This one doesn't seem to be going away, Donald. Which is, perhaps, why you keep talking about it.
► Dems have been complaining for months & months about Dir. Comey. Now that he has been fired they PRETEND to be aggrieved. Phony hypocrites! [1P]
► The Democrats should be ashamed. This is a disgrace! #DrainTheSwamp . [2P]
That one comes with a glossy video of various Democratic politicians calling for Comey's ouster — mostly back in October and November.
Word has it[3] that you were surprised by all of this blowing up quite the way it has.
'But the fallout seemed to take the White House by surprise. Trump made a round of calls around 5 p.m., asking for support from senators. White House officials believed it would be a “win-win” because Republicans and Democrats alike had had problems with the FBI director, one person briefed on the administration’s deliberations said.
Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told him he was making a big mistake — and Trump seemed “taken aback,” according to a person familiar with the call.
The idea was that the GOP disliked Comey (for not recommending Clinton for prosecution), the Dems disliked Comey (for his helping hand Trump the election in his October Surprise), and Comey had made enough general goofs, that nobody would shed a tear.
Surprise!
Comey, for better and worse, seemed to have been the one guy really focusing on this whole Russia thing — which seems to have been the true the source of what ailed you about the guy.[4] A lot of people remain worried about that thing — either about the actual charges, or the visuals around them.
The result? Comey was disliked, but was seen as currently performing an essential task, investigating the shenanigans that you so clearly don't want investigated (whether out of outraged innocence or some reason less savory). Not just investigating them, but intensifying the investigation.
And while you and your pretty videos are focused on the Dems, even a number of GOP congresscritters[5] were taken aback by the timing and method here. But you can't attack them, so best to focus your vitriol on the Democrats.
And let's get this straight, Donald: the Dems are no more "pretending" to be aggrieved than you are. Indeed, the fact that they still dislike and mistrust Comey makes it even more frustrating for them that they see him as the best way to get to the bottom of the Russia stuff. But as much as they dislike and mistrust Comey to handle the investigation properly, they are going to dislike and mistrust the successor you hand-pick far more.
Your office's shifting rationale for the firing also aren't helping your case. Claiming it was just a recommendation from Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein because of a long history of Comey's blunders doesn't at all jibe with why you actually praised some of those actions during the campaign, or why you kept him on in January instead of "Draining the Swamp". If there's hypocrisy in the air, Donald, it surrounds you as well.
Donald, a piece of advice: if you ever knew an unquestionably honest man, whose integrity is recognized across all party lines, now would be the time to put him into place at the head of the FBI.
—
[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/862387734492663808
[2] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/862460991451344896
[3] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192
[4] 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, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/how-trump-decided-to-fire-james-comey.html
[5] http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/republican-response-comey-fired/
[P] So incredibly important and official that you not only posted it on @RealDonaldTrump, but on the official @POTUS account.
Because your fired the A.G. in N.Y. and now your fire Comey. You can't fire everybody investigating you.
+dominic sandoval So far, yeah, he pretty much can.
Well, except for House members (so they finessed that a different way) and the US Senate (TBD).
The fact that everybody is "investigating" him isn't his problem. It shouldn't force him to keep people around who are on the opposition party or those who perform incompetently. This is as true for Trump as it would have been for Obama.
Stop.
+Lumen Essence All things being equal, you are correct. And the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President.
On the other hand, yes, all the people investigating him is his problem, and he very clearly takes it s such. And choosing to dismiss the guy, in this way, pretty much stinks on ice. It's legal, but not necessarily ethical, and certainly not wise.
Trump is doing a great job''
ITS OK SIR KEEP MOVING AMERICA FORWARD THE HELL WITH ANTI AMERICAN CITIZENS
Liberals seem to forget:
Clinton fired his FBI Director (Sessions) the day before Vince Foster was found DEAD (on July 20, 1993).
Hmmm seems to me they are cherry picking like always.
+Shad Greenup Anything specifically anti-American you want to call out, or is it just easier to call people you don't like "ANTI AMERICAN"?
+Joaquin G They "forget" it because the two cases have almost nothing in common.
Also, Vince Foster? Really? You might as well tie it the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy as being as connected.
http://www.businessinsider.com/last-fbi-director-fired-bill-clinton-william-sessions-2017-5
+Dave Hill ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT IS OPPOSED TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT ,OUR MILITARY OUR FLAG WAIVING IN THE AIR ,AND PUTTING AMERICA FIRST IN ALL PHASES ETC IF THEY DONT LIKE HOW THINGS ARE THEN LEAVE
Talking about hypocrisy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-LTHYUT0vs
+Shad Greenup What does any of the above have to do with the 2nd Amendment, the Military, Patriotic Displays, or "PUTTING AMERICA FIRST IN ALL PHASES"?
