He should have never made any recommendations regarding H in the first place. That's never been the job of the FBI, he's to give his findings to the DOJ and that's it, but Lynch made it public she would go by his recommendation. Dog and pony show 101

Exactly just follow the law and leave your feelings out.

Totally, which is why he was fired on January 20th...wait...

Hard to pretend he followed the law when he admitted to not following the law on national tv

The law says gross negligence, he goes on and every time he speaks he says she was grossly negilgent, but there was no intent, meanwhile hundreds of Americans mishandled every year, with no intent, and get fucked, and they are handling way less important data.

The submarine officer who took selfies sure wasn't afforded that luxury

It was one picture of his bunk he sent to his fucking mom. It wasn't even like it was some control mechanisms or somethinfm

Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone else started to notice the political class gets away with everything.

See now you're going from conspiracy land to the real world, and it's important to point out where your wrong.

the findings of his investigation should have been enough to warrant an arrest regardless of intent

This is not true. The legal opinion is that the "gross negligence" part of the espionage act is unconstitutional and cannot be successfully prosecuted, and an attempt at this would risk striking down the whole espionage act down. In fact there has never been anyone successfully convicted under "gross negligence" and the most recent attempt at prosecution was a 100 years ago. No sane prosecutor would bring that case to a judge. Comey, as a lawyer, recommended that no indictments be brought because doing so would be completely fruitless.

Now I'm not denying or accepting that Hillary did bad stuff, but that's conspiracy land, but Comey had no evidence of intent, and given his evidence no indictments was the right call in the real world.

Has anyone taken to court under gross negligence had their own private email server that they sent and received classified material on?

The intent is clear by what occured. She had no way to get that classified material on her server without intent, due to how classified material is stored and handled.

Espioange act is very specific, either purposefully giving classified intel to the enemy or being so grossly negligent as to allow the enemy to steal classified intel.

As far as I know, nobody has ever been taken to court over gross negligence. This is considered the unconstitutional part of the law and can't be used.

Can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hillary intended to give classified info to US enemies? The answer is absolutely no, and even under a preponderance of the evidence standard, you couldn't even prove that Hillary intended to give enemies classified intel.

Private email servers are not illegal on their own. So intent to have a private email server is not a crime. Many state secretaries and past federal employees used them and had classified data on them.

18 U.S. Code 793 (f)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

It doesn't matter if someone has been taken to court for it in the past, there is always a first time. No one else has set up their own private server and passed classified information through it.

They don't have to prove that she wanted to give it to enemies. They don't have to prove intent

She HAD to have intent, by printing out these documents from secured systems, and then scanning them back in on an unsecured network. That is the only way she got classified documents out of their secure location.

You're either RIDF or just fail to have low comprehension skills.

Or, you know, I actually hold a security clearance, have worked in secure environments, and know what she did was illegal because we are given briefings and sign legally binding documents about the handling of classified material.

That's never been the job of the FBI,

WRONG!

This is all fine and good, but do you think his replacement will be better or worse?

It's not speculation. Just look at his other appointments. :)

The answer is WORSE.

You have some great submissions and comments. Thank you for not sucking.

please please please be trey gowdy

Gowdy may be a religious nutter, but he appears to be squeaky clean.

Looks like my other comment got down voted without any reply. Anyway, here's where we disagree ...

You seem to have not recognized that Donald Trump's earlier appointments have been absolutely atrocious -- beyond anything that would even seem possible.

You seem to believe -- and this is far too common -- that taking some "man who doesn't give a flying fuck about Americans" should be replaced even where the only option is someone who is literally against Americans. Unfortunately for those who continue to believe this, history shows that replacing the ambivalent, the bad, or the corrupt OFTEN produces a worse situation than NOT doing so -- and that the worse situation may become entrenched and hard to undo -- while meanwhile REAL PEOPLE suffer from the result.

And here's where we agree ...

Both of us seconded /u/orangutan for moderator. :)

Don't know.

Hopefully it's Gowdy

Lol. Gowdy is a partisan hack and if you can't see it so are you. There is nothing wrong with pushing for your side but there is truth and facts we can't just all live in bizzaro world so you world view isn't shattered.

How is Gowdy a partisan hack?

Gowdy and Chaffetz are solid in my book. Definitely partisan to the right but not compromised as far as I can tell.

While we're at it, let's make Sean Hannity Director and Tucker Carlson Deputy. Both are totally not partisan hacks.

What does partisan hacks mean?

I saw John Stewart make fun of tucker saying that, and tucker responded by comparing his own political coverage to that of John Stewart's. He made a very solid argument that actually John Stewart promoted extremely partisan coverage.

Its such a vague impossible to prove term that it is honestly more reflective of the person saying it.

The difference is John Stewart is a comedian and has never pretended to not be partisan. Tucker likes to tell his braindead viewers that he looks at things objectively

The difference is John Stewart is a comedian and has never pretended to not be partisan. Tucker likes to tell his braindead viewers that he looks at things objectively

Uh no. Tucker is openly conservative and doesn't pretend to be a liberal. John Stewart is a liberal and doesnt pretend to be a conservative.

When Tucker says he's trying to be fair it means he criticizes conservatives and praises democrats sometimes. When John Stewart says hes a "partisan hack" what he REALLY means is "I dont like your conservative views"

Gowdy was on Trump's transition team. Chaffetz published Comey's letter to congress on twitter. Both are involved in ongoing Team Trump investigations (in principal if not practice). Either of these guys would probably merit protests. Try again.

