-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Seriously, who gives a shit. Like the Russians hacking the election, this will go nowhere. Why waste your time.
Just count to ten and wait for the next "scandal" from Herr HitlerTrump and his Nazi regime.
The reality is that there is actually zero evidence that Trump and his team colluded with Russia, after all these months and all this attention... we still have precisely nothing linking Trump with Russia.
That isnt my opinion.That is what Clapper and the Democrats under oath who have seen the 'evidence' have said.All f this hysteria is just a left wing media and establishment frenzy.
Imagine if the Russian govt had financially contributed to Trumps campaign.
oh wait.... Obama got the US govt to contribute to the Israeli opposition party during its last election...
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Seriously, who gives a shit. Like the Russians hacking the election, this will go nowhere. Why waste your time.
Just count to ten and wait for the next "scandal" from Herr HitlerTrump and his Nazi regime.
The reality is that there is actually zero evidence that Trump and his team colluded with Russia, after all these months and all this attention... we still have precisely nothing linking Trump with Russia.
That isnt my opinion.That is what Clapper and the Democrats under oath who have seen the 'evidence' have said.All f this hysteria is just a left wing media and establishment frenzy.
Imagine if the Russian govt had financially contributed to Trumps campaign.
oh wait.... Obama got the US govt to contribute to the Israeli opposition party during its last election...
Lets just assume Trump dumped Comey to quash an investigation about him being Putins cock holster. Well the acting head is married to a buddy of the Clintons. So, yeah that will stop them from revealing his connection to the peeing prostitutes.
This is a waste of time.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?All sounds very much like this explanation I read earlier "that is all just fodder for conspiracy theory, not much different to having facts that kids get autism soon after the MMR jab... therefore ...."
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
The reality is that there is actually zero evidence that Trump and his team colluded with Russia, after all these months and all this attention... we still have precisely nothing linking Trump with Russia.
That isnt my opinion.That is what Clapper and the Democrats under oath who have seen the 'evidence' have said.Except Clapper hasn't seen anything at all. The FBI were doing the investigation and he was not party to it.
"At the May 8 hearing, Clapper said he wasn’t even aware of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives until March 20. He then explained why he would not have known that when he was the director of national intelligence.
Clapper, May 8: When the intelligence community obtains information suggesting that a U.S. person is acting on behalf of a foreign power, the standard procedure is to share that information with the lead investigatory body, which of course is the FBI. The bureau then decides whether to look into that information and handles any ensuing investigation if there is one. Given its sensitivity, even the existence of a counterintelligence investigation’s closely held, including at the highest levels.
During my tenure as DNI, it was my practice to defer to the FBI director, both Director Mueller and then subsequently Director Comey, on whether, when and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations. This stems from the unique position of the FBI, which straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. And as a consequence, I was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation Director Comey first referred to during his testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence on the 20th of March, and that comports with my public statements."
So it kind of is 'your opinion'. Clapper has clarified what his comments meant and has made it clear that they do not mean that no evidence exists.
Remember that Clapper's investigation were around Russian interference. At the time of his report in January no one was even investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia.As for the other Democrats you mention. They were briefed by Comey confidentially. I have no idea where you have seen them break the security classification of that meeting to explain what is or isn't in the evidence. I'd be happy if you could provide a reference.
Regardless of any outcome of an investigation Trump has admitted himself that he would have fired Comey anyway and Rosenstein's memo doesn't matter. So the fact is that Comey had pissed Trump off and Trump got rid of him. Pretty dumb thing to do when the guy is investigating your campaign as part of a bigger picture. Trump doesn't even care that the democratic process of the country was played with by a foreign power. Whether it had tangible effect is moot. He should be highly pissed off and supporting investigations. instead he is highly pissed off with leaks that make him look silly (although he has two press muppets that do that job admirably anyway).
I can only imagine the 180 degree change in your opinion on Trumps behaviour if he was left leaning.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?All sounds very much like this explanation I read earlier "that is all just fodder for conspiracy theory, not much different to having facts that kids get autism soon after the MMR jab... therefore ...."
In case anyone forgot, Trumps not a fan of mmr and thinks it might cause autism.
-
And if he was left leaning you still would have written that lengthy essay and spent large amounts of your time researching something that will lead nowhere?
If and when there's a genuine scandal, no one will care because the weakly furore over Trump will have made them immune.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?All sounds very much like this explanation I read earlier "that is all just fodder for conspiracy theory, not much different to having facts that kids get autism soon after the MMR jab... therefore ...."
I think it is quite a remarkable coincidence. That an Obama appointee never once refuses to argue an executive order .. despite a number being proven unconstitutional. later. Yet that is her defense for not arguing for Trump. Lol..
-
There's quite a difference between Trump not colluding with the Russians and the Russians trying to influence the election . I very much doubt Trump was directly helped by the Russians but to say they didn't try and affect the outcome is a stretch.
I'm sure if Russia was a free and open democratic country the yanks would probably do the same to them .
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
There's quite a difference between Trump not colluding with the Russians and the Russians trying to influence the election . I very much doubt Trump was directly helped by the Russians but to say they didn't try and affect the outcome is a stretch.
I'm sure if Russia was a free and open democratic country the yanks would probably do the same to them .
They try to influence elections all the time, I gave an example of the Israeli election. They US govt gave money to the opposition.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I can only imagine the 180 degree change in your opinion on Trumps behaviour if he was left leaning.
Timely reminder to everyone to keep this on the topic and not about the poster. I am sure some mods are just itching to lock this thread again.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?All sounds very much like this explanation I read earlier "that is all just fodder for conspiracy theory, not much different to having facts that kids get autism soon after the MMR jab... therefore ...."
