russian interference, Clapper said that the Russians had been influencing our elections since the 60's.

Senator Kennedy also mentioned that the Russians subsidized the campaign of Hubert Humphrey and in 1984 the Kremlin tried to stop Ronald Reagan from being re-elected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.a273b594c8e8
0
Reply
Male 270
Nobody talking about Sally Yates now, though.
2
Reply
Male 1,824
The firing of Comey has very little to do with the Russian connection there are several different groups investigating including congress. If there is some thing there it will be found. If he had some bomb  to drop I think he would have done it already. He was replaced because the FBI is in shambles the rank and file are disillusioned with his leadership, moral is at a all time low, half of the American people feel he dropped the ball on the Clinton E-mail scandal, and no longer trust the FBI to be nonpolitical, and impartial, that is why he got the heave ho. Personally I would have fired him the minute he said that Clinton broke the law but he was not going to prosecute. 
2
Reply
Male 5,413
casaledana You wrote: "The firing of Comey has very little to do with the Russian connection...." Well, your boy Trump sure proved you wrong yesterday when he said he was thinking of the Russian investigation when he decided to fire Comey.

D'oh!
-1
Reply
Male 3,801
casaledana suuuuuure
-1
Reply
Male 8,171
casaledana 

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."

What in the world is that added in for?  That had NOTHING to do with any of the other information in this memo.  How can you ignore this giant flaming red flag?
1
Reply
Male 402
casaledana 100% correct.  Fancy, maybe you should lay off of the politics.  You aren't very good at it, it's obvious that you are using IAB as your bullybox, and it's BORING.  Bring this site back to the days when it was fun.
3
Reply
Male 4,363
dkm458 Indeed, fancy always uses misleading titles too (not sure if that is on purpose or he is just going by MSM talking points) like this one. Comey was not investigating the Trump campaign or ties to Russia. Congress is doing that.
1
Reply
Male 8,171
trimble Funny how you seemingly parrot right wing talking points on a regular basis but claim to be some sort of "independent" agent.
-1
Reply
Male 4,099
normalfreak2 

It's possible to be conservative or a liberal and still be an independent. One can be independent and still carry certain beliefs that are championed on either the right or left. He may just not have loyalty to a political party, especially on certain core issues. For instance, I think we both consider Bernie Sanders to be very independent but still be very liberal and side with the Democrats on many issues. 
0
Reply
Male 8,171
richanddead I absolutely agree you may not adhere to a party and that's okay.  I'm just sick of people claiming to be "independent" but always choosing one side to support... Call a spade a spade.  
1
Reply
Male 4,099
normalfreak2

I understand where you're coming from but it's mainly because most people are just fed up with their own party. In 2013 Gallup recorded 42% of Americans identified themselves as "Independents" but nearly all of them "leaned" toward a party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics%20-%20USA

In Political Science they are called "Independent leaners," while true independents are known as "pure Independents." As a trend, most independents proclaim independence during the second presidential term that their own party is in power when they feel their party has let them down. "Pure Independents" make up less than 10% of the electorate and as a trend, they tend to be only 1 or 2 issue voters.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
richanddead Understandable. I definitely lean left of center, I would vote for ANYONE regardless of party that held those similar points of view.  I could give two shits which party is doing it, I just want to vote for someone I side with.
1
Reply
Male 4,099
1
Reply
Male 5,413
normalfreak2 Absolutely. If Trimble isn't a paid propaganda shill--and I think he is--he should be. His dishonesty makes my fur crawl.
-2
Reply
Male 4,363
squrlz4ever Yeah, paid to infiltrate I-A-B.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
trimble No? You mean you just regurgitate this stuff of your own free will--pro bono? I suppose that's possible, but it's a bit of a stretch. You came into this thread claiming that "Comey was not investigating the Trump campaign or ties to Russia."

That's either some top-shelf disinformation there or you are remarkably clueless. Take your pick.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Yeah, paid to infiltrate I-A-B.


0
Reply
Male 5,413
Well, in all fairness, R&D, there's a lot you don't see happening.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
squrlz4ever 

