As I originally stated, the Obstruction of Justice claim is unprovable, at least in a criminal court at this time. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's not reasonable to believe obstruction took place. Trump is acting like an erratic man, and I'm honestly not sure if he has a clear train of thought. One minute he might be pissed at Comey for the Russia investigation, then mad at Comey for insinuating the election might have been impacted by his comments 11days pre-election. And in that mix may even be valid reasons for the firing. But looking at Trumps own words, looking at the interference in the house probe, looking at timing of the Comey firing right after a request to expand the investigation, looking at logical assumptions, I think Trump was at least partially trying to interfere. One other possibility is that Trump is simply pissed at Comey for the investigation and just wants to exact revenge for lack of loyalty, and that is the root of the firing, not obstruction. But I don't buy for one second that it's because Comey lost the respect of his fellow agents or that it's because of any of his actions regarding Hillary and the election.
Comey didn't prosecute Hillary, and took that decision from the DoJ where it belonged. That's the gist of Rosenstein's memo. It's wishful thinking to believe obstruction took place. The timing, at this point, is irrelevant. As Trump pointed out, he fired Comey knowing it would prolong the Russia fantasy, but he felt it was in the peoples' best interest. His motive is clear and reasonable and reasoned, at this point. He doesn't put up with bullshit for very long. He's fired his own people and he's fired people in government. It's his right.
Ha! I agree with you. All though Comey needed to be fired for his mishandling of the Clinton crimes. I don't think there is any doubt that Comey taking on the task of investigating Trump for whatever crimes he conjured up angered the hell out of the President. Hard to believe a man in high office could be so friggin dumb. When the dummy went before Congress and testified that Trump was under investigation and had been since July of 2016 and offered zero evidence of good cause supporting the decision, I was sure his days were numbered with few digits. It is one thing for the FBI to have a policy of not discussing investigations into the criminal activity of every day Joe, like MarAzul or Further and entirely another to investigate the your boss(s) without showing cause. And then completely another when it is the CNC. The whole Nation need to know why he is investigating the Commander In Chief and that takes evidence to show a creditable reason. He apparently assumed he has the power to hang a black cloud over this administration for as long as he sees fit. This is as much out of control and he was assuming the role of the AG in the Clinton case. A man assuming powers of this magnitude must be fired, the sooner the better. What crime is investigated with out evidence?
It's wishful thinking to believe its provable, Its logical to believe it too place. All that timing context came far after the fact, several explanations deep. It's his right, but that doesn't mean it's just or that his reasoning wasn't comprised. A couple days ago you were pointing out that the timing seemed related to the AG/DAG confirmations. Once that was disproven you moved onto other excuses. It's confirmation bias Denny. You have defended Trump so many times that it's blurred your vision.
Well we partially agree. I don't see a problem with the investigation as there is evidence that 1) Russia tried to affect the election 2) People in trumps circle were being paid by Russian interests and resignations resulted. Perhaps prosecution coming with Flynn. I do agree that at this time I have not seen evidence that Trump himself was conspiring with the Russians. There may be evidence but there may not. I also don't agree that the American public need be informed about all reasons for investigations. The FBI has a duty to base investigations on logic, and not just a witch hunt, but they don't need to explain that to us.
what "logic" ? Not a single leak or statement by anyone involved in the intelligence organizations or their oversight has said there's even one shred of evidence. There's absolutely no basis for "reasoning" that something took place. I was wrong that it was solely on the basis of Rosenstein's memo that Comey was fired, but to say it had nothing to do with Comey's firing is the blurred vision thing. Even though Trump said he would have fired Comey regardless of the memo's content, even if it didn't recommend Comey's firing, there's no way to know if he would have been persuaded by his AG and Deputy AG urging against the firing. Past history, like his bombing of Syria and numerous other "flip flops" he's done, indicates he can be persuaded to change his mind. I am not defending Trump. There's a big difference between demanding fact based argument over wishful thinking when it comes to wanting the president gone. He won, I recognize that and am willing to live with it. The unrelenting shit storm he's faced all along is only partly of his making. The part that isn't his own making is a real danger - we may as well not have elections and let the CNN talking heads choose our government otherwise. Speaking of confirmation bias.... Trump is called a liar at every turn. So only when he says "I was going to fire Comey..." (or because he mentioned Russia in an interview) is he telling the truth.
I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between RT and NPR or CNN. Logic! Outstanding! When you investigate the CNC, by god use logic and bring forth your evidence. Logic suggests you are going to fucking need it. Logic also would tell you, Your boss knows what you don't have, and will have little patience with fishing.
Bingo. I suspect when this is all over many of his staunchest defenders will have become expert mental contortionists without ever realizing it and it's highly amusing.
I'm referring to Trump's defenders. You are one of them, but you're welcome to think that of yourself.
Cute. But not amusing. Not very smart either. I am not defending Trump, he needs none. I have attempted to point out why Comey needed to be fired.
Ha! Well I would have fire his ass, and I have explained why. If Clinton were the one firing him, some of my reasons for firing him would still apply. But I will avoid exchanging what I find appalling on a personal level.
There are definitely compelling reasons for him being fired, no one is arguing that. That was evident with both parties expressing just as much. The ridiculous timing and Trump's bullshit initial reasoning (that Comey was too mean to Hillary) is what's the problem here. Trump's comments during Lester Holt's interview last night confirmed the Comey-led Russia investigation was the main impetus. And with reporting by many outlets that Comey was unwilling to pledge fealty to the president, it's not hard to see what's going on here.
And now Trump is threatening Comey on twitter, openly attempting to blackmail him into remaining silent. #corrupt#pookieletsburnthismotherfuckerdown
Clinton would have not fired Coney. She would have been immediately tarred and feathered...then impeached
Well Sherlock, read my post above. I have no doubt at all, this piss the President off no end. The fool stated before congress he was investigating Trump and refuse to offer any evidence as to why? I can't imagine how the nitwit expected to be able to hang a black cloud over the President like that with no creditable evidence to support the action. Then he expects a licence to fish for as long as he wishes? The fucker had to be fired! This is way worse than assuming the AG's role in the Clinton investigation.
I suspect you are probably correct. But this would be just another example of her incompetence, failing to do what should be done.
