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

[Lewdog]

When will some of you people start to understand... the Constitution is not so flexible that it's interpretation changes every time the party of the President does. Even though a Supreme Court Justice is appointed by a certain party... they don't always rule in that party's favor, just because fuck, he's a Republican or a Democrat. That's why they are judges... their lives are based on impartiality. Do they sometimes have differing opinions? Sure they do... but not like the fucking opinions of people on a fucking internet forum. Get real.

What that has to do with anything I said?

Uh, if I have to explain it to you... wait, this is another one of your reading comprehension problems isn't it? Like when you said you spent 30 minutes reading what I posted earlier and you couldn't find the part about discrimination based on where a person was from... and it was on the first page.

Go get your mother, wife, or sister to come read the forum for you. When you do, let me know and I'll continue the discussion.

You found it, congrats. However, "except" means it's conditional, and those conditions invalidate your "proof".

And you never posted as part of the argument what the "except" was and how it applied to Trump's EO. So how did you invalidate it? Oh, you didn't.

You complain about my reading comprehension, yet you're proud of yours.

Beside, mudwhistle explained it to you already.

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Sally Yates wasn't using the executive order to base her judgment from. She was using liberal talking-points that weren't in writing to resist the lawful order of the President. By law the president has the right to decide who can enter the US thru the Health And Human Services Dept and Homeland Security.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

courts take intent into account. Are you accusing our court systems of being strictly "liberal"?

Intent?????

This not a discussion about Hillary and her emails. This is a discussion of presidential powers to refuse entry to alien immigrants.

The subject of thread is Trump's firing Comey, not illegal immigrants or Hillary emails.

What's funny is that you claim discrimination where there is none.
All conditions of Trump's EO are valid. You lefties can't claim one that is not.

Sigh... the same old "leftie" argument. If his travel ban was valid... it would have gone into effect and stayed there. It didn't. End of story.

It didn't stayed there not because it's not valid, but because of activist judges who have no jurisdiction to block the EO's. We'll see the outcome when it get to the SC.

What's the point of taking it to the Supreme Court? They wrote a second one... or did you forget?

Overturning the leftist district courts would stop the nonsense and lay the ground of breaking them up, especially the 9th circuit. I hope it'll get to SC, the sooner the better (hearing is on next Monday).

When will some of you people start to understand... the Constitution is not so flexible that it's interpretation changes every time the party of the President does. Even though a Supreme Court Justice is appointed by a certain party... they don't always rule in that party's favor, just because fuck, he's a Republican or a Democrat. That's why they are judges... their lives are based on impartiality. Do they sometimes have differing opinions? Sure they do... but not like the fucking opinions of people on a fucking internet forum. Get real.

As every Supreme Court Justice knows, history will judge them not on how well they served the interest of the party but how well they serve the interest of justice which means putting aside prejudice and personal beliefs and making judgement based on the the constitution, laws, and the case before them. This is why so many justices surprise those that put them on the bench.

 

[Ame®icano]

What that has to do with anything I said?

Uh, if I have to explain it to you... wait, this is another one of your reading comprehension problems isn't it? Like when you said you spent 30 minutes reading what I posted earlier and you couldn't find the part about discrimination based on where a person was from... and it was on the first page.

Go get your mother, wife, or sister to come read the forum for you. When you do, let me know and I'll continue the discussion.

You found it, congrats. However, "except" means it's conditional, and those conditions invalidate your "proof".

And you never posted as part of the argument what the "except" was and how it applied to Trump's EO. So how did you invalidate it? Oh, you didn't.

You complain about my reading comprehension, yet you're proud of yours.

Beside, mudwhistle explained it to you already.

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

He did. And I pointed to it already. #840

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Sally Yates wasn't using the executive order to base her judgment from. She was using liberal talking-points that weren't in writing to resist the lawful order of the President. By law the president has the right to decide who can enter the US thru the Health And Human Services Dept and Homeland Security.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

courts take intent into account. Are you accusing our court systems of being strictly "liberal"?

Intent?????

