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

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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

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?
in Politics

By CovenyCoveny 419 Pts edited May 2017
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?
  1. Live Poll

    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
    2. Russia didn't affect the election, but Trump still has ties to them
    3. Russia didn't affect the election, but Trump did
    4. Russia did affect the election, but Trump didn't know about it
    5. Russia did affect the election, and Trump did know about it but wasn't a part of it
    6. Russia did affect the election, and Trump was a part of it
    7. Russia did affect the election, Trump work with them, and continues to work with them

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • thereptherep 61 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 419 Pts
    @therep well Comey was investigating Trump so it looks highly suspect to me.

  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 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."


  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    I left it purposely vague to cover whatever pollers wanted it to mean. More interested in discussing it than "proving" anything.
  • ale5ale5 263 Pts
    @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.
    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.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @ale5 Do you have anything more than conspiracy theories and conjecture to support your belief?  Is there any evidence?
  • ale5ale5 263 Pts
    @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
  • agsragsr 859 Pts
    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 419 Pts
  • @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.
  • ale5ale5 263 Pts
    @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.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @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.
  • @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.  
  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 233 Pts
    @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.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @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 419 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.

    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.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @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.”


  • 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.
  • 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.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    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.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    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.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @CYDdharta they had found something and proof wasn't impossible. As several of those articles mention before Comey was fired there as belief they had found the concrete "proof", was in the process of subpoenaing the required people and then right as Comey was attempting to square it all up he got fired, and told to be silent. This is what the third person Trump has fired who was investigating him now? To me that seems pretty damning...
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @Coveny There was no PROOF.  If you look at the dates of the articles you posted and compare them to the articles I posted, you'll notice that my articles are more recent than yours.  Your articles are about spurious allegations, mine are the result of looking into those allegations.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @CYDdharta your articles are from a bunch of politicians on the subject. You may trust politicians who have little to no visibility into investigation, I however do not. I would like to see this independently investigated. We had to waste all that money on Benghazi, I think undermining our democracy is at least as important. Obviously the FBI can't be fair and impartial at this point because Trump fired Comey. It's a valid request. Regardless though, he looks guilty to me for firing the guy investigating him on some trump'd up charge. (see what I did there?)
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @Coveny There was never an independent investigation of Benghazi.  The politicians I cited are Democrats who would like nothing more than to tear down the Trump administration.  If you don't trust politicians like Rep Schiff, why did you post a story about him?  It's pretty obvious that you though Trump was guilty long before he fired Comey, and you'll continue to believe it regardless of the total lack of proof.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @CYDdharta benghazi was what 7 committees? Most of which were republican lead against a democrat. If you want to get me 7 committees on this ran mostly by Democrats I'll take that instead of an independent prosecutor. I will continue to believe that we need to investigate it, and personally I feel like firing the guy investigating you is a pretty big indicator of guilt. You seem to just keep repeating "NO PROOF". Which may or may not be true, so I wouldn't hang him for treason until there was actual proof as I'm still open minded on the subject. I have however always found it ironic when someone on the opposite of a debate indicates I had my mind made but before like they both know me, and aren't doing exactly what they claim me to be doing. You don't know me, or know what my feelings were before he fired Comey, please stop pretending like you do with such certianity...
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    edited May 2017
    @Coveny There may have been 7 committees, but it came down to Comey saying "yeah, Hillary may have broken the law, but she didn't mean to do it".  If the FBI couldn't find intent for Hillary when she set up a home-brewed server for the express purpose of avoiding federal archiving requirements, or after she was caught destroying subpoenaed records, there is no way there will ever be enough justification to prosecute Trump.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    Benghazi was about Hillary's email server? Interesting, I thought it was about lying to the public and if it could have been prevented. Wanna try that again?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    Just watched this and found it very compelling even though I don't believe he's doing it for the countries best interest...

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    Coveny said:
    Benghazi was about Hillary's email server? Interesting, I thought it was about lying to the public and if it could have been prevented. Wanna try that again?
    Nope, no need to.  It was about Clinton lying to the public, which she obviously did when she denied using her home-brewed server.  Hillary's server was part of the Benghazi hearings;

    Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

    “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

    Daily Kos?!?  You really swim in the left-wing swamp.  Lots of innuendo in the article, too bad there is no PROOF, nothing to contradict the findings that the above Democrats have been forced to admit, that there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    I guess you're starting in with the insults at this point. Well if what Trump has done is drained the swamp from Washington, then yes I swim in the swamp. Because I'm not part of the crowd that is in his cabinet, or the people his administration is helping, and spoiler alert, it's a club that YOU aren't in either.

    There is no evidence because they just fired the guy investigating it. How can you get evidence if everyone trying to investigate it gets fired?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    No insults, just an observation.  Daily Kos is the Inforwars of the left.  They were so happy when they thought coal miners were going to lose their health coverage; it never happened, of course, but they so hoped it would.

    Trump is representing me quite well, much better than Congress is doing. 

