Trump Fired Comey - Welcome to 1984 America!!

Trump fired Comey, and he was planning to do so for about at least a week. I believe that while Comey was a bit clumsy at handling facts last week, there really wasn't enough ground for him to get fired - especially since his clumsiness actually pushed forward a stronger case against Abedin and co. I'm guessing that Trump wants to stymie all possible efforts by the government into the Russia investigation. And while the other agencies charged with that task are severely understaffed, the FBI was the frontrunner in leading the investigation - till now. From asking one of my cousins who works for Sen. McCain, it seems that camp is very very suspicious about this.

Despite his Republican pedigree, Comey was selected by President Barack Obama to replace Mueller atop the FBI in 2013, in part because of his reputation for independence and integrity. The Senate easily confirmed him.

I'm actually surprised the public has silently accepted the words of a president long known for misleading them.

Welcome to 1984, America, a world where the words are fed into your mouth by the government! Or idk, wilkommen America zu Reich Deutscheland im jahr 1933?

Comments (107)

May 10, 2017

Trump - Comey letter

    • 9
May 10, 2017

That shitpost mid-letter hahahaha "While I grealy appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."

May 10, 2017

GMAFB. This isn't 1984 or 1933, Comey, or maybe it was Clapper, don't remember, literally just said, under oath, that there's no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Trump dropped him as soon as he got to the crux of the matter.

Now, thinking rationally, Comey heavily influenced the election and made a myriad of mistakes in his final year, the biggest being his handling of the email case. The mishandling and subsequent mess has caused the FBI to lose a ton of credibility and the trust of the public that they are supposed to be protecting. To anyone remotely objective, he deserved to be fired.

May 10, 2017

Agree, he deserved to be fired. But why now? Could have been done much earlier, instead of when the investigation of Russian collusion is happening now.
And it was Clapper who mentioned that the Obama presidency had not wiretapped Trump in Trump Tower as he had claimed. Nothing about no evidence of collusion.
As for 1984 or 1933, I'm talking about the systematic removal of any forms of opposition, including the wildcard types like Comey, and replacing them with Yes-men supporters who'll stand by you. FYI, that was exactly how Hitler increased his power, and Erdogan is doing right now. Trump very well knows that a Congressional investigation is supplemented by externally gathered evidence, and right now, he's doing as much as he can to stymie those who collect that evidence. Comey will be replaced by someone far palatable to Trump's Russia Connection - maybe even Jared Kushner :P.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 1
    • 2
May 10, 2017

literally just said, under oath, that there's no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia

No, that's wildly - Trumpian, even - inaccurate. Clapper did not say 'there is no evidence'. He said he was not aware of any evidence because he had not even been aware of the FBI investigation until Comey announced it at a House hearing in March.

There's a huge difference between 'there's no evidence' and 'not aware of any evidence'.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

May 10, 2017

Here is the video from yesterday

It seems like he said "not to my knowledge" if we are going to be hyper technical...

May 10, 2017

@Greg Marmalard I agree with you and also believe that the constant leaks from inside the FBI and the fact that investigations were being plastered in the media is also another catalyst for Comey's ousting. How is an investigation supposed to remain impartial when you have people leaking classified info and or its being covered blow-by-blow by MSM?

Of course the Democrats are going to have a field day with this. Rather than focus on why their party is so out of touch with a major segment of America they chose to continue playing politics and poking holes at things hoping something comes out so they can begin impeachment proceedings.

Sad times in America...

    • 3
    • 1
May 10, 2017

Trump applauded Comey for his handling of the email case. Even someone in real estate should be able to see that this is an extraordinary situation.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

When was this? Last time I checked, he criticized Comey for not prosecuting Clinton. Even in bloody April.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

As much as I'm looking forward to the new Game of Thrones season there's no way it tops this. No fucking way.

