Merged Trump Fires Comey....

acbytesla said:
Trump was such an amateur. Totally underestimated Comey.
Click to expand...
He basically treats the Presidency like he is the boss owner of a corporation where everyone is his employee and he can tell them to do anything he wants. He thinks he can fire anyone for any of his whims without repercussion. He thinks he can lie to anyone and the citizens. This is what boss owners do.

This kind of person has to change drastically to be a politician President. He's doing it the only way he knows and it's a behavior that is in his chemistry.

His voters elected an aggressive boss owner guy and he is doing exactly that. Most people have encountered bigwig power guys like this in business and they are two-faced backstabbing liars. For many, that is how they succeed at what they do.

He probably wants to change laws so that business owners don't face lawsuits when they fire people for whatever reasons they choose.
 
logger said:
Its plain to see that his statement was broad, so yeah you're wrong.
Click to expand...

You have a most unusual way of interpreting English.

Let's do this slow.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
Click to expand...

This is a very narrow question. Can the top officials at the DoJ stop an FBI Investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.
Click to expand...

Comey acknowledges that they have the theoretical legal power to do so, thus this is not Obstruction of Justice that they are talking about, but the legal powers of the DoJ to halt FBI investigations that they oppose.


HIRONO: Has it happened?
Click to expand...

"It" here must refer to the previous question asked, so this question clearly means... "Has the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice halted an FBI investigation they oppose?"

COMEY: Not in my experience.
Click to expand...

A clear answer to a clear question. "In my experience the Attorney General nor senior officials at the Department of Justice have never halted an FBI investigation they opposed."


Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.
Click to expand...

Here he goes on to explain that "they", the AG and DoJ senior officials, may give opinions that there isn't a case and that it's a waste of resources, but that he was meaning where "they", the AG or DoJ senior officials, had asked for a case to be stopped for political reasons, which he notes would be a big deal.

It's entirely clear that he is not speaking broadly, nor is he talking about obstruction of justice, and neither is he talking about anyone but the AG and DoJ senior officials.

As such Trump and any apparent Obstruction of Justice was not covered by this question, nor by the way Comey answered it. So yeah you're wrong.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You have a most unusual way of interpreting English.

Let's do this slow.



This is a very narrow question. Can the top officials at the DoJ stop an FBI Investigation?



Comey acknowledges that they have the theoretical legal power to do so, thus this is not Obstruction of Justice that they are talking about, but the legal powers of the DoJ to halt FBI investigations that they oppose.




"It" here must refer to the previous question asked, so this question clearly means... "Has the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice halted an FBI investigation they oppose?"



A clear answer to a clear question. "In my experience the Attorney General nor senior officials at the Department of Justice have never halted an FBI investigation they opposed."




Here he goes on to explain that "they", the AG and DoJ senior officials, may give opinions that there isn't a case and that it's a waste of resources, but that he was meaning where "they", the AG or DoJ senior officials, had asked for a case to be stopped for political reasons, which he notes would be a big deal.

It's entirely clear that he is not speaking broadly, nor is he talking about obstruction of justice, and neither is he talking about anyone but the AG and DoJ senior officials.

As such Trump and any apparent Obstruction of Justice was not covered by this question, nor by the way Comey answered it. So yeah you're wrong.
Click to expand...
So Comey covers this question with the DOJ but never mentions this suppose obstruction when it comes to the president? You realize that Comey not coming forward with this information is a violation?
 
logger said:
So Comey covers this question with the DOJ but never mentions this suppose obstruction when it comes to the president? You realize that Comey not coming forward with this information is a violation?
Click to expand...


You must remember, Trump fired Comey, and you heard the old saying before: "Payback is a b****"
 
logger said:
So Comey covers this question with the DOJ but never mentions this suppose obstruction when it comes to the president?
Click to expand...

Totally different questions. If someone asked you what you had for breakfast would you tell them what you had for lunch? The first rule of testimony is answer the question asked, and only the question asked.

You realize that Comey not coming forward with this information is a violation?
Click to expand...

Violation of what?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Totally different questions. If someone asked you what you had for breakfast would you tell them what you had for lunch? The first rule of testimony is answer the question asked, and only the question asked.



Violation of what?
Click to expand...
I suspect logger is referring to an analysis on Fox News, which is rebutted here.
 
xjx388 said:
Well that was a whole lotta nuthin'. What was "Boom?" It boils down to Comey thought Trump was trying to influence him and get him "on the team" and Comey didn't like that. Hardly groundbreaking.
Click to expand...

Do you really not get it? The Director of the FBI is not supposed to be on anybody's "team," and there are established procedures by which a President may inquire about an FBI investigation in those limited circumstances when it might be appropriate. Attempting to influence -- let alone shut down -- a federal investigation is way more than a "whole lotta nuthin."
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Do you really not get it? The Director of the FBI is not supposed to be on anybody's "team," and there are established procedures by which a President may inquire about an FBI investigation in those limited circumstances when it might be appropriate. Attempting to influence -- let alone shut down -- a federal investigation is way more than a "whole lotta nuthin."
Click to expand...

I do get it. But c'mon, man! This piece was not a bombshell; maybe it gave us a little more background into the situation. But there's nothing incriminating or even necessarily new there. Save the theatrics for the real fireworks. Not every story that comes out is worthy of the tick tick tick tick ********.
 
xjx388 said:
I do get it. But c'mon, man! This piece was not a bombshell; maybe it gave us a little more background into the situation. But there's nothing incriminating or even necessarily new there. Save the theatrics for the real fireworks. Not every story that comes out is worthy of the tick tick tick tick ********.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was hoping that we'd see one or more of the memos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom