FBI Director James Comey proof that Trump is corrupt? - DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

FBI Director James Comey proof that Trump is corrupt?

Opening Argument

CovenyCoveny 407 Pts
edited May 2017 in Politics
This makes the third person that Trump has fired under suspicious situation. I feel like this is enough proof that Trump did work with Russia to corrupt the 2016 election, I tend to lend toward Trump no longer working with Russia now that he's gotten what he wants from them. What are your thoughts on the subject?
therepWhyTrumpinc4tagsrcomey_testifySilverishGoldNova
  1. What do you feel like Trumps interaction with Russia was in the 2016 election?

    22 votes
    1. Russia didn't affect the election, and Trump has no ties to them
      36.36%
    2. Russia didn't affect the election, but Trump still has ties to them
        4.55%
    3. Russia didn't affect the election, but Trump did
        0.00%
    4. Russia did affect the election, but Trump didn't know about it
        9.09%
    5. Russia did affect the election, and Trump did know about it but wasn't a part of it
      18.18%
    6. Russia did affect the election, and Trump was a part of it
      27.27%
    7. Russia did affect the election, Trump work with them, and continues to work with them
        4.55%
«134567


Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • thereptherep 58 Pts
    edited May 2017
    I agree, Trump may have seen that the director is on to him and his cabinet. Then, he decided to fire him and use false claims or other reasons.
  • CovenyCoveny 407 Pts
    @therep well Comey was investigating Trump so it looks highly suspect to me.


  • CovenyCoveny 407 Pts
  • What do you mean by "affect the election"?  It appears any Russian interference was aimed at confusing the public and sowing seeds of discontent, not at helping any one candidate get elected. 

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."

    On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evidence-of-any-russian-collusion-with-trump-campaign/article/2622452





    islander507
  • CovenyCoveny 407 Pts
    I left it purposely vague to cover whatever pollers wanted it to mean. More interested in discussing it than "proving" anything.
  • @Coveny, I agree with your opinion that there is something going on.  Trump had to get pretty desperate to fire him and cause another perception issue.  Likely Comey was getting too close to the truth. Not sure if Comey had proof or getting to it, but Trump knew that keeping Comey at it was too risky.
    CovenySaltyDog
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @CYDdharta, exactly. Russia effecting election is just a great consipacy theory fuled by the media.  The only role it had was maybe to add to the public confusion. Nice article too.
    agsrSaltyDog
  • @ale5 Do you have anything more than conspiracy theories and conjecture to support your belief?  Is there any evidence?
    agsrSaltyDog
  • @CYDdharta, quite honestly I don't.  But, you have to admit that certaintly conspiracy theory just got more interesting given that Trump fired the very person who is investigating him.  That sounds really fishy and thats what many are saying.
    There is such a thing as perception management for public office and It is important to avoid perception of conflict of interests.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • I agree that the optics are not great, but as @CYDdharta pointed out there is no proof other than conspiracy theories.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CovenyCoveny 407 Pts
    ale5
  • @Coveny, thanks for compilng these.
    bernie: of course he will use this opportunity to attack Trump to gain his own popularity 
    cnn: leftist establishment 
    french election: maybe russia interfered or not, but either way that's not proof.

    so bottom line, I agree that there is sufficient suspicion amd an independent investigation is warranted, but there is no proof of wrongdoing.
    ale5
  • @Coveny, great marerial!
    @CYDdharta, that looks like a rather strong argument (not quite yet Trump in jail), but hopefully you can admit it's not a pretty picture.
    Coveny
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @ale5 @Coveny ; Bernie doesn't cite any PROOF, none whatsoever.  All he has is innuendo.  If that's enough for you, then you must believe Hillary should be indicted, as there's undeniable proof that she broke the law.
    islander507
  • @CYDdharta, that is another amazing point. If someone is willing to accept uncomfirmed speculation  without proof then they should be ready to accept other speculation they don't like as proof to be fair.  
  • @CYDdharta, I disagree.  Of course there is no proof yet, that's the whole point.  We may never find out just how close he got, but no matter what it is wring to fire someone who is investigating you.  Just not right.
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • I disagree, he can't prove anything if there is nothing to prove or no evidence.
  • @WhyTrump I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.  There will never be enough proof, because now you not only need proof of wrongdoing, but due entirely to Comey's actions, you need proof of intent.  Intent is almost impossible to prove.  Hillary setting up her own illegal server and destroying files after they've been subpoenaed wasn't enough to prove intent.  There was no untoward relationship between Trump and the Russians.  If there was, some shred of evidence would have been uncovered in the nine to ten months this has been investigated.  But even if Trump had been colluding with the Russians, because of Comey's standard, there would never be enough evidence to indict Trump.
  • CovenyCoveny 407 Pts
    Comey was fired because of Clinton months after the fact? Really you're buying that?

    Look Trump has ties with Russia this shouldn't be in dispute.
    http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/02/15/donald-trumps-ties-russia-go-back-30-years/97949746/
    http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-trump-treacherous-ties-russia-531386
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-donald-trump-ties-to-russia-go-back-years-dnc-email-hack/

    I mean pick a source...

    The only thing in dispute is if they effected ours, and if Trump was a part of it. The point of this debate should be to discuss if firing the person investigating you should be considered "proof" of your guilt. I know for many they feel like that's a very strong indicator. On top of that the reason given to fire Comey was complete BS, Trumps camp applauded Comey for making negative statements about Clinton. The after firing him Trump get's on twitter and threatens him to keep him silent? The whole thing stinks... bad.
  • @Coveny ; Of course Trump had ties to Russia.  They weren't as repugnant as Hillary's ties to Russia, but there were some ties.  That isn't the issue.  The issue is; was there collusion between Trump and Russia.

    Feinstein: No Evidence of Collusion Between Trump Associates and Russia
    Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
    Ranking Democrat Investigating Trump's Russian Connections: No Definitive Proof
    Manchin: No Evidence of Collusion Between Trump Campaign, Russia
    Jonathan Capehart Skips Maxine Waters's Admission of No Trump-Russia Collusion Evidence Found

    That's a lot of Democrats and their supporters that are admitting there was no collusion.  So where did this story come from?  According to Clinton insiders;

    Authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes cite a longtime Clinton confidant in detailing how the Democratic candidate went out of her way to “make sure all these narratives get spun the right way.”

    The book also reveals that Clinton’s Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook: “That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.” The authors said that team Clinton settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy.”

    http://www.worldtribune.com/shattered-clinton-expose-reveals-russian-narrative-was-spun-within-hours-of-trump-win/






  • I think if Trump was a real professional politician, he would know what it looked like if he fired the person conducting an investigation of him so soon after he asked about said investigation.
    frechelectCoveny
  • I agree with @melanielust . HE should have held of the firing until the investigation was finished, unless he prepped for or then is firing firing of comry a little bit more.
  • The investigation was never going to finish.  It had been going on for almost a year and had uncovered NOTHING.  It was a political ploy that just would have kept dragging on with new rumors that would require investigation being leaked every time the mainstream media wanted some ratings at the expense of the administration.
  • edited May 2017
    @Coveny There is still no proof; and proof of intent, as Comey has made mandatory, will be almost impossible to come by.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch