BREAKING: Trump fires Comey....YOU'RE FIRED!

[postman]

DEMOCRATS ON COMEY.......

6 months ago..........RESIGN! RESIGN! RESIGN !RESIGN! RESIGN! RESIGN! CROOK!!!! EVIL!!!!

Today.... what? he was fired???? UNLAWFUL TERMINATION!! CONSPIRACY!!! IT"S A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!!!!

It's like rubbing a dogs nose in the poop he made on the carpet. Unless the punishment can be linked to the crime it's doesn't serve a purpose.

 

[postman]

She got away with everything. It illustrates Comey's awful incompetence and corruption. Good riddance.

She got away with being careless, that's it. Petraeus deliberately remove classified information, and stored it in his attic, and deliberately gave classified information to a reporter.
Why no outrage?

 

[Dschrute3]

She got away with everything. It illustrates Comey's awful incompetence and corruption. Good riddance.

She got away with being careless, that's it. Petraeus deliberately remove classified information, and stored it in his attic, and deliberately gave classified information to a reporter.
Why no outrage?

Uh huh, she was just 'careless.' Pretty convenient conclusion on your part, no? Obama and Democrats aggressively prosecuted Petraeus. They didn't do the same with Hillary Clinton? I wonder why?

 

[Ame®icano]

The FBI has lost part of their credibility because Trump took the side of the Russians in the DNC/Podesta investigation over the U.S. federal government... and he was wrong, but the damage was done, because of his mindless followers that believe everything he says.

WTF?



View attachment 125879

WTF does that attachment have to do with Russia?

You are trying to tell us their was no major major corruption going on at the DNC ...




.

They are a private organization. I don't like what they did to Bernie... but you know what? Someone's privacy is there privacy. What happened to them is no different that someone hacking your phone and then sending the pictures of you screwing your bosses wife to your boss and getting you fired. Well you shouldn't have been screwing your bosses wife and doing so you deserved to get fired, but guess what, the person who hacked your phone invaded your privacy and deserves to be punished for it.

Oh no you just didn't go there....


.

Don't worry, that's normal for leftist racists...

 

[WEATHER53]

It's a ballsy move by a ballsy guy and half the country is balless and feckless having been mesmerized into that state by Barry the ambivalent USA disliker Muslim lover

 

[charwin95]

James Comey told Senators he had an in-depth knowledge of how Russia worked. But he didn't know Gazprom was a gas company.

Comey was incompetent, that's why he was fired.

Wrong. Why do you lie?
Do you honestly believe he was fired because of Clinton's emails? That is way too shallow Fred.

Americans doesn't see it that way. Comey was fired because of the current Russian investigation. That's the truth.

 

[hunarcy]

LOL.

He fired her for not doing her job. In the real world, that would get anyone fired from any (legal) job in America.

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

Sorry I don't think our AG should be defending the indefensible. It's unconstitutional. In confirmation hearings AGs are asked if they will stand up against unlawful moves by the WH, and Yates said yes. She didn't lie, she did what she had promised. The AG is a

LOL.

He fired her for not doing her job. In the real world, that would get anyone fired from any (legal) job in America.

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president"

Geez...the attorney general is the attorney for the United States of America. In a court case, both sides have to be argued and the attorney for the US defends the laws of the USA. The Judicial Branch decides which side prevails.

,

 

[Flopper]

James Comey told Senators he had an in-depth knowledge of how Russia worked. But he didn't know Gazprom was a gas company.

Comey was incompetent, that's why he was fired.

Trump's first official act as president should have been to ask for an independent special prosecutor. Big Mistake! Having the FBI Director lead an investigation of the Trump administration which includes himself and his boss is gross incompetence.

It's not the firing of Comey, that has created the outrage but the timing. Now, even if the investigation shows Trump and his associates are clean, the investigation will be tainted by this incredibly stupid action by Trump. I think Comey needed to go but not like this.

 

[Aries]

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

Sorry I don't think our AG should be defending the indefensible. It's unconstitutional. In confirmation hearings AGs are asked if they will stand up against unlawful moves by the WH, and Yates said yes. She didn't lie, she did what she had promised. The AG is a

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president"

Geez...the attorney general is the attorney for the United States of America. In a court case, both sides have to be argued and the attorney for the US defends the laws of the USA. The Judicial Branch decides which side prevails.

,

SO the job of the AG is to defend any laws no matter how unconstitutional and potentially dangerous they are? I don't think so. Trump doesn't need any more "yes men" he filled his whole cabinet full.

 

[Rustic]

James Comey told Senators he had an in-depth knowledge of how Russia worked. But he didn't know Gazprom was a gas company.

Comey was incompetent, that's why he was fired.

Wrong. Why do you lie?
Do you honestly believe he was fired because of Clinton's emails? That is way too shallow Fred.

Americans doesn't see it that way. Comey was fired because of the current Russian investigation. That's the truth.

Where's the beef? There is no Russian connection

 

[Dschrute3]

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

Sorry I don't think our AG should be defending the indefensible. It's unconstitutional. In confirmation hearings AGs are asked if they will stand up against unlawful moves by the WH, and Yates said yes. She didn't lie, she did what she had promised. The AG is a

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president"

Geez...the attorney general is the attorney for the United States of America. In a court case, both sides have to be argued and the attorney for the US defends the laws of the USA. The Judicial Branch decides which side prevails.

,

SO the job of the AG is to defend any laws no matter how unconstitutional and potentially dangerous they are? I don't think so. Trump doesn't need any more "yes men" he filled his whole cabinet full.

Yeah sure, he's the first and only US President to do that. Uh huh.

 

[Ame®icano]

wow

he fired the man who has him under investigation

Kind of like he fired yates for bringing Russian collusion to light.

LOL.

He fired her for not doing her job. In the real world, that would get anyone fired from any (legal) job in America.

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the FED. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

She didn't acted on the order itself, but on comments made during the campaign. She also said that her action was partially political. That is not her job description.

 

[Aries]

James Comey told Senators he had an in-depth knowledge of how Russia worked. But he didn't know Gazprom was a gas company.

Comey was incompetent, that's why he was fired.

Wrong. Why do you lie?
Do you honestly believe he was fired because of Clinton's emails? That is way too shallow Fred.

Americans doesn't see it that way. Comey was fired because of the current Russian investigation. That's the truth.

Where's the beef? There is no Russian connection

I've been waiting for our alternative fact of the day!! Conway styleeee

 

[hunarcy]

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

Sorry I don't think our AG should be defending the indefensible. It's unconstitutional. In confirmation hearings AGs are asked if they will stand up against unlawful moves by the WH, and Yates said yes. She didn't lie, she did what she had promised. The AG is a

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president"

Geez...the attorney general is the attorney for the United States of America. In a court case, both sides have to be argued and the attorney for the US defends the laws of the USA. The Judicial Branch decides which side prevails.

,

SO the job of the AG is to defend any laws no matter how unconstitutional and potentially dangerous they are? I don't think so. Trump doesn't need any more "yes men" he filled his whole cabinet full.

I don't care what you "think". That's the role of the Attorney General. And, a law is not unconstitutional until it's been ruled on by the Judicial Branch. It is ignorant people like you that proves how much we need civics courses in schools.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Breaking News Update!



Comey Was Fired Because He Refused to Reveal Obama Unmaskers

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/fox-expert-herridge-comey-fired-refused-reveal-obama-unmaskers-video/

 

[Lewdog]

WTF?



View attachment 125879

WTF does that attachment have to do with Russia?

You are trying to tell us their was no major major corruption going on at the DNC ...




.

They are a private organization. I don't like what they did to Bernie... but you know what? Someone's privacy is there privacy. What happened to them is no different that someone hacking your phone and then sending the pictures of you screwing your bosses wife to your boss and getting you fired. Well you shouldn't have been screwing your bosses wife and doing so you deserved to get fired, but guess what, the person who hacked your phone invaded your privacy and deserves to be punished for it.

