Comey fired!! Don't mess with Donald trump!!

Rater of trollage wrote:

2ndhhy wrote:

Yes, of course they are and so is the US everywhere over the world trying to influence everything. This is what is so stupid about this russophobia.

Agree here! I think this whole Russia business will turn out to be a big bunch of nothing, just like the Benghazi and email BS. It would be nice to talk about *policy*, but I guess that's not allowed nowadays...

If you want to talk policy then let's put aside the "Russia business" and just talk about obstruction of justice and the independence of government investigations.

Trump has already fired at least three people who were investigating him, his administration, or his campaign. He possibly fired Comey, Bharara, and Yates because they were being too independent.

I'm not saying Trump is guilty. I'd just like to know what you think of this as a policy matter.

As a matter of policy, should a president fire someone because he thinks their investigation might implicate him or his associates?

Fat hurts wrote:

Rater of trollage wrote:

Agree here! I think this whole Russia business will turn out to be a big bunch of nothing, just like the Benghazi and email BS. It would be nice to talk about *policy*, but I guess that's not allowed nowadays...

If you want to talk policy then let's put aside the "Russia business" and just talk about obstruction of justice and the independence of government investigations.

Trump has already fired at least three people who were investigating him, his administration, or his campaign. He possibly fired Comey, Bharara, and Yates because they were being too independent.

I'm not saying Trump is guilty. I'd just like to know what you think of this as a policy matter.

As a matter of policy, should a president fire someone because he thinks their investigation might implicate him or his associates?

Trump fired 1 guy. There are probably 100s of people investigating the "Russian business." The House, the Senate and the FBI are investigating. Firing some political appointees is common business. Please stop with the nonsense.

Please deal with facts like you claim you do.

1) There is no proof of collusion between anybody.

2) There is no proof that Trump is under investigation.

3) There is no evidence of Trump interfering with the investigations.

If you have better information, please post it here.

However, there is proof that Obama's AG met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac to interfere with Hillary's investigation. There is proof that Trump/Campaign/Senators were wiretapped legally or illegally.

You choose to ignore the inconvenient truth. Until the MSM starts addressing these issues, I will ignore or not believe what they say about Trump.

itbaddude wrote:

...

Please deal with facts like you claim you do.

1) There is no proof of collusion between anybody.

2) There is no proof that Trump is under investigation.

3) There is no evidence of Trump interfering with the investigations.

...

You choose to ignore the inconvenient truth. Until the MSM starts addressing these issues, I will ignore or not believe what they say about Trump.

Still posting your "no proof" nonsense, Mr. Obvious. Do try to mask you ID better next time, okay.

Is is collusion if you ask and exhort a foreign power to illegally hack a candidate to give you an advantage in a election.

If so, Trump publicly did this during the election.

Guilty.

This is all TRUE. Yet Trump so far, is still the most unqualified POTUS, lacking experience, temperament, ethics and governance skills. He is no doubt a POS and any negative press is borne out of his own ugliness, when he first attacked Carla F, then everyone after. The vitriol is exactly his own doing.

It wasn't just 1 guy. Trump fired at least three people who were investigating him, his associates or his campaign. They are as I said before, Comey, Bharara, and Yates.

It is not common business for the president to fire someone who is investigating the president or his associates. That's largely what got Nixon impeached.

I didn't say there was proof. But there is plenty of evidence that requires further investigation.

At this point we don't know if Trump is personally under investigation or not. We do know that his campaign is under investigation.

There is plenty of evidence of that. Just having dinner with Comey is problematic and does constitute evidence. The fact that Trump admitted to having the Russia investigation in mind is hard evidence that Trump fired Comey over Russia.

That has nothing to do with the Trump/Russia investigation.

The MSM is addressing these things thoroughly. You just don't like what they are finding.

You're sick. What's Trump's "crime"?

one accused,no crime committed wrote:

You're sick. What's Trump's "crime"?

President Trump is not a booger eating libbbtwat😂

= A Crime to all LIBBBTWATS👎

They are political appointees. He fired them as he should. They worked for the Democrats. Some refused to take orders from their chief. Some are the source of leaks. Why is this so hard to understand? LOL.

Trump should clean house. All Obama appointees should be fired.

