The debate "Opinions on Trump firing the FBI guy" was started by
May 10, 2017, 3:04 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, MrShine posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
MrLuke, The13yearoldconservative, SirIntegra and 16 visitors agree.
MrShine, jgwin10, Grizzi and 12 visitors disagree.
Of course, the findings of the previous investigation, if you like, were that Clinton had been informed that this wasn't a fringe group that suddenly decided to attack, knew the attack was occuring, took no action and suggested for waiting when the option to provide support occured, and then when confronted about the issue blamed a video for inviting and providing misinformation that created the situation. Then, as some would suggest is spotty or conspiracy, it was found that weapons used in the attack had been provided by the us. Whether it was actually traded or picked up from the dead...? Still, a decent amount of information has become available, not simply "they perjured themselves".
The hacker story needs to follow a line with the evidence found. Is this clear cut.
Sorry for the wait, response was buried, and I didn't think you'd responded.
Hacking by which? I understand that when we talk about the Russian hackers, we say less about what was hacked, and more about who did it. Let's change that, as much of what was hacked by Russia was also hacked by China. Was it the DNC? Certainly wasn't the polling booths.
As for a colluded effort in regards to the actual election, Hillary did bring forth this claim, which when checked also counted "maybes" without certainty, making up most of the "all". And in terms of those that claimed with certainty...? Nothing was brought forth, not a dispute that undid the election results, possibly in terms of relevance.
Perjury can bring questions, I wouldn't dispute that. Though, that perjury should be tied to a crime before the Russia instance is brought in, as there are a multitude of possible reasons tied to lying.
And as for the full stop, I'd make a mention of how these aren't, as one has put it, twelve people working in a garage. one person gets fired, another replaces. Should the investigation find something, sure bring it forward, don't stop. But of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty... not "no recommended charges" innocent either.
the meeting is not evidence, it wouldn't even be wrong.
lying about it is wrong, but more than the crime of perjury is the question why and the consequences of not asking that question. unlike other instances of perjury, there is foreign actors and national security involved.
as for comparing obstruction, perhaps I used the wrong word. obstruction implies getting in the way, slowing down, or making it more difficult. that's not whay trump did. he tried to end it, no more, full stop.
not only is a full stop more extreme than a slow down, an investigator actually lost his job over this (as stated by the prez) and that can affect not only this investigation but any potential investigation in the future as investigators have to ghatnie also worry about retaliation for doing their jobs.
as for the time. just compare it to previous investigations. Starr report into Clinton, Watergate, Iran contra... similar length.
what's too long? how about beghazi? how long has that been going on? how much have they found? I don't recall you saying anything but praise for that investigation.
every government intelligence agency and every major private sector cyber security firms have unanimously stated Russians hacked us.
numerous European nations have longed complained of Russia trying to sway their elections with underhanded means.
the current question is not whether or not they hacked it, but if there was internal collusion with them, their hacking is not denied by most, including republicans. only the extreme base still hold on to these conspiracy theories much like Hannity is still pushing that rice story after even fox dropped it.
some people, like Hannity, seem to put ideology above both country and reality (or at least the ratings that come from it, idk) but even some trump apologists are starting to drop. for this I would like to cite John Oliver from this weekend. yes I know, he is very anti trump, but most of his points are followed by sources and quotes, often video.
apparently last week Monday had a prominent fox correspondent call the trump debacle smoke and mirrors, but by Wednesday said "ok, now EVEN I am getting worried"
havent got the time to watch news yet.
he is trying to escape for the wrongs he has done......
I'm sorry, I may not respond to this until wensday.
How conclusive would this statement be, after how long of an investigation? I would argue that meeting is not evidence, but will concede on perjury for Trump's associates. I have no attachments to them either, so it isn't angering to fire Sessions and Flynn, should they be in too deep with Russia.
Can concede Flynn and Jeff lying to a certain capacity.Meeting was always discussed next to Trump's campaign and Russian policy. Therefore, meeting to discuss neither could be interpreted as "have not met to discuss...", but for the sake of following your argument, how does their meeting conclude?
We are a country of laws, ethics is an argument without proper resolution. Who decides what is a polite time to fire, if the individual is worth firing? Stephen Colbert's audience cheered until he corrected them, and this anger feels manufactured.
Mentioned the memo because many complaints stem from this, and I wanted to bring it in to keep ourselves from getting hung up on this.
