Jump to content

Fire Your Investigator?


Recommended Posts

I think the Donald is getting the post of US President and Absolute Monarch mixed up. He should remember that Absolute Monarch's walk in fear of the men with long knives.

Link to comment

From reports, the WH staff and insiders were shocked, I say shocked, at the public's, Congress's and the media's reaction to the firing.

Come on!  They're not that naive, are they?  Just as we're not naive enough to believe the firing was for any reason other than Comey's refusal to back off from the investigation of tampering during the election; Trump must have been hearing the jungle drums.


Link to comment

Unfortunately, Mr. Olberman is in this case well-spoken and cutely philosophical, but completely wrong. You CAN fire the man investigating you if that man is in your chain of command. And the Justice Department is in the Executive Branch of the US Government. The US Attorney General works for, and at the pleasure of, the President. And, in turn, so does the Director of the FBI.

Now if the investigation is by a separate branch -- say a Congressional committee -- that's a different story. An investigator in that case cannot be fired by somebody in the Executive Branch. Obviously, that would seem to put the ball in Congress's court (so to speak). Will they take the necessary action?

But there is a problem there. For aside from Mr. Olberman's clever rhetorical game of endlessly repeating his select mantra, what specific Constitutional "high crime or misdemeanor" has been committed that justifies impeachment? None other than culpable stupidity, for which the American voter is equally guilty.

Unfortunately, I don't know if our Vice President, selected quite likely as one who would not allow his shadow to overtake Fearless Leader, will be much of a replacement in the event wisdom prevails. Likely he wouldn't be as bad, but that's an awfully low hurdle.

It's one helluva mess.

Oh. And just as a reminder for Mr. Olberman, by the way, that "man" of his mantra can also be a "woman".

Link to comment

Perhaps what Keith meant was, you cannot fire the man investigating you and get away with it.  But adding the extra words takes some of the sting from the phrase, so he just went with the first half.

We'll see if he, Trump, can get away with it.  Will Congress appoint a special proseccutor?  If they don't, there'll be some questions to be answered.

Everyone knows why Trump did what he did.  It reeks of guilt.

Oh, and Chris?  Yes, the American voter was certainly culpable of stupidity, but he wasn't the one running for President.



Link to comment

It appears that the Donald is somewhat concerned that there might be some tapes of his conversations around. News reports state:

In a tweet on Friday, he <Trump> said Mr Comey had "better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations".

Why should he be concerned about any tapes of their conversations? What did he say that could be have been recorded? 


Link to comment

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
  • Create New...