It could mean one of several things.... there will be many speculations... but either way it is decidedly NOT good form .. especially given how many firings there have been...
Maybe Trump think it was a illoyal of him to accept that job. There are tons of possible guesses, all without any value.
This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at May 12, 2017 1:43 PM MDT
The left have been calling for Comey to be fired for ages. Now Trump finally does it and they just use it as an excuse to smear him. They really are just complete pieces of sh*t who will do anything to exploit the ignorance and short memory the average person.
Comey wasn't investigating Trump. He's just the director. As if firing him would end any investigation. If anything it just creates more suspicion. A real criminal who had something to hide wouldn't fire Comey. They'd just blackmail/ bribe / intimidate him to whitewash it like the Clintons did countless times.
A president should allow investigation. However he should not tolerate a witch hunt. Accusations that Trump is a Russian operative are baseless.
People can't just accuse the President of treason without any evidence. It's fine for people to express opinion under free speech. Though if you assert it as a fact, you have to show evidence. Slander and libel should not be tolerated. It's open sedition.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 12, 2017 7:44 PM MDT
"Slander and libel should not be tolerated. It's open sedition." So Trump is guilty of open sedition, both in accusing Obama of wiretapping him and calling his citizenship into question. When last I looked, Honolulu was in the US.
Obama is no longer President so any claim made against him now isn't sedition in any case.
Questioning a president's citizenship is nothing compared to calling a president a traitor. Treason is a capital crime. When you accuse someone of treason, you're saying they deserve to die for what they've done.
There was evidence that Obama was hiding something. (I personally believe he was born in the U.S.. Though his birth certificate was declared a forgery because respected forensic analysts, so he was hiding something. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.)
There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump is a Russian operative.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You don't need evidence to declare someone innocent.
I'm just expressing my opinions on an answers site. High standards don't apply here. Would I make such a claim on the world stage without preparing credible evidence? No I wouldn't.
"The burden of proof is on tbe accuser", and the guy whose brief it was to provide such proof (or otherwise) just got prevented from doing so - Trump FIRED him, which even you have to admit is suspicious as hell. How can the accuser provide proof when the accused is obstructing the investigation? If you have nothing to hide, why make it look like you do?
Zeitgeist 