Same for comparison, sure, but when your comparison says "more obstruction" it shifts away from the argument "obstruction or not". Again, their meetings with Russian ambassadors have little details, and I would agree with Spicer when questions are leading to "gotchas" rather than policy or concerns.
I should make the mention that the Russian hackers are a myth. Our current investigations have proven nothing to tie them anymore than the Chinese, or an inside man.
Oh of course it doesn't, not in this country at least. it does work in all the pseudo totalitarian states he praises like turkey, Russia, and China. I never claimed he knew what he was doing. however you can't argue with him going on air and saying "I thought to myself, this investigation is nonsense, it's a distraction, needs to end."
and to answer a previous question you asked. I don't think it would be ever appropriate to fire the person investigating you. legally he had the right. but ethically it's an outrage. I'd only set 2 conditions. 1 it's a real concern of suspicion and not a fabricated secret. 2 it doesn't continue forever and for an adequate duration just take the average length of the average fbi investigation. I don't think fbi investigations usually end in 3 months and comey was just before Congress requesting more resources for this. So maybe some time in year 2 he could be fired. but no, not now, not 3 months ago.
didn't Michael flynn and Jeff sessions both lie about Russian contacts during their confirmation hearings? and I'm certain Flynn and all of them are part of the ongoing investigation.
I never mentioned the memo. the prez's admission in person was enough for me! the memo happened after most of our discussion and the testimony is expected in the coming weeks... your expectations are unrealistic considering the timeline.
destroying evidence is a crime, and lying under oath is equivalent as testimony is evidence. nonetheless, if you would read the thread title, Hillary is here only for comparison. I understand your outrage as Hillary, which is why I'm double baffled at the current silence.
the hostile foreign power only makes this more urgent. had the RNC hacked the DNC it would be a scandal. but with a foreign player it becomes nation security. do you not even want to know how they got In? can they do it again? what else can they access? and did they have help?
Ah, if the Seth Rich story leads nowhere, there isn't much to discuss on that. At the time it could've been credible, but I'll accept that.
I would like to mention that firing the director does not end an investigation. If someone dies or leaves, it would be ridiculous to say so. And for Flynn "let this go" comments, the Flynn investigation had concluded then.
Also, 2 points. the Comey memo has not been produced, as well as Comey testifying that Trump wasn't under investigation (perjury).
Now, as for Trump's administration commiting perjury, I'd like to know more about that, if you would provide.
Not to say your logic wouldn't be sound, if anything, it helps me understand your logic better too. Would you deny that destroying evidence is a crime, and how does that compare to lying in your opinion?
apparently the story is debunked. the 2 sources are pointing at each other as the actual source and they are just repeating what the other guy said, and the family is horrified at this reporting as well.
regarding your bit, do you mind if I summarize your points as I see them and hopefully you can confirm or deny whether or not I am understanding your position regarding Hillary and trump. note I'm not defending Hillary here, just comparing the 2.
Hillary lied before prosecutors and Congress and destroyed evidence. requires investigation
people in trump's campaign and administration repeatedly lied to congress and trump tried to unilaterally end the investigation into himself. No investigation.
lying + obstructing = investigation
lying + obstructing even harder = no investigation.
I know i said people around trump and not Trump because it is those people being investigated. not Trump, for now at least.
am I getting everything right?
I agree there are more possibilities, which is why the only thing most sensible people, now on both sides of the aisle, including a growing number of Republican politicians are asking for an investigation... because that's how you find out the rest of the facts, and weed out incorrect possibilities.
just declaring there are other possibilities and then doing nothing to explore them doesn't work because then we never find out anything.
I don't care about visiting politicians or their media. there is nothing wrong with Russians visiting or bringing their media. my issue is very specific and explicit. foreign telecommunications do not belong in the oval office. they can do the foreign photo op on the lawn, but if they want to see the insides of the oval office, the Pentagon, the situation room, or any other command center, they can see it through an American camera.
im hoping we can agree on at least this because this should not be partisan by any stretch of an imagination.
I will look into the controversy you mention but I typically do not criticize media organizations for publishing honest reports so long as they are verified or accompanied by visible and appropriate disclaimers. national security and details regarding victims (like turning a story about rape into a sex novel at the expense of the victim) are excepitions. some discretion is necessary. the only blame I place on wikileaks is slowly dripping the info for maximum election manipulation instead of releasing it like an impartial organization should.