2ndhhy wrote:

No, there is no counter argument if there is no argument in the first place.

So, your answer is. I don't need proof, I just deny everything then fault you for not believing me. Right?

itbaddude wrote:

They are political appointees. He fired them as he should. They worked for the Democrats. Some refused to take orders from their chief. Some are the source of leaks. Why is this so hard to understand? LOL.

Trump should clean house. All Obama appointees should be fired.

I ❤️ YOU 👍🏻💋 💋 💋

👨‍❤️‍👨 👨‍❤️‍👨 👨‍❤️‍👨 👨‍❤️‍👨❗️❗️

KISSES WITH TONGUE

👅👅👅👅👅👅

OUR FUTURE IS SO BRIGHT WE GOTTA WEAR

🕶 🕶 🕶

LETS DANCE!!!

🤸‍♂️ 🤸‍♂️ 🤸‍♂️

GOD BLESS OUR TRUMP

oops

TRUMP BLESS US

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸

Schumer is crying like bitch for a Special Prosecutor. Ok, this is what Jeff Sessions should do: name one but when he approaches the mic, he says "it's for Hillary!"

Phife wrote:

This Russian thing is going nowhere and there will be no direct ties to Trump. He historically does not do illegal things. He usually resorts to screwing people over, taking advantage, taking false credit and intimidating.

Of course this kind of governship can only last for a short while.

But looking into Russia for Trump collusion is a red herring. Press need to give it up and stick to the true goal of the inquiry, which is to understand Russia's role in the election.

The Russian 'thing' is about to explode. Trump and company have been under surveillance for months. It's going to get ugly for the GOP. BIGLY ugly.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Schumer is crying like bitch for a Special Prosecutor. Ok, this is what Jeff Sessions should do: name one but when he approaches the mic, he says "it's for Hillary!"

It ain't just Schumer. New WSJ poll today says 78% of Americans support a Special Prosecutor. But I'm sure they're all stoopidheads and the remaining 22% are our best and brightest.

nontrumper wrote:

Phife wrote:

This Russian thing is going nowhere and there will be no direct ties to Trump. He historically does not do illegal things. He usually resorts to screwing people over, taking advantage, taking false credit and intimidating.

Of course this kind of governship can only last for a short while.

But looking into Russia for Trump collusion is a red herring. Press need to give it up and stick to the true goal of the inquiry, which is to understand Russia's role in the election.

The Russian 'thing' is about to explode. Trump and company have been under surveillance for months. It's going to get ugly for the GOP. BIGLY ugly.

More flagpoling here. Fail.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Schumer is crying like bitch for a Special Prosecutor. Ok, this is what Jeff Sessions should do: name one but when he approaches the mic, he says "it's for Hillary!"

The problem is you need a crime for a special prosecutor. The only crime suggested is Flynn lobbying for foreign governments which is a matter for the Pentagon to sort out. Really Susan Rice needs to be questioned over what she was up to.

one accused,no crime committed wrote:

You're sick. What's Trump's "crime"?

Obstruction of justice would be the crime if charged.

There is also suspicion of money laundering and other racketeering crimes.

itbaddude wrote:

They are political appointees. He fired them as he should. They worked for the Democrats. Some refused to take orders from their chief. Some are the source of leaks. Why is this so hard to understand? LOL.

Trump should clean house. All Obama appointees should be fired.

Yates was not a political appointee. She served in the justice department for several presidents.

The FBI director serves a 10 year term precisely because the office is meant to be apolitical and span more than one administration. So Comey's firing is not something a president is meant to do as a matter of course.

In the case of Preet Bharara, he was asked to stay on by Trump because he was primarily investigating Democrats. When it became clear that he was also investigating Tumpland he was fired.

None of those three were ever the source of leaks. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post.

All three were in positions where their primary fidelity is to the law and not to the president. Their jobs are not such that they take orders from the president.

None of them would have been fired by an honest president.

All of them were fired because they were investigating the president, his campaign, or his associates. If that can be proven then Trump has indeed committed a very serious crime.

It's the LEAKS!!!! Focus on the LEAKS! For the love of Pete, the LEAKS are the problem...bigly! Or, focus of voter FRAUD! Look at the results of the last presidential election and tell me with a straight face that there wasn't some sort of problem with the voting process!!!