This not a discussion about Hillary and her emails. This is a discussion of presidential powers to refuse entry to alien immigrants.

The subject of thread is Trump's firing Comey, not illegal immigrants or Hillary emails.

Sigh... the same old "leftie" argument. If his travel ban was valid... it would have gone into effect and stayed there. It didn't. End of story.

It didn't stayed there not because it's not valid, but because of activist judges who have no jurisdiction to block the EO's. We'll see the outcome when it get to the SC.

What's the point of taking it to the Supreme Court? They wrote a second one... or did you forget?

Overturning the leftist district courts would stop the nonsense and lay the ground of breaking them up, especially the 9th circuit. I hope it'll get to SC, the sooner the better (hearing is on next Monday).

When will some of you people start to understand... the Constitution is not so flexible that it's interpretation changes every time the party of the President does. Even though a Supreme Court Justice is appointed by a certain party... they don't always rule in that party's favor, just because fuck, he's a Republican or a Democrat. That's why they are judges... their lives are based on impartiality. Do they sometimes have differing opinions? Sure they do... but not like the fucking opinions of people on a fucking internet forum. Get real.

As every Supreme Court Justice knows, history will judge them not on how well they served the interest of the party but how well they serve the interest of justice which means putting aside prejudice and personal beliefs and making judgement based on the the constitution, laws, and the case before them. This is why so many justices surprise those that put them on the bench.

I'm sure there is no activism or empathy involved anywhere.

 

[Lewdog]

Uh, if I have to explain it to you... wait, this is another one of your reading comprehension problems isn't it? Like when you said you spent 30 minutes reading what I posted earlier and you couldn't find the part about discrimination based on where a person was from... and it was on the first page.

Go get your mother, wife, or sister to come read the forum for you. When you do, let me know and I'll continue the discussion.

You found it, congrats. However, "except" means it's conditional, and those conditions invalidate your "proof".

And you never posted as part of the argument what the "except" was and how it applied to Trump's EO. So how did you invalidate it? Oh, you didn't.

You complain about my reading comprehension, yet you're proud of yours.

Beside, mudwhistle explained it to you already.

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

He did. And I pointed to it already. #840

Once again, you can't read. Go read it again... and it isn't the "exception" listed in the law I posted.

 

[Ame®icano]

You found it, congrats. However, "except" means it's conditional, and those conditions invalidate your "proof".

And you never posted as part of the argument what the "except" was and how it applied to Trump's EO. So how did you invalidate it? Oh, you didn't.

You complain about my reading comprehension, yet you're proud of yours.

Beside, mudwhistle explained it to you already.

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

He did. And I pointed to it already. #840

Once again, you can't read. Go read it again... and it isn't the "exception" listed in the law I posted.

Have you check his post?

 

[charwin95]

Just like Trump blame somebody and not taking responsibility. So you are blaming the AG? So what was the reason why AG wants to canned Comey?

That's not acceptable go get me something else.

Reason? I posted the link earlier.

Here. Sorry, it's from NY Times.

Deputy Attorney General’s Memo Breaks Down Case Against Comey

Blaming the AG.
Still not acceptable------ Go get me something else.

 

[Lewdog]

And you never posted as part of the argument what the "except" was and how it applied to Trump's EO. So how did you invalidate it? Oh, you didn't.

You complain about my reading comprehension, yet you're proud of yours.

Beside, mudwhistle explained it to you already.

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

He did. And I pointed to it already. #840

Once again, you can't read. Go read it again... and it isn't the "exception" listed in the law I posted.

Have you check his post?

Yes I have... have you? Go read it again...

 

[Ame®icano]

Just like Trump blame somebody and not taking responsibility. So you are blaming the AG? So what was the reason why AG wants to canned Comey?

That's not acceptable go get me something else.

Reason? I posted the link earlier.

Here. Sorry, it's from NY Times.

Deputy Attorney General’s Memo Breaks Down Case Against Comey

Blaming the AG.
Still not acceptable------ Go get me something else.

I'm not blaming him, I'm saying he's spot on, but didn't go far enough, Comey should've been charged and hopefully jailed, along with Lynch.

