patrick.net

joeyjojojunior says

Dems are saying the timing is fishy.

Trump should have 1)Fired comey, or 2)Not fired comey?

There's only two possible answers.

YesYNot says

How did this thread get -28 in the like/unlike category?

@Patrick - Good Question!

joeyjojojunior says

Who switched their tune? Can you provide some names and quotes? Dems are saying the timing is fishy.

You keep asking for quotes. There has been abundant quotes just in this one post which is pretty much every Dem Leader, also John Podesta, Olberman, and other Dem Media/Activist screenshots of "Before and After".

Can't find my other post, but I repeat this article:

Here are some criticisms of Comey by Democrats (and one independent) before he was fired:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York

"I do not have confidence in him any longer," Schumer told Bloomberg on Nov. 2.

"To restore my faith, I am going to have to sit down and talk to him and get an explanation for why he did this," he added.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California

"Maybe he's not in the right job," she said to CNN on Nov. 2. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."

Pelosi continued that Comey's letter to Congress about the review of Clinton's emails was a "mistake."

Former Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada

In October, Reid suggested Comey's actions "demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information" and may have violated "the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election," in a letter to the director.

Reid wrote that he has "been a supporter" of Comey's and "led the fight" to get him confirmed, as he believed Comey was a "principled public servant."

"With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong," Reid added.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Sanders told ABC News just before Trump's inauguration that it "would not be a bad thing for the American people" if Comey stepped down.

"I think that Comey acted in an outrageous way during the campaign," said Sanders. "No one can say that this was decisive or this is what elected Trump, but clearly his behavior during the campaign in terms of what he said during the week or two before the election was unacceptable."

At the time, Sanders decried that there was no investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, a situation that has changed.

Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee

In October, Cohen called on Comey to "resign his position effective immediately."

"If Director Comey cares about the bureau and the rule of law … I'm sure upon reflection of this action, he will submit his letter of resignation for the nation's good," Cohen wrote.

He bashed Comey's letter as "plainly premature, careless and unprecedented."

"Trump should have 1)Fired comey, or 2)Not fired comey? There's only two possible answers."

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Most smart people can see nuance and don't live in a black or white world

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York

"The president can fire him for cause and ought to. He violated all the guidelines and put his thumb on the scale of an election. Whether it was decisive or not is a different question," Nadler told CNN on Nov. 14.

Rep. Maxine Waters of California

"All I can tell you is the FBI director has no credibility. That's it," Waters told reporters after leaving a Jan. 13 classified briefing on Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

In an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, she argued that Trump should not have fired Comey in the middle of the Russia probe and as a result "basically has interfered with an investigation where he may be implicated."

Waters added, "If [Clinton] had won the White House, I believe that, given what he did to her and what he tried to do, she should have fired him."

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia

"My confidence in the FBI director's ability to lead this agency has been shaken," said Johnson, after the Jan. 13 closed-door briefing on the Russia investigation for House members.

In a statement released Wednesday, he called Comey's firing "unwarranted" and argued it "suggests an attempt to squelch an investigation in an effort to cover up wrongdoing."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida

"I think Director Comey has taken enough actions that call into question his ability to continue to serve credibly," she said during a CNN appearance on Jan. 17. "I would lean in the direction that he no longer is able to serve in a neutral and credible way."

After Comey's firing, Wasserman Schultz, a former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said that it was "a dark day for justice in America."

"You keep asking for quotes. There has been abundant quotes just in this one post which is pretty much every Dem Leader, also John Podesta, Olberman, and other Dem Media/Activist screenshots of "Before and After".

Can't find my other post, but I repeat this article"

OK--but who switched their tune?? I see no quotes saying Comey shouldn't have been fired. That's what I'm asking for. You keep claiming people changed. All I see if people who dislike the way Comey handled the Clinton investigation. I don't see anyone saying Comey is great--he shouldn't have been fired.

The Democrats expressed disappointment to the point of encouraging Obama to get rid of Comey, calling for his resignation, and otherwise suggesting he was unfit for his office.

Now, they are angry he got fired.

There's no pivot to spin on here. At best they were skeptical of Comey, others wanted him to resign or be fired. Now most of these same people are screaming that he was fired.

The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President.

The 10-year term is not to protect the FBI, but the Politicians against another Hoover - that no matter what, and FBI Director can only serve for 10 years. So even if they get the dirt on everybody like the Canadian Crossdresser, they still can't do more than 10 years.

joeyjojojunior says

"Trump should have 1)Fired comey, or 2)Not fired comey? There's only two possible answers."

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Most smart people can see nuance and don't live in a black or white world

No, trump had two choices. What should trump have done? What would you have done in his situation?

Your lack of a right vs wrong choice proves trump can do nothing right in your eyes. This is pure hysteria w zero factual support.

