Trump to FBI Director Comey: You're Fired!

[columbus]

I hope the evidence comes out that the democrats and liberals are living in a pipe dream.

Well, there is already evidence on the subject.
Manafort had to go due to Russian connections.
Flynn had to go due both to having Russian connections and lying about them.
Trump just fired the guy tasked with investigation of these connections in the Trump administration. His pretext contradicts other things he has publicly said.

Maybe these are all just a string of bizarre coincidences. But, if not it appears that Trump supporters are supporting treason in the White House.
Tom

 

[Shad]

The server was not illegal and not a violation.


Her emails didn't contain classified files.

To bad the state department and the FBI investigation show otherwise.

What else you got?

The above.... Which you seemed to have missed out over the last year and a half

 

[Shad]

A violation of what law specifically?

Federal Records Act and Nation Security from Obama's EO. Never mind she was trained in how to conduct use of email servers in 2009, I know she must of forgot!

 

[Nous]

Federal Records Act

What do you claim she did that violated the Federal Records Act?

 

[Shad]

What do you claim she did that violated the Federal Records Act?

She, be it her or an aid under her, by law must inform government of any emails containing government information and transfer said information to SMART.

 

[Shad]

The FBI was not able to find anything, but maybe @Shad is withholding some new evidence?

They found a number of emails with classified information according to the FBI's own report. They declines to file charges which Comey did on his than changed his mind as per the election then got fired for protecting his own interests rather than what his job demands of him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I hope the evidence comes out that the democrats and liberals are living in a pipe dream.

So, in other words, you have no evidence and yet you are still convinced of their guilt despite TWO FBI investigations finding nothing. Meanwhile, you don't suspect anything whatsoever about Trump, in spite of his long history of shady business deals, nepotism, blatant dishonesty, his refusal to put his business into a blind trust (and the evidence that he is using his position to benefit himself and his company financially), and the fact that he hasn't released his taxes despite promising to multiple times. Not to mention the fact that he just fired and openly threatened the man who was investigating him for possible electoral fraud and his official reasoning behind this was that he "wanted the investigation to be over".

But, hey, never mind that. Hillary maybe did something that might have kinda been illegal maybe with her emails despite the fact that everybody knew about it and there was no evidence of any kind of prosecutable offence. Surely we must rake HER over the coals and dismiss the obviously suspicious behaviour of a man with a proven track record of being a sleazy, manipulative, self-interested liar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They found a number of emails with classified information according to the FBI's own report. They declines to file charges which Comey did on his than changed his mind as per the election then got fired for protecting his own interests rather than what his job demands of him.

And the same report concluded that there was no actionable offence committed. As summarized by Comey:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

SOURCE: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

 

[Shad]

And the same report concluded that there was no actionable offence committed. As summarized by Comey:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

Which is an opinion, nothing more. An opinion of a flip/flop that protected his own interests and was fire for hisincompetence

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Again an opinion of a discredit man to the point that the choice above was a cause for him being fired.

SOURCE: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Discredited people are not convincing.

 

[Nous]

She, be it her or an aid under her, by law must inform government of any emails containing government information and transfer said information to SMART.

Which Section and/or subsection that was law when she was Secretary did she violate: 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

 

[Nous]

Which is an opinion, nothing more.

It is an opinion such as prosecutors opine every day.

An opinion of a flip/flop that protected his own interests

How was he protecting his own interests with that opinion on Clinton's acts and motives?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which is an opinion, nothing more. An opinion of a flip/flop that protected his own interests and was fire for hisincompetence

And you're suggesting you have a more informed opinion than the former head of the FBI on this matter? What evidence do you have of his incompetence, exactly?

Again an opinion of a discredit man to the point that the choice above was a cause for him being fired.

And what, exactly, discredited him?

Discredited people are not convincing.

Allegations of being discredited do not actually make someone discredited. Also, are you aware that "incompetence" was not the reason given by the Trump administration for firing him? They explicitly stated that they fired him BECAUSE he was investigating Trump's ties with Russia. It had nothing to do with competence.

Also, I'd like to point out your rank hypocrisy in using the FBI report earlier to bolster your claim that Hillary was crooked, and then immediately dismissing the opinion of the head of the FBI who actually LEAD the investigation when he says something you dislike. If Comey is discredited, then so too must be his report - so you have no basis to assert anything about Hillary's emails either way. Either Comey is discredited and you have nothing to stand on, or Comey isn't discredited and you have nothing to stand on.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

They found a number of emails with classified information according to the FBI's own report. They declines to file charges which Comey did on his than changed his mind as per the election then got fired for protecting his own interests rather than what his job demands of him.

