Under pressure from the white house, Mccabe fired hours from retirement.

[piezoe]

In hindsight it might have been a good idea for McCabe to recuse himself from the Clinton investigation because he is a Republican, or claims to be, and therefore might have been predisposed to favor locking Hillary up. We can say the same of Sessions, who is clearly a Republican, and the same with trump who isn't clearly a Republican or a Democrat either, but is acting like a lunatic, and so could be suspected of belonging to either party. At the very least he should have recused himself from tweeting regarding the Hillary investigation -- though he was only involved to the extent of ordering the firing of those who were. Certainly Trumps involvement, and constant derogatory tweeting, was of minor concern compared to McCade's wife's nervy running in a political race as, of all things, a Democrat (i.e., socialist)! Nevertheless the safe course of action would have been to duct tape Trump, button him into a straight jacket, only temporarily, and send him off to protective custody. Now in hindsight, and the clear light of day, it seems the safest course of all would have been to simply have anyone who has ever voted in a U.S, election or has ever registered as a member of any political party, or whose wife has, and is still breathing of course, recuse themselves from any involvement. That would have very nicely made all the complaints of favoritism go away.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

They changed it because it obviously contradicts the conclusion.

Let's correct that:

There was a little trip to the Tarmac, and the conclusion was changed.

 

[UsualName]

Let's correct that:

There was a little trip to the Tarmac, and the conclusion was changed.

Do you have any evidence the conclusion was changed?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Do you have any evidence the conclusion was changed?

Plain and simple.

It has been established that the conclusion stated in the earlier version was changed in the final version.

Only an idiot would believe that it is because Comey suddenly became aware that the language he used matched- exactly- the language of the espionage act and that that was not what he meant to say.

In addition to the Tarmac episode, keep in mind that Comey testified that one of main reasons why he issued the final version when he did was because Loretta was ragging on him and making sure that he stayed with the script and use the word "matter" rather than investigation. He had plenty of pressure on him and he said so.

 

[UsualName]

Plain and simple.

It has been established that the conclusion stated in the earlier version was changed in the final version.

Only an idiot would believe that it is because Comey suddenly became aware that the language he used matched- exactly- the language of the espionage act and that that was not what he meant to say.

In addition to the Tarmac episode, keep in mind that Comey testified that one of main reasons why he issued the final version when he did was because Loretta was ragging on him and making sure that he stayed with the script and use the word "matter" rather than investigation. He had plenty of pressure on him and he said so.

So no evidence of changing the conclusion. I don’t recall Comey testifying that he issued the final version when he did because Lynch was ragging on him. Can you share where he said that?

Also, you’re falling into Comey’s trap. How can he be credible about Lynch and not credible about Trump? Either he is credible or he’s not. Which is it?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

How can he be credible about Lynch and not credible about Trump? Either he is credible or he’s not. Which is it?

Binary much?

He dinged Trump because Trump put him on the ropes and canned him.

He dinged Loretta a bit to explain why he was acting alone and recklessy but making himself look like a hero but could not go so far that he said that his conclusion was a result of the pressure because that would get him in trouble rather than out of it.

When he was before Congress, he was there to defend himself, not Loretta. To admit that he caved to Loretta and others would be to totally discredit himself and toss everything out the window and lead to his imprisonment.

Way, way too nuanced for you and your binary mind.

Comey had ZERO authority under the law to issue that conclusion anyway. He is with the FBI, not the prosecutorial division of the DOJ. If Loretta had to recuse, then it would default to the next in line in the DOJ- ie. Rosenthal.

 

[UsualName]

Binary much?

He dinged Trump because Trump put him on the ropes and canned him.

He dinged Loretta a bit to explain why he was acting alone and recklessy but making himself look like a hero but could not go so far that he said that his conclusion was a result of the pressure because that would get him in trouble rather than out of it.

When he was before Congress, he was there to defend himself, not Loretta. To admit that he caved to Loretta and others would be to totally discredit himself and toss everything out the window and lead to his imprisonment.

Way, way too nuanced for you and your binary mind.

Comey had ZERO authority under the law to issue that conclusion anyway. He is with the FBI, not the prosecutorial division of the DOJ. If Loretta had to recuse, then it would default to the next in line in the DOJ- ie. Rosenthal.

So is Comey credible or not?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

So is Comey credible or not?

Heh. As I said, you would not be able to process any answer that is not binary.

Otherwise, fully answered above and fully understood by everyone but you.

Might want to give it a rest and return to your day job putting caps on toothpaste where the cap is either on or off.

 

[UsualName]

Heh. As I said, you would not be able to process any answer that is not binary.

Otherwise, fully answered above and fully understood by everyone but you.

Might want to give it a rest and return to your day job putting caps on toothpaste where the cap is either on or off.

It’s nuanced to the point it’s nonexistent. Comey was not subtle with his testimony to Congress. I would say he was explicit.

You are trying to carve up his testimony to fit your faulty theory that the fbi was in collusion with Clinton and actively working against Trump. His testimony does not support either side of your argument. Regardless of how you selectively choose where he is and is not credible. Also, credibility does not work the way you want it to either.

Either a witness is credible or they are not. This may seem nuanced to you but it isn’t. If Comey is lying about Trump how can he be trusted about Lynch? And if you trust him about Lynch how can you not trust him about Trump? The only way that makes sense is if you are biased.

I am not biased. Comey made some very bad decisions that negatively impacted Hillary Clinton. He aired her dirty laundry while concealing Trump was under investigation. There was a lot of outside interference in 2016 but this was probably the straw that broke the camels back.

Now, because Comey made some bad decisions does this make him not credible? No. As a matter of fact he has been pretty candid about his role and not nuanced. He is a very credible person on all of these fronts — including with his dealings with Lynch and Trump.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

It’s nuanced to the point it’s nonexistent. Comey was not subtle with his testimony to Congress. I would say he was explicit.

You are trying to carve up his testimony to fit your faulty theory that the fbi was in collusion with Clinton and actively working against Trump. His testimony does not support either side of your argument. Regardless of how you selectively choose where he is and is not credible. Also, credibility does not work the way you want it to either.

Either a witness is credible or they are not. This may seem nuanced to you but it isn’t. If Comey is lying about Trump how can he be trusted about Lynch? And if you trust him about Lynch how can you not trust him about Trump? The only way that makes sense is if you are biased.

I am not biased. Comey made some very bad decisions that negatively impacted Hillary Clinton. He aired her dirty laundry while concealing Trump was under investigation. There was a lot of outside interference in 2016 but this was probably the straw that broke the camels back.

Now, because Comey made some bad decisions does this make him not credible? No. As a matter of fact he has been pretty candid about his role and not nuanced. He is a very credible person on all of these fronts — including with his dealings with Lynch and Trump.

Don't want to read all that right now.

But in the meantime, just keep defending Comey and his credibility.

It worked out so well when you did that for McCabe.