Or try telling us what trump should have done different.

joeyjojojunior says

I see no quotes saying Comey shouldn't have been fired.

Do you think he should have been fired?

Jojo is just trolling now. Classic asking for evidence, ignoring or criticizing the evidence or asking for additional evidence when a simple google search would educate him plenty.
Jojo, go get an education and come back when you're more informed and less stupid.

https://twitter.com/Pamela_Moore13/status/862107590003748864

CNN: Do you have evidence of Trump administration/Russia collusion?
Democrat Senator: We have none at this time.
CNN: Well I know the investigation is continuing... thanks for talking to us.

CNN is fake news. There is zero evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. Every single authority to answer that question directly has said the same thing. "WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION."

Quigley says

Jojo is just trolling now.

Like a lot of hillary bots, his ego is tied into this russia narrative. Otherwise they'd have to admit they are playing on the wrong side...This is a level of realism they simply can not fathom. Its easier to believe in a Russian boogeyman, than admit they arent the morally righteous team.

This is what happens when every MSM outlet becomes a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment.

The sooner these tards wake up the sooner we can MAGA.

"Now, they are angry he got fired"

They are?? This is what I've been asking for repeatedly. Please show me one Dem. Congressman or woman who is quoted saying they are disappointed Comey got fired.

Not disappointed at the timing, but genuinely disappointed that he got fired at all.

"No, trump had two choices"

Ridiculous. There are always other choices. Trump could have fired him 100 days ago. That's another choice.

joeyjojojunior says

"Now, they are angry he got fired"

Learn to use the quote button. Your posts are difficult to decipher w/o knowing who you are quoting.

joeyjojojunior says

Not disappointed at the timing, but genuinely disappointed that he got fired at all.

This is a difference without distinction.

"Do you think he should have been fired?"

I think he bungled the Clinton investigation for certain. But I don't know if that was a one off or if there was systematic failings in the FBI that were Comey's fault. So, I'm certainly not close enough to the situation to make that call.

"This is a difference without distinction."

Obviously I would use the quote button if it worked. It is a huge difference with a huge distinction. The fact that you cannot grasp it is your failing, not mine.

"CNN is fake news. There is zero evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. Every single authority to answer that question directly has said the same thing. "WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.""

Then why is anyone afraid of a true investigation that would clear Trump once and for all? Let's get a special prosecutor that can put this to bed! Why don't any Republicans want this?

joeyjojojunior says

Trump could have fired him 100 days ago. That's another choice.

You would rather Trump fire him before any of his administration is even approved? Before he has a chance to seek the advise of his team?

Total nonsense. Also, the way comey continued to make the same mistakes AND righteously defended them a few days before he was fired is a big deal. Comey was dangerous, he was sloppy, and he was egotistical. We dont have time for that.

Firing Comey was the easy decision. Tapping his replacement is the tough choice.

"Jojo is just trolling now. Classic asking for evidence, ignoring or criticizing the evidence or asking for additional evidence when a simple google search would educate him plenty.
Jojo, go get an education and come back when you're more informed and less stupid."

lol---I'm the troll? If a simple google search would give me what I'm asking for--why haven't you or anyone else done it?

"You would rather Trump fire him before any of his administration is even approved?"

What does it matter whether any of his administration is approved? He didn't like the way the Clinton investigation was handled, so fire him then. Why wait 100+ days?

joeyjojojunior says

Let's get a special prosecutor that can put this to bed!

Remember when Trump mentioned his judge may not be unbiased, and the MSM went crazy? Why do you think it's ok to question the system now?

You dont get to create special processes when things look like they arent going your way.

Regardless, a prosecution requires evidence. We currently have none.

joeyjojojunior says

lol---I'm the troll? If a simple google search would give me what I'm asking for--why haven't you or anyone else done it?

You want us to find evidence of no evidence? If you claim there is evidence, its your job to show your links. So far, you posted one misinterpreted quote from Comey wherein he says he is investigating Russia.

"You want us to find evidence of no evidence? If you claim there is evidence, its your job to show your links. So far, you posted one misinterpreted quote from Comey wherein he says he is investigating Russia."

Nope-I've never asked for that. I have shown the links and the quotes. I've shown links with some evidence. So, clearly evidence exists. You can call it untrustworthy if you like, but you can't claim that it doesn't exist.

joeyjojojunior says

Why wait 100+ days?

taking advice from your advisors is what a president does. Absolutely crazy to expect a president to walk in and fire the FBI director, w/o learning all the facts available to a president.

Also, Comey fucked up again and showed no signs of adjusting his behavior going forward.

Your timing narrative is a lie. Nothing there.

"Remember when Trump mentioned his judge may not be unbiased, and the MSM went crazy? Why do you think it's ok to question the system now? You dont get to create special processes when things look like they arent going your way. Regardless, a prosecution requires evidence. We currently have none."