Chaffetz has the spin of a slug

Well, considering he tried to tear Clinton a new asshole over Benghazi (a complete and utter non-issue that magically went away right after the election), but doesn't seem at all interested in the potential ties between Trump and Russia (just watch his questioning of Comey, all he cared about was leaks).

Gowdy was also there during the encryption hearing with Tim Cook and seemed against standard encryption, much like Comey's stance.

We need someone both hard and smart, and I'm not sure there's anybody like that out there who would actually take the position.

Benghazi was never a non issue..... You don't just ignore a few hundred calls and requests in writing for additional security. You don't just lie and say it was a video. You don't just let gafaffi weaponry get smuggled out and sent to Syria to destabilize Syria and oust assad as well.

Benghazi was and absolutely IS a non-issue. FFS, did you not notice how even this subs hero Trey Gowdy hasn't said a peep about Benghazi since the campaign? Do you not see how disgustingly partisan that investigation was? We are lambasting the administration for statements said immediately after a firefight in a foreign nation, not to mention we have focused so incredibly on a type of firefight that is far from uncommon.

Just watch Tom Rick talk about this on Fox News, in which he talks about the highly politicized nature of this entire "investigation."

" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUz3pIPmTY "

You don't just ignore a few hundred calls and requests in writing for additional security.

Hindsight is 20/20. Do you know how many requests from how many embassies and other organizations ask for additional security? I'm gonna go on a limb here and say no, and that if they did honor every such request we'd need 10x as many troops as we have right now.

Also, here's a quote from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/mike-pence/mike-pences-false-claim-about-clintons-role-and-re/

"Others have accused Clinton of ignoring requests for more security for the Benghazi consulate. It’s undeniable that officials in Libya repeatedly asked for better security, but there’s no evidence that Clinton herself was aware or that she willfully denied them."

Where is the crime here? Where is the negligence?

Trey said there's nothing else he can do because AG won't do anything. Gaurenteed they are building up a case now. Takes a while to get a strong case built.

When was last time a us embassy got attacked, and we didn't swiftly retaliate.

Actually they asked this during hearings, and found no other embassy, and ambassador was doing this.

I watched him questioning Comey.
He didn't care in the slightest about collusion between Trump and Russia. Instead all of his inquiries were about the leaks regarding Flynn.

Yeah, it was really bad. Inching toward recommending jail time for journalists who publish leaked material. Fuck that.

Meanwhile, your heroes, Comey and Hillary, both openly advocate for that, and you have no problem with it.

We have Obama's surveillance state looking at Trump's Russia ties. If nothing substantial has come out after so many people being surveilled I doubt you will find anything at this point. Beating a dead Russian horse at this point.

Russia isn't the bad guy here. The real problem is the deep state that is controlling the narrative and spinning muh russia .

Well to be fair Russia kicked out the Rothchilds bank.

That's usually grounds for an invasion.

Except Russia has the military and the MAD to stop it. They have the space capabilities to possible knock out our Satalites too

Nah, they're a a bunch of pansies who claim to be big, when they are really just small. Just like Trump.

biggest nuclear arsenal in the world

2nd best fighter jet

largest tank force

OK bro

LMAO, please tell me more about cool Russia is. I'm dying to hear more about your country.

Considering they have a shit economy. And an oligarchy, it seems pretty ass

The same Russian investigation talking point has been brought up ad infinitum on this subreddit since the firing.

I thought the logic dictated that there is no evidence of collusion. And even if there were, the extent of Russian intervention was the leaking of real, damning emails of a massively corrupt politician.

The story was that Russia interfered. It's almost been a year and no one has provided anybevidence or specifics. Why is that? Russian collusion has been a story for half a year, but still no evidence? What is going on? If the evidence has been available and surveillance has gathered that evidence, why is the investigation so important? Seems like that should have already borne fruit.

I would want a partisan hack to dig as deep into the Clinton/P8 complex as possible as these people might be motivated to do what others wouldn't dare.

I know Gowdy isn't perfect, but who would you suggest?

This is exactly a copy and paste from the "mega thread" with 6k+ upvotes. You are a hack. I have seen this exact comment from several users already.

Almost like the are scripts to auto respond to gowdy love

Gowdy is not partisan. He's one of the most reluctant trump supporting GOP'ers and even then he barely says more than he has to

His explanation is always, I can't vote for a criminal so I'll vote for him

What does that have to do with Comey needing to go?

Must you people equivocate everything?

It's called being CONCERNED FOR THE PEOPLE.

You might want to try it sometimes instead of seeing yourself as the grand moralizing punisher of wrongdoers -- oblivious to how many INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE HURT for your personal revenge -- personal revenge for a situation that probably doesn't even affect you.

Your morality is more corrupt than the corruption you claim to fight.

So, because you choose to equivocate, I have no concern for the people?

Do you think one criminal should get a pass, lest the vacuum be filled by the product of another boss? How is that just?

Because I perceive Comey as unjust and biased, I am moralizing and oblivious? I seek personal revenge? What?

Nothing you wrote makes any relevant sense about my thoughts on the matter.

Push your nonsense on someone else. I did not even vote for clinton or trump. You are as clueless as you are out of control.

Do you think one criminal should get a pass

Depends on the LEVEL of corruption compared to the norm, and the possible results of taking action.

As for "equivocating," it is not the word you were looking for. My last comment is quite far on the unequivocal side. :)

...isn't part of Wikileaks that they aren't journalists, claiming to simply disseminate unaltered data?

Yeah, but no-one is refusing to address it. Media outlets don't physically have access to these documents beforehand.

Also, sorry, but after like two years I'm losing faith due to the lack of any right-wing documents, especially since it was admitted that there was a RNC email leak received last year which was never released.