 

[Ame®icano]

You complain about my reading comprehension, yet you're proud of yours.

Beside, mudwhistle explained it to you already.

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

He did. And I pointed to it already. #840

Once again, you can't read. Go read it again... and it isn't the "exception" listed in the law I posted.

Have you check his post?

Yes I have... have you? Go read it again...

So you did read the "inadmissible aliens" section of the law?

What part you do not understand?

 

[charwin95]

Just like Trump blame somebody and not taking responsibility. So you are blaming the AG? So what was the reason why AG wants to canned Comey?

That's not acceptable go get me something else.

Reason? I posted the link earlier.

Here. Sorry, it's from NY Times.

Deputy Attorney General’s Memo Breaks Down Case Against Comey

Blaming the AG.
Still not acceptable------ Go get me something else.

I'm not blaming him, I'm saying he's spot on, but didn't go far enough, Comey should've been charged and hopefully jailed, along with Lynch.

I asked you a very simple question. So let me repeat it for you. Give me one good reason------ Why Trump fired Comey?
Don't give me Lynch and Comey because it has nothing to do what I'm asking you.

Go get me something else.

 

[Lewdog]

He didn't explain anything other than to say there was an "exception" but not that the exception conformed to Trump's EO... after me asking both you and him to show me what the "exception" was.

He did. And I pointed to it already. #840

Once again, you can't read. Go read it again... and it isn't the "exception" listed in the law I posted.

Have you check his post?

Yes I have... have you? Go read it again...

So you did read the "inadmissible aliens" section of the law?

What part you do not understand?

For one... it has NOTHING to do with the "exception" part in the law I posted that you 2 quoted. Second, it talks about the travel of people without Visas.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, that'll slow down the Trump/Russia collusion investigation.

Comey should run against Trump in the 2020 primaries. His slogan will be lock him up, lock him up!

 

[Flopper]

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.

Sally Yates wasn't using the executive order to base her judgment from. She was using liberal talking-points that weren't in writing to resist the lawful order of the President. By law the president has the right to decide who can enter the US thru the Health And Human Services Dept and Homeland Security.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

courts take intent into account. Are you accusing our court systems of being strictly "liberal"?

Intent?????

This not a discussion about Hillary and her emails. This is a discussion of presidential powers to refuse entry to alien immigrants.

The subject of thread is Trump's firing Comey, not illegal immigrants or Hillary emails.

It didn't stayed there not because it's not valid, but because of activist judges who have no jurisdiction to block the EO's. We'll see the outcome when it get to the SC.

What's the point of taking it to the Supreme Court? They wrote a second one... or did you forget?

Overturning the leftist district courts would stop the nonsense and lay the ground of breaking them up, especially the 9th circuit. I hope it'll get to SC, the sooner the better (hearing is on next Monday).

When will some of you people start to understand... the Constitution is not so flexible that it's interpretation changes every time the party of the President does. Even though a Supreme Court Justice is appointed by a certain party... they don't always rule in that party's favor, just because fuck, he's a Republican or a Democrat. That's why they are judges... their lives are based on impartiality. Do they sometimes have differing opinions? Sure they do... but not like the fucking opinions of people on a fucking internet forum. Get real.

As every Supreme Court Justice knows, history will judge them not on how well they served the interest of the party but how well they serve the interest of justice which means putting aside prejudice and personal beliefs and making judgement based on the the constitution, laws, and the case before them. This is why so many justices surprise those that put them on the bench.

I'm sure there is no activism or empathy involved anywhere.

That depends on judge. The court hears only about 80 cases a year out of several thousand. More than half of the decisions are unanimous. Of those 80 cases only two or three attract the interest of political junkies and when the decisions are made in those cases, the winning side usually does not get everything they want.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just like Trump blame somebody and not taking responsibility. So you are blaming the AG? So what was the reason why AG wants to canned Comey?

That's not acceptable go get me something else.

Reason? I posted the link earlier.

Here. Sorry, it's from NY Times.

Deputy Attorney General’s Memo Breaks Down Case Against Comey

Blaming the AG.
Still not acceptable------ Go get me something else.