+nustada There's a significant difference between how Dems were speaking out against Comey around the election, and wanting him fired without warning right now while he's deep into the counter-intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the US elections.
Just as there seems to be a signfiicant difference between how Trump was speaking favorably of Comey last year, and when he took office in January, and even last month, and then deciding he must be fired immediately, without warning, because of his bad performance across his tenure as FBI Director.
+Dave Hill BEINGS IM AT WORK I DONT HAVE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND TRUMPS OPPOSITION ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE
projecting yourself on trump again, huh lefties?
cry us a fucking river
+Dave Hill Comey was never legit to begin with. He was appointed by a man with a false ID and a questionable American citizenship.
First Trump praised Comely for pulling crap on Hillary, then when Comely asked for money on the Russian investigation, Trump suddenly fires him, with Comely practically being the last to hear about it, and says it's because of the crap he pulled on Hillary.
Sounds like a desperate man trying to save himself while his blind followers refuse to see it, which it's no wonder why Trump feels like he can get away with anything.
Firing others at the right time is seen as a good deed, however, firing the head of the FBI while you're being investigated is an outrage.
Wow. Spam, trolls, and truthers. Fascinating collection of ban-stick targets.
Love to laugh at the liberals right now. So darned confused. First Comey is bad and needs to be fired. Now Comey is good and we have a constitutional crisis. And all the while, they still parrot the Trump Russian nothing burger. What total fools they are. Even Colbert had to tell the stupid liberral sheep what to think. You libs and your media whores can't stop losing. Trump owns you little bitches.
Love to laugh at the conservatives right now, esp. those who follow the "Jesus Christ Daily" group, who are so frightened and/or outraged over how Trump is being treated that they have to search out posts other people are writing so that they can call them names. Classy!
Speaking of spam…
+Geoff Lewis What investigation? There's absolutely no proof he collided with Russia.
If you can give me any solid evidence he did, I'll believe you. If not, it's just another lie projected by the left in order to delegitimize President Trump.
+Joseph Stardust Let's say, we have different views which is awesome.
+Geoff Lewis That's fine, but I'm taking a Communications class at my college, and it involves debate. In it, I learned to always take prior knowledge, evidence, statistics and facts with me into any debate or spontaneous argument.
Sean Spicer said that there was conclusive evidence to show that there was no collusion. If you can at least provide one link, be it short or extensive, to any Russian official or business, then I will be willing to believe you. I'm not forcing you to do it, but it would be nice to have an intellectual conversation with someone from the other side of the political spectrum. I can respect your opinion to believe what you do, so long as you can respect mine.
+Shad Greenup Why exactly should we leave if we don't like how things are? Only a coward would just run from their problems like that. No, America is owned by the people, and if that orange buffoon thinks he can just come in and play God, and do whatever he wants with no restrictions, he's got another thing coming. A couple dozen, really. No, we will not run away with our tails between our legs. We will protect our country from being driven to ruin by an egotistical child.
Fire yourself and every one of the asshats you have hired starting NOW you lying, incompetent, traitor
+Greg McLear It's funny how you accused others of things that Trump has been doing. First Trump loved Comely for helping him screw with the election, then got rid of him when he became a threat to him while spreading BS that he did it for the American people.
+Joseph Stardust A press secretary's statement about what evidence does or does not exist is hardly conclusive.
I also don't believe that Spicer has made such an assertion — that "there was conclusive evidence to show that there was no collusion." Aside from the folly of trying to prove a negative, I think his statement was likely to the effect that there is no conclusive evidence to show there was collusion — which, again, is far different from being able to assert that there was none (and, again, given his position, can be taken as hearsay at best).
Here's what we do, publicly, know:
1. Russia interfered in the US election. That's even admitted by Trump (sometimes).
2. A number of Trump campaign officials and (now) administration members had various contacts with Russian officials, oligarchs, and their representatives at various times during the election campaign and during the transition period before Trump assumed office.
2.5 We know that a number of those contacts did not get reported, even by people under oath. Testimony has a times been retroactively amended, and some of the folk involved have claimed to recuse themselves from those matters under investigation.
3. We know little, publicly, about the content of those contacts; we know that the intelligence community did capture some of those contacts incidental to surveillance on those Russians.