I suppose I've said my bit. The differences in ideas would have to be applied to differing values more likely than less. I wouldn't laud Russia either, and perhaps their closeness to the White House can spook people, especially when the public is told their election is stolen.
And in terms of arguing and partisanship, I try to concede where I can because there's no point in holding onto a half-truth, and in an adversarial system two sides must explore all options of each view. It is in my view that there are more possibilities than the confusion and distrust suggest.
I also hope to not seem obtuse, so I'd like to clarify what I meant about Turkeys leaders and so on. In Putin's case, he's a dictator that is supposedly a president. America has contact with leaders, and so do politicians, I can't really ignore that. But, a politician's company is not the end all of their character, and if a visiting mouthpiece or mouthpieces speak to the Russians, it isn't all that different. My question with that should've been "Is Turkey influencing American politics?" which while on the lower end of specifics, could be more frightening than Russia. Of course, I do not believe a visit is enough in either case, Russia's media only received representation, not a ballot so to say.
Not related to the Comey firing (or perhaps is, since the information came out directly after his firing and from the FBI/NY Police) but what do you think about the Seth Rich conspiracy? Now that we know he worked with WikiLeaks, and was no small player, there is another source besides the Russian hackers that had access to many things. Correct me if I am wrong, but many blame WikiLeaks for the election loss, and by proxy Russia since some believed Russians provided WikiLeaks that information. Now that there's an insider that not only had a laptop with further information, should we investigate to find out how much was insider information?
I did bring up Hillary, but only to compare the reactions you as well as most of the right have to Hillary suspicious activities, declared guilty prior to as investigation, while the suspicious activities of trump and numerous people around him warrant no scrutiny...
I'm not saying your wrong about Hillary and trump, I'm saying there is a clear double standard here, and i believe it is entirely due to either partisan thinking or partisan information. that last point was presumptive but I am simply baffled by these conflicting conclusions and am absolutely grasping for straws trying to understand tour logic.
whether it ends on a non-sequitur of not can only be determined by an investigation, which is the only thing I'm asking for at this time and appears to me what you are arguing against.
there is no conspiracy regarding a visit. I have no idea where you got that idea. the conspiracy is over the election and bringing foreign telecom equipment into the room where vital decisions are made and top secret Intel is discussed.
I don't think there is a connection, I think some suspicious events are suspicious and should be looked into. and republicans are starting to voice their shock at this administration.
What is more likely with the Trump/Russia relationship is that Trump is impulsive, and wants to finish the war overseas. The big problem? He can't have us enter a fight or be remembered for starting a war, or at least escalating the fighting.
But there is a country that is next to the conflict, one with firepower, doesn't discriminate low risk high reward under as public as we are here. The Aleppo topic during his presidential run caused a never-ending issue, though he had no part in government and couldn't be blamed for it. In fact, after becoming president, he was blamed for a unit of soldiers being killed in a "botched raid". If handing the issue to another country that could not only take the fall but have a direct line to the conflict, wouldn't that be in his best interests with Russia? Politicians are global now, and their communication is inevitable. Hillary was prepared for war with Russia, so perhaps she wouldn't have gotten a dialogue with them, and maybe, just maybe assuming you'd be right about having a clear favorite winner... How did they rig the election, and what humanitarian crime have they done that the United Nations hasn't already overlooked in Haiti or Rwanda?
My question might not be fair, let me rephrase. You believe there is a connection. That will be true depending on how that relationship is, we've discussed ties. How do those ties delegitimize his actions, or are worth firing Comey over? I'm sure anyone's imagination can run wild with a question like that, but reign it in for a second and give an appropriate why.
?It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission,? Trump wrote in a letter to Comey. ?I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.?
This is what was on the resignation letter as well. Is it not impossible that there is more than one reason? Not to mention that isn't the phrasing either, and an interpretation of an interpretation isn't trusted?
You brought up Hillary first, I cited information to show the comparison was unfair.
...I can concede the lying about contacts, if it doesn't end on a non-sequator. If it ends here, I'm afraid your grasping. Partisanship has nothing to do with it.
When working with a country, and when given the opportunity to create the narrative we choose, should be Paramount. I'm glad you dropped the press refusal issue, but again, we don't need more enemies even if we aren't making allies. Again, I feel this outrage is misplaced. Palistinian and Turkeys leaders have also been invited, are they too a part of a conspiracy?