May 10, 2017

Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, who was confirmed in Senate by 96-4 vote, wrote a letter recommending firing Comey. You can read the letter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767
Memorandum for the Attorney General

FROM: Rod J Rosenstein
SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision". Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as "read-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice".

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling... is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

    • 2
May 10, 2017

Agre, he was a it clumsy about the political fallout of his actions, and thus deserved to be fired. But should've been done much earlier, instead of now. Firing away the nation's lead detective on the case is only going to make it harder for the gummint to investigate the Trump-Russia connection (which IMO is huge, considering the amount of indirect evidence involved).

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

One of your cousins works for Sen. McCain? Ask them what it is like working for a man who practically wants to start a war in every other country on the planet...

Please does McCain really think that Rand Paul is working for Putin because he consistently votes in an non-interventionist fashion?

Or he could just be a crazy old dude!

May 10, 2017

Asked about the first question. It's a Vietnam veteran sense of entitlement - the right to attack every person in their home country. Age does make a guy crazy.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

No matter what you think of Trump (like or dislike) one cannot help but to make the observation that he is constantly shooting himself in the foot. Why renew interest in the Russia situation (unless he believes the FBI are getting close to a breakthrough in the investigation)? Then they use the HRC investigation as justification when he could have been fired for those "transgressions" months ago, Trump asked Comey to stay on for 6 more years despite knowing about how he handled the HRC investigation. This all just increases the outcry for a special investigator.

    • 5
May 10, 2017

thank you

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 2
May 10, 2017

Is it possible to play zero-dimensional chess?? @TNA and other Trump cult members - You've hit your stop loss; time to exit the position.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
May 10, 2017

New York Times just released a Comey story: "Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau's investigation into Russia's interference in the presidential election, according to three officials with knowledge of his request". I mean cmon...

May 10, 2017

You do understand that you can write anything in press "according to sources"?

"According to three officials with knowledge, Trump has a secret Russian boyfriend"

However ff the NYT story is true, then then timing is pretty damning.

    • 2
    • 2
May 10, 2017

Of course any publication can do anything. But then who do I trust more, the New York Times or Donald fucking Trump? Not to mention his reasoning for the firing is absurd as he knew about Comey's handling of the HRC investigation for months and asked him to stay on for the rest of his term. I mean it is pretty easy to assume he is lying and trying to stifle the Russia investigation for one reason or another.

    • 1
    • 1
May 10, 2017

It is pretty easy to assume things.

May 10, 2017

I would not trust either. I'm actually strongly anti-trump.

What do you think about the letter from Rod Rosenstein?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

May 10, 2017

I think they used Rosenstein as a bipartisan shield and the HRC investigation as an excuse, it is pretty smart when you think about it, although I believe it will back fire. Similar to Trump trying to use Obama's country watch-list for his Muslim ban.

    • 1
    • 1
May 10, 2017

Rosenstein was elected by the administration to replace Sally Yates. Sally Yates knew shit about Flynn. Do you think Rosenstein is going to go against the guy who appointed him? I don't think so and I'm not naive.

I'm guessing that Trump or Sessions "requested" him to furnish the recommendation so that the action wouldn't incriminate Trump. After all, Trump likes to deflect blame from himself for his own misgivings, and later on, if this caused problems, he would simply blame Rod.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

Becoming more obvious that Trump has something to hide.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

THANK YOU.

I don't understand why there isn't a public outcry in the US against his actions. Time and again, he's showing that he's got skeletons to hide.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Because Obama's skeletons were much larger. This will be politicized the same way Benghazi was, the IRS scandal was (targeting conservative groups), the billions that vanished under his watch, our support for ISIS, etc. It's politics.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

I wouldn't blame Obama for all those. I would bet my money on Clinton the SoS. She was a cold bitch, much worse than Obama. Only she could have ignored someone like a diplomat on dangerous soil - thanks to sheer arrogance. I mean, look at her - even now she blames Comey for losing the elections. Comey may have been one factor, but not the entire factor.