They found nothing of any significance in the emails, and don't think I am about to take your word on anything.

 

[Lyndon]

Sonofason said: ↑
But now that the FBI director is out, my hopes are that the new FBI director will do the job, and put the liar and thief behind bars.

Yes we are all hoping they lock up Trump! Liar and Chief..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my most humble opinion, it seems inappropriate for you to bring up these disgusting fantasies of yours on a public forum such as this. As for the rest of your comment, I understand you very well, and I don't mind you breaking forum rules. It's fine by me.

I am sorry, but here is what you said -- in your own words, and without alteration and not taken out of context: "Indeed. I can speak for you too...and I do."

If you think that there is the teensiest shred of "most humble" in that, you are very badly mistaken. In fact, you speak for no one on earth but yourself, and for the record, no one not on earth (that'd be God). If you find my comments "disgusting fantasies" and "inappropriate," try to remember that they were made in light of that single statement of yours.

==================================

Now back to the subject matter of this thread, and I am speaking for myself: whatever anybody thinks of the legality of Trump's firing of Comey (and, yes, he had the legal right to do it), it strikes to the very heart of American democracy, and I think that Americans should be truly concerned about this.

As it happens, Republicans right now think they owe some of their seats Trump (they don't) and so are unwilling to object strenuously to this one action which requires most strenuous objection. This is, as history can show you, how to begin tearing down the protections against dictatorship. After all, the American system of "checks and balances" does in fact depend on those checks and balances actually working -- that the various "authorities" will accept being checked and balanced. If they don't, and they have the power to defeat those checks and balances to the effect of undermining them, then guess what happens....go ahead, guess.

 

[Sonofason]

So, in other words, you have no evidence and yet you are still convinced of their guilt despite TWO FBI investigations finding nothing. Meanwhile, you don't suspect anything whatsoever about Trump, in spite of his long history of shady business deals, nepotism, blatant dishonesty, his refusal to put his business into a blind trust (and the evidence that he is using his position to benefit himself and his company financially), and the fact that he hasn't released his taxes despite promising to multiple times. Not to mention the fact that he just fired and openly threatened the man who was investigating him for possible electoral fraud and his official reasoning behind this was that he "wanted the investigation to be over".

But, hey, never mind that. Hillary maybe did something that might have kinda been illegal maybe with her emails despite the fact that everybody knew about it and there was no evidence of any kind of prosecutable offence. Surely we must rake HER over the coals and dismiss the obviously suspicious behaviour of a man with a proven track record of being a sleazy, manipulative, self-interested liar.

It's your pipe dream. Dream on.

 

[Sonofason]

I am sorry, but here is what you said -- in your own words, and without alteration and not taken out of context: "Indeed. I can speak for you too...and I do."

If you think that there is the teensiest shred of "most humble" in that, you are very badly mistaken. In fact, you speak for no one on earth but yourself, and for the record, no one not on earth (that'd be God). If you find my comments "disgusting fantasies" and "inappropriate," try to remember that they were made in light of that single statement of yours.

==================================

Now back to the subject matter of this thread, and I am speaking for myself: whatever anybody thinks of the legality of Trump's firing of Comey (and, yes, he had the legal right to do it), it strikes to the very heart of American democracy, and I think that Americans should be truly concerned about this.

As it happens, Republicans right now think they owe some of their seats Trump (they don't) and so are unwilling to object strenuously to this one action which requires most strenuous objection. This is, as history can show you, how to begin tearing down the protections against dictatorship. After all, the American system of "checks and balances" does in fact depend on those checks and balances actually working -- that the various "authorities" will accept being checked and balanced. If they don't, and they have the power to defeat those checks and balances to the effect of undermining them, then guess what happens....go ahead, guess.

When liberals have power, there is no democracy.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

When liberals have power, there is no democracy.

That makes no sense at all, it would not be a democracy if "liberals" could never have power. I mean you do understand what a democracy is, don't you?

 

[tytlyf]

When liberals have power, there is no democracy.

Got a source?

I've heard a plethora of RW 'journalists' saying that. But they never provide examples.

 

[Sonofason]

That makes no sense at all, it would not be a democracy if "liberals" could never have power. I mean you do understand what a democracy is, don't you?

We just had a democratic election, and liberals are trying to destroy the outcome of that election. There is nothing democratic about a liberal mindset.