(05-11-2017, 04:51 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Still sticking with that line, eh?

(05-11-2017, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, because it's a fact. 

If she felt she could not faithfully discharge the duties of her office she should have resigned.  You know like real professionals Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus did in 1973.  You may have heard of the incident, a few people have brought it up of late.

Quote:Ms Yates reminded Mr Cornyn that during her confirmation hearing under the Obama administration that she vowed, under oath, to tell the President if she was asked to do something she determined to be unlawful or “inconsistent with the principles of the Department of Justice.” 

(05-11-2017, 05:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: She did " faithfully discharge the duties of her office "

Quote:And as the courts blocked the travel ban she did the right thing.

Quote:Carry on....

(05-11-2017, 04:51 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Still sticking with that line, eh?

Ms Yates said the White House not only did not consult with her office about the order, but did not tell her it was coming either, adding that she found out about it from the media.

(05-11-2017, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: If he did it at the begin, no one would have. The "simply" part is not so much about him getting fired, it's about him getting fired right after the Russia investigation obvioulsy picked up pace.

(05-11-2017, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you truly believe this, then I must question your judgement. If he would have fired Comey his first day in office, you really don't think there would be just as many people shouting: "He fired Comey without giving him a chance because Comey chose recommended not to pursue charges against Hillary!!"

Now here's a chance to demonstrate your judgement once more:

If he would have waited until after the investigation and if cleared how many people do you think would have suggested: "Comey is in Trump's pocket and it goes all the way back to him reopening the investigation against Hills".

(05-11-2017, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It absolutely does, but it also leads me to believe that the firing wasn't motivated by that.  If it was it was so blatantly obvious that a child could see through it.  Trump is not stupid, he is also not surrounded by people who are stupid.  If he was worried about the Russia investigation he could have fired Comey long ago with way more cover for doing so.

(05-11-2017, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The plain truth is that with a guy like Trump it could literally be anything.  Ivanka may have dropped a comment about how Comey should go, or someone else whom he trusts said something.  Trump strikes me as a guy whose opinion of you can change on a dime if the right person pours poison in his ear.  I just think that if Trump were really concerned about Comey's investigation into Russia he would have fired him upon taking office when he had a much better smokescreen for his true motives.  Doing it now, for Russia reasons, would be like declaring it in neon.  It just doesn't make sense.  While Trump is mercurial he's not surrounded by total simpletons. 

(05-11-2017, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you truly believe this, then I must question your judgement. If he would have fired Comey his first day in office, you really don't think there would be just as many people shouting: "He fired Comey without giving him a chance because Comey chose recommended not to pursue charges against Hillary!!"

Now here's a chance to demonstrate your judgement once more:

If he would have waited until after the investigation and if cleared how many people do you think would have suggested: "Comey is in Trump's pocket and it goes all the way back to him reopening the investigation against Hills".

(05-11-2017, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you truly believe this, then I must question your judgement. If he would have fired Comey his first day in office, you really don't think there would be just as many people shouting: "He fired Comey without giving him a chance because Comey chose recommended not to pursue charges against Hillary!!"

(05-11-2017, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now here's a chance to demonstrate your judgement once more:

If he would have waited until after the investigation and if cleared how many people do you think would have suggested: "Comey is in Trump's pocket and it goes all the way back to him reopening the investigation against Hills".

(05-11-2017, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I cannot demonstrate Hollo's judgment here, but I can demonstrate my own: Why in the world would Democrats argue that Trump fired Comey because Comey was in Trump's pocket?????  WHO DOES THAT???

(05-11-2017, 11:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that one got me confused a little too.

What confuses me more is your president just freely stated that it was not the recommendation that led to the Comey firing. Pence lied, my minions all lied, it was really me the whole time! Oh, and talking about Comey and the investigation - that Russian story is all made up, that's what he said to himself when firing Comey. And then repeated it on TV, because who gives.

What gets me super-confused though: Can Trump really ask the FBI director directly if he is part of the investigation against his transiton team? And could Comey freely answer that question? Is that fine and legal?

