Trump just fired Comey!

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I'm not insinuating that it would have to be the DAG who is complicit. Comey asking him for more funding doesn't limit that ask just to the DAG. I'm sure the request was informed up the chain.

In fact, I don't disagree with Rosenstein or his points. They would make complete sense IF this was the decision in January. But not now. Now it's simply the excuse that was apparently requested. And to boot, in his letter, Rosenstein never specifically asked for or recommended anything. I think that's his "out".

I have never been so distrustiful of any administration or individual as Trump and his immediate circle. In this I include Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I find myself astounded by admitting it even to myself.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
I have never been so distrustiful of any administration or individual as Trump and his immediate circle. In this I include Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I find myself astounded by admitting it even to myself.
Yup, and cheney, et al, were ridiculously untrustworthy. drumpf has lowered the bar to a point no president has had previously, well maybe tricky dick, maybe. Need to see how this all shakes out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,549
761
146
In fact, I don't disagree with Rosenstein or his points. They would make complete sense IF this was the decision in January. But not now. Now it's simply the excuse that was apparently requested. And to boot, in his letter, Rosenstein never specifically asked for or recommended anything. I think that's his "out".

It would make more sense but even then it would have been problematic because Trump-Russia has been around even before Trump was elected. If that happened in January, it would mean: No special prosecutor. Trump stooge heading FBI. Congressional investigations going nowhere. -- that would have been BS. Good thing is that our allies abroad have our backs, so it won't remain covered even if they somehow managed to stifle it here.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,992
31,551
146

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/how-trump-could-get-fired

Good, long read on what impeachment actually means, and the historical difficulty of doing so, and meaning of impeachment.

One side point brought up in this article, that I never put together, is that Trump Co is a family-run business. Meaning: not public. No Board, no stockholders. No one to answer to but whoever sits at the top.

Trump.

Pretty much the perfect place to hide all of your mental failings, gross incompetence, flailing ignorance and insanity, all the while controlling the choreographed image of what you are in the public's eye, so long as checks keep rolling in (seemingly miraculously, by all accounts). It is a perfect situation for succeeding through criminal indulgence. Next to this, the only other image of Trump is a reality TV star: an image no less controlled than the first.

The presidency is the first time in his life that all of his failures, all of his unbridled incompetence and childish mind are laid bare for everyone to see. It must absolutely infuriate him that he can't control this image, that not enough people are shielding him from the expected fallout of his decisions and, simply his personality, having a real effect on people for the very first time.

It makes one snicker at the types that get a hard-on for the businessman holding political office. being the leader. This, of course, never should have applied to Trump; It should never have been considered. Trump has never been a businessman: he's an oligarch of his own reality. Never has he had to deal in the public sphere, make decisions and compromises for the solubility of his company, for his employees--because he has only ever had to make decisions for himself.

What we have is an emperor that never even had any clothes.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,549
761
146
lol Deplorables keep coming out of the woodwork. I pity them somewhat because they're even dumber than Donnie and his bozo sons.

images
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,407
136
Russian press was allowed into Trump's meeting with the Russian foreign minister... the American press was not.

But her emails!

I saw the intro with Tillerson. He took no questions from the press made a sarcastic looking smirk (my opinion it's up to everyone to judge for themselves) the Russian guy kind of laughed at the Press and they left. I'm not sure about the Russian Press.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,256
4,930
136
At this point I still believe that the real chumps are the people who were misled to vote for him in the first place.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,992
31,551
146
I love how liberals don't even understand what the word "I" means.

Do you think that Donny is not in charge of his businesses? I have proof that he is still actively engaged, and it is public knowledge that he can withdraw profits whenever he chooses.

What do you have? I mean, other than weak-ass semantic attempts that only twits would engage in.
 

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
This thread has been a fascinating study in degenerate psychology. It makes me a little nauseated to see, but it's been instructive. I wonder what it's going to take to make Chiropteran et al admit they were wrong?
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Do you think that Donny is not in charge of his businesses? I have proof that he is still actively engaged, and it is public knowledge that he can withdraw profits whenever he chooses.

So what?

He can has zero personal dealings with Russia. A company under his ownership may.

There is no conflict in language here, both statements can be true.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Lol, suckered again. If they think the story is false I would love for them to say what parts they think are false and why because apparently three separate congressmen disagree.

The part about requesting more money is false. How do you prove a negative?

Absence of proof is as much as we can get. And there is zero proof, 100% absence, that is good enough for me.