Wolf DeVoon

Trump Fires FBI Director Comey

73 posts in this topic

Well, there goes the deep state's most valuable player.

The heads of the establishment elites (left and right) are exploding right now.

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal opinion, I think he was a salary man, a fairly innocuous dope. Former U.S. Attorney who did little except harass business men. Prosecuted Martha Stewart. <_< Ducked a lot of important cases, which became a trademark of sorts. Always politically correct, appointed to FBI by Obama after long stints as a defense contract lobbyist for Lockheed Martin and pattycake shill for a hedge fund.

A lightweight puppet, with Deputy Director McMaster pulling strings for the Democrats.

Quote

In 2013, Comey was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry [Wikipedia] -- putting the FBI imprimatur on that obscenity, overturning a valid California plebiscite on "lack of standing"

Absolutely NOT part of the "deep state" intel community. Airhead who let Hillary and Huma skate twice, tried to screw Trump.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Absolutely NOT part of the "deep state" intel community. Airhead who let Hillary and Huma skate twice, tried to screw Trump.

Wolf,

I'm not so sure.

Bush man. Obama man. Now the elitists are going ape.

It's smoke, not fire, and, granted, that's not proof of anything. But neither is that creepy feeling you get if you're a sheep and you see a dark four-legged about the same size as you wearing a light wool wig. :)

Also, I think President Trump waited to fire Comey (not ask him to resign) at a strategic moment to send all kinds of messages to all kinds of folks. It certainly had the surprise factor.

Anyway, the funniest comment I came across today floating around the Interwebs.

"Gosh. Another job for Jared?"

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bush man. Obama man. Now the elitists are going ape.

It's smoke, not fire, and, granted, that's not proof of anything.

My premise, of course, is that spooks are not honest by definition. An honest spook is a dead one.

:)

btw - I consider the FBI to be part of spookland. A domestic spook is still a spook.

:) 

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some fun.

And...

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I consider the FBI to be part of spookland. A domestic spook is still a spook.

Well.

Difficult to respond to that. I know FBI people. They do Federal law enforcement by the book. Openly, no covert operations.

Often hamstrung by high-level political appointees at Justice. CIA does not (really cannot) share information with them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a deep state mouthpiece (Anderson Cooper) totally befuddled and confounded by the surprise firing. There are times he doesn't even know what to say and he simply gets facts wrong.

From the way Cooper kept attacking, and others out in the mainstream news are melting down, it sounds like there was a hidden trap set for Trump just waiting for the right moment to pounce and Comey's firing blew it out of the water stillborn.

(Man, how's that for a metaphor salad? :) )

Boy, are they howling...

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

examples of how FBI was manipulated by Democrats:

During the Obama Administration, the FBI claimed that two private jets were being used primarily for counterterrorism, when in fact they were mostly being used for Eric Holder and Robert Mueller's business and personal travel. 

During its investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material, the FBI made an unusual deal in which Clinton aides were both given immunity and allowed to destroy their laptops. 

 

told to stand down, turn a blind eye re Islam:

The father of the radical Islamist who detonated a backpack bomb in New York City in 2016 alerted the FBI to his son's radicalization. The FBI, however, cleared Ahmad Khan Rahami after a brief interview. 

The FBI also investigated the terrorist who killed 49 people and wounded 53 more at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Despite a more than 10-month investigation of Omar Mateen -- during which Mateen admitting lying to agents -- the FBI opted against pressing further and closed its case. 

CBS recently reported that when two terrorists sought to kill Americans attending the "Draw Muhammad" event in Garland, Texas, the FBI not only had an understanding an attack was coming, but actually had an undercover agent traveling with the Islamists, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi. The FBI has refused to comment on why the agent on the scene did not intervene during the attack. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Difficult to respond to that. I know FBI people. They do Federal law enforcement by the book. Openly, no covert operations.

Often hamstrung by high-level political appointees at Justice.

Wolf,

If one supposes all spooks are equal, I would agree with you. If one supposes (like I do) that there is a mix of people with differing agendas in civil service--especially among spooks who lie for a living (granted, for a good cause), I, for one, find no difficulty in understanding the good guys might be infiltrated.

:) 

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a decent discussion between Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux.

They say great things about the good guy part of the FBI and bad things about the others.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molyneux argued that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children. [Wikipedia]

Cernovich periodically promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories. [Wikipedia]

feel pity for them, glad I'm me

-_-

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw another interesting comment out on the Interwebs.

With Comey gone, now the way is clear to properly investigate and indict the Clintons for their pay-to-play schemes. Not to mention the human trafficking and pedophile stuff in the folks surrounding these folks.

President Trump always plays the long game, so this makes sense if he finally got fed up with the Clinton side of the deep state and the media yapping at his heels and not accepting the election results. If they want to play hardball with him, so be it.

I predict this whole thing will look a lot different in a couple of months. And it won't be looking good for the people on the soapboxes right now.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Not to mention the human trafficking and pedophile stuff in the folks surrounding these folks.

Are you elevating rumor and inuendo to the level of fact?  What has been proven?  Any indictments? Any trials in which rigorous rules of evidence apply?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Are you elevating rumor and inuendo to the level of fact?  What has been proven?  Any indictments? Any trials in which rigorous rules of evidence apply?

Bob,

Sure.

You can start by looking into Jeffrey Epstein, big Clinton bud. Maybe Anthony Weiner... 

Shall I go on? 

:) 

But there is more. You can find a few links to look at in the following recent piece by Liz Crokin at The Daily Caller:

How The Alt-Left Promotes Rape And Pedophilia

Granted, she also includes rape in general and genital mutilation of girls, and she mentions the Clintonian toady press, but there are plenty of facts, police reports, etc., to look at.

Crokin has both supporters and detractors because she is not immune to the temptations of exaggeration and spin, but she still digs up hard facts to look at (once again, follow the links).

The typical dismissal of her is to play gotcha on an item or two and treat it as the whole shebang. In other words, the insinuated reasoning is that because she exaggerated Case A, then Case B cannot be true (even though it is), so there is no reason to even mention it. This is a logical fallacy, but when a logical fallacy is insinuated rather than stated openly, it's easy to hide. And when lavish doses of rhetoric are piled on to hide it further, many people just tune out.

btw - What is your criteria for establishing an investigation? A lottery? From the way you write, that seems to be it.

In other words, law enforcement should put pedophilia, embezzlement, burglary, murder, etc., in a lottery bin along with random names, swirl it around and pull out tokens. Then it should decide to investigate the crime and person that pop up. (From the way you write, ditto for scientists investigating items in their different fields.)

Other people out here in reality start to look at patterns, especially recurring patterns, then decide that those patterns are worth looking into. It's a pre-selection thing.

To call ALL patterns "elevating rumor and innuendo to the level of fact" is simply to chop off an important part of arriving at the truth. If you can't look at patterns, then you can only get investigations from a lottery method--and that leads to silliness. It's another kind of logical fallacy (conflating the process and outcome, then blaming one for not being the other when reality, i.e. observation, intrudes).

President Trump is not just coming down like the hammer of Thor on the Clinton-linked perverts, he cleans his own house, too: Trump Throws Campaign Aide In Jail For Elite Pedo Ring Ties.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two very interesting comments on the Comey firing.

Rush Limbaugh (who thinks the Dems just through Hillary Clinton under the bus, the rocked back and forth on her: 

Trump Trolls Hate-Filled Democrats — And I Can’t Stop Laughing

Quote

Let me tell you what’s happened here. The Democrat Party has once again thrown Hillary Clinton overboard. Hillary Clinton is the most cheated-on woman in America by people in her own party, and it’s happened again. If you’re wondering what I’m talking about, stand by; I’m gonna explain all of this. But they have just chosen sides and, once again, Hillary gets thrown under the bus. And not only that, the Democrats are rolling that bus backwards and forwards. She’s finished! She’s over with.

