Mueller early draft on firing of Comey.............

it's not that complicated to parse the rhyme and reason of it all...

unless you're a dishonest dumbo hack. enjoy!

Same could be said other way around.
Would it not have been exactly the same thing if Obama fired Comey during Clinton investigations? That's what the Democrats wanted....demanded.
But whatever...again...it is CNN saying this. And they are not exactly Trumps ally.
 
LOL, and Comey subsequently told Trump 3 times he was NOT a target of any investigation. You crap doesn't hold water child.


.


you clearly don't grasp what comey told him vs what comey did NOT tell him.

either you don't get it, or you're lying... take your pick.

THEN mr trump obstructed justice which changed everything! :eusa_clap:


Wow, do you have some magic source or decoder ring or something to know what Comey didn't tell Trump? I know what Comey testified to and Senators Fienstien and Grassley confirmed that Trump is not a target. Comey also testified that Trump didn't tell him to stop any investigation in his verbiage, Trump is not responsible for Coemy's perceptions. So your obstruction fantasy is nothing but smoke.


.
 
comey had told trump that he wasn't PERSONALLY under investigation (at the time)...

...which is NOT the same thing as his campaign or his administration being under investigation.

and NOW they are ALL under investigation.

glad we cleared that up. :thup:
 
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

As said by an anonymous source to NYT.
White House doesn't dispute Trump called Comey a 'nut job' to Russians

And?
What if he did? Is that against some law? Does that somehow prove he fired him unconstitutionally?
trumpanzee excuse #7.....
 
what comey did was a necessary legal mechanism used to do his job and defend his country...



Fordham law school professor: “This should not be called a leak”


Shugerman pointed out that Comey described in his testimony on Thursday how he had taken care not to put classified material in the memo in question. The memo recounted how Trump had directed Comey, as Comey understood it, to end an investigation of the former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The president called Comey 'a leaker', but is there any legal case against him?
Fucking Liars all of you. Comey is a liar, you are a liar, The Columbia Professor is a Liar, and what Comey did was not only Lie, he committed Treason.

Private Communications with The President are by default confidential and covered under executive privilege.

Not only that, but Comey the Obama cum guzzling snake he is, said he typed these memos on FBI time, in an FBI car, on an FBI secured laptop.

It's a Government Document.

He not only violated espionage laws, he violated the confidentiality agreements ALL FBI agents have to sign when they first join THE FBI.

This fucker needs to do the honorable thing and whack himself, not whack off to his image on the cover of his own shitty book.
And this one is trumpanzee excuse #5
 
Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions

The curious link between Trump's Moscow tower deal and a Ukraine "peace plan"




Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election


"The Russian active measures campaign may have begun as early as 2015
, when Russian intelligence services launched a series of spear fishing attacks designed to penetrate the computers of a broad array of Washington based Democratic and Republican party organizations, think tanks and other entities. This continued at least through the winter of 2016.

While at first the hacking may have been intended solely for the collection of foreign intelligence. In mid-2016 the Russians weapon eyes the stolen data and used platforms established by the Intel services, such as D.C. leaks in existing third-party channels like WikiLeaks to dump the documents. The stolen documents were almost uniformly damaging to the candidate Putin despised, Hillary Clinton. And by forcing her campaign to constantly respond to the daily drip of disclosures, the releases greatly benefited Donald Trump's campaign.

None of these facts is seriously in question. And they're reflected in the consensus conclusion of our intelligence agencies.

We will never know whether the Russian intervention was determinative in such a close election. Indeed, it is unknowable in a campaign to which so many small changes could have dictated a different result. More importantly, and for the purposes of our investigation, it simply does not matter.

What does matter is this, the Russians successfully meddled in our democracy and our intelligence agencies have concluded they will do so again. Ours is not the first democracy to be attacked by the Russians in this way. Russian intelligence has been simile interfering in the internal and political affairs of our European and other allies for decades.


SCHIFF: What is striking here is the degree to which the Russians were willing to undertake such an audacious and risky action against the most powerful nation on Earth. That ought to be a warning to us that if we thought that the Russians would not dare to so blatantly interfere in our affairs, we were wrong.

And if we do not do our very best to understand how the Russians accomplished this unprecedented attack on our democracy and what we need to do to protect ourselves in the future, we will only have ourselves to blame.

We know a lot about the Russian operation, about the way they amplified the damage their hacking and dumping of stolen documents was causing through the use of slick propaganda like R.T., the Kremlin's media arm. But there is a lot we don't know.

Most important, we do not yet know whether the Russians have the help of U.S. citizens including people associated with the Trump campaign. Many of the Trump's campaign personnel, including the president himself, have ties to Russia and Russian interests. This is of course no crime. On the other hand, if the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it aided or abetted the Russians, it would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of democracy in history."





