Trump to FBI Director Comey: You're Fired!

[Shad]

What laws? There were no laws broken, this was concluded. Got a source?

Comey's own testimony to Congress.

It wasn't illegal and Comey didn't bail her out.

No he bailed himself out by pandering to where he thought the winds were blowing. When the winds shift and he was criticized, rightly, he reopened the case

They did? When did that happen? Got a source?[/QUOTE]
[/quote]

The FBI investigation and Comey's own testimony to Congress which you can find on youtube. Gowdy specifically made Comey admit to the violation by Hillary and showed his actions were unjustified by contradicting himself.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Your point was redundant then. A better use would have been to point out say "covered" items.

If you could care less about my opinion why bother replying?

How about your provide some real information? You are making a bunch of claims but not backing any of them up.

 

[Shad]

How about your provide some real information? You are making a bunch of claims but not backing any of them up.

Comey changes his story as it goes and makes up the law as he goes.

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

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Comey changes his story as it goes and makes up the law as he goes.


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

That exact link has already been quoted in this thread, as I said you are not bringing anything new to the table. We all already know this information.

From your link and has already been posted in this very thread:

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.

 

[Shad]

That exact link has already been quoted in this thread, as I said you are not bringing anything new to the table. We all already know this information.

This isn't a response to the video in question. Saying "I've seen it" is not an argument against it.

From your link and has already been posted in this very thread:

Yes from the videos he shows otherwise. Intent is not required but helps prove a case. Willing mishandling is pandering to ignorance which likewise not a defense. Lies to Congress is an obstruction of justice. Lies which the FBI itself exposed. Oh ya, no intent at all.

Hilarious.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This isn't a response to the video in question. Saying "I've seen it" is not an argument against it.



Yes from the videos he shows otherwise. Intent is not required but helps prove a case. Willing mishandling is pandering to ignorance which likewise not a defense. Lies to Congress is an obstruction of justice. Lying with the FBI itself exposed.

Do you have any real evidence of coercion? And I mean real; not that conspiracy paranoia read between the lines nonsense.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@Shad thinks he knows the law better than the FBI.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Had there been enough justification to bring criminal charges on Hillary there is no way the Republicans would have let that slide. The amount of control and influence the conspiracy nuts contribute to Clinton is just not realistic.

 

[Shad]

@Shad thinks he knows the law better than the FBI.

Apparent many people think they know better than Comey hence the investigation into the case in question. Comey is not the FBI, his is merely the director, at the time, of it. The FBI is not infallible.

Had there been enough justification to bring criminal charges on Hillary there is no way the Republicans would have let that slide. The amount of control and influence the conspiracy nuts contribute to Clinton is just not realistic.

Oh you mean how they have been investigating Comey and the case for the last few months....

Yes because Hillary openly lying about the scandal is completely made up and never happened at all nor pointed out by the FBI itself...

Do you have any real evidence of coercion? And I mean real; not that conspiracy paranoia read between the lines nonsense.

Did I say coercion? No. People can make choices for their self-interest without external pressure.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Apparent many people think they know better than Comey hence the investigation into the case in question. Comey is not the FBI, his is merely the director, at the time, of it. The FBI is not infallible.



Oh you mean how they have been investigating Comey and the case for the last few months....

Yes because Hillary openly lying about the scandal is completely made up and never happened at all nor pointed out by the FBI itself...



Did I say coercion? No. People can make choices for their self-interest without external pressure.

Where'd you get your law degree?

 

[Shad]

Where'd you get your law degree?

What does that matter when his own testimony damns him.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What does that matter when his own testimony damns him.

So you know nothing about the law and you have no new evidence. Why should I listen to you?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Reach into your pockets then, and do something. Otherwise close your mouth.

I do. I vote my tax dollars to ensure that EVERYBODY in my country has access to health care when they need, despite their ability to pay. And I am happy to allow my tax dollars to be used that way.

On the other hand, everything you say suggests a strong desire to withhold from people that which they might need, but you don't think they deserve. I remind you of Christ's parable:

Matthew 25:40-45New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And you don't see the FBI showing any evidence of electoral fraud either.

Because the investigation is ongoing and Trump himself has potentially sabotaged the investigation by firing the man in charge of it.

Let's get absolutely real, for a second. Let's say that Hillary Clinton won the election instead, and it was HER being investigated for electoral fraud, and she fired the man in charge of the investigation. Would you be running to her defence?

