"Inadvertent" is likely the biggest stretch I have seen in my lifetime.
The Simple Explanation for Trump Firing James Comey When He Did
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
Nobody is disagreeing that he should have been fired over that incident - it's the timing that's the problem. If Trump had done this in January or February then this was a non issue but when you fire people on the day grand jury news is coming out then you are part of a cover up.
You know why it's important? Because otherwise the government can declare anything classified and imprison anyone. If that's a stretch for you then you know nothing about classification which is purely a executive term as in defined by the executive branch.
Grand Jury subpoenas for Flynn's associates? --Flynn was fired no?-- Please share the angle for Trump firing Comey now due to these subpoenas.
Inadvertent means accidental. Nothing accidental with Hillary and her private server et al
State department email system is also an unclassified system - what should she have used to prevent getting emails with classified information then?
Not a private email server or an Anthony Weiner laptop.
Again, an unclassified system is an unclassified system - if they were not marked as such and sent to you then you are not liable for it , you are free to read the DoD manual on classified material if you are confused.
I won't be happy till Trump fires whoever it was who told him Assad gassed his own children on purpose when he was winning a conventionally fought war.
Comey's July 5 news conference appeared, to me, to be some kind of satire, hightlighting corruption not just with Clinton, but with a DOJ that was likely tying his hands.
At the time, everybody was saying it's not up to the FBI head to make a recommendation like that, which is what made me think he was pushing back on a DOJ that had tied his hands.
Still, arguably, he should not have made such a recommendation, and given the ball back to DOJ, where Lynch would have needed to recuse herself and hand off the possible prosecution.
But he took Lynch's bait and ran with it, as if the DOJ could take whatever the FBI recommended and live with it. I agree it is the wrong way to handle Lynch's compromised position. She should not have invited a recommendation, and he should not have given it.
Comey's July 5 news conference appeared, to me, to be some kind of satire, hightlighting corruption not just with Clinton, but with a DOJ that was likely tying his hands.
At the time, everybody was saying it's not up to the FBI head to make a recommendation like that, which is what made me think he was pushing back on a DOJ that had tied his hands.
Still, arguably, he should not have made such a recommendation, and given the ball back to DOJ, where Lynch would have needed to recuse herself and hand off the possible prosecution.
But he took Lynch's bait and ran with it, as if the DOJ could take whatever the FBI recommended and live with it. I agree it is the wrong way to handle Lynch's compromised position. She should not have invited a recommendation, and he should not have given it.