Screen-Shot-2017-04-22-at-7.18.04-PM.jpg


August 28, 2017


The e-mails show that, from the earliest months of Trump’s campaign, his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.

A business associate of President Trump promised in 2015 to engineer a real estate deal with the aid of the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, that he said would help Trump win the presidency.

The business associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of e-mails to Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Putin and predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would be a political boon to Trump’s candidacy.


“Buddy our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Sater wrote in an e-mail. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

‘Our boy can become president . . . and we can engineer it,’ Trump ally said of Russia deal - The Boston Globe
 
......... nada. Nothing burger based on early word from CNN.
Several key points...
1) Witnesses stated Trump wanted to fire Comey on day one, only hesitated for political reasons. That is big. It was not as if he suddenly wanted to fire Comey based on the investigation, but stated to advisors he wanted to get rid of him basically as soon as he took office.
2) No sign that he went beyond his constitutional rights in the firing.
3) He was openly criticizing Comey to his inner circle during the campaign, even though he benefited from Comey's actions right before election day, he questioned the timing.

So...move along nothing to see here, based on early reports on the draft letter.
Well well well. We'll see if it's true that Trump fired Comey because he was being soft on Hillary Clinton.

Don't get me wrong. It is possible that Trump fired Comey because Trump thought Comey was soft on Hillary.

But we have a draft. And Trump cannot make stuff up. And if it turns out that Comey mentioned the Russia investigation at all in this draft, we are in Obstruction of Justice territory.

Stay tuned.
 
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

As said by an anonymous source to NYT.
White House doesn't dispute Trump called Comey a 'nut job' to Russians

And?
What if he did? Is that against some law? Does that somehow prove he fired him unconstitutionally?
If Trump
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

As said by an anonymous source to NYT.
White House doesn't dispute Trump called Comey a 'nut job' to Russians

And?
What if he did? Is that against some law? Does that somehow prove he fired him unconstitutionally?
If Trump doesn't prove that he fired Comey for a reason other than Russia, he risks being charged with Obstruction of Justice.
 
......... nada. Nothing burger based on early word from CNN.
Several key points...
1) Witnesses stated Trump wanted to fire Comey on day one, only hesitated for political reasons. That is big. It was not as if he suddenly wanted to fire Comey based on the investigation, but stated to advisors he wanted to get rid of him basically as soon as he took office.
2) No sign that he went beyond his constitutional rights in the firing.
3) He was openly criticizing Comey to his inner circle during the campaign, even though he benefited from Comey's actions right before election day, he questioned the timing.

So...move along nothing to see here, based on early reports on the draft letter.

Please post links to your proof for 1) and 3) --

and since you haven't seen the letter, you can't prove 2) either so… FAIL…
 
comey had told trump that he wasn't PERSONALLY under investigation (at the time)...

...which is NOT the same thing as his campaign or his administration being under investigation.

and NOW they are ALL under investigation.

glad we cleared that up. :thup:

What was it you said about "parsing"?
 
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

As said by an anonymous source to NYT.
White House doesn't dispute Trump called Comey a 'nut job' to Russians

And?
What if he did? Is that against some law? Does that somehow prove he fired him unconstitutionally?
trumpanzee excuse #7.....

I am not a Trump fan.
You know there is something in between foam-at-the-mouth hatred for someone and idol-ism.
 
Comey should just Whack Himself. He is that disreputable. An Honorable Man in a more Honorable Time, would do The Honorable thing for disgracing himself, his country, and his profession.

Funny that's how normal Americans feel about Trump.

But we knew he wan't honorable.

Just the opposite.
 
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

As said by an anonymous source to NYT.
White House doesn't dispute Trump called Comey a 'nut job' to Russians

And?
What if he did? Is that against some law? Does that somehow prove he fired him unconstitutionally?
If Trump
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

As said by an anonymous source to NYT.
White House doesn't dispute Trump called Comey a 'nut job' to Russians

And?
What if he did? Is that against some law? Does that somehow prove he fired him unconstitutionally?
If Trump doesn't prove that he fired Comey for a reason other than Russia, he risks being charged with Obstruction of Justice.

Are you really this stupid?
 
If Trump doesn't prove that he fired Comey for a reason other than Russia, he risks being charged with Obstruction of Justice.

We may never know WHY Trump fired Comey, but we will be able to check off an endless string of disproved reasons.
Fired because of Rosenstein recommendation - DISPROVEN
Fired because of handling Clinton emails - DISPROVEN

Of course, even the disproved reasons may be disproved later.
 

Forum List

Back
Top