Like I have a cousin working for McCain, I also had a prof who once worked in the Clinton camp. From his perspective, the Clintons were often focused on "serving the greater good", whatever they interpreted it as. Obama, according to him, was much softer - he doubted the guy could even play the political game, even during his Presidency.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

"Obama's skeletons were much larger".

1.) I'd like details on these skeletons
2.) How can you know said skeletons are much larger without knowing Trump's skeletons? What a garbage partisan post.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Obama's discovered skeletons are much larger than Trump's currently discovered skeletons.

To draw a parallel with oil reserves, Obama is KSA, Trump is Venezuela.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

1.) I'd like details on these skeletons

May 10, 2017

As I mentioned, Obama's administration's skeletons. Mainly Clinton's skeletons. Obama was a good guy caught up in a web of bad hombres around him.

But I cannot speak for @Esuric myself.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

As you can see, there's a crowd that's always enraged, a crowd that's only enraged when the other side does it, and a crowd that just expects it from politicians.

May 10, 2017

Very true statement

May 10, 2017

Google them....

May 10, 2017

So you make a purposefully vague allegation, I ask for details, and your response is "google". This is ridiculous I don't even know why I wasted my time responding to you.

May 10, 2017

I'm sorry, but I'm not your fucking history professor. If you want to learn more about the scandals mentioned in my response, then go ahead and google them. I know that you're a liberal, but you are not entitled to my time and I do not have to do research for you.

Next time, don't reply. Just google it..

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Dude I was asking about details regarding what you think makes them skeletons and specifically what makes them "bigger then Trump's skeletons". Benghazi was a fucking witch hunt, no idea how you think of that as an Obama skeleton, extensive investigations were done by a republican congress and they found nothing incriminating either the president or even HRC. Obama was never even implicated in the IRS targeting controversy, yet you've labeled him culpable with no proof, of course you're totally unbiased though. Billions that vanished under his watch, don't even know what you're talking about here. Support for ISIS, that's a conspiracy theory. I asked for evidence you partisan hack, your vague bullshit doesn't cut it. Calling issues like Benghazi and the IRS targeting thing "Obama skeletons" when there isn't a shred of evidence personally implicating him is idiotic. They're better labeled as controversies that occurred under President Obama not fucking "Obama skeletons". Even bringing this shit up on a thread regarding Trump displays the partisan bias.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Right, as I expected, you already have the "details" I was referring to and that you were allegedly looking for. You're really just interested in Obama apologizing and you want to bring me into it to support your priors. No thanks, I'm busy. But keep preparing your talking points.

May 10, 2017

So your plan was to throw out controversies that occurred under Obama, act as if they were his fault with no proof, and then equate that to Trump possibly colluding with Russia implying it's all politics and I was supposed to be like "yea dude this totally makes sense"? Give me a fucking break. I'm done here.

May 10, 2017

Yeah, being revealed as a partisan ideologue must make you uncomfortable. I get it.

May 10, 2017

This is getting out of hand. Do you have any proof that Benghazi/ the IRS scandal was mandated by Obama (thus making it his skeletons)? If not I literally have no idea what the original point of your post was other than to spew drivel and drag Obama into a thread that has nothing to do with him. You call me an ideologue yet worship at the altar of supply-side economics. Just ridiculous.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Yes, there's plenty of proof. Google it.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

What is vague about the weaponized IRS targeting conservative groups for the first time in US history under Obama? What is vague about billions vanishing under him, draining fannie and freddie to pay for Obamacare. What is vague about Benghazi, you have never heard of these scandals?

How is citing well known scandals that have been national news for long periods of time "vague"?

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Obama was not implicated in the IRS scandal. No evidence of criminal wrongdoing or negligence no the part of Obama was found during the numerous Benghazi investigations. I don't respond to troll accounts so I'll stop there.