Yeah Hillary's actions are suspicious. which is why they were investigated. I'm not trying to defend Hillary here, I'm just trying to understand how your reaction to Hillary destroying potentially evidence squares with trumps firing of the guy investigating him. stopping the entire investigating is a far more extreme move, and yet your reaction is completely nonchalant.
the campaign and administration repeatedly lied about their Russian contacts... not suspicious at all?!? your being completely partisan and uncritical.
a foreign entity not bringing telecommunications equipment into your command centers, forget THE command center is foreign policy kindergarden. and Russia is not even an ally.
we have the presidents statement first hand of why he fired comey... that's as certain as your going to get.
Posted part too soon, here's the rest,
Hillary's issue on the server compounded and became an issue not just with mishandling, but deleting evidence once a subpoena was issued. If you have to go to court and bring evidence with you for investing action (in the govt case it is harder to keep necessary info out of their hands, many must work or still have access), it is still difficult to plan a fix when they do not know what could have been received. Also, a private server that is not moderated by the government, but has government officials used for dealings? Suspicion bells would start there too.
The laundering claims and clear ties are less fact, not trump, and honestly "clear ties" is an easy claim to make about any politician. Rubio has ties to Cuba, Obama has ties to Africa, it's all semantics removed from context.
Media has no right to an interview, not all media wasn't allowed and every American has the right to decide if a news program might treat them unfairly in an interview. In the other hand, a dialogue with other nations and their people can prove useful. Having a voice in another country and working with another country, even if they can't be allies, is beneficial.
Did you know the New York times runs China sponsored ads for money? it is similar, and if you have outrage here, I would say it belongs there as well. I think it's benign.
And all the facts about why Comey was fired aren't established. If the firing happened at anytime, the reason. would be "investigation" for the left, why is now special, what did they find?
Comparing the balloons is unfair, are you saying the actual numbers were manipulated?
it is well known that Russia interfered in our election and numerous elections across Europe. it has been doing it for many years in the smaller Balkan states around it.
this investigation on collusion is triggered by repeated events that I am shocked you choose to ignore. the right in general (about 90% of leaders and constitutents) jumped on Hillary giving the wrong number of devices she uses. but when repeated people within his administration make the same screw up of lying about otherwise understandable and innocent meetings with specifically Russians. when maniford from trumps campaign has clear ties to Russia and is possibly laundering money. when Trump ban our media from the oval office while letting Russia telecommunication gear into the oval office (WTF!!!!).
how the heck can you deny that there is reason for serious suspicion? and if all those reasons aren't enough... the simple fact that our president outright stated that he fired comey because he didn't agree with his investigation of him, should have alarm bells echoing through your head.
Debateme's responses were piled together, so I didn't see you'd posted between some of my comments until now.
I would like to address that in the case of an investigation, there is something that should trigger that investigation. If it is simply for winning an election or letting a Russian (which would happen once becoming involved with politics, we could say meeting with Nigel carriage UKIP rigged the election) then it is little more than a red scare. I don't need conclusive evidence of collusion, as that would be unfair. But... what ties have been established? Whenever I hear a Russia story it is either a circumstance that is ordinary or an outright lie.
As nice as it would be to "find what Comey found, that got him fired", when you say nothing can be provided because he's under investigation, doesn't that mean any evidence is out in the ether, impossible to prove?
With no starting point, and no affirming evidence, how can I accept this?
well I question if it's the elite. in the list were all politicians with the elite amongst them being Schumer, Pelosi, and Sanders, none of which called for his job... so the elite did not call for it. maybe a few isolated house dems. the equivalent of the extreme freedom caucus. a party is allowed to have differing / extreme voices without implicating the entire party right?
a list of dem responses to comey. only 2 were semi strongly worded while most explicitly did not come near requesting his firing.
Ah, missed the last paragraph of one of your statements. I had hoped that even if it is a minority, the minority has head positions. You could say that is the... elite? Interpretation might be the issue, but it seems you have no problem looking online either. It's fair to assume we both have a decent grasp of who said what, and not clog the thread with
quotes (I am a hypocrite, I already posted a tweet.)
And I believe I covered how the Russia conspiracy gains no traction.
