Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 08 May 2017 1:54 pm » wrote:Yates violated her ethical and legal responsibility. That makes her a political hack.

Read my last post.

Misty » 14 May 2017 2:37 pm » wrote: Sends a message? Like a Mafia boss?
The FBI Director is not supposed to be loyal to the president.
He's supposed to be loyal to the LAW.

At this point I am embarrassed for you for giving an answer like that.
You should have let it stand as a rhetorical question.

Poor delusional Misty ignores the fact that the FBI Director can only be fired for cause. The cause was supplied by his two immediate superiors in a letter to Trump. Misty turns a blind eye to any facts that contradict her beliefs. Her emotion driven beliefs always trump facts!!! Mentally disabled Misty!!

AssHat Bilko » 15 May 2017 1:37 am » wrote: Poor delusional Misty ignores the fact that the FBI Director can only be fired for cause. The cause was supplied by his two immediate superiors in a letter to Trump. Misty turns a blind eye to any facts that contradict her beliefs. Her emotion driven beliefs always trump facts!!! Mentally disabled Misty!!

Pure Alinsky! Why don't you read what you are responding to before you make a further fool of yourself, Ol'Fool...

asswipe » 15 May 2017 4:26 am » wrote:5 I see you read what you are responding to and are using impeccable logic. You make very good points. I bow to your superior wisdom.

Glad to see you bow before my outstanding logic. You may now grab your legs and stick your head up your ***!!

Misty » 14 May 2017 9:23 pm » wrote: Sally Yates was the Deputy AG who was named the Acting AG by 45.

In 2004 James Comey was the Deputy AG who was named Acting AG while AG John Ashcroft was hospitalized.

In his capacity as Acting AG, Comey refused to sign off on GWB's warrantless wiretapping program because he felt it was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Ashcroft, and the head of the FBI at the time backed Comey, and all three threatened to resign in protest.

Bush had no choice but to back down.

No one was fired.

What has that to do with Comey violating his position by shooting off his mouth usurping the role of prosecutors?? Also what has that to do with his two immediate supervisors deciding he is incompetent?? You keep ignoring the fact that he was fired for cause. Get your head out of the sand and look at what actually happened!!! His mouth and actions got him fired and you choose to ignore that fact!!! Why???? There also is the fact that your biased irresponsible hatred of Trump makes you blind to reality about him.

Misty » 14 May 2017 9:23 pm » wrote: Sally Yates was the Deputy AG who was named the Acting AG by 45.

In 2004 James Comey was the Deputy AG who was named Acting AG while AG John Ashcroft was hospitalized.

In his capacity as Acting AG, Comey refused to sign off on GWB's warrantless wiretapping program because he felt it was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Ashcroft, and the head of the FBI at the time backed Comey, and all three threatened to resign in protest.

Bush had no choice but to back down.

No one was fired.

Yes, they threatened to resign.

Thanks for making my point.


Did Yates offer her resignation? No, she grandstanded and undercut Trump in an unethical manner.

Misty » 14 May 2017 9:25 pm » wrote: Read my last post.

When are you going to cite evidence that Trump committed a felony by "threatening a witness into silence," psycho?

Answer, never because you lied.

Termin8tor » 15 May 2017 7:30 am » wrote: When are you going to cite evidence that Trump committed a felony by "threatening a witness into silence," psycho?

Answer, never because you lied.

Evidence is only needed when a righty is making an accusation.

Huey » 15 May 2017 7:33 am » wrote: Evidence is only needed when a righty is making an accusation.

It's not little Miss Marxist's fault.


She goes magically blind to important questions and evidence.

No, really!

Misty » 14 May 2017 2:14 pm » wrote:Any more lies, Puss?

Speaking of, you babble in outrage when I've called you a liar.

So when are you going to back up your claim that Trump "intimidated a witness into silence?"

That's a felony, psycho, so should we assume impeachment hearings will start soon?

I'd hate to think you were lying, after all those protests that you don't.

Misty » 14 May 2017 2:45 pm » wrote: Oh please.
You posted pieces from National Review here all the time.
I even used to bust your chops about it.

Speaking of lies......

1) Kristol has never written for National Review, and I've never cited Kristol EVER.

2) George Will might be occasionally carried, because he is usually thoughtful, but I haven't cited Will in years, maybe decades, maybe never.

3) David Frum likely hasn't been carried in National Review in over a decade, and I've never cited David Frum.

4) I've never even heard of Sykes.

But other than that, you got everything right.


Freaking imbecile.

Misty » 14 May 2017 2:02 am » wrote:He threw his whole team under the bus and he admitted that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

So what? There is zero evidence of any crime by Trump or any of his officials.


Trump is legitimately angry not only that it hasn't been concluded, but that there have been so many dishonest leaks about his administration, likely including from Comey.

Where's the beef, psycho?

Termin8tor » 14 May 2017 2:48 pm » wrote:Who said Trump demanded legal loyalty, psycho? Were you there?