May 10, 2017

Troll accounts? So is your only argument insulting people or throwing MS at them? I am literally saying what you will do before you do it, and then you STILL do it.

How can you directly do what I am saying you will do (insults, MS)? Shouldn't you be less predictable than this?

Can you please try actual arguments and refutation, instead of what your responses have been consisting of?

I don't know why you think this is a troll account, I joined to ask a GMAT question, and then I got rudely attacked by you over nothing...

May 10, 2017

You do understand how Benghazi is a totally different issue than Trump colluding with Russia (not saying he did this) then Trump firing the guy who could prove he colluded with Russia right? I mean why do I have to spell this out? This is why I say you have to be trolling.

May 10, 2017

Trump was not under investigation, how many times does COMEY have to spell that out?

Yes, but when I present you incontrovertible facts, you just insult me or throw MS. When you give your opinion, it is somehow more valuable than something that is actually factual?

You are actually doing what I say you will do, before you do it, so far with almost every single reply...

    • 1
May 10, 2017

When you investigate a mob boss's lieutenants and they are found to be guilty they often then implicate the mob boss and you end up getting him too. Sessions, Flynn, Roger Stone, Carter page are the lieutenants in this situation.

May 10, 2017

You mean like the Obama administration and Benghazi, or do you mean like the Obama administration and the IRS, or do you mean the Obama administration and fannie and freddie?

Those must have just been coincidences...? Despite being unprecedented...? Damn, it's almost like you made my argument for me!

    • 1
May 10, 2017

This would make sense if any of the individuals involved in the IRS scandal (and the other controversies) implicated Obama. Are you sure you aren't a troll?

May 10, 2017

Yes, please just keep insulting me instead of a refutation of my argument (that you literally made for me). How come you are doing exactly what I predict you will do in your responses, can't you try something original besides an insult? lol

May 10, 2017
<span itemprop=name>Dig Bumb Idiot</span>:

What is vague about the weaponized IRS targeting conservative groups for the first time in US history under Obama? What is vague about billions vanishing under him, draining fannie and freddie to pay for Obamacare. What is vague about Benghazi, you have never heard of these scandals?

How is citing well known scandals that have been national news for long periods of time "vague"?

Careful, he "doesn't respond to trolls" that ask obvious questions.

May 10, 2017

Yeah man I am a Russian bot set up by Putin! First I was set to ask questions about the GMAT and get attacked by rabid liberals on the site, then attempt to use reasoning and logic in responses! How does Putin keep getting away with this!

The funny part is he actually responded to me to tell me that he wouldn't respond to me LOL

EDIT: oops the bolding got messed up I was trying to look cool :(

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

May 10, 2017

I don't understand why it's hard for Trump supporters to admit that this was handled so poorly. Did he deserve to be fired a few times? Yes. Was this the time to do it? Obviously not. Maybe if we put this in other terms everyone will see this for what it is. You are a BSD rouge trader, who set off internal reg flags. Internal audit and Risk management are holding meetings about your fuck ups. Before they finish the audit report to send to your boss, you fire them. How is that okay? Even if you assume Trump/Russia innocence, it is both not a good look and not democratic in timing.

May 10, 2017

The only problem I have with this logic is that people are saying that to have a completely competent investigation they need to have somebody that they already acknowledge is incompetent and prone to make mistakes?

May 10, 2017

I think it's just the fact that he already started it so he should be the one that finishes it is what bothers me. I agree with your point though it makes sense. But in my opinion once you bring a new person to lead an investigation and it gets shaken up with even more publicity and now the person leading it gets chosen by its' target, compromises its independence.

May 10, 2017

Then let's get an independent special investigator period. Trump should be the one asking for this if he has nothing to hide. To date, he has shown a propensity to interfere with the investigation, it all seems extremely suspect.