I never said no democrats want him fired, I specifically said that if your going to implicate 1/3rd of the American public, or an entire political party, 1 or 2 voices from that party is not enough to make a party wide consensus. to be honest I don't even know who that guy is.
your still dancing around the supposed hypocrisy of people who had nothing to do with the firing, let's move on to the meat of the discussion, the firing itself.
why would be quotes, which have nothing to do with the investigative, have anything to do with the suspicion? they were just a critique. I don't understand your comment here.
and yes, they claim incompetence, but democrats have not been soft with words when it comes to Trump appointees they actually want fired or stopped, so your suggestion that their carefully chosen, tempered words don't make any distinction is senseless. these are politicians, they have to make a statement about such a prominent event, and your only giving them the choice of supporting a claim or outright demanding heads to roll. That's the definition of black and white.
how are you asking me for evidence when the case is still being investigated. what prosecutor on any level releases evidence before the case is made! that's ridiculous. I'm not saying anyone is guilty, I'm saying there has been a pattern of objectively suspicious activities and it needs to be investigated. thats the opposite of conspiracy, thats actually the way things are supposed to be done. a conspiracy would be declaring guilt in absence of an investigation, in spite of an investigation, and saying the investigation is part of the conspiracy... like the right did to Hillary. if your looking for hypocrisy, your looking at the wrong party.
"FBI director James Comey needs to be FIRED. He DEFINITELY influenced the election to damage Hillary Clinton... #Comeygate #LockTrumpUp" -Willie Lee Davis.
You might be able to dispute those two prior as criticisms (which at that point, claiming I competence, complains at the firing of said director), but this is fairly clear, correct?
And loss of confidence in Comey? Doesn't that mean that it should be acceptable to have an incompetent director if that isn't a call for his resignation? I mean, we can also consider people change their minds, and at the breakneck speed that a director suddenly becomes credible, it makes more sense for someone to lose credibility faster.
There would be no reason for suspicion, at least from the quotes you decided to look at, however you interpret them, signals some degree of incompetence. And again, I explained one reason he might not have been outright fired. Conspiracy? Sure, but we've delve full into conspiracy here.
And the suspicion again requires a disposition for suspicion to arise. Irregular wouldn't be the same as suspicious if the actions make sense. Outside of this Russian fiction, which is so often cited what concrete evidence has been found?
My point being, saying that something is suspicious means little. This wouldn't have been suspicious if Hillary had done this, and it were an investigation of funds from Qatar or Uraniam stock in Russia (the very same). Conspiracies all the same.
whether the democrats are hypocrites or the right is more spin then fact is besides the point. democrats are crying after the fact and had no say in the decision in question. your point is just a distraction in the question of whether the firing is suspicious.
you do realize there is a difference between criticizing someone and calling for their job.
Chuck Schumer said he lost confidence in comey. he never said anything about his job.
Sanders said it wouldn't be a bad thing if comey lost his job, which no matter how you spin it is not a demand or a request.
I'm not going to look up everyone on your list, can you provide actual quotes because the 2 bigshots on your list i looked up did not say what you claimed they said.
So few democrats called for his firing (I'm sure a few did, but 2 or 3 politicians cannot represent all democrats). regardless, the conflicting reasons and the fact that Trump PRAISED comey for the same action he now claims to fire him, and everything else going, you don't find anything fishy?
oh yeah, Keith olbermann too, yes not off the hook, Chuck schumer, Hillary Clinton herself, Willie Lee Davis on the same day Comey was fired... not too hard to find examples. If they are the minority, they are still leaders... and some hypocrites.
I saw plenty of examples until now, but just did a refresher, didn't take 5 minutes to confirm higher end names
Nancy pelosi, Harry Reid, Paul callhan, Bernie Sanders, various news outlets, take your pick. Is Bernie Sanders such a small name?
many on the left blasted him, and his actions were unusual, however, how many called for his resignation exactly?
It's sort of a no comment kind of situation. I could argue his misuse when dealing with Hillary, or a question of wasting resources when following a trump and Putin fanfiction from 4chan. But the thing is, the left has asked for his resignation already, then changed only after he was fired. Does that say something about concern on this topic?
Not to mention, if he had been fired during the transition, Comey would have time to clean out his desk. Since he believed he was staying, he didn't, and now if someone had the belief he misheld or mishandled information, it would be to their pleasure.
Of course, there is only conjecture about Russia. So, conjecture about Comey.
this is kind of crazy. when I first heard this it just sounded that Trump was mad that they didn't find evidence.
I guess this pretty much proves my argument
so no one besides nemiroff has an opinion on this?
doesn't the silence when it comes to discussing a certain man just smell of democracy?