Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your mad about anything other than Trump's cozy relationship with the Russians, then you are doing it wrong. He is acting in a treasonous manner for personal gain and putting his interests above the country.

Everything else is noise.

We are allowed to do business with Russia for God's sake. There's a business council for God's sake!

Trump has done business with Russia. He also swears he hasn't and intends to attest to it in an affidavit.

Trump did not do ILLEGAL business with Russia. LEGAL business is just that.

“What do I have to do with Russia? You know the closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach, Fla.," Trump said. "There was a man who went bankrupt and I bought the house for $40 million and I sold it to a Russian for $100 million including brokerage commissions. So I sold it. So I bought it for 40, I sold it for 100 to a Russian. That was a number of years ago."

Earlier Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!"

We will see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your mad about anything other than Trump's cozy relationship with the Russians, then you are doing it wrong. He is acting in a treasonous manner for personal gain and putting his interests above the country.

Everything else is noise.

We are allowed to do business with Russia for God's sake. There's a business council for God's sake!

Trump has done business with Russia. He also swears he hasn't and intends to attest to it in an affidavit.

Trump did not do ILLEGAL business with Russia. LEGAL business is just that.

“What do I have to do with Russia? You know the closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach, Fla.," Trump said. "There was a man who went bankrupt and I bought the house for $40 million and I sold it to a Russian for $100 million including brokerage commissions. So I sold it. So I bought it for 40, I sold it for 100 to a Russian. That was a number of years ago."

Earlier Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!"

Anonymous wrote:You'll note that Rosenstein's memo does not recommend firing Comey. He had the foresight to at least not put that in writing.

He is pissed that they tried to pin it on him.

You'll note that Rosenstein's memo does not recommend firing Comey. He had the foresight to at least not put that in writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the rumor Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit over the WH leaking his comments about Comey to the President and Jeff Sessions? Asking someone to put their comments in writing is not abnormal. Thoughts?

No, the story is that Rosenstein threaten to quit when the White House said that he is the one who initially proposed firing Comey. In fact the White House said they wanted to fire Comey and tasked Rosenstein with creating a basis for firing. It was not Rosenstein's independent choice to fire. He was following orders. The WH was trying to make Rosenstein the fall guy for all the bad press, and Rosenstein is refusing to take responsibility for the WH's mess.

Come on. Rosenstein knew exactly what they were doing. He wasn't used. He'a a disgrace and should quit before he ruins his reputation any further.

I agree he knew what he was doing. What did he think the job of Deputy A.G. entailed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the rumor Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit over the WH leaking his comments about Comey to the President and Jeff Sessions? Asking someone to put their comments in writing is not abnormal. Thoughts?

No, the story is that Rosenstein threaten to quit when the White House said that he is the one who initially proposed firing Comey. In fact the White House said they wanted to fire Comey and tasked Rosenstein with creating a basis for firing. It was not Rosenstein's independent choice to fire. He was following orders. The WH was trying to make Rosenstein the fall guy for all the bad press, and Rosenstein is refusing to take responsibility for the WH's mess.

Come on. Rosenstein knew exactly what they were doing. He wasn't used. He'a a disgrace and should quit before he ruins his reputation any further.

That's one of the only few ways to save his reputation. Another would be to appoint an independent prosecutor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Within the Justice Department and the FBI, the firing of Comey has left raw anger, and some fear, according to multiple officials. Thomas O’Connor, the president of the FBI Agents Association, called Comey’s firing “a gut punch. We didn’t see it coming, and we don’t think Director Comey did anything that would lead to this.’’
Many employees said they were furious about the firing, saying the circumstances of his dismissal did more damage to the FBI’s independence than anything Comey did in his three-plus years in the job.
One intelligence official who works on Russian espionage matters said they were more determined than ever to pursue such cases. Another said Comey’s firing and the subsequent comments from the White House are attacks that won’t soon be forgotten. Trump had “essentially declared war on a lot of people at the FBI,” one official said. “I think there will be a concerted effort to respond over time in kind.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_comeyreconstruct912pm-1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1e87d5b73fac

Didn't do anything? Please. Since when does intent to commit a crime matter, except for in the length of the sentence? And clearly, if Comey leaned on intent, then there WAS a crime committed. We have soldiers in jail for less. He showed his partisanship then and his firing was long overdue.

I've read this three times and it still doesn't make any sense.

Because you are clearly not understanding that when Comey goes through a list of the ways Hillary broke the law, then says "well, she didn't show intent", that doesn't mean she didn't' break the law and shouldn't have been charged. Intent simply changes what she's charged with and sentencing, i.e. murder vs manslaughter for example. We have soldiers in jail for violating classification laws who also didn't have intent to do so.

The law should be applied equally to all individuals. Comey did not do so, and his firing was long overdue.

Yep. You said it yourself.

Yes, in other words, manslaughter or murder. Talking about the violations of law Hillary committed then saying we will not pursue those violations due to intent is the problem. You pursue the violations in a court of law regardless.

um you are aware of something called "prosecutorial discretion"? not to mention the fact that the law actually DOES require intent in some cases.

Hayden claimed there is no chance that Rosenstein would have said to Trump and Sessions. Cuomo repeated it. Then, Hayden says, "You being up a good point..."

Show me facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the rumor Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit over the WH leaking his comments about Comey to the President and Jeff Sessions? Asking someone to put their comments in writing is not abnormal. Thoughts?

