10 Major FBI Scandals on Comey’s Watch

[Teddy B 17,252]

10 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I still don't see anyone disputing the facts presented in the article. All you can do is attack the source because you don't have a valid argument against the points raised.

I don't think anyone is disputing what is in the article, but what difference does that make? A couple months ago everything in that article was known by Trump and his admin, and according to Trump himself Comey was "doing a great job". So what changed in the last few months to make Trump change his stance so drastically on Comey that he is now incompetent at his job and deserves to be fired? There's only two things really, Comey's refusal to pledge his loyalty to Trump and the FBI ramping up the investigation into Trump and his Russian ties. Seems like much more than a coincidence to me and anyone with an ounce of common sense.

 

Now I ask you, why are the events listed in the article sufficient enough to legitimize the Comey firing, but the many examples of Trump's own incompetence that far out number anything that happened under Comey's watch, goes unnoticed by you and the other Trump hard ballers?

[bcking 3,157]

17 hours ago, IAMX said:

Trump knew his niche and marketed to it. 

 

However, I will say, about his political transition/evolution, if you saw videos and statements he used to make throughout the 90s and 2000s (since everyone's seen the stuff he's said this decade on Twitter), him becoming a Republican shouldn't be a surprise. He was getting very fed up of establishment politics back then. 

Getting fed up with "establishment politics" should make one flock to the Republican party (Or Democratic Party, for that matter).

 

He changed parties because he realized he could present a rhetoric that appeals to a lot of core Republican voters, and he would be successful. It was for purely personal advantage.

 

There is nothing wrong with that, keep in mind. Churchill changed parties like 3 times I believe (In no way am I arguing Trump is like Churchill, that was just the first example that came in my head).

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Teddy B said:

I don't think anyone is disputing what is in the article, but what difference does that make? A couple months ago everything in that article was known by Trump and his admin, and according to Trump himself Comey was "doing a great job". So what changed in the last few months to make Trump change his stance so drastically on Comey that he is now incompetent at his job and deserves to be fired? There's only two things really, Comey's refusal to pledge his loyalty to Trump and the FBI ramping up the investigation into Trump and his Russian ties. Seems like much more than a coincidence to me and anyone with an ounce of common sense.

 

Now I ask you, why are the events listed in the article sufficient enough to legitimize the Comey firing, but the many examples of Trump's own incompetence that far out number anything that happened under Comey's watch, goes unnoticed by you and the other Trump hard ballers?

Exactly.

 

The scandals aren't important. It is the TIMING.

 

All 10 things in that list occured prior to 2017. Trump could have/should have been completely aware of all of them prior to taking office and deciding to keep Comey on. He had PRAISED Comey, after most if not all of those 10 "scandals" occured. So his opinion of Comey went from "He's great, redeemed himself, making the FBI great again" to "He needs to go" AFTER all of those 10 things happened.

 

So the White House needed to come up with something "new" to suggest why it was done this week and not last week, or the week before. Their excuse was the letter from the new Deputy AG. Unfortunately then Trump refuted them and publicly said he already was going to fire Comey before that letter. So they are back to no real good reason to give for "why now" except for the fact that Trump doesn't like Comey's involvement in the Russia Investigation. Yes that may be speculation, but they haven't been able to provide any alternative.

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Getting fed up with "establishment politics" should make one flock to the Republican party (Or Democratic Party, for that matter).

 

He changed parties because he realized he could present a rhetoric that appeals to a lot of core Republican voters, and he would be successful. It was for purely personal advantage.

 

There is nothing wrong with that, keep in mind. Churchill changed parties like 3 times I believe (In no way am I arguing Trump is like Churchill, that was just the first example that came in my head).

Some people truly believe the only way to change the parties is to change it from within. 

 

While I disagree, I can't knock any efforts made to change the major parties or cause massive waves. It's for this reason I wished Kucinich (who had significant leftist appeal like Sanders) had kept at it last decade. Clearly he was squeezed out by the party brass.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Some people truly believe the only way to change the parties is to change it from within. 

 

While I disagree, I can't knock any efforts made to change the major parties or cause massive waves. It's for this reason I wished Kucinich (who had significant leftist appeal like Sanders) had kept at it last decade. Clearly he was squeezed out by the party brass.

With our more rigid system sadly I think the only way is from within. Too many states have too many restrictions on alternative parties, so we basically have forced ourselves into a two party corner. 

[IAMX 3,055]

32 minutes ago, bcking said:

With our more rigid system sadly I think the only way is from within. Too many states have too many restrictions on alternative parties, so we basically have forced ourselves into a two party corner. 

For me personally, the common thread in that, from changing the parties, and changing the state policies, all lie on the voters. People tend to blame other things for the way the voter votes (blame money, blame government, blame corporations, blame the media, etc.), but I give all the responsibility to the voter for their choices.

 

I'd actually rather abolish parties altogether, but I acknowledge my preference is rather useless because it doesn't change the underlying problems that cause people to believe they only have two choices, and this football-team attitude toward parties. So perhaps you and the others who say to change within may be right.. I can only hope this issue resolves one way or another.

Edited May 12, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

23 hours ago, bcking said:

Exactly.

 

The scandals aren't important. It is the TIMING.

 

All 10 things in that list occured prior to 2017. Trump could have/should have been completely aware of all of them prior to taking office and deciding to keep Comey on. He had PRAISED Comey, after most if not all of those 10 "scandals" occured. So his opinion of Comey went from "He's great, redeemed himself, making the FBI great again" to "He needs to go" AFTER all of those 10 things happened.

 

I doubt you will get anyone to say that Trump is a good politician, he is a business man first so he has no tact when it comes to certain situations. 

 

It's like a football team is doing bad and the chairman or owner comes out and gives the manager his vote of confidence,political. The majority of times the guy is sacked weeks later because it becomes a business decision and not political. Trump needs better advisers to point out where he needs to be a politician and show more tact. 

 

Everyone at some point has said that Comey needed to be sacked, Trump just didn't understand when so now he has a pr disaster on his hands.  

[Dashinka 24,849]

7 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

 

I doubt you will get anyone to say that Trump is a good politician, he is a business man first so he has no tact when it comes to certain situations. 

 

It's like a football team is doing bad and the chairman or owner comes out and gives the manager his vote of confidence,political. The majority of times the guy is sacked weeks later because it becomes a business decision and not political. Trump needs better advisers to point out where he needs to be a politician and show more tact. 

 

Everyone at some point has said that Comey needed to be sacked, Trump just didn't understand when so now he has a pr disaster on his hands.  

That is spot on, and you are not even here in the US yet!  I have heard several pundit hypothesize that the reason we are seeing so much vitriol toward President Trump is that the establishment elite politicians want to discourage any people like Trump (non politicians) from trying the same thing that he did.  Also, he had the temerity of actually beating their candidate Hillary.