Wow--you're losing it now. Trump claimed a judge was biased because of his family's race. People rightly were appalled.

I'm claiming that Republicans leading the investigation into a Republican President are inherently biased. Not even remotely the same thing.

And an investigation is what produces evidence that can be used much later if a prosecution is warranted. You need to learn the difference between investigation and prosecution.

"Your timing narrative is a lie. Nothing there."

All I've said is it's suspicious. That is most definitely not a lie. Let's investigate and you can prove me wrong.

I'd be happier if Trump had been open and honest about the reasons that he fired Comey. I'd be happier if those reasons had merit.
Instead, he and his 'team' hid in the bushes and told us a variety of stories on why he fired Comey. The reasons that he settled on were to contradictory to bother trying to summarize. You can read it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/transcript-donald-trump-nbc-news/

There's one thing he's right about. Neither he nor his team can come up with a reasonable explanation verbally, so they should stick to written words, and have a lawyer compose the statements. At least that way, they will make sense. OTOH, if he had competent people explaining the truth in the press conferences, there wouldn't be any problem. Unfortunately, that is too much to ask from the Trump administration.

joeyjojojunior says

Wow--you're losing it now. Trump claimed a judge was biased because of his family's race. People rightly were appalled.

I'm claiming that Republicans leading the investigation into a Republican President are inherently biased. Not even remotely the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing. Does the authority figure have a bias towards his own team or not? In trump's case, that judge was proven to have connections to La Raza. Trump was proven accurate in his claim.

Your hypocrisy is noted...again.

joeyjojojunior says

I'm claiming that Republicans leading the investigation into a Republican President are inherently biased. Not even remotely the same thing.

The FBI is not republican. Its the unbiased, non political FBI. If a director shows bias, get rid of him. If not, you're questioning the new FBI director's integrity w zero evidence. This is every bit as appalling as what Trump did to that Mexican judge.

EXCEPT Trump had good reasons to accuse that Judge, given the judge was a member of La Raza.

You dont even know who the new director is yet, and you are claiming bias. This is nothing short of a total meltdown.

Unless Trump nominates David Duke or Alex Jones, you have no right to demand input over who the prosecutor should be. To question the integrity of this honorable official yet-to-be-named should make rational people "appalled". Either you agree w me, or you are a hypocrite. Which is it?

joeyjojojunior says

Let's get a special prosecutor

joeyjojojunior says

You need to learn the difference between investigation and prosecution.

Um? who are you talking to? Neither is acceptable, tbc. Which of your fever dreams are we discussing? A special prosecutor, or a special investigation? Also, tell us what pattern of behavior the new head of FBI has shown to justify a special anything?

"EXCEPT Trump had good reasons to accuse that Judge, given the judge was a member of La Raza."

And it's clear where you get your news...

joeyjojojunior says

"EXCEPT Trump had good reasons to accuse that Judge, given the judge was a member of La Raza."

And it's clear where you get your news...

You consistently think you know things that you dont. Your trigger word seems to be "clear." Whenever you say something is "clear" you mean you have a clear fantasy in your head.

"Um? who are you talking to?"

Uh, you. A special prosecutor investigates and then prosecutes if evidence warrants. It's actually called a special counsel now so I should have used the new term.

"You consistently think you know things that you don't"

That's funny because it's you who are always making the declarations and me who is saying that things aren't black and white. You say there is no evidence. I say, actually there is some evidence but it may not be credible. We need to do more investigating.

You say they are NOT investigating Trump. I say--they are investigating Trump Administration and we don't really know for sure what they've found, so it's not right to say anything for certain.

All I'm saying is let's get to the bottom of this. What are you afraid of?

literally one quick google search, proving you are a troll https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2016/06/07/the-donald--the-la-raza-judge-n2174441

Regardless, either you accept the integrity of trump's new head of fbi choice, or you are an appalling bigot.

Or -- explain why you feel its totes cool to question the honor of a US official?

Like I said--you get your news from Pat Buchanan. That was my point.

"Regardless, either you accept the integrity of trump's new head of fbi choice, or you are an appalling bigot."

Wow--an appalling bigot? Someone is triggered.

joeyjojojunior says

Like I said--you get your news from Pat Buchanan. That was my point.

"Regardless, either you accept the integrity of trump's new head of fbi choice, or you are an appalling bigot."

Wow--an appalling bigot? Someone is triggered.

Notice you can't address the facts, or make a choice. The cognitive dissonance you are experience should tell you something.

"Notice you can't address the facts, or make a choice"

What facts and what choice? wtf are you talking about?

CBOEtrader says

either you accept the integrity of trump's new head of fbi choice, or you are an appalling bigot.

Or -- explain why you feel its totes cool to question the honor of a US official?