Trump is being investigated because the democrats are making stuff up, anything and everything in order to disrupt Trump's presidency.

Except the democrats had nothing to do with starting the investigation. Also, once again, I'd advise you not to bring up "making stuff up" when Trump has a track record of doing exactly that. Remember the Obama wire-tapping claims?

Trump may have called on conservatives to march on Washington, but the democrats are calling on people to vandalize and destroy private property, and threatening people. It's utterly pathetic and disgusting what the democrats are doing. It's immoral, and it will stop.

Please present evidence of this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not require one surviving democrat in order to sustain a democratic government. The traitors must be stopped at any cost. And the traitors are the democrats, every last one of them.

Wow. You are really acting crazy now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Whatever, as if I give a ____ what you think.

Then why should I, or anyone else, care about what you think?

 

[tytlyf]

Comey's own testimony to Congress.
No he bailed himself out by pandering to where he thought the winds were blowing. When the winds shift and he was criticized, rightly, he reopened the case

The testimony said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges based on the evidence. This was the FBI conclusion, not Comey's.
You can believe all the fake news you want, doesn't make it true. Fake news gotcha before the election. The sad thing is people still believe the lies.

 

[Shad]

The testimony said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges based on the evidence. This was the FBI conclusion, not Comey's.

No that was Comey as various members of the FBI have questioned this openly. I forgot you are oblivious to what is happening around you. You didn't know about the investigation of Comey and the Hillary case.

You can believe all the fake news you want, doesn't make it true.

Never mentioned fake news. Nice slogan but a slogan does not make an arguement. Try again

Fake news gotcha before the election.

Wrong as I made up my mind well after the election. Now you have to make stuff up to dismiss my points.

The sad thing is people still believe the lies.

Like Hillary is innocent? I know. Her drones are hilariously blind.

So you know nothing about the law and you have no new evidence

Irrelevant and nonsense. I pointed out testimony and investigations. You pointed out nothing but a single line from one part of the investigation while being oblivious to everything else. Try again son.

Why should I listen to you?

Well you seem to accept what people tell you so I figure you would continue the trend of acting like a Hillary drone while ignoring that the very person you listen to (back in July) and their case is under investigation. Oh I forgot having classified files on a illegal server is no big deal at all.....

The evidence is there. Comey only argued that Hillary had no intent which is bull.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No that was Comey as various members of the FBI have questioned this openly. I forgot you are oblivious to what is happening around you. You didn't know about the investigation of Comey and the Hillary case.



Never mentioned fake news. Nice slogan but a slogan does not make an arguement. Try again



Wrong as I made up my mind well after the election. Now you have to make stuff up to dismiss my points.



Like Hillary is innocent? I know. Her drones are hilariously blind.



Irrelevant and nonsense. I pointed out testimony and investigations. You pointed out nothing but a single line from one part of the investigation while being oblivious to everything else. Try again son.



Well you seem to accept what people tell you so I figure you would continue the trend of acting like a Hillary drone while ignoring that the very person you listen to (back in July) and their case is under investigation. Oh I forgot having classified files on a illegal server is no big deal at all.....

The evidence is there. Comey only argued that Hillary had no intent which is bull.

"Well you seem to accept what people tell you so "

Yes, that is why I have chose to ignore your silly narrative and your ego.

We all watched that stupid email thing unfold to nothing and I don't care to rehash it for the next 4 years, and besides your whole argument is nothing but a classic straw-man, this thread is about Trump firing the FBI director who was investigating him. Or are you so focused on Hilary, who is not the president, you just forgot that?

 

[Shad]

"Well you seem to accept what people tell you so "

Yes, that is why I have chose to ignore your silly narrative and your ego.

Ego? I am stating an opinion. You not liking the opinion does not mean it is ego. You also seem to ignore recent information and testimony showing how filtered your information input is.

We all watched that stupid email thing unfold to nothing and I don't care to rehash it for the next 4 years,

Oh now you do not want to rehash it but you had no issues rehashing it for the last day or two. Right.....

and besides your whole argument is nothing but a classic straw-man,

Claiming a fallacy does not mean there is a fallacy. You have to demonstrate it is go. Go....

this thread is about Trump firing the FBI director who was investigating him.

Yes. So Comey's previous actions and the backlash of it should be considered in why he was fired.

Or are you so focused on Hilary, who is not the president, you just forgot that?

I am forcing on a case run by Comey investigating her which is relevant to him being fired.