One he feared was closing in on the truth.
I understand that. I am simply pointing out initiating possible discussion/action during the business day is not within their purview. If friends want to get together after work in a non-business setting to gossip and muse, not a problem, but these two agencies had no business discussing this in a business setting during business hours.
I do not believe anyone should be punished for having done so–just told in no uncertain terms not to overreach their own authority.
Mueller will uncover the truth any day now. Any day…
When is discussing removing a duly elected President within months of his taking office defending the democratic process and therefore the country? The FBI cannot remove a President from office. That authority belongs to another jurisdiction. And that jurisdiction is well within its authority to tell the FBI such a thing is never to happen again.
Probably not. Does the FBI have the authority to impeach or declare a 25 Amendment removal of a President from office?
That’s the truth. He’s thoughtful and methodical. He’s Trumps worst enemy.
ETA: He may have the truth already.
What good are internet forums if you can’t reduce complex issues to binary options? 
Did you even watch the interview? Nowhere does McCabe say that the FBI was discussing the 25th Amendment
Roger stone…manafort…
Except they were not doing what you suggest here. They simply had a conversation about it as a potential Constitutional option to preserve national security. That is not going behind anyone’s backs. And I vehemently disagree that it should not have happened at that level. If the top echelons of Law Enforcement are not here to preserve the law and defend our nation from threats, then who else in the world would be?
No it doesn’t. What it does have is the authority and the duty to investigate credible intelligence that a presidential candidate, president-elect, or even president may have been compromised by agents of a hostile foreign power. You have the right to disagree that that could possibly be the case here. What you do NOT have is a sound argument that the 25th Amendment would not be a viable option to be considered if it IS the case that the individual was compromised.
Attempted a palace coup? Is this for real? A coup to what, install VP Mike Pence as President? Was he in on the coup as well, as he would have been the largest beneficiary of said attack. 
They were discussing national security and the very real threats posed by our greatest foreign adversary. Why would anyone tell the world’s most preeminent Law Enforcement agency to ever exist that they are not allowed to discuss means to defend our national security from our biggest foe?
But I think such a discussion, as I said previously, is very appropriate. That’s the job of the DOJ and FBI.
No, they don’t. But they would surely be involved in such a move if need be. As they were in the Nixon Watergate scandal.
That rule on “national security” was of course a made up rule because he knew that Obama had indeed met with the FBI heads.
As Thor might have told you, all rules are made up.
Let us leave Trump out of this and go with a hypothetical.
Let us say some future President is found by chance through normal DOJ operations to potentially be compromised. Say that President is planning on selling 50% of our Uranium to the Chinese to settle a previous gambling debt or something.
Now… is it within their purview to discuss among themselves what that information may mean? Is it in the interest of National Security to at least discuss the options in case it comes to presenting the evidence that the President is engaging in activity that runs counter to the interests of the people of the Untied States?
Or would that discussion be considered akin to a palace coup?
2 Likes
In other country around the world he should be arrested , but in America . What the bias , right
In fact, there was no breach in national security brought about by anyone campaigning in the 2016 election. The issue arose after the “wrong” person won. No bureaucratic government agency–not even the FBI–should become so invested in one candidate over the others that they are incapable of support and loyalty to the President-elect. Here in the United States, we believe in peaceful transfer of power. Had Mr. Trump been a danger to America and the American way, the FBI (not to mention the CIA) had decades of information and years before 2016 to make their case.
Do you truly think that both the FBI and CIA are so inept that a person could go years under the radar while working with Russia and no one ever had a clue? Or, is it more likely that they knew they had botched other cases, and getting rid of a duly elected, non-politician, who owed nothing to anyone, might save powerful bureaucrats and a few agencies a lot of embarrassment?
Would you agree that Washington D.C. bureaucrats should have not only the influence, but the authority, to tell the nation that Democracy doesn’t work, the voters elected the wrong President, but that the D.C. bureaucrats and lobbyists will rectify the mistake idiot voters manufactured? Or should D.C. bureaucrats be saying, “We certainly have a newbie this time! Let’s put our shoulders to the grindstone and lend him the best we have.”