3.5 We know that Mike Flynn, the National Security Advisor, was fired for such contacts and for misrepresenting them to the VP. We know that it took over two weeks from the time those discrepencies were reported by the DoJ to the White House for Flynn to be fired, and that the actual trigger event seems to have been that information being leaked by someone to the WaPo. We do not have details about those contacts/conversations, either, to what extent they were directed (or not) by Team Trump, etc. That is part of the investigations going on.
4. At the time of the joint Intelligence Community report on Russian interference, there was nothing presented in it proving any collusion. We don't know if there was information hinting there might be but not yet at an evidentiary level, nor do we know what information has been gathered since then.
5. We know the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been investigating all of this. We don't anything conclusive one way or the other, as the investigations are, in theory, still underway and classified. Members of those committees have given hints that align with partisan goals, but that's not evidence.
6. We know that the FBI was and continues a counter-intelligence investigation into the Russian interference, including how Team Trump individuals may have been involved. We know that Comey over the last week asked the Senate Intelligence Committee for more funding and personnel to ramp up that investigation. We know, again, from folk who were briefed on this that there was information that may (or may not) be disturbing.
Stir into that a big mix of Trump (and his Administration) having business dealings at various times with various Russian contacts and parties and the like.
It is premature to conclude guilt, certainly not in a legal fashion; Trump's behavior around all of this (stonewalling, accusations, firings) are suspicious-looking, but hardly proof.
It is similarly premature to say that it's been proven nothing is going on, or that Trump and all the President's men have been exonerated, especially while the FBI and Congress are both still investigating the matter.
oh hell no
+Joseph Stardust "Collided"? You're a credit to whatever school you're attending.
+Dave Hill I've been wondering when the voice of reason would speak, and there you were! Thank you.
"Dems have been complaining for months & months about Dir. Comey. Now that he has been fired they PRETEND to be aggrieved."
Ever heard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", Mr. Trump? The Democrats hate you more than Comey, simply put.
+Kayann Ramos ha ha ha ha
just a thought….why fire some one who is supposedly Not investigating you?
on another note; of course Comey made mistakes…ones that Trump relished and applauded…where did the love go? And why during congressional hearings?
No connection? Really? ….
Of course Dems were frustrated with his timing, if the shoe was on the other foot so would have been the Repubs….none the less…..he was in place and doing his job. Ither way…..that's the problem.
+Joseph Stardust Good point, but we can go even further. We keep hearing the word: "collusion", as though it's a holy word. It's probably being used because it sounds scary, but most people don't actually know what it means, and they will be too lazy to look it up.
In fact, it means a secret cooperation or arrangement which is used in committing an illegal act.
So where is the evidence of an illegal act? If this is about Russia changing our election, where is the evidence that it even happened? If there was no illegal act, then what "collusion" are we even talking about?
*ball falls into the other court…*
+Lumen Essence That's why it's an investigation, not a trial. As yet.
The presumption, based on the Intelligence Community report was that Russia did, in fact, illegally interfered in US elections. If that happened (as yet not proven in court) and if there was cooperation from or coordination with individuals in the Trump campaign, for example, that would be illegal, and if the evidence were sufficient to file charges, it could result a federal criminal trial or (in the case of someone holding federal office, up to and including the President) impeachment.
+Dave Hill understood, but after a year of investigating, if you still have to say "if" that many times to get to collusion, then I say we sink all that tax money into something more productive.
+Lumen Essence Maybe we can look into Benghazi again.
How long should an investigation — one looking at a moving and growing target — last? How long does it take? I don't know. I certainly don't feel like we know as clearly as we should the things that did, or didn't, hapen.
+Dave Hill I respect that, but in Benghazi, there is no dispute that there were tragic American deaths, and a lack of response from our military that contributed to it.
The Russian collusion conspiracy hasn't as yet provided one incontrovertible piece of evidence that so much as one vote was changed by anything that Russia has done. Hence, I'm not sure that the two situations are comparable.
+Lumen Essence The crime involved is not necessarily (or provably) votes that were changed (that would be highly difficult to demonstrate), but arguable cybercrime and espionage — and, beyond that, if individuals in the US aided, abetted, or were coordinated with in so doing.
In the case of Benghazi, the problem there is not that people weren't proven to have died, but that multiple investigations, from multiple quarters, found no significantly culpable acts — at which point the GOP kept launching investigation after investigation, hoping ten's the charm.
If we're still having this conversation in 2018, or after the FBI, the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Pentagon investigation into Flynn have all concluded with nothing there there, and nothing new having come up since then, that will be a very different conversation.