May 10, 2017

That's fine but it should not be led by whoever Trump decides to make new FBI director. The person would have to be Senate appointed or something and given unlimited resources. The DAG, AG, and new FBI director should be nowhere near the investigation. Gov't being sketchy is just a fact of life, like this post said every leader on either party has piles of skeletons in their closets but this is just a complete shit show. Can't we all just agree, Hillary is a murderer and Trump used Russia to get elected? It's not against the rules to see both parties for what they really are.

May 10, 2017

HRC is a murderer? Proof please?

May 10, 2017

If I had proof, I'd be dead too

May 10, 2017

That is the crux of a conspiracy isn't it? The absence of proof becomes the proof.

May 10, 2017

She's also the greatest futures trader of all time at first attempt, so she really KILLED that p/l

May 10, 2017

Just the next logical move in the all out warfare that is the deepstate vs. Trump. I am reasonably certain that the Comey firing has nothing to do with the Russia investigation (which is a complete false flag witch hunt btw). Trump family has long been intimately connected with the FBI going back to his father. I think it's reasonable to assume that the President has more/better information about Comey's performance than we do, so happy to give the benefit of the doubt here.

We're about to see shit get real though. Last time the deepstate fired back Mike Flynn got fired. My guess in Bannon goes next.

    • 4
May 10, 2017

From the media reports, the firing more likely had to do with Russia than not. Why would anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt? He lies consistently and shamelessly. Him being president is cool but the guy simply isn't trustworthy, he isn't a career politician yet he is somehow MORE untrustworthy than the average politician.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

My observation about the timing of this: A big headline from last week was Hillary saying that Comey cost her the election. That if the election was held on Oct. 27th, she would be our president.
This week, after a spike from the Left in hatred of Comey, Trump fires him. Now, suddenly, the Left loves Comey.

This stuff happens over and over. Trump knows that the Left will contradict him no matter what he says, so he uses that to draw attention to certain things.

-Remember when Kellyanne sat with her legs on the couch? That picture, showing "racist" Trump meeting with dozens of black leaders, was plastered all over the internet.
-Remember when Spicer said that "Not even Hitler used chemical weapons on his own people", and the media started to say that Hitler comparisons are ridiculous?
-Remember when Trump said he was wire-tapped, and then didn't provide evidence? And then all his opponents spent weeks saying that there was absolutely no basis to this claim, only to discover a few weeks later that Trump was surveilled and that unmaskings occurred?
-Remember when Trump wouldn't say that he would accept the results of the election if he lost? Personally, I think he had internal polling info and knew he had a shot at winning. His opposition blew up, saying this was undemocratic, only to riot in the streets a few weeks later when their candidate lost.

I can go on and on. This is Trump's style, he's done it before and he'll do it again. Some of you see it as Trump being a huge liar. I see it as Trump expertly controlling his opposition because they only care about contradicting him.

    • 4
May 10, 2017

People weren't mad about the hitler comparison to assad, they were mad because hitler did use chemical weapons...

May 10, 2017

Regarding the Kellyanne photo thing, the Democrat senators did come under fire for their comments. On the other hand, nobody cared nor cares about Trump's meeting with black leaders. On the contrary, the black community has negative views now, ever since he planned to reduce funding to HBCU colleges.

They still haven't found evidence that Trump was being "wiretapped"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/w...
AFAIK, the Trump team relied on strong analytics from a British firm funded by Robert Mercer. From a tweet analysis and more, they optimized the flow of right-wing news and made people vote red. On the other hand, the Clinton team had a hard time forcing people to vote because the general vibe her campaign gave was "Chill, we're going to win this easy-peasy." I'm pretty sure Trump wouldn't have accepted the results and would still publicly go after Obama for "gaming" the election and causing his defeat. I mean, even now, he's still blaming the previous administration for his loss in the overall vote count, and is being the whiny baby.