Not saying I don't believe you but can I get that source you read that from please.

It is not true. They never stated they have Republican emails. There was a Fox and Friends interview last August where Assange said this:

“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day,"

During the Reddit AMA he clarified:

We received a couple of company registration extracts then our team looked at them and they were already public. So, it was already public information and WikiLeaks specializes in the publication of information that is not yet public.

http://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_assange_founder_of_wikileaks_ask_me/dcalvmc/?context=3

I knew I wasnt crazy the only thing that came up with anything with RNC and wikileaks https://wikileaks.org/wiki/ACLU:_Revealing_RNC_document_leaked

but thats from 08

There were also Palin emails:

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/VP_contender_Sarah_Palin_hacked

This whole thing is such bullshit. None of these people accusing Wikileaks of partisanship were saying shit when it was Palin, whose info was released.

Also, sorry, but after like two years I'm losing faith due to the lack of any right-wing documents

Is the CIA left wing?

How do you figure?

Wikileaks ARE journalists. If you want ALTERED DATA go watch CNN.

Trump agreed with the recommendation of Trump's attorney general who said:

"I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.’’"

Isn't there a rule against spamming the same comment over and over? Maybe I'm mistaken? Any mods have any input?

Wow thought you were exaggerating a wee bit but just getting a glimpse they really did copy pasta the fuck out of that

Sorry

pasta on cheese?

Extra extra cheese. Damn near drinking the pasta

Holy shit, 21 times....

i don't think SPAM means what you think it means.

there are ~15 posts about Trump firing Comey. So i posed the AG's quote in those posts.

are you seriously suggesting that the AG's quote is not relevant????

Its very relevant and makes note of the bipartisan hatred for Comey. Yay democrats and republicans uniting!

Nah, those rules only apply to non Trump shills.

If it's pro Trump, it's okay.

The guy got fired because he chose to let Hillary off, plain and simple. Anti Trump people will say the president fired him for investigating the unsubstantiated Russian connection debacle, but the truth is that whether he tried to remain neutral or not, Comey gave in to pressure from Lynch not to prosecute Clinton for her obvious criminal acts.

This doesn't make any sense. What the fuck could Lynch do to Comey that would coerce him in any way? How was she applying pressure? What power over him did she have to exert, and how can you be so certain that she abused it?

This is what I think, bear with me: The FBI would normally turn over the findings of an investigation to the DOJ for prosecution, but when Lynch came out and publicly declared that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on the matter before the investigation was complete, she effectively left Comey holding the bag, forcing him to let H off the hook weeks before the election. They (Lynch and the Clintons) were counting on him doing whatever he could to preserve the political impartiality of the FBI during a presidential campaign. They knew that when forced to make a decision, Comey would choose to postpone any action against Clinton until after the election, so that the FBI would not be seen as playing any political role in tilting the election one way or the other. In the end, however, his efforts to protect the bureau from any political backlash ended up costing him his job. He's basically the fall guy in a well crafted conspiracy by Clinton Inc. to stave off an indictment until after Hillary was already president.

So he's just kind of the guy they decided to create a balancing act on. But rumors also say Comey is the type to do favor for favor and keep dirt on people to use later.

He helped ole Billy when he pardoned that tax evaded at the end of his term. Comey is just a lay low plant. Deep state only uses him when needed. Bush and Obama represented the same folks after all.

Not sure how criminal anyone is but I LOVE the balls on Comey to say they're investigating Clinton close to the end of the election. He literally shut the door on her presidency. He publicly gave the Clintons the ultimate middle finger.

He was done no matter what after doing something so brazen. I'm sure there are some folks who deeply respect him for tha as well as hate him too of course.

It makes sense as a possibility, not a certainty.

Oh look, the Hitlery Defense Force has arrived.

Comey can't prosecute anyone. Wtf are you talking about????

No but he can get a warrent for arrest, he also is never supposed to say stuff like no reasonable prosecuted would prosecute over this, because there is no intent. Meanwhile if you look at the fucking law for mishandling classified information, it never says intent is required. It says gross negligence, which he has said there was. Not to mention there definitely is fucking intent when you have a former first lady and senator set up a private server, discuss what she discussed, and all the stonetear deletion shit following the subpeno for the emails......

No but he can get a warrent

No, he can ASK for a warrant.

he also is never supposed to say stuff like no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute over this, because there is no intent.

Yes, he's also NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS LIKE THIS PUBLIC OR TO INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS. Funny how people seem to forget the worst of his misdeeds and have instead honed in on one tiny part of that charade.

Meanwhile if you look at the fucking law for mishandling classified information, it never says intent is required.

I see, so that explains why Republicans never tried to charge Hillary with anything, and this ofc includes the Trump administration. It's nice that this sub is so convinced of her guilt, but her largest detractors in positions to actually do something about her guilt, don't seem to think so.

Also, here's the law ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924):

" knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

Note the bolded words. If you are referring to a different statute, I'd love to see it.

Not to mention there definitely is fucking intent

Yes, Clinton intended to mishandle 8 classified E-mails out of 10s of thousands. Why you ask? Because reasons.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out

Mishandled 8? Comey even said there were hundreds of classified emails. Wikileaks proves more with podesta leaks.

If that's the case why didn't Trump fire him on day one instead of now, during an active investigation into his campaign and just days before Comey was set to appear before another senate intelligence committee? The timing is awfully convenient for Trump if he's really just during Comey over shit he did 9 months ago...

The guy got fired because he chose to let Hillary off, plain and simple.

