I don't think there are many who think the election was "rigged", just that Comey overstepped his bounds and unnecessarily went public with relatively benign information just a few days before the election.
I am not familiar with these circumstances. I'll have to look it up.
IF you think the man is incompetent you shouldn't be claiming he "shouldn't be fired." Everything else is people just playing politics. You should know that.
I've said it before, I think this type of investigation should be led by an independent investigator. I don't think it's normal or appropriate at all for an employee to essentially be investigating his boss. That screams conflict of interest for the director of the FBI.
The problem is that the idea that he was fired after all these months for something that happened over 6 months ago is preposterous. It was seemingly used as an excuse to influence the investigation and/or to get put a crony in charge of the FBI.
I agree but what does that have to do with the fact that a sitting President seemingly threatened a FBI director that he fired who was investigating him/his campaign/administration/whatever you want to call it?
If that was the motivation, why wouldn't he have done this back when he first got elected? Why did he not want a "crony" in place from the very start? People would have cried the same stuff if Trump had done it then as they are with him doing it now. Especially if I'm supposed to believe the conspiracy theories that Trump is in bed with the Russians. You would have made the replacement right away instead of waiting.
First of all Trump says all kinds of shit he shouldn't. This goes right in that category. I think Trump knows Comey is pissed over this and doesn't want him talking about the investigation. Which by the way I'm sure Comey isn't legally supposed to do and Trump is clearly paranoid of happening.
I'm not sure what you mean by this type of investigation. This is an intelligence investigation principally aimed at investigating whether the Russians influenced the outcome of the election. It isn't about Trump although some think it is. There are some who were potentially affiliated with him through the campaign process and they are included because there was surveillance done on them by other intelligence agencies prior to the election. It is very appropriate for the FBI to conduct this Investigation. There has been nothing at this point to indicate that Trump is a suspect for anything in this Investigation because if there were that would already have been dealt with by the DOJ and Senate intelligence committees as a national security matter.
That is precisely why he did it.
I agree but the natural progression is that if the Russians influenced the outcome of the election for the winning party, you can foresee a conflict of interest for that winning party.
Agree but the possibility of no culpability by the winner. But as you have said this whole idea is more of a political sour grapes manufactured story than anything else aimed at the democratic mantra of resist.
There is no longer a standard of behavior for president of the United States. It is considered totally fine for him to say whatever he wants regardless of it is appropriate or true. It just gets dismissed as "Oh, that's just Trump being Trump. It doesn't matter. You can't take him too seriously." This is the president of the US we're talking about here. I seriously can not believe we have reached the point that this is the case. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Fuck you, sir. If Hillary had pulled this shit, I would be just as up in arms. Just before Comey was fired I was defending his decision to go forward with the info on Hillary, because the Republicans would have had a witch hunt.
Yeah, and yet still none of this imaginary connection between Trump and Russia fixing the election. You're no closer to proving your conspiracy theory than you are to curing cancer.
It's dishonest because you're a blind liberal homer. If you could see it as independent third party you'd see how foolish both sides are. But you're looking through rose colored glasses.
If you said the Cowboys are a better team in 2016 than the Redskins, would the fact that you're a homer invalidate actual facts. Or do you believe it's more correct to say the Cowboys and Redskins were exactly as good in 2016 because both sets of fan bases are biased. No, because that's stupid. Bias doesn't invalidate fact.
Lets see. There is the Bill Clinton Standard. There is the George W Bush Standard. There is the Ronald Regan Standard. The George Herbert Walker Bush Standard. The Barack Obama Standard. Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Etc. etc. Which one is the bearer?
So how many employees of Obama had to step down because of ties to Kenya?