Frankly, I expected more spine from US politics. That's why I prefer the power plays in China myself. It's quite entertaining when opponents take the fight into the realms of sabotage and underhandedness.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 10, 2017

So in the past few days we've had:

1.) Trump saying he decided to fire Comey long ago, despite originally citing Rosenstein's recommendation as the reason
2.) The acting director describe the Russia investigation (the one Trump calls a witch Hunt) as "highly significant"
3.) The Senate has now served Flynn with a subpeona
4.) A tweet tirade by Trump threatening to release "tapes" of conversations with Comey if Comey leaks anything

This thing is just beginning folks.

p.s. Unrelated yet related, asshat Sessions just instructed prosecutors to seek the harshest possible sentence on low-level drug offenders. MAGA

    • 1
May 12, 2017

I think Trump had an interest in making the country stronger, but he just didn't have a lot of good ideas that would've actually worked. It's time for him to relinquish his chair as POTUS. He's culturally unfit, as he causes an uproar with every move. Nothing he does resemble the America I'd like to live in, just in terms of his execution. And, I believe his approvals are still in the toilet after 100 days. What happens in these situations as an employee? You get the boot.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

You will have an opportunity to express that view in 3.5 years. In the meantime, you guys had better start to find an actual candidate who can beat him. I literally think the left is so preoccupied hating on Trump that they haven't thought about positioning for the next step. Who's it gonna be; Liz Warren? Mark Warner? Chuck Schumer? Those guys will get completely wrecked. My guess is they will end up running Mark Cuban in an all out reality TV billionaire royal rumble! Need a strong personality to beat a strong personality.

    • 1
May 12, 2017

Ok. I think Cuban is on the right, but I know I am. I don't like Trump because I think he's a chump. He has money but he seems to be a second-class citizen. I thought I might vote for Trump all the way up to the election, but just couldn't do it. Tax reform is good. We wanted an ACA improvement, but haven't gotten it so far. The wall is expensive, and infrastructure so far looks to be unaccounted for. Trump has no class and no dignity. The left is too apologist for me but Trump is too brash and lacks any tact. I wouldn't want to sit at a table in a conversation with him unless I was drunk and didn't care about my own dignity. Just can't do Trump.

    • 2
May 12, 2017

bump

May 10, 2017

My god what has happened to my country. We all knew a Trump presidency would be a complete trainwreck, but this has somehow managed to be even worse than I feared....and we're barely 5% into Trump's four years in the White House.

I survey the damage from the first 100 days and am legitimately scared at what the US will look like four years from now.

    • 2
    • 3
May 12, 2017

Yeah interesting turn of events that's for sure. Comey must have been getting close to uncovering something.

May 10, 2017

It's almost like the Hillary supporters were screaming for Comey to be fired, and then Trump fired Comey, and now they are at mad at Trump for doing what they asked.... strange how that works!

EDIT: Why am I getting MS when I proved my claim with evidence? Is that "triggering" for you people? At least try refuting the statements, instead of just getting mad at me and throwing MS...

    • 3
    • 5
May 10, 2017

Read statements by democratic congressmen, you will find many comments criticizing Comey for his handling of the HRC investigation, almost none call for his outright firing.

May 10, 2017

But, but, but, I have proof of Hillary supporters calling for Comey to be fired...

Are you going to stop responding again like the other thread?

Here ya go: Keith Olbermann calls for Comey to be fired, then says Trump should be impeached for doing what he called for!
Here

    • 3
May 12, 2017

Hahhah funny how these things transpire - will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure democrats are going to be crying impeachment soon...

May 10, 2017

That's one guy dude. I don't even know what thread you're referring to. I said democratic congressmen not fucking pundits. Pundits are pundits and are paid to provide "hot takes". Idk why you think I give a fk what Olbermann says more so than I would give a fk what Rush Limbaugh says.

May 10, 2017

But I didn't talk about Democratic congressmen, just the supporters of Hillary. So would you agree that I am right, since I just provided proof of my claims? I can probably find other examples if you would like...