So by your logic, the next FBI director will push to jail Hillary? And when he will be appointed you won't beg for 'time' more than 4 years? Or blame another party for failing to jail Hillary?

r/conspiracy has become the place where you can say "Listen guys, the President clearly stated why he fired the person investigating him, plain and simple. Anyone who disagrees is obviously just against the president and should be ignored. This whole Russia-conspiracy is nothing but non-sense, and we shouldn't waste our time on it. Come on guys, let it go" and get upvoted.

The people defending Comey are shills. It's over for the satanic elite. They're all FUCKED!!!!!

The people defending Comey are shills.

which is ironic, because Hillary (less than a week ago) blamed Comey for her loss.

Hillary is deranged and unstable. She blames everyone other than herself for her loss. She blames the very people who have been saving her ass for so long now. It's over for her and the elite satanic pedos.

I asked this question before and never got an answer, is she the first candidate to not concede the night of the election and have her campaign manager basically do it?

And the first candidate to have a sitting president campaign for her iirc.

Al Gore waited till Dec 13th, 2000, for obvious reasons. He did it in public. Not sure about the campaign manager thing.

Eh, that was a different scenario and all, but thanks for the reminder!

Well there was 1 time w where a dude held up a paper of his son early, went to sleep and was shocked

Just shows they can't even get their own fake narrative straight.

Comey was the NAZI ANTICHRIST after the election because of saying something about Hillary's server, but the minute Trump fire's him for committing perjury and intentionally botching a major investigation,

"REEEEEEEEEEEE Comey is the SAVIOR!!!!" - r/politics / ShareBlue / useful idiots

The people defending Comey are shills. It's over for the satanic pedo elite. They're all FUCKED!!!!!

Seems like shills have comletely overtaken this sub.

The same narrative that's on /all is here. It's almost laughable when they post CNN links in this sub and everybody agrees with it. So obvious

I really don't see what's so bad about him. I respect him for opening up the case again before the election. Shows that he was trying to make the right decision regardless of the circumstances. To me it seemed like he was doing his job and both parties got pissed when it didn't work to their advantage

For one, he isn't supposed to recommend action on a case, simply give facts over to justice dept.

More importantantly, the law says gross negligence, he goes on and every time he speaks he says she was grossly negilgent, but there was no intent, meanwhile hundreds of Americans mishandled every year, with no intent, and get fucked, and they are handling way less important data. The LAW is gross negligence.

It's so tragic that you have hope.

Do you ever suspect that maybe you've bought into a fairy tale narrative?

I know that's kinda mean, but "the other side is the most villainous group possible and my side acts totally selflessly in the pursuit of justice and saving the children" is pretty extreme.

I'm pretty partisan in the other direction, but I never thought that Obama was a knight in shining armor and the Republicans were raping children for Satan.

As corrupt as any of his peers. Thing is, in Washington that's considered not corrupt because everybody does it. Gowdy for FBI director.

Comey had to go. He and McCabe grossly mishandled the classified info handling over at State.

Thank you for this reminder. I swear people in this sub and the general population have the memory of a goldfish.

That or they're shills. The real question I have is: who tipped off about the Slick Willy and Lynch meeting?

There were journalists present. Pictures were published.

Who tipped off those journalists?

Tipped off? Hillary was in the middle of an investigation by congress. Her husband runs one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. They just kind of follow them around.

That's possible, but I doubt it. Do you think the journalists were waiting on the tarmac after Bill Clinton's plane didn't take off?

Bill Clinton was going to take off and then he told his pilot to hold on. Then he proceeded to get onto Lynch's plane that had just landed on the tarmac. I doubt the journalists were just there waiting around on the tarmac.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting

Is there a photo? I've never seen it?

The meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton might not have been known if not for a local reporter who received a tip about it.

The FBI ordered “no photos, no pictures, no cell phones” to those gathered on the Phoenix airport tarmac when former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her plane Monday, according to the journalist who broke the story.

The FBI could've been telling everyone there that. Not all people that can take pictures or record things are journalists.

I'm still convinced at this point that some Intelligence agency/agent told the reporter.

Yeah, guess what. The AG has her own flock of reporters who follow her around.

Good question, it was not reported until 4 days after. Someone knew, probably because they were spying on lynch or bill. But someone let the cat out of the bag, and I'm sure it's not the Russians

Journalists were following Bill around because it's a forever president, and his wife was under investigation, and she was running for president. Plus journalist always follow cabinet level officials ok domestic trips.

Comey is no more or less corrupt than anyone else in the US government

Heres one time we should all thank him for standing up to G Dubya and crew

Before the past months' controversies, Comey, a former deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, was perhaps best known for a remarkable 2004 standoff with top officials over a federal domestic surveillance program. In March of that year, Comey rushed to the hospital bed of Attorney General John Ashcroft to physically stop White House officials in their bid to get his ailing boss to reauthorize a secret no-warrant wiretapping program. Comey described the incident in 2007 testimony to Congress, explaining that he believed the spy program put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was legally questionable.

From the AP story in this sub right now

I guess between 2004 and 2013 he drank the NSA Koolaid.

Righhhht? Obama got him to hope off that train fast apparently.

Is this one of those Astroturfing accounts we always talk about?

Comey's statements that you refer to and Trumps collusion do not have to be mutually exclusive.

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure the guy going against the MSM narrative you guys are pushing is "astroturfing".

Full retard.

Removed. Rule 4.

I didn't attack any user - you're misapplying your rule here. I said that the idea that people going against the MSM narrative they're clearly pushing is "astroturfing" is full retard.

Fair enough. Approved. Same on the other.

It's a thin line though, just try to attack the argument and not the user.