No, the story is that Rosenstein threaten to quit when the White House said that he is the one who initially proposed firing Comey. In fact the White House said they wanted to fire Comey and tasked Rosenstein with creating a basis for firing. It was not Rosenstein's independent choice to fire. He was following orders. The WH was trying to make Rosenstein the fall guy for all the bad press, and Rosenstein is refusing to take responsibility for the WH's mess.

Come on. Rosenstein knew exactly what they were doing. He wasn't used. He'a a disgrace and should quit before he ruins his reputation any further.

^ Is the rumor true?

Anonymous wrote:Is the rumor Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit over the WH leaking his comments about Comey to the President and Jeff Sessions? Asking someone to put their comments in writing is not abnormal. Thoughts?

No, the story is that Rosenstein threaten to quit when the White House said that he is the one who initially proposed firing Comey. In fact the White House said they wanted to fire Comey and tasked Rosenstein with creating a basis for firing. It was not Rosenstein's independent choice to fire. He was following orders. The WH was trying to make Rosenstein the fall guy for all the bad press, and Rosenstein is refusing to take responsibility for the WH's mess.

Is the rumor Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit over the WH leaking his comments about Comey to the President and Jeff Sessions? Asking someone to put their comments in writing is not abnormal. Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your mad about anything other than Trump's cozy relationship with the Russians, then you are doing it wrong. He is acting in a treasonous manner for personal gain and putting his interests above the country.

Everything else is noise.

We are allowed to do business with Russia for God's sake. There's a business council for God's sake!

Trump has done business with Russia. He also swears he hasn't and intends to attest to it in an affidavit.

Trump did not do ILLEGAL business with Russia. LEGAL business is just that.

Money laundering is quite ILLEGAL.

And if that is proven through legal proceedings, he should receive equal application under the law.

Google translate isn't as good as you seem to think it is.

We are talking about why Comey was fired. The reason DOES relate to the way he handled Hillary Clinton - there was no equal application under the law. This is why liberals like yourself are so quick to dismiss anyone talking about Hillary Clinton. Speaking about how she was provided special treatment completely destroys your argument.

Different 'rules'? Really? So what you are saying is that Hillary Clinton is so special, that she can violate the law and get away with it. Yes, I agree. Politicians are being given special rules, and should NOT be.

NP. I think I see the problem. (1) you didn't actually read the DOJ
Memo trump relied on in firing Comey, and (2) you do not quite understand the law.

First, the DOJ memo does not say Comey should be fired because he failed to prosecute Clinton. It says he should be fired because he inappropriately disparaged Clinton when he had his press conference, and that he inappropriately announced a reopening of the investigation on the eve of the election. You may think Comey should have prosecuted Clinton, but that's not what the DOJ actually said.

Second, prosecuting Clinton would have required proving intent - in other words that she knew she was sending classified info inappropriately. It doesn't mean she knew of a particular law prohibiting it, or that she even knew it was a violation of the law. But it does require that she intentionally disclosed the classified info. If (for example) she accidentally typed in a wrong email address and accidentally emailed classified info to the newspaper, that's not a crime because there's no intent to share the classified info with the newspaper; it was just an accident. Or another example, if she shared info but it wasn't marked classified so she didn't know it was classified, that's no crime because there was no intent to share classified info, only an intent to share unclassified info.

I hope this helps you. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you really want to understand how this works. If instead you don't care how it works, and just want to make stuff up, then I can't help you. Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Within the Justice Department and the FBI, the firing of Comey has left raw anger, and some fear, according to multiple officials. Thomas O’Connor, the president of the FBI Agents Association, called Comey’s firing “a gut punch. We didn’t see it coming, and we don’t think Director Comey did anything that would lead to this.’’
Many employees said they were furious about the firing, saying the circumstances of his dismissal did more damage to the FBI’s independence than anything Comey did in his three-plus years in the job.
One intelligence official who works on Russian espionage matters said they were more determined than ever to pursue such cases. Another said Comey’s firing and the subsequent comments from the White House are attacks that won’t soon be forgotten. Trump had “essentially declared war on a lot of people at the FBI,” one official said. “I think there will be a concerted effort to respond over time in kind.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_comeyreconstruct912pm-1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1e87d5b73fac

Didn't do anything? Please. Since when does intent to commit a crime matter, except for in the length of the sentence? And clearly, if Comey leaned on intent, then there WAS a crime committed. We have soldiers in jail for less. He showed his partisanship then and his firing was long overdue.

I've read this three times and it still doesn't make any sense.

Because you are clearly not understanding that when Comey goes through a list of the ways Hillary broke the law, then says "well, she didn't show intent", that doesn't mean she didn't' break the law and shouldn't have been charged. Intent simply changes what she's charged with and sentencing, i.e. murder vs manslaughter for example. We have soldiers in jail for violating classification laws who also didn't have intent to do so.

The law should be applied equally to all individuals. Comey did not do so, and his firing was long overdue.

Aha, I see why you're not making any sense - because you're STILL TALKING ABOUT HILLARY. Please keep up.

P.S. Also realize that the rules are different for soldiers and civilians.

We are talking about why Comey was fired. The reason DOES relate to the way he handled Hillary Clinton - there was no equal application under the law. This is why liberals like yourself are so quick to dismiss anyone talking about Hillary Clinton. Speaking about how she was provided special treatment completely destroys your argument.

Different 'rules'? Really? So what you are saying is that Hillary Clinton is so special, that she can violate the law and get away with it. Yes, I agree. Politicians are being given special rules, and should NOT be.

No you're not. Hillary's emails are not the reason that Comey was fired.