CNN: More Fake News

[seer]

Unable to answer again? I already made you aware why I would not take his word for it... But let me know the names (if you know any). You seemed convinced it would have no influence, or perhaps I misunderstood and you are not convinced?

Then whose word would you take! Stop obfuscating!

Here is an NPR interview with a former FBI agent:

SIMON: Does the dismissal of Mr. Comey hamper or slow down the investigation?

RANGAPPA: No. There is a lot of organization and structure and regulation as you might imagine around how investigations are conducted. So his departure, in terms of the sequence of the investigation, would not really have an immediate impact anyway.

SIMON: If they were so inclined, could a successor shut down the investigation?

RANGAPPA: I don't see how it could. A case that's this big would really reach out into so many different directions. There would be other field offices involved with it. The federal courts are involved with it. Other intelligence agencies within the IC here in the U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies with whom we're sharing information since we know that this is also a global threat. So I don't think a single person at this point would be able to clamp down on the investigation.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/13/528236...-investigation

Of course if you won't take McCabe's word - why would you take Rangappa's?

[Charles]

Then whose word would you take! Stop obfuscating!

Here is an NPR interview with a former FBI agent:



Of course if you won't take McCabe's word - why would you take Rangappa's?

That is actually quite good stuff. Thanks.

[seer]

That is actually quite good stuff. Thanks.

OK, so you believe a retired agent but not the acting director...

[Charles]

OK, so you believe a retired agent but not the acting director...

This one came with an explanation and reasoning as to why it is not likely it would influence. That is part of why it is interesting. A retired agent is not involved in the same manner.

I mean, seriously, consider the director saying anything other than what he said... What would happen....

[seer]

This one came with an explanation and reasoning as to why it is not likely it would influence. That is part of why it is interesting. A retired agent is not involved in the same manner.

I mean, seriously, consider the director saying anything other than what he said... What would happen....

Well I saw the director's testimony before congress, he was completely believable - I have No reason to doubt him, and neither do you.

[Sparko]

I was asking you something. Are you unable to answer?

what you are doing is called "reaching"

The FBI has 10's of thousands of cases at any moment (as stated by Comey himself)

The Director of the FBI is a bureaucrat who oversees the bureau. He doesn't do any investigations himself. He can assign and start investigations, and he can tell people to stop. But firing him will not stop anything. Trump could install a new director and then tell HIM to stop the investigation, but the he would be in the same boat as before. He could have just told Comey to stop the investigation.

But while legal, it would look bad, like he is trying to play favorites and cover things up. But no, firing someone doesn't stop the investigation. Other agents are conducting any investigation and will continue to do so until told to stop or they conclude it.

Also remember: this was about the Flynn investigation, Trump himself has never been under investigation. As far as I know the Flynn investigation has turned up nothing. No smoking gun. Flynn himself admitted what he did. There is nothing there to hide.

[Sparko]

It seems to me that the liberals on this forum are really lowering the bar for evidence.

Using the same standard of evidence advocated in this thread the fact that Hillary was Secretary of State while negotiating with Russia on Uranium - at the same time her husband was being paid by the Russian government to give a speech ($500,000) - would be on de facto irrefutable proof of collusion with the Russians.

I simply cannot any of you seriously anymore.
Let me know when evidence is going to be handled in a non-partisan way.

yeah I have come to the same conclusion.

I find it ironic that these atheists dismiss good evidence for God and Christianity, go around screaming ECREE!!!! and demanding impossible levels of evidence (Tassman thinks the bible should be held to the Scientific Method) and yet on things like partisan politics the standard of evidence drops down so low that rumors and arguments from silence are good enough!

I am going to start using that level of argumentation in apologetics!

"Of course God exists! There is no evidence that PROVES he doesn't!"

"Of course the gospels are anonymous. Those are the best types of sources!"

[Charles]

what you are doing is called "reaching"

The FBI has 10's of thousands of cases at any moment (as stated by Comey himself)

The Director of the FBI is a bureaucrat who oversees the bureau. He doesn't do any investigations himself. He can assign and start investigations, and he can tell people to stop. But firing him will not stop anything. Trump could install a new director and then tell HIM to stop the investigation, but the he would be in the same boat as before. He could have just told Comey to stop the investigation.

But while legal, it would look bad, like he is trying to play favorites and cover things up. But no, firing someone doesn't stop the investigation. Other agents are conducting any investigation and will continue to do so until told to stop or they conclude it.

Also remember: this was about the Flynn investigation, Trump himself has never been under investigation. As far as I know the Flynn investigation has turned up nothing. No smoking gun. Flynn himself admitted what he did. There is nothing there to hide.

Thanks. Interesting info. I think seer came up with good stuff too. You can call it what you want, I just wanted to hear an answer and he keept asking me questions instead of answering. But he ended up giving stuff off interest.

[JimL]

Put your thinking cap on, Jim. Impeachment is only possible for illegal acts. If he can do it legally, it is by definition not an impeachable act.

The President fired Jim Comey, correct, so obviously he has the power to fire him, but he can also be impeached for that firing if Congress determines that the firing was an abuse of presidential powers, such as for the purpose of obstructing justice. Get it?

[One Bad Pig]

The President fired Jim Comey, correct, so obviously he has the power to fire him, but he can also be impeached for that firing if Congress determines that the firing was an abuse of presidential powers, such as for the purpose of obstructing justice. Get it?

I get that you'd love to think so. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president. He can fire him for whatever reason he wants to, and it would be legal (whether it would necessarily look good is a whole 'nother matter). Since firing the director is legal for whatever reason, it is therefore not an impeachable offense. And as others have noted, firing the director doesn't stop any investigation because he's not the one doing the investigating. C'mon, Jim, THINK.

[rogue06]

I get that you'd love to think so. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president. He can fire him for whatever reason he wants to, and it would be legal (whether it would necessarily look good is a whole 'nother matter). Since firing the director is legal for whatever reason, it is therefore not an impeachable offense. And as others have noted, firing the director doesn't stop any investigation because he's not the one doing the investigating. C'mon, Jim, THINK.

Since Hoover only one has served out their full 10 year term.

[JimL]

I get that you'd love to think so. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president. He can fire him for whatever reason he wants to, and it would be legal (whether it would necessarily look good is a whole 'nother matter). Since firing the director is legal for whatever reason, it is therefore not an impeachable offense. And as others have noted, firing the director doesn't stop any investigation because he's not the one doing the investigating. C'mon, Jim, THINK.

Wrong, Trump wouldn't be being impeached for the firing of Comey, he would be impeached for interfering in the investigation. He can fire Comey for any reason he wants, he doesn't even have to have a reason to actually fire him, but if it is found that he used this power in order to stop an ongoing investigation into himself or his administration, then that is what is called an abuse of power, which is an impeachable offense.

[rogue06]

Wrong, Trump wouldn't be being impeached for the firing of Comey, he would be impeached for interfering in the investigation. He can fire Comey for any reason he wants, he doesn't even have to have a reason to actually fire him, but if it is found that he used this power in order to stop an ongoing investigation into himself or his administration, then that is what is called an abuse of power, which is an impeachable offense.

The point that zooms right over your head is that Comey wasn't a part of the investigation so removing him wouldn't impede it.

[RumTumTugger]

C'mon, Jim, THINK.

Remember who you are talking to here OBP I think you are asking the impossible.

[JimL]

The point that zooms right over your head is that Comey wasn't a part of the investigation so removing him wouldn't impede it.

Doesn't matter, if in the Presidents own mind he believes that it will somehow impede the investigation, which the president has, on more than one occasion, implied that he did believe, then that is all that matters.