Clinton and her aide weren't jailed for sending classified information.

Anthony Weiner wasn't jailed for sexting an underage girl.

But Flynn should be jailed over a phone conversation. Based off a law that has never been used before, all because someone in the Obama administration leaked classified information about the conversation?

Clinton and her aide weren't jailed for sending classified information.

So, Hillary is so obviously guilty but the Republicans and Trump himself have taken absolutely zero steps towards prosecuting her.

That could change with Trump appointing his own FBI director. He could do it just to spite the Dems.

I doubt it. Trump is all about winning, and any attempted prosecution of Clinton will go absolutely anywhere. Anyone who knows the law, and experts on the issue will tell you this. The only people convinced of Clinton's lawbreaking are Trump supporters. The Republicans in power don't give a shit, apart from using it as a talking point to influence people.

I believe the crowds of people chanting #LockHerUp will be getting what they want. Just like how that wall is being built.

The State Dept. Inspector General Report that you Hillary Defense Force people refuse to read proves she broke the law, dipshit.

Just because you refuse to look at the facts doesn't mean they don't exist, genius.

Hillary defense force? Shove off man, I have no love for Hillary, but I see no reason to hate on her for BS, when there are established facts and reasons to hate her. Where does it say she broke the law in that report.

You can be simultaneously glad that Comey is gone and be concerned that Trump may have done this for nefarious reasons.

I think it's interesting that Clinton came out of hiding to place the blame for her loss on Comey saying that if it wasn't for him she'd be president and then less than a wee later he's fired.

Funny because half the country views Comey as the reason Clinton isn't in jail. HAHYHAHAHHAHAHA. Also every post-election democratic leader has gone publicly to condemn Comey and his actions. This is technically a bi-partisan firing that even Feinstein supports.

Schumey is crying about it.

It'll be interesting to see if she changes her tune in the next few days. They'll probably get all the shitheads in line to bitch about it like Schumer is doing. They're only play is to keep the heat on Trump so they can protect Obama/Clinton.

He had no choice. The deputy AG sent a letter detailing why Comey should be fired. It would have been way worse if he didn't take the deputy AG's recommendation and didn't fire Comey.

I watched a bunch of non-fox coverage, and they were saying iterations of u/ProgrammingPants's point over and over. The letters from Trump and Rosenstein were discussed at length.

I watched some CBS coverage, and it didn't mention it at all.

I do admit it's entirely possible that most of the rest of the reporting mentioned it though.

If someone on CBS claimed Comey was controversy-free, they're a moron from planet partisan.

Not even planet partisan really. Comey has scandals on both sides.

I'm still going to say that's probably a good thing.

Do you want the head of the FBI to be liked by both parties? Or even worse, by only one?

That's probably true.

CBS is controlled by the CIA

There are 6 major media companies that control 90% of the media. All were subject to Cia mocking bird. All are uncertain Cia control. All are orchestrating a show, for the real actions behind closed doors

He had no choice. The deputy AG sent a letter detailing why Comey should be fired. It would have been way worse if he didn't take the deputy AG's recommendation and didn't fire Comey.

You mean like they did when acting AG Sally Yates warned them that Flynn had deceived the Vice President and they fired Yates instead of Flynn?

So, by your logic, he should have fired Comey, which is what he did.

Your bringing up a separate topic to shit on Trump, but you just proved my point.

Why so obtuse tho? Not OP, but the implication is that Trump doesn't have to do anything his AG or deputy AG says and he certainly doesn't have to do it right when it looks insanely suspicious. It's also suspicious that the deputy AG is a Trump appointed subordinate of Sessions who recused himself from the Trump campaign/Russia investigation directly after being called out for making false statements before Congress about his own contacts with Russian "diplomats" during the same time he was working for the Trump campiagn; and who is also almost certainly under investigation himself.

It's not being obtuse. It's twisting his logic against him. It's clear that he viewed firing Yates instead of Flynn as a mistake. So by the analogy he is making it would be a mistake not to fire Comey.

It's also suspicious that the deputy AG is a Trump appointed subordinate of Session

An Obama appointee for US attorney as well, and respected on both sides of the aisle.

Trump's AG who recused himself from the Trump campaign/Russia investigation directly after being called out for making false statements before Congress about his own contacts with Russian "diplomats" during the same time he was working for the Trump campiagn; and who is also almost certainly under investigation himself.

Sessions has said his talks with the Russians were about other matters. I would guess you don't believe him, but it's certainly plausible he would have other reasons to talk to Russian diplomats as he was a senator at the time.

An Obama appointee for US attorney as well, and respected on both sides of the aisle.

Originally a Bush appointee. Comey has also enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. Only one Senator voted against his confirmation as FBI director.

Sessions has said his talks with the Russians were about other matters.

It doesn't change the fact that Sessions made false statements. He's either a liar or incompetent. I'm only leaning more towards liar as time passes.

Originally a Bush appointee.

Again, Obama then appointed him for US attorney. My point being that he is respected throughout both parties. Who originally appointed him is not relevant.

Comey has also enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. Only one Senator voted against his confirmation as FBI director. So I guess bipartisan support ain't all it's cracked up to be.

And, more recently, Comey enjoyed bipartisan derision.

It doesn't change the fact that Sessions made false statements.

He has said over and over again that the question clearly implied a certain type of contact (which he did not have), and then his answer was twisted out of context. Also, this is a side issue. We were talking about the recommendation of a respected deputy AG.

Again, Obama then appointed him for US attorney.