Oh no you just didn't go there....


.

Don't worry, that's normal for leftist racists...

Leftist racist? To defend someone's right to privacy? Please point out anything racist in my post.

I argue with every racist fuck on this forum and report it every time someone uses the N word or breaks the rules trying to use any modified word to look like the N word... and if I were a leftist I wouldn't be arguing that whomever leaked any info about Flynn should be prosecuted regardless that it helped get him fired...

 

[Aries]

Kind of like he fired yates for bringing Russian collusion to light.

LOL.

He fired her for not doing her job. In the real world, that would get anyone fired from any (legal) job in America.

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the FED. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

She didn't acted on the order itself, but on comments made during the campaign. She also said that her action was partially political. That is not her job description.

if she is suppose to be defending it in court she should certainly be taking into account the intent. The intent is what got them blocked in the first place! Her saying "hey trump I can't defend this because we have something called a constitution" is her job.

 

[Aries]

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

Sorry I don't think our AG should be defending the indefensible. It's unconstitutional. In confirmation hearings AGs are asked if they will stand up against unlawful moves by the WH, and Yates said yes. She didn't lie, she did what she had promised. The AG is a

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the WH. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

I disagree. While her private view might have been that the order was unlawful, her public view was supposed to be to defend the laws, orders and regulations of the United States of America. A JUDGE was supposed to rule on the lawfulness of the order.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president"

Geez...the attorney general is the attorney for the United States of America. In a court case, both sides have to be argued and the attorney for the US defends the laws of the USA. The Judicial Branch decides which side prevails.

,

SO the job of the AG is to defend any laws no matter how unconstitutional and potentially dangerous they are? I don't think so. Trump doesn't need any more "yes men" he filled his whole cabinet full.

I don't care what you "think". That's the role of the Attorney General. And, a law is not unconstitutional until it's been ruled on by the Judicial Branch. It is ignorant people like you that proves how much we need civics courses in schools.

yea yea your personal attacks mean nothing I have history degrees you can kiss sweetie

 

[Ame®icano]

WTF does that attachment have to do with Russia?

You are trying to tell us their was no major major corruption going on at the DNC ...




.

They are a private organization. I don't like what they did to Bernie... but you know what? Someone's privacy is there privacy. What happened to them is no different that someone hacking your phone and then sending the pictures of you screwing your bosses wife to your boss and getting you fired. Well you shouldn't have been screwing your bosses wife and doing so you deserved to get fired, but guess what, the person who hacked your phone invaded your privacy and deserves to be punished for it.

Oh no you just didn't go there....


.

Don't worry, that's normal for leftist racists...

Leftist racist? To defend someone's right to privacy? Please point out anything racist in my post.

I argue with every racist fuck on this forum and report it every time someone uses the N word or breaks the rules trying to use any modified word to look like the N word... and if I were a leftist I wouldn't be arguing that whomever leaked any info about Flynn should be prosecuted regardless that it helped get him fired...

You do know why he said "Oh no you just didn't go there...."

 

[Ame®icano]

LOL.

He fired her for not doing her job. In the real world, that would get anyone fired from any (legal) job in America.

No, he fired her for doing her job.

Which is policy making or deciding on constitutionality of the EO?

Yates position put her as the top lawyer for the FED. Her job is not to blindly cosign what trump does and says out of fear of "betraying him." She felt that the order was unlawful (rightfully so) then it would have been NOT doing her job to defend it.

She didn't acted on the order itself, but on comments made during the campaign. She also said that her action was partially political. That is not her job description.

if she is suppose to be defending it in court she should certainly be taking into account the intent. The intent is what got them blocked in the first place! Her saying "hey trump I can't defend this because we have something called a constitution" is her job.

Lest's start here.

What do you think the "intent" was?
What do you think that she think "intent" was?