Originally posted by whodey https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/05/11/brutal-rnc-releases-video-mashup-of-democrats-calling-for-comeys-firing-n2325654
Here is a long list of Dims who wanted Comey fired.
Of course, they were for it before they were against it cuz they are cutting edge Progressives.
The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
Originally posted by sh76 The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
Sounds like the one terrified is Trumpf himself, worried over the investigation of the Russians involvment in the election.
Originally posted by sonhouse Sounds like the one terrified is Trumpf himself, worried over the investigation of the Russians involvment in the election.
Very possibly; or it could be that he's just angry that Comey wouldn't bark when Trump ordered him to.
So far, there's no evidence of Trump's complicity in Russian interference with the US election and my guess is that he was not complicit.
Originally posted by sh76 The hypocrisy on both sides of this issue (the Republicans who loved him and now hate him and the Dems who wanted him lynched and now are terrified at his firing) is amusing.
How about this situation:
Boss A fires Receptionist B. Does it make any difference if he does so BECAUSE:
1) B plays chess on her smartphone and ignores office phone calls and visitors: OR
2) B refuses to have sex with A.
is someone a "hypocrite" if they believe a firing based on Reason 1 is justified but a firing based on Reason 2 is not?
Originally posted by no1marauder How about this situation:
Boss A fires Receptionist B. Does it make any difference if he does so BECAUSE:
1) B plays chess on her smartphone and ignores office phone calls and visitors: OR
2) B refuses to have sex with A.
is someone a "hypocrite" if they believe a firing based on Reason 1 is justified but a firing based on Reason 2 is not?
Of course, but if Person C screams up and down that Receptionist B should be fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors and then Boss A fires Receptionist B and tells the world that she's being fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors, it's a little disingenuous of Person C to now scream about how Boss A is bad for firing Receptionist B.
If Person C wants to criticize Boss A for making sexual advances towards Receptionist B, he should do so on those terms (and it would be especially nice if there were evidence that Boss A made sexual advancements towards Receptionist B).
Originally posted by no1marauder Nixon didn't personally burglar the Watergate either. Nor is there evidence he knew it would be burglarized.
Then I'll settle for evidence that people working under Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election and that Trump knew about it after the fact and intentionally covered it up and lied about it many times.
Prove all of that and I'll support impeaching him.
Originally posted by sh76 Of course, but if Person C screams up and down that Receptionist B should be fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors and then Boss A fires Receptionist B and tells the world that she's being fired for playing chess on her smartphone and ignoring office phone calls and visitors, it's a little disingenuous of Person ...[text shortened]... cially nice if there were evidence that Boss A made sexual advancements towards Receptionist B).
In this case, A had his mouthpieces say he fired B for reason 1, but then turned around and contradicted them. He also repeatedly tweeted that he'd like to have sex with B.
EDIT: In case it's confusing:
Reason 1 are the ones outlined in the Rosenstein memo.
Reason 2 is a desire to shut down the Russia investigation.
Originally posted by sh76 Then I'll settle for evidence that people working under Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election and that Trump knew about it after the fact and intentionally covered it up and lied about it many times.
Prove all of that and I'll support impeaching him.
Well sure, but Trump is clearly trying to shut down the investigation before evidence of Step 1 can be produced IF it exists.
Originally posted by no1marauder Well sure, but Trump is clearly trying to shut down the investigation before evidence of Step 1 can be produced IF it exists.
What like the evidence on a wiped mail server that existed only for the purpose of evading record retention laws?
12 May '17 18:12
Dims who wanted Comey fired
Back to Top