|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
...
There are all kinds of reasons given in that article - recommendation from DoJ, poor handling of Hillary's email investigation, Russia investigation was a witch hunt, etc., that all changed depending on whether you were talking to Trump, Spicer, Rosenstein, or Sessions, and when.
First it was Rosenstein's idea, then Trump's, then Trump's idea and Rosenstein and Sessions confirmed it. The only way those stories don't conflict is that they're all excuses to fire someone. Then Trump says in a letter to Comey "I'm doing this on the basis of their recommendation." and three days later tells Lester Holt it was all his idea and he was going to fire him all along. I mean the guy can't even keep his own story straight. No wonder he goes through so many press secretaries. They're all hurting their brain trying to explain all of his contradictory statements.
You can argue all of those reasons are true (and on top of it zomgFISA), and they just fucked up in how they presented it, but it doesn't matter. Comey was investigating Trump over Russia and Trump fired him. Can you at least acknowledge how bad that looks, and why it makes people suspicious of all these other explanations for the whys and hows? And then add to that the fact he tried to fire Mueller too?
|
Reply With Quote