You don't understand the way US attorney's are appointed. Obama didn't appoint Rosenstein. Bush did. Obama neglected to nominate a replacement. You can say that Rosenstein served under Obama, but Obama didn't appoint him. Surely you can recognize the difference between selecting someone for a job and simply deciding not to fire them. Saying Rosenstein is an Obama appointee is like saying Comey is a Trump appointee.

And, more recently, Comey enjoyed bipartisan derision.

Comey enjoyed short lived derision and praise from either party at different times depending on whether his actions helped either party's political agenda. Not really all that meaningful given the political motives of either party to praise him and censure him. And if you're like me, and don't generally trust either party, bipartisan support doesn't really mean much to begin with.

He has said over and over again that the question clearly implied a certain type of contact

Yeah, I don't buy it. I've got a bridge to sell you if you do.

You don't understand the way US attorney's are appointed. Obama didn't appoint Rosenstein. Bush did. Obama neglected to nominate a replacement. You can say that Rosenstein served under Obama, but Obama didn't appoint him. Surely you can recognize the difference between selecting someone for a job and simply deciding not to fire them. Saying Rosenstein is an Obama appointee is like saying Comey is a Trump appointee.

Fine, let's concede your point. It doesn't make a difference because all I was saying was that the guy is well respected by both Democrats and Republicans, which is undoubtedly true.

Comey enjoyed short lived derision and praise from either party at different times depending on whether his actions helped either party's political agenda. Not really all that meaningful given the political motives of either party to praise him and censure him. And if you're like me, and don't generally trust either party, bipartisan support doesn't really mean much to begin with.

These are fair statements.

Yeah, I don't buy it. I've got a bridge to sell you if you do.

As I said you probably wouldn't. But neither of us can really prove anything either way. All I have to say after this is that Sessions' character was considered impeccable before this.

I don't understand why you guys are acting like it matters whether it was Bush or Obama. Both are puppets of the same 1 party system

I specifically said it didn't matter.

He fired Flynn after gathering proper evidence?

Yates was fired because she refused to follow an executive order from the president.

He had no choice. The deputy AG sent a letter detailing why Comey should be fired. It would have been way worse if he didn't take the deputy AG's recommendation and didn't fire Comey.

Do you honestly think he did it completely on his own volition, without any prodding from the AG or Administration? LOL.

Remember, the Deputy AG is the guy that got promoted because Sally Yates got fired. They sent a clear message to him what would happen if he didn't play along.

Who cares? Coney should have been fired. Both Democrats and Republicans have been saying it. Only now that Trumo did it are the Democrats complaining.

Who cares? Coney should have been fired. Both Democrats and Republicans have been saying it. Only now that Trumo did it are the Democrats complaining.

And like the OP said:

You can be simultaneously glad that Comey is gone and be concerned that Trump may have done this for nefarious reasons.

And what I'm saying is that the only reason they don't like this move is that Trump did it, and the timing thing is a convenient excuse.

I'm aware that what you're saying is possible, but the fact is Democrats will oppose Trump no matter what he does, even if they previously supported it.

Believing the liberal media narrative is the most mindless thing you could possibly do, and you bought it all the way.

I'm aware that what you're saying is possible, but the fact is Democrats will oppose Trump no matter what he does, even if they previously supported it.

This is bullshit. If he came out with a Universal Healthcare plan, many Democrats would applaud him.

People oppose Trump when he does shitty and shady things. Simple as that.

This is bullshit. If he came out with a Universal Healthcare plan, many Democrats would applaud him, including Bernie Sanders.

I don't agree that this would happen. This is exactly the thing that Democrats wanted just recently, and all of a sudden they oppose it.

This is exactly the thing that Democrats wanted just recently, and all of a sudden they oppose it.

How did they oppose it?

Bernie Sanders sponsored a Universal Healthcare bill just this year. And while not going as far as Universal healthcare, the DNC platform for the election included a public option, and asserted the healthcare was a right.

I meant this firing, not universal healthcare.

If you think the likes of Chuck Schumer have an ounce of intellectual integrity I have news for you.

I meant this firing, not universal healthcare.

Again, you're just ignoring context completely.

I agree that he deserved to be fired, but I don't for a second believe Trump did it for any reason but to try and protect himself.

If you think the likes of Chuck Schumer have an ounce of intellectual integrity I have news for you.

Well I'm not a Democrat, so I certainly agree. But I'll praise anyone, Republican or Democrat, who supports a good idea like Universal Healthcare.

If Republicans went back to their roots, I could see myself supporting them more too. Unfortunately as we've seen with Trump and the current establishment, their biggest goal is to give the wealthy as much cuts as possible.

I agree that he deserved to be fired, but I don't for a second believe Trump did it for any reason but to try and protect himself.

You would never believe that Comey was getting in the way of investigations, and maybe that was the reason? Because Comey has a history of doing exactly that and protecting people high up.

I agree that he deserved to be fired, but I don't for a second believe Trump did it for any reason but to try and protect himself.

You would never believe that Comey was getting in the way of investigations, and maybe that was the reason? Because Comey has a history of doing exactly that and protecting people high up.

I agree that he deserved to be fired, but I don't for a second believe Trump did it for any reason but to try and protect himself.

You would never believe that Comey was getting in the way of investigations, and maybe that was the reason? Because Comey has a history of doing exactly that and protecting people high up.

Obama had a "scandal free" presidency too. The politicians and media are just trying to take advantage that most people have the attention span of a gnat and can barely remember last week. It's like we all forgot about the Boston bombing, San Bernardino, and the Orlando shooting.

Obama only had a scandal free president according to the media because the media liked him.

No fucking shit. Dude had eight years of the media kissing his ass ass, Obama and his cult still have control of the media now, it's an amazing thing to watch.