Sure, it's true that no one can see it all yet I'd need to see some hard evidence that governments or PAC's are spending money to infiltrate IAB before I give it any serious credence.
1
Reply
Male 4,363
normalfreak2 Just an observer. What talking points?
1
Reply
Male 5,413
trimble "Just an observer." Riiiiiiight.
-1
Reply
Male 5,413
trimble Bullshit. Comey was leading an investigation to determine whether associates of Trump may have coordinated with Russia to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. That's a simple fact. You may not want to acknowledge it, but it is a fact.
-1
Reply
Male 5,413
squrlz4ever Update: You know this website is crawling with Trump enthusiasts when a correction of the biggest lie in the thread gets downvoted.
0
Reply
Male 4,363
squrlz4ever When you say "was" do you mean up until yesterday? Then Comey is lying about that too?
0
Reply
Male 8,171
trimble I simply want you to be even handed and equally critical when there's evidence of such allegations and observations.  You've claimed to have been a Anti Establishment guy YET you constantly defend the GOP and Trump over and over and over and over.
2
Reply
Male 5,413
trimble I don't even know what this last comment of yours means. The only lying of note here is your own. I called you out on it. You're deflecting. Quelle surprise.
-2
Reply
Male 3,801
casaledana suuure ... wait that smoke no thats not fire that from something else.  you beg to differ! well fuck you you're fired
0
Reply
Male 21,063
0
Reply
Male 1,449
casaledana Finally, an intelligent response.
1
Reply
Male 5,413
-4
Reply
Male 3,801
Viking864 FIRE BAD. ME LIKE FOOD ME GOOD? FIRE BAD. theres you're 2nd "intelligent" respons
e
0
Reply
Male 402
rumham Troll - How about this? President Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence Clapper confirmed, under oath, that there was no colussion between trump campaign and russian govt.  You, sir, are typically spewing non-truths, fake news, and complete nonsense, hoping it will stick and be believed by someone.  Seems every time you open your mouth on IAB, someone slaps it shut.  Here is transcript of Clappers testimony.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.45b352de2a2f - thats why comey was fired.  Doubt has been removed.<mouth slapped shut>
1
Reply
Male 3,801
dkm458 oh snap you are fired up
0
Reply
Male 592
dkm458 What that transcript says is that Clapper did not have strong evidence of Collusion and that Yates was unable to comment due to confidentiality concerns.  That does not remove all doubts.
2
Reply
Male 1,824
muert  ya But shore puts a big maybe it didn't happen the way the left is pushing on the hole thing. Did not have strong evidence of Collusion could mean it never happen and all that was going on was normal legal business.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
What I found most concerning in the transcripts is when Clapper agreed that the Russians have been doing this stuff to us since the 1960's.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
richanddead I'm no fan of Clapper, he lied to Congress and was never charged that does concern me too but so does him not being charged for lying to Congress.
1
Reply
Male 4,099
normalfreak2 

 I agree wholeheartedly, Clapper definitely should have been put on trial for lying to congress about the metadata and he should have also been investigated for his handling of military intel reports as well. How one can claim that they're the Director of National Intelligence but say they forgot about the Patriot Act is beyond my reasoning. In fact, although I am unsure of the validity of his accusation, Julian Assange is now claiming he has proof that Clapper perjured himself again during Clappers most recent meeting with congress.

 I think especially with Clapper, one has to seriously pick the pepper from the fly shit. The only reason I believe him that the Russians may have been influencing our elections since the 60's is because of Senator John Kennedy, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, began listing names of major politicians of the past who he claimed the Russian government attempted to either subsidize or oppose their campains.
1
Reply
Male 8,171
richanddead If that allegation is true, if Clapper perjured himself AGAIN I'll be absolutely floored if he's not charged with SOMETHING.  In fact if he isn't something major has to be done. This is all assuming that allegation is true, I'm not willing to go there yet but i'm concerned.
1
Reply
Male 4,099
normalfreak2 

I wouldn't be floored if he's not charged, I'm finding it more and more predictable that political elites are not held accountable. Before they would at least be investigated and given some kind of fancy sounding penalty that did virtually nothing. Now it's just devolved to issues that get lost in partisan bickering. 

This is all assuming that allegation is true, I'm not willing to go there yet but i'm concerned.
 
Same here, I don't really trust Julian Assange but I'll always pay attention to evidence of one's claims when it is made available.
0
Reply
Male 4,111
And it doesn't matter in any way.

Trumps supporters literally would not care if he ate a live baby on TV, they would still love him.

And the goons in congress will protect him because they have no souls whatsoever.
0
Reply
Male 21,063
daegog Maybe you're right -- I don't think Trump supporters will respond with anger and remorse until his BS hits them in their wallet and Trump Care will do that, eventually.
0
Reply
Male 347
2
Reply
Male 21,063
What are the odds that the FBI is going to say, "Fuck this shit" and just secretly leak what they know? Pray to your god of choice it happens -- if anything, just to know what they have.
2
Reply
Male 402
fancylad Be carefull what you pray for.  Will you be equally happy if this happens and it burns down your own camp?
2
Reply
Male 357
How does this not warrant an independent prosecutor if Bill Clinton getting a bj does?
1
Reply
Male 21,063
taxidriver I was listening to a talk radio show this afternoon (I know), and they brought up the Clinton-Lewinsky BJs, too. 
0
Reply
Male 3,801
fancylad wait no benghazi fetishist?
-1
Reply
Male 3,801
rumham downvoted by a benghazi fetishist
-1
Reply
304
This Trump guy sure is subtle, isn't he folks?
1
Reply
Male 3,759
Is anyone paying attention?

