Graham calls for Senate Judiciary hearing on McCabe firing

[LoneLaugher]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

Nope. You should drop that dopey line....it makes you seem like a retard.

No response...huh?

I responded. Trump obstructed justice.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

LOL Trump didn't fire the guy, and the FBI followed all protocols required for firing any FBI agent, including a recommendation from an inspector general. Why do you people constantly lie and make shit up?

At the direction of the president.

The recommendations of two pertinent agencies. I am unaware of any internal opposition from within those agencies.

 

[Meathead]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated.

I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

 

[Mac1958]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated. I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

Well, that's fine for those with that opinion, but the firing was still done out in the open, and people are going to react.
.

 

[DJT for Life]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

Nope. You should drop that dopey line....it makes you seem like a retard.

No response...huh?

I responded. Trump obstructed justice.

How?

 

[Meathead]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated. I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

Well, that's fine for those with that opinion, but the firing was still done out in the open, and people are going to react.
.

Again, so what? Anything Trump does will be an administration-toppling event. My God, how many of them have we seen. You get CNN and all these media talking heads and USMB dingbats declaring the end of Trump.

 

[Mac1958]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated. I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

Well, that's fine for those with that opinion, but the firing was still done out in the open, and people are going to react.
.

Again, so what? Anything Trump does will be an administration-toppling event. My God, how many of them have we seen. You get CNN and all these media talking heads and USMB dingbats declaring the end of Trump.

Sure, we're at about a thousand now. I don't think this is a damaging case, just another little shit storm.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

That is simply not true. Trump could be squeaky clean but if he gets in the way of an investigation then that is still obstruction.

So, I don't know, maybe someone should tell the totally innocent president that he has nothing to worry about and just let the investigation take it's course.

How is he getting in the way of an investigation for doing his job?

That requires a longer answer.

The short answer is look at your post about what is and is not obstruction and then look at my reply. It's not really about Trump it's just correcting you that there doesn't need to be an original crime in order for an obstruction of justice charge to be issued.

 

[bodecea]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

Two days before their retirement....yeah, that stinks...needs to be checked out.

 

[jc456]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated.

I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

He resigned right?

 

[jc456]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

That is simply not true. Trump could be squeaky clean but if he gets in the way of an investigation then that is still obstruction.

So, I don't know, maybe someone should tell the totally innocent president that he has nothing to worry about and just let the investigation take it's course.

How is he getting in the way of an investigation for doing his job?

That requires a longer answer.

The short answer is look at your post about what is and is not obstruction and then look at my reply. It's not really about Trump it's just correcting you that there doesn't need to be an original crime in order for an obstruction of justice charge to be issued.

What was obstructed?

 

[bodecea]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

LOL Trump didn't fire the guy, and the FBI followed all protocols required for firing any FBI agent, including a recommendation from an inspector general. Why do you people constantly lie and make shit up?

Of course he didn't...wink...wink

 

[HappyJoy]

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

That is simply not true. Trump could be squeaky clean but if he gets in the way of an investigation then that is still obstruction.

So, I don't know, maybe someone should tell the totally innocent president that he has nothing to worry about and just let the investigation take it's course.

How is he getting in the way of an investigation for doing his job?

That requires a longer answer.

The short answer is look at your post about what is and is not obstruction and then look at my reply. It's not really about Trump it's just correcting you that there doesn't need to be an original crime in order for an obstruction of justice charge to be issued.

What was obstructed?

Well, possibly when Trump fired Comey and then told Lester Holt why he did it and well...of all people he also told the Russians who were in the Oval office.

But, really when I mean longer answer I'm patiently waiting for the Mueller investigation to finish.

 

[jc456]

Didn’t McCabe state he used an invalid dossier to access a warrant on a civilian for spying? Seems to meet terms for dismissal. Just saying

 

[jc456]

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

That is simply not true. Trump could be squeaky clean but if he gets in the way of an investigation then that is still obstruction.