I think it is quite a remarkable coincidence. That an Obama appointee never once refuses to argue an executive order .. despite a number being proven unconstitutional. later. Yet that is her defense for not arguing for Trump. Lol..
So coincidences are fine when they suit?
A couple of pages back that quote above was your retort to my comment that it was a fact that Trump campaigners had discussions with Russian officials that they lied about, and it was also a fact that Russia attempted to interfere with the election. A coincidence that seems worthy of investigation.
I am reasonably sure that the Obama orders deemed unconstitutional were done so at the Supreme Court. I'm also reasonably sure that it took this highest court time to deliberate and judge their validity.
The Immigration Ban order was so poorly written and so obviously clashed with other laws in place that it was indefensible.Doesn't actually matter anyway. Trump admits that he gets rid of people he doesn't like and I concede he has that power. All it proves to me is that he throws tanties when he doesn't like what he is hearing. That is a conclusion borne out by numerous 'leaks' or stories coming from the White House staff.
I simply don't think it is the way a POTUS should behave especially it is indicative of his actions under stress. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I am reasonably sure that the Obama orders deemed unconstitutional were done so at the Supreme Court. I'm also reasonably sure that it took this highest court time to deliberate and judge their validity.
The Immigration Ban order was so poorly written and so obviously clashed with other laws in place that it was indefensible.Factually wrong. Proven by the fact it was defended successfully in front of at least 1 federal judge.
And the EO passed vetting by the DOJ so what exactly are you basing your assertion that it was poorly written on? -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Doesn't actually matter anyway. Trump admits that he gets rid of people he doesn't like and I concede he has that power. All it proves to me is that he throws tanties when he doesn't like what he is hearing. That is a conclusion borne out by numerous 'leaks' or stories coming from the White House staff.
I simply don't think it is the way a POTUS should behave especially it is indicative of his actions under stress.Every president gets rid of political appointees he doesn't like! As for 'leaks and stories'... I don't believe much of that anymore, to much falsehood and bias in the media.
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
There's quite a difference between Trump not colluding with the Russians and the Russians trying to influence the election
A very important point
Also worth noting that the Russian influence was quite wide, Trump, Hillary and Stein all have some questionable links with Russia (I guess Johnson should be offended no one cared enough about him?)
The idea that they are promoting chaos in US political discourse is starting to make more sense. Stein's pro Putin positions really didn't fit with her party and then she pushed for the recount.
Russia's oval office photo stunt yesterday certainly wasn't designed to help Trump, it seemed to be designed to increase conflict.So rather than a particular policy outcome, are they just trying to keep USA divided, distracted and therefore weaker?
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
There's quite a difference between Trump not colluding with the Russians and the Russians trying to influence the election
A very important point
Also worth noting that the Russian influence was quite wide, Trump, Hillary and Stein all have some questionable links with Russia (I guess Johnson should be offended no one cared enough about him?)
The idea that they are promoting chaos in US political discourse is starting to make more sense. Stein's pro Putin positions really didn't fit with her party and then she pushed for the recount.
Russia's oval office photo stunt yesterday certainly wasn't designed to help Trump, it seemed to be designed to increase conflict.
So rather than a particular policy outcome, are they just trying to keep USA divided, distracted and therefore weaker?Good point Duluth. IIRC someone posted an article outlining Russia's playbook for trying to deal with the US, shying away from head on Military face-offs where they are weaker and instead trying to destabilise them and their allies in NATO and using clandestine tactics (militarily like Ukraine, hacking like the USA and France) to achieve their aims
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
There's quite a difference between Trump not colluding with the Russians and the Russians trying to influence the election . I very much doubt Trump was directly helped by the Russians but to say they didn't try and affect the outcome is a stretch.
very different things indeed - and no proof whatsoever at this point - but when you assume the russians are trying to influence things and you have two senior trump people caught lying about their meetings with russians, i think that is something worth investigating.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
Apparently sources inside the White House say that Rosenstein was asked by the Prez to provide a memo outlining Comey's performance over the Clinton email scandal on Monday. Rosenstein obliged but did not recommend Comey be fired, but the memo apparently formed the basis of Trump's decision to fire Comey a few days later. Sean White intimated that Rosenstein was central to the decision to fire but apparently Rosenstein threatened to resign after being cast in that light. It's all over the web but surely it must be false news
And it turns out ... surprise surprise that the report that Rosentein threatened to resign was FAKE NEWS.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Doesn't actually matter anyway. Trump admits that he gets rid of people he doesn't like and I concede he has that power. All it proves to me is that he throws tanties when he doesn't like what he is hearing. That is a conclusion borne out by numerous 'leaks' or stories coming from the White House staff.
I simply don't think it is the way a POTUS should behave especially it is indicative of his actions under stress.Every president gets rid of political appointees he doesn't like!
I think it is noteworthy that Comey is only the second FBI director to be fired (Sessions was fired by Bill Clinton for a slew of unethical actions centred around using public funds for his personal enrichment and left a bureau demoralized and a mess from his behaviour), and in Trump's words for being a "showboat". Considering the appointment is for 11 years (?) there have been many directors installed by one president only to work for another. In the case of Hoover he worked under many from both sides of the aisle. IMHO partisanship in the position has been greatly overstated, despite the fact that I think Comey was a dick he appears to have been well regarded by the bureau if comments by the assistant Director (under oath) are to be believed
-
The Russians are being very cheeky indeed
http://nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11854580
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And it turns out ... surprise surprise that the report that Rosentein threatened to resign was FAKE NEWS.
you mean fake news like the original white house story that the firing was as a result of the investigation from rosenstein - contradicted via the horse's mouth?
US Politics