2
Reply
Male 810
kalron27 Must have slipped something in the water supply... too soon?
2
Reply
Male 1,087
Let's go Nixon
Clap, clap, clap clap clap
Let's go Nixon
0
Reply
Male 5,413
1
Reply
Male 1,087
squrlz4ever Thought you hated no context links, Squir El
-3
Reply
Male 5,413
marsii I do. I wish no one would post links without a description. I'll click on them--sometimes--but most people won't.

In this instance, the poster would've done better to simply insert the image. Perhaps he was having some technical issue.
-1
Reply
Male 6,259
squrlz4ever Last time I clicked on a blind link it took me to Xhamster's hamster porn, "The squeeker!"
0
Reply
Female 9,601
This makes it seem like Trump is hiding something, and I have a feeling that Comey was about to uncover big. I am hoping there are people at the FBI that will continue this investigation. 
3
Reply
Male 21,063
panth753 Seem? I'd bet everything that Trump found out Comey has hard evidence. I wouldn't count on the FBI continuing the investigation -- this has taught us that Trump will fire anyone investigating the Russian connection. 

My question is, Is there an independant organization that can further the Trump/Russia relationship? I can't think of anyone... the CIA? It would seem like Trump has the power to fired anyone from the CIA as well.

This makes me thing that if serious moves are made to impeach Trump, he's just fire the person/persons leading that charge as well.

This whole incident can't be defended, and I'm dying to read all the pro-Trumper's takes on how this is a good thing.
2
Reply
Male 402
fancylad NOT - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.45b352de2a2f
-1
Reply
Male 4,363
fancylad I'm not sure you know how all this works. none of the things you are fretting over will go away just because this clown was fired.
0
Reply
Male 3,801
fancylad if this happened under obama or clinton. rush limbaugh and hannity wouldve gasmed and preformed an online suck fest about how obama is truely a muslim antichrist
1
Reply
Male 810
fancylad Fancy you know better than that they haven't been given their talking points yet, clearly you don't expect them to have an independent thought. =/
3
Reply
Male 21,063
Of all the shitty things Trump has done while in the White House, this is one, to me, make the Top 3 shittiest things he's done. He fired a high-ranking official for nothing more than doing his job -- not complying like everyone else who's scared of Trump. Which means anyone else who goes after Trump's ties will be fired as well. 

It looks like Trump will have to be taken down by someone other than an White House employee, and you know if the press presents hard evidence of Trump's ties, he'll just call it "fake news" because that's worked so far. 
2
Reply
Male 8,777
fancylad He fired a high-ranking official for nothing more than doing his job 

Funny, last week. to the left, Comey was the devil incarnate, the cause for Hillary's loss and repeatedly thrown under the bus.

Today the left is his biggest supporter.

Political agenda much?

Comey's days were limited after the mess he made of the Clinton email scandal.
0
Reply
Male 3,801
fancylad somehow trump will frame it that he didnt actually do it.. he was in mar-a-lago golfing and eating cake
0
Reply
Male 5,413
This stinks to high heaven. Can't wait to see how the Trumpeters spin this into "a really good move," "nothing to see here," "not unusual at all," yadda yadda yadda.
1
Reply
Male 3,801
squrlz4ever this is 50 steps beyond anything obama did.  but that msm wont say anything. 
0
Reply
Male 21,063
squrlz4ever Right, because Comey came down hard on everyone, right? He went after Clinton, just as hard as he went after Trump -- just a poor sap, working hard, doing his job. Ugh, this is depressing.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
fancylad Well, a similar move on Nixon's part (The Saturday Night Massacre) was in many respects the beginning of the end. I don't think this bodes well at all for the Trump administration.
1
Reply
Male 21,063
squrlz4ever You don't think he'll just fire the next person in line who take on the Russia investigation?
0
Reply
Male 5,413
fancylad Fortunately (if such a word can be used), there's possible involvement of a foreign power here, so the investigation also falls under the purview of the CIA. And even if Trump were to fire the head of the CIA, at that point, he'll have offended so many higher-ups in both the FBI and the CIA that there's no way this freight train is going to be stopped. Keep in mind that it took 18 months of investigation of Watergate before the noose started to tighten around Nixon's neck, so to speak. My two cents.
1
Reply
Male 21,063
squrlz4ever Thanks for the insight -- 18 months though? I hope the world can hang on that long. Trump seems like the type of person to go out with a nuclear bang if he indeed gets caught.

We can always hope for a Shawshank ending though...

1
Reply