So, I don't know, maybe someone should tell the totally innocent president that he has nothing to worry about and just let the investigation take it's course.

How is he getting in the way of an investigation for doing his job?

That requires a longer answer.

The short answer is look at your post about what is and is not obstruction and then look at my reply. It's not really about Trump it's just correcting you that there doesn't need to be an original crime in order for an obstruction of justice charge to be issued.

What was obstructed?

Well, possibly when Trump fired Comey and then told Lester Holt why he did it and well...of all people he also told the Russians who were in the Oval office.

But, really when I mean longer answer I'm patiently waiting for the Mueller investigation to finish.

So you have no fking idea! And yet you’re screaming obstruction! Too funny. Is the dossier confirmed as factual?

 

[Seawytch]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated. I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

Well, that's fine for those with that opinion, but the firing was still done out in the open, and people are going to react.
.

With malice and forethought...

"McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!" @RealDonaldtrump

 

[jc456]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated. I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

Well, that's fine for those with that opinion, but the firing was still done out in the open, and people are going to react.
.

With malice and forethought...

"McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!" @RealDonaldtrump

Did McCabe admit using the dossier to get a warrant?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There won’t be a Senate Judiciary hearing on the McCabe firing, and Graham knows it.

Most Republicans have no desire for transparency.

 

[Seawytch]

The timing of this firing was so blatantly punitive that it's begging to be investigated. I realize what a high priority they place on keeping "the base" happy, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

So what, McCabe was a disgrace to the FBI from the deepest part of its swamp.

Well, that's fine for those with that opinion, but the firing was still done out in the open, and people are going to react.
.

With malice and forethought...

"McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!" @RealDonaldtrump

Did McCabe admit using the dossier to get a warrant?

No.

Next, the Nunes memo reduces its credibility by including language that is intended to create a misimpression. For example, in order to buttress the idea that the Steele dossier was central to the original application (and thus a critical tainting factor) the memo says that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without Steele.

This is potentially explosive. It is meant to leave the impression that Steele was the central, critical basis for the probable cause submission to the FISA court. But that isn’t what the memo says. What it actually says—a much better reading (one likely to be borne out when the transcripts are eventually published)—is that McCabe acknowledged that the Steele dossier was part of the impetus for seeking the warrant—which is not the same thing as saying it was the probable cause basis for obtaining it.

Perhaps even more significant is how the memo tries to bury the admission deep in the document that the entire FBI counterintelligence investigation of Russian influence was not triggered by the Steele dossier. Instead, as the memo admits only in its final paragraph, it was information about another Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, and his meetings that began the inquiry.

Given that the investigation began from a different source, it is almost certain that the motivations behind the Steele dossier were irrelevant to the FISA court—judges routinely grant warrants based upon information provided by sources who have an ax to grind. The question is whether or not the information is corroborated. (As one wag put it, it only matters that someone told the FBI Page was talking to the Russians—it could have been Stormy Daniels for all they cared, so long as they could corroborate the information.) Here, we will not know unless and until the full FISA application is unsealed, but it is notable that the Nunes memo nowhere says that the Steele dossier was the exclusive basis for the FISA application and acknowledges the existence of other information. So, there are reasons to think that Steele’s alleged bias played no significant role in the FISA process. All of which doesn’t mean that everything in the Steele dossier is true. But his alleged bias doesn’t necessarily ruin the credibility of his research.
​

Even If You Take the Nunes Memo Seriously, It Makes No Sense

 

[CowboyTed]

Do all fired FBI agents get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story or just the privileged DC swamp agents?

When their firing is direct proof of obstruction of justice by the president, yes. All FBI agents should get a senate hearing to tell their side of the story in that case.

Just exactly what crime has Donald Trump been accused of?

Without a crime, there can be no obstruction.

For the umpteenth time, you need on crime for obstruction to exist... Obstruction is the crime...

Your narrative is just one of the cons you believe in alternative news..

How about read the law 18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally