Okay so, unambiguously, you are stating that there is nothing questionable, unreasonable, nor worrying if a police chief asks one of his SVU officers to print out and sign certificates for the women that the chief wants to date which state, “This man is not currently under investigation for any sexual crimes against women.”, and then fire that officer when he does not rush to perform this act?
You’re poisoning the well here. Trump didn’t want this “for the women he wanted to date”. He wanted it out there to counter the campaign of rumors from “anonymous sources” in the media.
So yes - I, unambiguously, state that there is nothing questionable, unreasonable nor worrying if a police chief, after a campaign of rumors in the press about it, asks one of his SVU officers to print out and sign a certificate that says that the police chief is not under investigation for anything. And fires such officer if the officer refuses (and of course, if there is actually no such investigation).
As someone who would rather have the FBI protect me from corrupt politicians, foreign subterfuge, and sham elections, I’m not seeing any reasonable difference. One would assume that a police chief would want his SVU officer to issue these proclamations on the basis of similar rumors, going around town, that a large number of women were contending that he was a rapist, anonymously, to the local press.
Personally, I would not want my daughter to date that particular police chief.
Congratulations on being consistent then. If you feel good and clean about it then I’m happy for you.
If you feel bad and dirty when someone wants truth stated about him publicly to combat a campaign of false rumors, I don’t really understand your morality.
Why do you think it was the truth (that Donald wasn’t under investigation?) LEOs are not under any obligation to tell suspects that they are being investigated. In point of fact, we know that quite a lot of people and intelligence departments had already started pursuing an investigation between the Trump campaign and various Russian efforts to meddle with our elections. This started in Summer of 2016, when the hacking occured and Donald, on the campaign trail, was begging Russia to hack Hillary’s email server.
Even if Comey had actually gone to the NYT and asked them to run an interview saying Donald wasn’t under investigation in March, 2017 - it wouldn’t have been true, necessarily, and it certainly wouldn’t have prevented any subsequent investigation of Donald or campaign or his Russian financial connections or anything else.
Donald and his team have been under investigation for months. Comey, as the head of one of the investigating branches, is not obligated to warn him about it or help with the public relations fallout.
Then Comey was fired for lying to his boss.
I truly have no idea why y’all continue to argue this point with Okrah when Dipshit himself told America why he fired Comey. There’s literally nothing to argue, other than against Okrah’s assertions.
Yoink.
That’s not the reason that Trump stated for firing Comey, though. Why do you continue to believe everything that Trump says is true, even when he contradicts himself constantly?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
This subthread was started by people excited about the WSJ report that Mueller got the first draft of Trump’s letter firing Comey in which Trump’s reason for firing was Comey’s refusal to make a public statement that Trump was not under investigation (after he three times confirmed that to Trump privately). I was just trying to figure out why the excitement.
That really doesn’t address the question, though. Through this thread, you seem to engage in Cirque de Sole-type acrobatics to attempt to put a pro-Trump spin on anything that comes out. The question I have is why you keep adhering to Trump’s version(s) of events, even when he blatantly contradicts himself.
I’ve gathered from your comments in this and other threads that you’re a conservative. Okay. Fine. But will there ever come a time for you personally when you will have had enough, and look at him without Trump-colored glasses? Or will you assume that he’s being completely honest, even when he contradicts himself?
Why do you continue to insist that he’s innocent, and it’s everyone else who’s lying (paraphrasing him and, by extension, his supporters)?
His supporters enable him. He can lie his ass off (and he should…his ass is getting too big. I’d suggest he diet, but I know he can’t stand to lose anything), and he’s okay because he knows his base will just say “he’s not the one with the problem. It’s everyone else.”
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Isn’t “excitement” a matter of interpretation? Did they post in all caps, strewn with exclamation points? And the whole of your concern and criticism is that you disapprove of inappropriate excitement?
Well, OK, then, glad you cleared that up for us.
Who’s lying? If someone actually managed to produce any evidence of Trump’s “crimes” then we could argue whether that evidence was “lies” or not. You know that statement of “you’re not even wrong”? Well, Trump’s haters are not even lying.
No one has produced any evidence whatsoever. Look at this thread and dozens of other Trump-hating threads. Poster after leftist poster claiming that they are sure that Trump has committed crimes galore. With no evidence whatsoever. Blind faith. With Mueller as the messiah. Clinging to any shred of hope, like this WSJ breathless revelation that is a big nothing to everyone except the true believers.
And you’re telling me I am performing “acrobatics”? Look in the mirror.
Again, Trump said he fired Comey for the Russia investigation. Then because he thought that Comey was too hard on Clinton. Then because he wanted a statement of loyalty that Comey wouldn’t give. Then you said, a few posts back, that Trump fired him for lying to Trump.
How do you keep those straight? Every time he says something, it invalidates what he said before. But, somehow, you make it seem like you think he shits diamonds out of a platinum asshole. Doesn’t matter what he says. It’s the truth, even if what he says contradicts what he said was true yesterday.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
See, you’re demonstrating those Trump-hating distorting glasses.
Trump said in that interview, and I quote “When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.”
Your Trump hatred translates that into “he said he fired Comey for the Russia investigation”. You do understand that Trump didn’t say that, right? It is your interpretation of what he said, after it went through your Trump-hatred filter.
Here’s another interpretation: what WSJ revealed in that first draft it got and publicized yesterday meshes exactly with that Trump statement. The “Russia thing with Trump” was the concerted, persistent campaign of rumors of the FBI investigating Trump for some kind of “collusion” with Russia in the press. Something that Comey told Trump three times on different occasions was not true. Which means it was a “made up story”. But Comey refused to publicly state it when asked to do so by Trump. So he was fired.
Now - tell me (if you can, objectively) why your interpretation reflects reality better than mine.
His boss - who is under criminal investigation, and who lied about the reason he fired Comey in hopes that he wouldn’t be impeached for trying to derail that exact same criminal investigation (only to subsequently go on tv and tell everyone that he fired Comey because of the criminal investigation).
It’s super-obvious who the criminal is, in this story.
Sorry, pal. Donald’s Reality Distortion Field is fading out. “The Russia thing” = “the Russia investigation”.
Because the part I bolded is completely incorrect. Even if Donald is telling the truth (a long shot, all on it’s own), that Comey told him three times that he, Donald, was not under investigation, it wouldn’t mean that Donald was, in fact, not under investigation - which means you and Donald can’t point to whatever Comey said about the Russia Thing and claim it proves that it’s all a made up story.
In fact, we now know that the FBI and other intelligence community departments have been looking into Trump and his campaign’s connections to Russia ever since the Russians were caught hacking last summer. Whatever Comey told Donald, the Russia investigation is a real thing that is really happening. Obviously, Donald and his many Russian pals were going to be included in that.
Hello, Okrahoma. I think it will be instructive on many sides to explore your mental model. Please answer some questions. Keep your answers simple: yes/no where possible. Only after you reveal your knowledge of these matters, can further debate be fruitful.
(1) Trump’s quoted single sentence mentions both the Russia investigation and Comey’s firing. If there was no causal relationship, what would you guess was the intent of Trump’s comment?
(2) What’s your take on Robert Mueller, and the aggressive actions we know he’s taken (e.g. empanelling two grand juries)? Is there strong evidence of crimes? Or is Mueller just another Trump hater?
(3) Do you think prosecutors, special prosecutors or law enforcement have an obligation to inform suspects that they are under investigation?
(4) Are you aware that prosecutors start with “low-lying fruit”? If a prosecutor says “You are not under investigation, sir”, is he lying if he is thinking “But depending on the testimony of witness X, you may come under investigation” ?
(5) Does the President have special rights of prosecutorial disclosure not available to other (suspected) criminals?
If Comey knew that Trump was likely to be investigated soon, it would have been dishonest and morality wrong for him to have acquiesced to the President’s request.
Are you guys trying to convince Okrahoma of something? This thread is no longer the place to discuss the Trump team and the Russians, although it started out that way. It is now the thread equivalent of that Escher drawing where the stairs always return to the same place.