The Democrat Party and the media have made it clear that she is fodder. She is irrelevant here. (laughing) It is amazing. Two days ago, they were all talking about how Comey needs to be fired because of how he was mistreating Hillary, and the Hillary people were running around claiming that Comey’s a bad guy. And now Comey gets fired, and all of a sudden they do a 180! 

. . .

Last night on CBS Stephen Colbert had a reunion of all those clowns from Comedy Central.

. . .

... Colbert goes out there. He says, “A huge story broke just moments ago, less than 10 minutes ago, FBI Director James Comey has just been fired by Donald,” and his audience cheered!

His audience practically gave it a standing O, and Colbert didn’t know what to do. The audience, which is indicative of liberals and leftists all over the country, thought it was the greatest thing they could have heard because that’s what they’ve been conditioned to do: hate Comey. They have been told that Comey stole the election from them by dumping all over Hillary. They’ve been told that Comey showed all kinds of favoritism to Trump, so they have been conditioned to literally hate Comey.

The Hillary camp has played a role in that; the Drive-By Media has led that charge; the Democrat Party got their digs in. So Colbert goes out there, and he’s fully expecting for his audience to boo and hiss, and what did they do? They cheered it! They gave it a standing ovation because that’s what they’ve been programmed to do. They’ve been told to hate Comey. Colbert was totally taken aback, and he said something like, “Wow, wow. Huge, huge Donald Trump fans here.”

No, there weren’t any Donald Trump fans in that audience last night knowing full well it was a Comedy Central reunion. There weren’t any Trump fans in there. Those were liberal Democrats — robots, mind-numbed. They just can’t keep up with whether they’re supposed to hate Comey or not at this particular point in time. They don’t know who they’re supposed to hate. Can you imagine how confused they are? 

. . .

... you see these people that are on the left are not independent thinkers.

They have not arrived what they believe based on their own thinking, their own calculations. They are entirely programmed. They absorb the media they absorb for instructions — behavioral instructions and all the rest...

. . .

In Trump’s letter to Comey, Trump mentions that Comey told him three times he was not under investigation.

. . .

Can I translate this for you? This is Donald Trump saying, “Despite the fact the guy ain’t after me, I’m letting him go anyway.” That’s all this means. It’s not Trump saying, “I’m innocent. I didn’t do anything. You can’t prove it.”

. . .

Comey has told Trump three times he’s not under investigation? Why hasn’t Comey announced that? Comey’s announced everything else about this case. Comey’s violated every rule there is in conducting investigations, especially investigations that are not gonna end up with anybody being charged.

. . .

Three times, James Comey… You think Trump’s lying about this? You think Trump would put this in this resignation letter if this isn’t true? You know what’s gonna happen now? The Drive-Bys are gonna try to get hold of Comey. He was supposed to address a Senate committee tomorrow.

That’s been canceled. He’s still gonna appear before them, I’m confident, but they’re gonna try to get hold of Comey and ask, “Is this true? Is this true? Did you tell Trump three times that he’s not under investigation?” Now Comey’s gonna be on the spot. What if Comey says, “No, he’s making it up”? Can you imagine the firestorm there? What if Comey says, “Yeah, yeah. I told him three times.” “You mean there’s nothing…?” There isn’t anything there!

. . .

Trump has totally embarrassed every one of these people inside the Washington Beltway, and he’s taunting them, meeting with the Soviet (chuckling) Russian ambassador today, after the Democrats are convinced the Russians stole the election!

. . .

... Trump is making fools of these people. He’s doing what he said he was gonna do — draining the swamp, clearing it out — and they just cannot deal with this.

Read the whole thing, though. It's good.

:) 

And Roger Stone:

This is fun.

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just saw another interesting comment out on the Interwebs.

With Comey gone, now the way is clear to properly investigate and indict the Clintons for their pay-to-play schemes. Not to mention the human trafficking and pedophile stuff in the folks surrounding these folks.

President Trump always plays the long game, so this makes sense if he finally got fed up with the Clinton side of the deep state and the media yapping at his heels and not accepting the election results. If they want to play hardball with him, so be it.