I mean the thread where you called it a circle-jerk and all, that was a bad thread though...

    • 3
May 10, 2017

There would not have been any uproar if Trump had fired him in January or February.

May 10, 2017

There would have been uproar no matter what...

People who hate Trump get mad at him for anything he does even if it was something they wanted him to do. Just look at the pic I posted above, even if he does exactly what his haters want, then they will still get mad.

    • 1
    • 5
May 10, 2017

So I was right again? You will both just stop responding and then throw MS at me or insult me?

Please try refuting that statements or at least provide a proper response with reasoning...

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Right about what, exactly?

Let me ask you this: What would your response have been if Obama had fired Comey before leaving office?

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Are you asking me about a hypothetical situation?

Right about the claim I made, which I then provided proof for... So I got MS thrown, and then after the proof no one responds. It happened in the other thread really. Why don't we debate things that have actually happened, instead of hypothetical situations?

What is funny is, liberals hate Trump because he does the same thing they do. He operatives in a narrative over reality world, and liberals do this too, but then they hate it when he does it.

Case in point the last few threads, whenever I provide someone with objective facts that run counter to the liberal narrative, they just insult me or start throwing MS at every single one of my posts...

Never a refutation or counter argument, and they never admit when they are wrong... just like Trump does...

    • 1
Best Response
May 10, 2017

Jimminy Cricket on a pogo stick. No , I'm not asking about a hypothetical.

Your 'claim' was about Clinton supporters. Which is pretty meaningless. If you want to set up a straw man then crow about being 'right' about something completely and utterly meaningless, be my guest; the rest of the adults will have a real conversation.

BobtheBaker (rightly) pointed out that almost no congressmen on the Dem side had called for him to be out-right fired. I recall some saying he needed to resign but I don't recall anyone calling for him to be fired.

The point - and I'll type slowly so you can follow along - is that if the Trump White House had these concerns that Comey was 'not doing a good job' since January (or even, apparently since Election Day), it begs the question as to why did Trump not fire Comey in January? Or February? Or March? Or April?

Trump praised Comey for his actions on the Clinton email issue last year.

What changed?

Why was Comey fired very shortly after apparently requesting additional funds for the investigation into Russia's meddling in the election?

The only thing that has changed is the increasing heat of the Russia investigation. Trump firing the very person in charge of that investigation looks very, very bad at best, Nixonian-level bad. And I'm almost more troubled by Trump's assertion in the letter that he was told - three times! - that he was 'not under investigation'.

Told his national security adviser might be comprised and susceptible to blackmail, Trump waits almost three weeks to fire him.

Claims to have doubts about the job performance and credibility of the head of the FBI, and Trump waits SIX MONTHS to fire him, including his entire first four months in office. Four months!

Doesn't like that the acting attorney general didn't follow his unconstitutional travel ban, and Trump fired her THAT DAY. He didn't wait days, not weeks, not months - within HOURS she was gone.

The point isn't so much that Comey was fired, the question is why wasn't it done many weeks or months ago? Because it looks very much like Comey was fired because he was pushing ahead with the Russia investigation.

Trump has a very easy way to show us we're wrong: call for an independent special prosecutor to investigate possible Russian meddling in the election. Even Nixon did that. Clinton did that.

    • 9
    • 1
May 10, 2017

You didn't ask me about Trump, here I will quote you:

<span itemprop=name>Dragon-Ash</span>:

Right about what, exactly?

Let me ask you this: What would your response have been if Obama had fired Comey before leaving office?

That is your direct quote... you asked about Obama, I can screenshot it and post it too if you want? Obama didn't fire Comey, which makes this a hypothetical situation lol...

So you are saying, what I said is a 100% fact, yet you consider it a strawman, because of your feelings? And your way of telling me that is insulting me and calling me names, exactly like I said you would do?

What...

May 10, 2017

Well, my days of taking the stupidity of the average person for granted are certainly coming to a middle.