No, you only have the questionable word of a person who's been caught in gross ethical violations, if not crimes.

So now you've taken to smearing James Comey, who by all accounts has the reputation of a boy scout?

Comey's questionable word?
Now that is downright laugh out loud funny.

I would take anyone's word over the word of the pathological liar who inhabits the WH.
Besides, he has a record of demanding people's loyalty.

He even made his followers raise their hands and take an oath to support him at his rallies during the campaign.

Termin8tor » 14 May 2017 2:48 pm » wrote:If I were Trump, I'd have asked Comey that aside from legal issues, would he support me politically against my political opponents, particularly Obama officials and others who unethically wish to obstruct my presidential agenda.

Off the top of my head, that is perfectly legitimate. Any president deserves to know his officials are loyal to him.

How do you have this so *** backwards?

An FBI director is not supposed to support the president politically and is not supposed to be loyal to the president.
If that were the case, then they could never investigate a president that appointed them who may be committing crimes.

They are supposed to support and be loyal to the law and only the law.
And they are supposed to be non-partisan and independent, which is why they are appointed to a ten year term.

But that's all changed now, because I'm pretty sure that we are about to get a very political appointment to head the FBI and someone who would probably be willing to swear an oath of loyalty to this POTUS.

Termin8tor » 14 May 2017 2:48 pm » wrote:Off the top of my head.....

Don't take anything off the top of your head.
You can't afford to lose any more brain matter.

Termin8tor » 15 May 2017 12:46 pm » wrote:Where's the beef, psycho?

Is that your new catchphrase Pumpkin?

Termin8tor » 15 May 2017 12:44 pm » wrote: Speaking of lies......

1) Kristol has never written for National Review, and I've never cited Kristol EVER.

2) George Will might be occasionally carried, because he is usually thoughtful, but I haven't cited Will in years, maybe decades, maybe never.

3) David Frum likely hasn't been carried in National Review in over a decade, and I've never cited David Frum.

4) I've never even heard of Sykes.

But other than that, you got everything right.

Freaking imbecile.

So you didn't used to post opinion pieces here from the NRO all the time?
Because I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to dig up some of those posts.

I never said that you cited Krystal.
I said that you used to have so much respect for Conservatives like the ones I mentioned.

Misty » 15 May 2017 12:57 pm » wrote:
So you didn't used to post opinion pieces here from the NRO all the time?
Because I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to dig up some of those posts.

Are you blind, stupid or just lying?

Lying, of course.

Read it again, psycho.

1) Kristol has never written for National Review,
and I've never cited Kristol EVER.

2) George Will might be occasionally carried, because he is usually thoughtful,
but I haven't cited Will in years, maybe decades, maybe never.

3) David Frum likely hasn't been carried in National Review in over a decade,
and I've never cited David Frum.

4) I've never even heard of Sykes.
But other than that, you got everything right.

Misty » 15 May 2017 12:57 pm » wrote:So you didn't used to post opinion pieces here from the NRO all the time?
Because I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to dig up some of those posts.

I never said that you cited Krystal.
I said that you used to have so much respect for Conservatives like the ones I mentioned.

Which is also a lie, because if I really and truly respected them, I would have cited them over the last decade, liar.

Termin8tor » 14 May 2017 1:38 pm » wrote:What "cliff," psycho?
And when are you going to cite backup for your claim that Trump committed a felony by "intimidating a witness into silence?"

When you show me the post where I said that he committed a 'felony.'

Misty » 15 May 2017 12:55 pm » wrote: Is that your new catchphrase Pumpkin?

Look at the hack run from her smear of Trump.

Misty » 13 May 2017 11:50 am » wrote:This Tweet was clearly meant to intimidate Comey into remaining silent about what was said when he had dinner at the WH.
Comey will still be called to testify before Congress, and now as a private citizen, he becomes a witness.
Surely as a witness, he will be asked about what was said at that dinner, and in any subsequent contacts he had with the POTUS.
I believe they have a term for that when someone tries to intimidate a witness into remaining silent.
Oh yeah. It's called 'intimidating a witness.'

Intimidating a witness is a felony, whether you used the word or not.

You lied, as if that's a surprise, and you're running from it.

And that's no surprise either, psycho.

Misty » 15 May 2017 1:01 pm » wrote: When you show me the post where I said that he committed a 'felony.'

I never claimed you used the term "felony," liar.

Misty » 13 May 2017 11:50 am » wrote:This Tweet was clearly meant to intimidate Comey into remaining silent about what was said when he had dinner at the WH.

Comey will still be called to testify before Congress, and now as a private citizen, he becomes a witness.

Surely as a witness, he will be asked about what was said at that dinner, and in any subsequent contacts he had with the POTUS.

I believe they have a term for that when someone tries to intimidate a witness into remaining silent.

Oh yeah. It's called 'intimidating a witness.'

.

Intimidating a witness is a felony, whether you used the word or not.


So when do impeachment hearings start, Dim?