I predict this whole thing will look a lot different in a couple of months. And it won't be looking good for the people on the soapboxes right now.

Michael

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Sure.

You can start by looking into Jeffrey Epstein, big Clinton bud. Maybe Anthony Weiner... 

Shall I go on? 

:) 

But there is more. You can find a few links to look at in the following recent piece by Liz Crokin at The Daily Caller:

How The Alt-Left Promotes Rape And Pedophilia

Granted, she also includes rape in general and genital mutilation of girls, and she mentions the Clintonian toady press, but there are plenty of facts, police reports, etc., to look at.

Crokin has both supporters and detractors because she is not immune to the temptations of exaggeration and spin, but she still digs up hard facts to look at (once again, follow the links).

The typical dismissal of her is to play gotcha on an item or two and treat it as the whole shebang. In other words, the insinuated reasoning is that because she exaggerated Case A, then Case B cannot be true (even though it is), so there is no reason to even mention it. This is a logical fallacy, but when a logical fallacy is insinuated rather than stated openly, it's easy to hide. And when lavish doses of rhetoric are piled on to hide it further, many people just tune out.

btw - What is your criteria for establishing an investigation? A lottery? From the way you write, that seems to be it.

In other words, law enforcement should put pedophilia, embezzlement, burglary, murder, etc., in a lottery bin along with random names, swirl it around and pull out tokens. Then it should decide to investigate the crime and person that pop up. (From the way you write, ditto for scientists investigating items in their different fields.)

Other people out here in reality start to look at patterns, especially recurring patterns, then decide that those patterns are worth looking into. It's a pre-selection thing.

To call ALL patterns "elevating rumor and innuendo to the level of fact" is simply to chop off an important part of arriving at the truth. If you can't look at patterns, then you can only get investigations from a lottery method--and that leads to silliness. It's another kind of logical fallacy (conflating the process and outcome, then blaming one for not being the other when reality, i.e. observation, intrudes).

President Trump is not just coming down like the hammer of Thor on the Clinton-linked perverts, he cleans his own house, too: Trump Throws Campaign Aide In Jail For Elite Pedo Ring Ties.

Michael

Is that testimony given under strict rules of evidence  and  subject to the penalties of perjury?  If not,  it is hot air. 

Anything less than evidence  meeting legal requirements and framed under the rules regarding  perjury  or corroborated physical evidence is dubious at best. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Is that testimony given under strict rules of evidence  and  subject to the penalties of perjury?  If not,  it is hot air.

Bob,

Do you read?

How on earth can you say that about a man who was tried and convicted and served his sentence?

Good Lord. Are you having a bad moment?

If you are going to ask questions just to show yourself--as a prompt to pontificate "hot air"--and even not read the answers, I'm going to stop answering them.

Quoting an answer with the automatic quote function does not mean you read it. Good try, but you're faking it.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - Do you really want to see evidence from Anthony Weiner? There are plenty of photos of his naked erect penis out there with timestamps, phone numbers and other relevant information.

Would that be pleasing to your justice itch?

:evil: 

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Do you read?

How on earth can you say that about a man who was tried and convicted and served his sentence?

Good Lord. Are you having a bad moment?

If you are going to ask questions just to show yourself--as a prompt to pontificate "hot air"--and even not read the answers, I'm going to stop answering them.

Quoting an answer with the automatic quote function does not mean you read it. Good try, but you're faking it.

Michael

I was unaware of the conviction.  I did not read.  I should have, but I didn't. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Do you read?

How on earth can you say that about a man who was tried and convicted and served his sentence?

Good Lord. Are you having a bad moment?

If you are going to ask questions just to show yourself--as a prompt to pontificate "hot air"--and even not read the answers, I'm going to stop answering them.

Quoting an answer with the automatic quote function does not mean you read it. Good try, but you're faking it.

Michael

Who was convicted of what  and on what charge? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Who was convicted of what  and on what charge? 

sigh...

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You can start by looking into Jeffrey Epstein, big Clinton bud.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now