I wasn't asking you to actually answer the hypothetical, I was trying to make a point that is clearly well beyond your ken.

May 10, 2017

So you admit that you were 100% wrong? I will quote you again:

<span itemprop=name>Dragon-Ash</span>:

Jimminy Cricket on a pogo stick. No , I'm not asking about a hypothetical.

But you did ask me to answer the hypothetical.... and then you said you never said, what I quoted you saying....

I will quote again here:

<span itemprop=name>Dragon-Ash</span>:

Right about what, exactly?

Let me ask you this: What would your response have been if Obama had fired Comey before leaving office?

You actually wrote "Let me ask you this:" Then asked a hypothetical question, then denied it? LOL

May 10, 2017

Having fun with your straw men?

The point - and again, I'll type slowly so you can follow along - was to show you why Democrats can be legitimately concerned at the process, timing and explanations given for Comey being fired. It's not hypocritical at all. The point being that if Obama had fired Comey last year - even if he was potentially 'correct' or 'in the right' to do so - Republicans would have had every right to be outraged, because it would be assumed to be punishment for his actions on the eve of the elections.

The adults in the room got that right away, but I guess I need to spell things out and use small words for you.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Straw men? LOL Here I'll post screen shots of what you typed, that you are somehow still denying.

May 10, 2017

Thank you for proving my point.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

I honestly cannot believe this. You really are still saying, that you did not type those things that I linked in the screen shots? How can you be denying this?

Are you asserting that the screen shots are photo shopped or something?

If not it's ok to be wrong man, I am wrong all the time... But seriously, wtf?

May 10, 2017
<span itemprop=name>Dragon-Ash</span>:

Right about what, exactly?

**Let me ask you this:** me ask you this: What would your response have been if Obama had fired Comey before leaving office?

<span itemprop=name>Dragon-Ash</span>:

Jimminy Cricket on a pogo stick. **No , I'm not asking about a hypothetical.**

How could this possibly be a straw man? IT IS WHAT YOU TYPED!!!!

May 10, 2017

You poor little pumpkin - I guess there are two options: 1) you honestly don't know what your'e doing, in which case you are almost Trump-esque in your inability to think beyond the end of your eyelashes, with a pathetic, desperate and almost pathological need to be 'right' even if it means creating out of thin air irrelevant and meaningless 'points' you can cling to as being 'right' about. Or 2) you do know what you're doing. In which case you're a troll.

If it's 2), well - I don't argue with trolls. If it's 1) well, I don't argue with idiots, because even though I win the argument, all I've done is...won an argument against an idiot.

The straw man, you see, is that my point was - as I explained above - that the hypothetical was showing you an example of how democrats can criticize Comey last year and still find his firing now to be disturbing for a lot of reasons. So no, my little porkchop, you are not 'right'. You aren't even on the same fucking question.

If you want to keep posting about how 'right' you are - please be my guest, it will say more about you than it will about me. As I noted above, the adults in the room already know the score.

    • 3
    • 1
May 10, 2017

Lol, I'm the one that is trolling but you cannot admit to what you actually typed?

Please tell me how can you possibly think that you didn't type the things in the screen shots? So you did ask me a hypothetical, right?

You even said "Let me ask you a question" How is that, not asking a question? Holy fuck are you completely delusional?

May 10, 2017

Also, can you please stop calling me creepy names like Pumpkin and Porkchop? It is incredibly weird...

May 12, 2017

Without getting into personal beliefs, I don't think anyone can say that it's not blatantly corrupt to fire the person investigating you for crimes against your country.

    • 1
May 10, 2017

Trump is not under investigation... Comey has said this multiple times... Do you want video evidence?

I don't like Trump but the way you people lie about him is absolutely ridiculous... and it exactly what he does...

May 12, 2017
May 10, 2017
May 10, 2017
May 12, 2017
May 12, 2017
May 12, 2017