Wasnt it the left calling for him to be fired only months ago though?

Which is why they can be glad that Comey is gone.

But if Trump fired Comey to, for example, undermine the active investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with the Russian government, then they and any American should be concerned with the reason Trump fired him.

Imagine it this way. If I gave you $1,000 randomly out of nowhere, you'd be happy to get it. If I gave you this money so you wouldn't tell the police about a crime you saw me commit, although you'd still be happy with the money, you'd be a tad concerned with the reason why I gave you this thing you wanted.

So its a "I only want this to happen when the person negatively effected me"

http://i.imgur.com/HXSRCVy.png pretty much sums it up

So it's a "I want this to happen for these reasons, but when it happens for radically different reasons in radically different contexts then my feelings on the current situation are different from the feelings I had towards what I originally wanted to happen"

Are you literally incapable of comprehending the concept that the context in which an event happens can be just as important as the event itself?

A child should be able to understand this much.

Liberals didn't want "Comey to be fired".

They wanted "Comey to be fired because X "

When "Comey gets fired because Y ", and Y could be the president covering up literal treason, then it's not what they wanted.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""could be"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Why did the letter specifically say Trump wasnt under investigation. So how could it be treason?

Comey said these exact words , under oath:

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. ”

Trump himself may not be individually under investigation, but his campaign as a whole is, and we know for a fact that some members of his campaign had unsavory connections with the Russian government. His first campaign manager had to be fired after his connections became public.

Why did the letter specifically say Trump wasnt under investigation.

Why did Trump use misleading language to downplay active investigations into his campaign's connections with Russia?

I don't know, why would he do that??? You tell me.

Why are you acting like a letter that Trump wrote is an unbiased or valid source of information on this topic?

You are not doing a whole lot to dispel the earlier impression you made, that you have worse reasoning skills than a child.

People ignoring context and smugly acting like doing so makes them more objective is super annoying.

Comey was disliked on both sides.

That means he was doing a good job.

"Disliked" isnt the same as "wanting to be fired"

So it seems like both sides should be happy

And we still wanted him gone yesterday.

That doesn't mean we can't find the reasoning and timing suspicious. It's all about context.

"it doesnt mean we cant complain because Trump"

We can complain about Trump over anything. Hell, he thinks humans are like batteries and will die if they exercise.

This is about constitutional law, which weirdly enough the conservatives all of a sudden don't care about.

Whatre you on about? Firing someone is unconstitutional?

Gonna piggy back this - anyone got link proof that he said we have no right to privacy?

Have you been in the other threads on this subreddit? Normal users are...but there aren't any normal users around anymore.

But how funny is it that he has the ability to use the Clinton situation as reason? That's just hilarious.

The concern should be with what kind of shit bag they're going to put in his place. We've seen this stellar Trump cabinet come together. The next guy may be worse in every conceivable way.

Nope. That's pure cognitive dissonance.

Logical consistency would be glad Comey is gone and glad Trump did it for the right reasons, because Comey is a dirtbag.

There is zero evidence Trump "did it for nefarious reasons", therefore having that concern is irrational.

and glad Trump did it for the right reasons

Hey look it's a guy from the "Trump is a literal god who would never do anything bad" club.

There is zero evidence Trump "did it for nefarious reasons", therefore having that concern is irrational.

The circumstances behind the firing would allow any person with two brain cells to rub together to see how it is probable that Trump did this to cover his own ass.

If Obama had fired the acting director of the FBI while said director of the FBI was investigating his campaign for colluding with a foreign government to undermine American democracy, you wouldn't say "Well there's no reason to believe Obama had a bad reason to do this".

The entire investigation is a fraud based on a fake document, and should be regarded as such.

It was a huge document. Some parts were false, others were verifiably true. If someone gives you a 100 page document but one thing on page 83 was false, does that mean the entire thing is fake?

The circumstances behind the firing would allow any person with two brain cells to rub together to see how it is probable that Trump did this to cover his own ass.

Nonsense. Comey had nothing because there is nothing there. If this is not correct, some other agency can easily bring forward the concerns. Every report that has come out, however, has failed to establish any connection with Russians, so what exactly is the claim?

Bingo. Comey was an idiot and i dont give a shit about him personally. But. I think it is pretty fucked up to fire a dude who is leading an investigation into your administration. It was also done on the recommendation of someone who had withdrawn themselves from said investigation for conflict of interest.

Stinks to high heaven.

Comey had six months to come up with something concrete re the Russian investigation, but he has come up empty handed. The investigation will go forward. I believe Comey was using the Russia thing to protect him from firing . . . he in turn is in a position to protect other Washington insiders. Distracting everyone keeps thins in play and theoretically prevents Trump from moving forward. Well, Trump has decided to more forward.

It is not even clear at this point what the Russians presumably did to impact the election or how they might have been involved with Trump. The Russians had no impact on the election. This was a fishing expedition/delay tactic.

Sure, but you guys aren't, instead you're defending him constantly.

Nice attempt at deflection and backpeddling, though. I give it a C+ for effort.

Basically summed up the whole damn election and everything after. What a disaster.

Lock these traitors up.

I believe Comey to be a good man. Call me a shill all you want. The truth will come out, Comey or no Comey.

I think it would be hilarious if Clinton shit on you guys in court and got away lol

Full retard.

Removed. Rule 4. First warning.

How is that breaking rule 4 exactly?

How am I wrong? He's demonstrating extreme brainwash. That's not an insult, just fact.

