No argument that POTUS has the right. That doesn't mean it's correct. It especially doesn't mean it's correct when he says he fired him due to the investigation.

 

Heck, it may be enough for an obstruction of justice charge.

 

Now there is a complete grasping of straws. :lol2:

You believe his desire is speed?

 

This is 100% transparent. Guy didn't buy in to being loyal. Firing came after a day of testimony that didn't go well for him. He needed another distraction.

 

He thought he'd have Ds all excited. He doesn't really get it. It backfired.

 

Total conspiracy theory.

 

It is really sad that you want to see this POTUS fail.

 

I didn't vote for President Obama but I never wanted to see him fail, it's bad for the country.

Yeah. The "suspect at best" are what we're debating.

 

He didn't get fired for "legitimate" reasons.

 

Complete conjecture on your part.

 

Again, he didn't need a reason.

It was my opinion and now it's been proven true.

 

:lol2::lol2::lol2:

Type "Trump Lester Holt Russia" into your Google machine.

 

I watched the interview, you are sure hearing what you want to hear. I'm not surprised.

Does he need a reason?

 

Already addressed. I get that he serves at the pleasure of POTUS.

 

Not the issue. Issue is the continued inability to keep their stories straight.

 

Issue is the perception.

 

Issue is timing.

I watched the interview, you are sure hearing what you want to hear. I'm not surprised.

 

 

Your opinion on what he meant is?

Now there is a complete grasping of straws. :lol2:

 

 

Is this guy reaching?

 

 

Could Trump have obstructed justice? (opinion) - CNN.com

So the fireable offense by Comey was ....

 

1. Deciding the email case against Clinton did not need to be sent to the justice department.

 

2. Announcing the FBI was looking into more Clinton emails a week before the election.

 

3. Announcing two days before the election that the new Clinton emails were a big nothing.

 

4. Failing to announce last summer the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russians.

 

5. Failing to drop the Russian investigation.

 

6. Something else I didn't list.

 

Which of those should get the head of the FBI fired?

 

I would like to hear from everyone the legitimate reasons why Comey should have been fired.

 

Comey definitely usurped the Justice Department on more than one occasion, his firing for that reason alone is legitimate.

 

Guru says he overstepped his authority by making decisions the Justice Department should have made. My question on that one is does the FBI always present their evidence to the Justice Department/prosecutors or does the FBI sometimes, perhaps often, make decisions about whether evidence merits being presented? (Not a rhetorical question. I am asking how investigations are typically handled.)

One side. A Democrat (Diane Feinstein) says.

Feinstein had a prepared statement of her own to make concerning the Comey firing, much of it criticizing the White House's changing rationales for taking action, plus calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate. But before she began her prepared remarks, Feinstein said a few words addressing what Grassley had just said about Trump and targets of the investigation."Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman," Feinstein said. "I very much appreciate what you've said, and it's very accurate, and we were briefed. And the nature of the briefing was a counter-intelligence and criminal investigation that the FBI was carrying out, and more than that I will not say, either."

 

What to make of the Grassley-Feinstein exchange? While nothing is ever completely clear in the Russia affair, it seems that Grassley was saying that Comey had told him, and Feinstein, that some individuals were targets of the FBI Russia probe, and that President Trump was not among them.

Bottom line ... if people in the Trump campaign are being investigated for Russian ties, Trump himself cannot be absolved until the investigation is complete. Those people in the campaign work for him.

What would you need to see to be outraged?

 

Actual proof or wrongdoing rather then wailing and gnashing of teeth by a bunch of hyperpartisan hacks who will NEVER give this President any legitimacy.

Nothing because it would just be fake news from the left. Trump could go to jail or flee the country and seek asylum in Russia and it would be fake news.

 

Thanks for answering for me but I got it. What would it take for you to get outraged about anything Obama did? Please don't act like you're not every bit as biased in the opposite direction as you claim I am.

Is Trump issuing threats and trying to intimidate Comey? Trump has fired up the twitter machine this morning to go after Comey, telling him he better not be leaking information and telling him he better confirm Trump's story that Comey told Trump that Trump was not being investigated.

 

Trump also threatened to cut back on press briefings, saying in so many words that his spokespeople cannot keep up with him and should not be expected to.

Your opinion on what he meant is?

 

He wants the investigation to continue and reach whatever it's conclusion is. We all want it to reach it's end sooner than later. That is better for the country.