I want to add a question, since it's the impeachment thread: Can this actually bring him down? Directly connecting firing Comey to made up Russia/Trump story and/or asking the FBI director for information about an ongoing investigation against his team. That looks very wrong to me.

(05-11-2017, 11:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that one got me confused a little too.

What confuses me more is your president just freely stated that it was not the recommendation that led to the Comey firing. Pence lied, my minions all lied, it was really me the whole time! 

What gets me super-confused though: Can Trump really ask the FBI director directly if he is part of the investigation against his transiton team? And could Comey freely answer that question? Is that fine and legal?

(05-12-2017, 12:01 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There is no law against law enforcement officials lying to suspects.

(05-12-2017, 12:12 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL Trump's advisors told him not to do the interview with Lester Holt. But he knew better!  

(05-12-2017, 12:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Look he's a showboat, he's a grandstander, the FBI has been in turmoil," Trump said.

(05-11-2017, 11:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I want to add a question, since it's the impeachment thread: Can this actually bring him down? Directly connecting firing Comey to made up Russia/Trump story and/or asking the FBI director for information about an ongoing investigation against his team. That looks very wrong to me.

(05-12-2017, 01:02 AM)Dill Wrote: Just for asking Comey about the investigation--I don't think that rises to "high crime" in the case of someone who still doesn't know how government works.

(05-11-2017, 06:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect, her job is to defend the government's position in court.  If she feels she cannot in good faith perform that function then she should resign.  Simply saying I refuse to do my job is insufficient.  Again, I gave an excellent examples of professionals with integrity doing exactly what she should have done.  Oddly enough you ignored that example.

(05-12-2017, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a reason that when AGs and their deputies are confirmed they are asked, rather pointedly and usually by Senators in opposition to the administration, if they are going to be willing and able to say no to the administration when they cross the line. That is the role of the DoJ. These positions do not swear loyalty to the administration, they swear to uphold the Constitution, the law. The tradition and culture with the DoJ is that it has a degree of independence that other departments do not. There is a reason that its cabinet level officer is not titled Secretary.

We can argue whether she was correct in her interpretation of the law, that's fine, but her role as acting AG was to do exactly what she did. Ideological differences are all that change one's opinion of her actions.

(05-12-2017, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a reason that when AGs and their deputies are confirmed they are asked, rather pointedly and usually by Senators in opposition to the administration, if they are going to be willing and able to say no to the administration when they cross the line. That is the role of the DoJ. These positions do not swear loyalty to the administration, they swear to uphold the Constitution, the law. The tradition and culture with the DoJ is that it has a degree of independence that other departments do not. There is a reason that its cabinet level officer is not titled Secretary.

We can argue whether she was correct in her interpretation of the law, that's fine, but her role as acting AG was to do exactly what she did. Ideological differences are all that change one's opinion of her actions.

(05-12-2017, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a reason that when AGs and their deputies are confirmed they are asked, rather pointedly and usually by Senators in opposition to the administration, if they are going to be willing and able to say no to the administration when they cross the line. That is the role of the DoJ. These positions do not swear loyalty to the administration, they swear to uphold the Constitution, the law. The tradition and culture with the DoJ is that it has a degree of independence that other departments do not. There is a reason that its cabinet level officer is not titled Secretary.

We can argue whether she was correct in her interpretation of the law, that's fine, but her role as acting AG was to do exactly what she did. Ideological differences are all that change one's opinion of her actions.

(05-12-2017, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a reason that when AGs and their deputies are confirmed they are asked, rather pointedly and usually by Senators in opposition to the administration, if they are going to be willing and able to say no to the administration when they cross the line. That is the role of the DoJ. These positions do not swear loyalty to the administration, they swear to uphold the Constitution, the law. The tradition and culture with the DoJ is that it has a degree of independence that other departments do not. There is a reason that its cabinet level officer is not titled Secretary.

We can argue whether she was correct in her interpretation of the law, that's fine, but her role as acting AG was to do exactly what she did. Ideological differences are all that change one's opinion of her actions.