That is astonishing, given Comey's reputation as an inside Washington fixer. Check here for more info on Comey: https://aim4truth.org/2017/03/29/6438/

Trump wasnt firing comey because of past transgressions, he fired him to cover up his relation to russia. Now that it is coming out that subpoenas have been handed down hours before the firing it is now obvious his firing was related to the subpoenas.

Who was subpoenaed

Flynn and associates

MUH RUSSIA!

Thanks for pushing the MSM talking points for today.

Tell that line of bullshit to flynn and his associates who just received the first batch of subpoenas you commie cock suck sucker.

refused to recommend charges for one of the most corrupt & obviously guilty politicians.

Yaaaawn. This again? If she was so "guilty and corrupt" why hasn't Trump ordered Sessions to file charges against her, or hired that "Special Prosecutor."

FFS Comey sucks, but not because he didn't recommend charges against Clinton, but because he actively interfered in the election by releasing information regarding Clinton's investigation, but did not due to same with the investigation into the Trump camp's ties to Russia, which had started in JULY. The idea that Comey somehow helped Clinton but hurt is so ludicrous and out of touch with reality that it's simply astounding that people would even have the remotest notion that was the case.

Also "one of the most obviously corrupt and guilty politicians" seems to STRONGLY hint that you have been brainwashed to just hate Clinton. That's the kind of blase baseless emotional rhetoric that has helped someone FAR MORE CORRUPT THAT CLINTON.

Yawwwnnnnn the Hillary Defense Force talking points, again?

Sending classified documents to your maid to be printed on your home computer is a felony, dipshit, whether or not you or Comey think so, the law PROVES THIS.

Same question, what law. If she broke the law why isn't Trump prosecuting her.

I'll say this again, they are part of the same Cabal. They won't prosecute each other. Trump himself said "you'd be in jail" was just a good campaign meme, and that the "Clintons are good people, I won't hurt them". So Trump supporters won't admit Trump is a shill and won't jail Hillary, and Clinton supporters will claim if she broke the law why won't he jail Hillary, meaning she dint broke the law. Lol the right and left keep fighting each other, like they always have been.

Never forget that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton in private in the middle of the Hillary Crimes Investigation, which Comey pissed away as if it was unintentional.

Can't really figure out why Trump didn't fire Comey on day one. But then draining the swamp was already dead by day one, and there has never even been a pretense of justice or rule of law from the day that Trump took office. His fat stinking ass is no better than Obama's skinny ass, just two different flavors of the people getting shafted. One favored identity politics more. One was more hell bent on going to war with Russia and Iran. Probably Pence is really in charge and Trump is just a distraction.

The real conspiracy is who gets picked next and how will the media and shills on reddit frame his or her decisions from here on out.

Obviously guilty?

Until proven innocent.

Which she was.

We have copious evidence of felonies she committed, stop lying and pretending otherwise, Hillary Defense Force.

Paul Combetta

Wikileaks is not journalism, and it shouldn't be. They should be about the leaks, but unfortunately it's more about Julian Assange than anything else.

Yea there are no comey defenders, just a bunch of shills who want to keep the "Russia narrative" going no matter how ridiculous the claims are.

Trump has had a bit of success getting the democrats to step on each other's dicks to decry his statements and actions.

The people who are rushing to the Saturday night massacre comparisons have a blind spot for Obama. Obama aggressively targeted the media and leakers used IRS to target political enemies. He Funneled DOJ money to community organizing groups and politicized the intelligence services.

Its already been established that Comey was compromised along with his boss Loretta Lynch. I could care less about Comey, this has nothing to do with defending his actions (and inactions), and everything to with the nonexistent check-and-balances system in our country. Nothing screams more obviously corrupt than firing someone who is investigating you for illegal activities, right after members of your staff are subpoenaed. And then you have the authority to hire the next person who will lead the investigation against you. At least with the democrats they did their damnedest to cover this shit up (I'm being facetious here). Trump and his team are so painfully obvious its not even a fucking conspiracy anymore. Anyone who still believes Trump is going to live up to his campaign promises, and wasn't corrupt from the very start is living under a rock. Anyone that believes our government is a fucking democracy is living under a rock. The whole lot of them, Republicans and Democrats, are all corrupt to the core and are compromised at any given time by a number of constituents.

Much worse: https://aim4truth.org/2017/03/29/6438/

Honest question: Is anyone truly defending Comey? Or are people merely questioning the timing of his dismissal, and the motivation behind it?

You have some great submissions and comments. Thank you for not sucking.

please please please be trey gowdy

Gowdy may be a religious nutter, but he appears to be squeaky clean.

Totally, which is why he was fired on January 20th...wait...

Again, Obama then appointed him for US attorney.

You don't understand the way US attorney's are appointed. Obama didn't appoint Rosenstein. Bush did. Obama neglected to nominate a replacement. You can say that Rosenstein served under Obama, but Obama didn't appoint him. Surely you can recognize the difference between selecting someone for a job and simply deciding not to fire them. Saying Rosenstein is an Obama appointee is like saying Comey is a Trump appointee.

And, more recently, Comey enjoyed bipartisan derision.

Comey enjoyed short lived derision and praise from either party at different times depending on whether his actions helped either party's political agenda. Not really all that meaningful given the political motives of either party to praise him and censure him. And if you're like me, and don't generally trust either party, bipartisan support doesn't really mean much to begin with.

He has said over and over again that the question clearly implied a certain type of contact

Yeah, I don't buy it. I've got a bridge to sell you if you do.

Full retard.

That is astonishing, given Comey's reputation as an inside Washington fixer. Check here for more info on Comey: https://aim4truth.org/2017/03/29/6438/