I'm not blaming him, I'm saying he's spot on, but didn't go far enough, Comey should've been charged and hopefully jailed, along with Lynch.

I asked you a very simple question. So let me repeat it for you. Give me one good reason------ Why Trump fired Comey?
Don't give me Lynch and Comey because it has nothing to do what I'm asking you.

Go get me something else.

And I am repeating it to you and I posted the link for you, Trump fired him on the recommendation from Deputy AG and that's reason good enough.

 

[charwin95]

Well, that'll slow down the Trump/Russia collusion investigation.

Comey should run against Trump in the 2020 primaries. His slogan will be lock him up, lock him up!

I will support that.

 

[charwin95]

Just like Trump blame somebody and not taking responsibility. So you are blaming the AG? So what was the reason why AG wants to canned Comey?

That's not acceptable go get me something else.

Reason? I posted the link earlier.

Here. Sorry, it's from NY Times.

Deputy Attorney General’s Memo Breaks Down Case Against Comey

Blaming the AG.
Still not acceptable------ Go get me something else.

I'm not blaming him, I'm saying he's spot on, but didn't go far enough, Comey should've been charged and hopefully jailed, along with Lynch.

I asked you a very simple question. So let me repeat it for you. Give me one good reason------ Why Trump fired Comey?
Don't give me Lynch and Comey because it has nothing to do what I'm asking you.

Go get me something else.

And I am repeating it to you and I posted the link for you, Trump fired him on the recommendation from Deputy AG and that's reason good enough.

But you keep repeating something that is not acceptable. Just because posted a link that doesn't mean it's acceptable or credible.

Go get me something else.

 

[toobfreak]

I was just listening to a report by Joe Concha of The Hill talking about this story and I read with amusement people still asking for a single reason why Trump fired Comey? Apparently totally unaware of his numerous legal and ethical violations of his office that has stymied maybe half a dozen investigations and ground them all to a halt seriously harming the FBI's integrity.

In March and April, Harvard did a poll asking the public its favorable impression of Mr. Comey. It came in at 17-18%. The same poll taken of the Democrats ranked him at 12%. Of course, those within the agency and surrounding it were terrified of the guy, it was leaked that even those who came on TV to debate the matter would not say certain things except during commercial breaks when they were off air. Apparently, he commanded more fear than the president.

Comey's announcements of last July and October made it clear the guy was not able to do his job. Then the democrats persisted in this Russia story. With Sessions recused and other people let go, a new Deputy AG was sworn in two weeks ago. An Obama appointee originally, he had a 94-6 bipartisan support. Reviewing the matter of Comey, he gave a recommendation that Comey should be let go.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have complained of his mishandling of several investigations and both sides wanted him gone. So now that Trump has carried that out, much to his surprise, both the democrats and media are now spinning it as though we were in DefCon 1. There is hysteria in the streets. Claims of cover-ups, though his replacement and removal shall cover up nothing.

People like Anderson Cooper as with much of the Left showing unprecedented unprofessionalism and disrespect rolling his eyes as his guests try to speak and explain. Now the question arises of WHY NOW? Bad timing to fire Comey! It must be a cover up!!! But what was the right time?

Had Trump fired Comey on Day One, he would have been accused of it being retribution for his letting Hillary off the hook. So then, maybe March? That would have been a better time! Nope! That was when Comey had just begun his investigation! So that was no good either. So now he does it in May after the recommendation of his new Deputy AG, and that is no good either. This from the media and democrats who have spent the past six months calling for his head on a stick blaming him for the entire Hillary loss.

 

[Ame®icano]

.... But what was the right time?

Had Trump fired Comey on Day One, he would have been accused of it being retribution for his letting Hillary off the hook. So then, maybe March? That would have been a better time! Nope! That was when Comey had just begun his investigation! So that was no good either. So now he does it in May after the recommendation of his new Deputy AG, and that is no good either. This from the media and democrats who have spent the past six months calling for his head on a stick blaming him for the entire Hillary loss.

 

[mudwhistle]