| thismeintiel said: It is not an opinion. It is fact that Hillary would have fired Comey. People in her party were hinting at it. They wanted it. They ran a freaking #firecomey campaign. And you can bet your ass that there would be no outcry from the media or Dems if she did. They only changed their mind now because it is a Rep in office and they can rile up their base and score political points. The fact is the President can fire the FBI director whenever he so chooses. And no screaming and kicking from the left can change that. And the same goes for the opposite if Hillary did it, with the right saying it was only for revenge and politics. And don't confuse this as a defense of Trump, cause I don't care if he were impeached. What I'm pointing out is the BS on both sides, including voters making poor excuses as to why their side isn't so bad, excusing corruption and hypocrisy. Something that is blatantly obvious in the Stephen Colbert clip. |
How can something be a fact when said person never became president. Even so, it seems you are totally ignoring the optics of the situation. As many have said, Trump firing Comey when he became president is one thing, firing now after asking him if he is investigating him, firing him after he ask Comey for his testimony before the judicial hearing and Comey not giving it. Firing him after his testimony where he states he is investigation Trump. Firing him after he ask for more money to dig deeper into the investigation, firing him after a grand jury subpeonas Flynn associates showing that the investigation is serious.
Just because the president can do something does not mean it doesn't have concenquences. Nixion could and did try to fire the special precutor when he was under investigation and you see how that turned out for him. Firing the person who is investigating you even if you have the power does not mean you cannot be charged for obstruction of justice and this goes for the president. This is the part where you lack understanding. The president just did an interview where he totally threw out the reason given by his surrogates for the firing and said he was going to do it anyway. During the same interview he talks about having conversations asking Comey about being investigated. You have no clue how damming that is and that by firing Comey at this time with the things that came out of his mouth a serious case could be made for obstruction of justice. This is the same thing pretty much that got Nixon to resign, not the evidence but the coverup.
You are not pointing out anything because it lacks context. The question is not whether Comey would have been fired, the question is why 45 fired him now. The question, is there a case for obstruction of Justice. This will be something that Trump and company will have to tread very carefully or even this Republican led congress might need to move against him. Dumb interviews like he just did does not help his cause.
