sleeper;1852157 wrote: But it's only because he started his job early. Incredible the lengths Republicans will go to defy reality and protect party over country.

gut;1852160 wrote:I'm only going off what James Clapper has said multiple times, including under oath to Congress - that he saw no evidence of collusion.

Yes, "starting the job early" was a violation of the Logan Act, though I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted for it. Also questions of improperly disclosing consulting fees in Russia & Turkey. He's such a sucker for not setting up a charity for that.

sleeper;1852158 wrote:Sorry you can't get laid bro. Try earning real money.

CenterBHSFan;1852170 wrote:Flynn: If he was compromised during the Obama Presidency, why did he still hold his clearance level?

Comey: Dems hate him because they think he caused Hillary the Presidency. So, that would make it seem (if they are absolutely correct in this) that Comey is Trump's guy. If that is so, why wouldn't Trump keep him in that position?

fish82;1852124 wrote:Risky move by Trump doing this without first getting permission from a random federal judge in Hawaii.

sleeper;1852158 wrote:Sorry you can't get laid bro. Try earning real money.

QuakerOats;1852200 wrote:Sorry you have to pay for sex .............tough one

CenterBHSFan;1852170 wrote:Comey: Dems hate him because they think he caused Hillary the Presidency. So, that would make it seem (if they are absolutely correct in this) that Comey is Trump's guy. If that is so, why wouldn't Trump keep him in that position?

sleeper;1852190 wrote:Dems don't like Comey but firing the lead investigator that's investigating you by the guy who recused himself from involvement in the investigation is a little fishy at best. But yes, let's continue to focus on Obama.

sleeper;1852204 wrote:I'll wait for o-trap to explain why metaphorically you are wrong and we can waste 30 posts discussing it.

gut;1852220 wrote:....but when neither side really trusts you then you're also clearly doing something wrong.

gut;1852220 wrote:I think there definitely is an argument to be made that Comey had damaged the credibility/fairness/objectivity of the FBI. There's that old argument that when both sides hate you, you must be doing something right....but when neither side really trusts you then you're also clearly doing something wrong.

I think he was put in an impossible situation. Hillary certainly would have replaced him, and Trump probably should have done the same when he took office. I don't agree with the firing, but I also don't know that he could recover the integrity of the office after mismanaging the optics on several issues.

fish82;1852236 wrote:Pretty much this. The only thing really questionable here is the timing.

Plus, let's not act like the dumbass #ScaryRussians investigation isn't going to go forward either way. The democrat party has their horse firmly hooked to that wagon, cliff be damned.

fish82;1852236 wrote:Pretty much this. The only thing really questionable here is the timing.

Plus, let's not act like the dumbass #ScaryRussians investigation isn't going to go forward either way. The democrat party has their horse firmly hooked to that wagon, cliff be damned.

O-Trap;1852239 wrote: I hardly think an investigation into the ethics of public servants at the federal level qualifies as heading toward a cliff, either.

sleeper;1852241 wrote:I'm glad at least one party is choosing country over party. It's a shame Republicans are more interested in obfuscation than protecting the office of the President from foreign influence.

O-Trap;1852239 wrote:I mean, whether or not it goes somewhere, the person being looked into is the one appointing the replacement.

O-Trap;1852239 wrote:Has to get Senate approval, of course, but what luck that the Senate majority is tied to the same party.

O-Trap;1852239 wrote:I hardly think an investigation into the ethics of public servants at the federal level qualifies as heading toward a cliff, either.

sleeper;1852241 wrote:I'm glad at least one party is choosing country over party. It's a shame Republicans are more interested in obfuscation than protecting the office of the President from foreign influence.

Keep defending it though!

gut;1852243 wrote:Don't kid yourself. If Hillary had won, we'd be investigating her pay-for-play "charity" and the shoe would be on the other foot.

gut;1852242 wrote:But, at the same time, Repubs weren't happy with the answers and investigations into the leaks/unmasking. It's illegal, and it's a means of political assassination so you could understand why many in Washington would be extremely concerned (Dems, too, if they weren't chasing their own version of birthergate).

gut;1852242 wrote:I also don't think that the two issues are completely separate, either. I don't think you can investigate a potential abuse of power and illegal leaks without digging into every angle of the Russia thing.

gut;1852242 wrote:But, at the same time, Repubs weren't happy with the answers and investigations into the leaks/unmasking. It's illegal, and it's a means of political assassination so you could understand why many in Washington would be extremely concerned (Dems, too, if they weren't chasing their own version of birthergate).

I also don't think that the two issues are completely separate, either. I don't think you can investigate a potential abuse of power and illegal leaks without digging into every angle of the Russia thing.

From a political standpoint, it certainly does. The Russia meme has been a joke from the beginning...there's simply nothing there. The list of things to dislike Trump over is long, but this isn't one of them.