    Comey was personally conducting an investigation???  Do tell!!  They've been investigating it for nearly a year and still haven't found ANYTHING. 

  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    You observed me swimming in a swamp? Do tell!!!

    If you think a year is a long time, I guess you've never been in any legal proceedings.

    As for him "representing you quite well" I don't even know how you can say that with a straight face.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA, you must have forgotten that the Clinton's already rented out the Lincoln bedroom last time they were there.

    A year is a pretty long time for an investigation to turn up NOTHING.


  • inc4tinc4t 184 Pts
    @CYDdharta and @Coveny, I  have to say that I am really enjoying your debate.  You started with facts, and now down to cartoons.  It is really hilarious.  
    It seems to me that there is no proof that Comey had before he got fired, but Trump surely anticipated such a media reaction, and he doesn't care. He will not let media impact his decision making - he will do what he feels is right for a given situation.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    So the Republicans block Obama, and don't block Trump and Gorsuch somehow counts as an accomplishment?!?!
    Reduced illegals... ROFL more people were leaving this country than coming into it before he took office. 30 years of corrupt politicians are killing this country
    Getting bids is an accomplishment? Someone put that on the meme? Wow you are desperate.
    Clinton bombed ISIS, Obama bombed ISIS, Russia bombed ISIS,  Trump bombed ISIS, ISIS is still alive and well. (his promise was have a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days... he still doesn't have one he's just doing the same thing everyone else has done and expecting different results I think Einstein had something to say about that)
    TPP was dead in Congress, Trump didn't stop it.
    Bring jobs back and economic growth is all OBAMA. Economically speaking he brought this country out of the gutter, and Trump took office and has rode on that momentum. http://time.com/money/4640938/donald-trump-job-creation-announcements-ford-walmart-amazon/
    Oh ya he's gotten rid of regulation, you know like the ones that prevent companies from polluting this country.This counts as an accomplishment to you?
    Coal jobs? Really? Are you serious? He's gonna bring back blockbuster too.
    Pipelines are an accomplishment? They are ALREADY leaking. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/10/investing/dakota-access-pipeline-oil-spill/
    Manufacturing. pfft

    Now let's talk about the 60 or so promises he didn't keep.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @inc4t you got one thing right he doesn't care.
  • agsragsr 859 Pts
    @Coveny, to inc4t point, the fact that he doesn't care is a good thing. He is not a politician and not bound by the same corrupt principles as the rest of Washington DC.  He can make a difference and is confident in his decisions.
    I agree that perception is horrible of him firing Comey, resulting in media Frenzy. I disagree that Comey had proof.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @inc4t I agree with your assessment.  It's hard add anything new that's relevant, considering the investigations have turned up nothing. 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @agsr he has a history of cheating people in his own best interest. As president he has continued this trend and uses his presidency to increase his personal fortune. 

    Trump doesn't care... about anyone but himself. http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/08/donald-trump-to-detroit-autoworkers-you-make-too-much-money.html

    Everyone keeps saying there is no "proof" based on people outside of the investigation. Hey I get it, he's got you guys fooled and guys are ok with this country getting screwed over so long as it's not a black guy. There is no reason to fire Comey... what so ever, but that doesn't phase you. ok sure.
  • agsragsr 859 Pts
    @Coveny, I would just counter with the following to keep this debate on topic.
    1) the subject of debate is if there is proof. There is no proof.  All the evidence we have and yoyr syggestions of his personal history while maybe relevant are not proof.
    2) at the same time, there is no proof that Trump is innocent. It is fair in such situations to use guilty until proven innocent construct. I find many of your sources compelling to some degree.
    3) perception is not good for Trump firing Comey in the midst of investigation, but that in itself is not proof.

    anything else is just a personal opinion.  If this debate would have been "do you believe..." than it wouldn't be a debate but a statement of an opinion. That's my 2 cents.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @agsr I would counter that the scope of the debate is "FBI Director James Comey proof that Trump is corrupt?" not do we have legal proof that Trump is corrupt. This topic is supposed to be about peoples thoughts on the idea of firing someone who is investigating you, and what that implies. That has been completely skipped to discuss his legal guilt or innocence. I wanted to get a debate about the implications of firing someone investigating you. I would have liked some discussion about how in the old days that would have been enough "proof" to convict, but today it's not because we require a higher burden of proof in our court systems. I wanted to know people's thoughts on if that was more fair and more just, or was the older system more accurate. This debate was supposed to BE about personal opinion, but I like debating so I just went with it, however that's not the topic. The key sentence of the post that indicates that this is about opinions rather than facts is "What are your thoughts on the subject?". And really I created this, why are you lecturing me on what the topic of the debate is suppose to be? If it drifts it's not that a huge deal this is a causal debating forum so I'm fine following where the discussion leads... 
  • agsragsr 859 Pts
    @Coveny, that is fair.   Thanks for clarifying.   If that's  the topic then I can totally see how suspicious it looks.  I still hold my opinion that he is not guilty, but it's a matter of personal opinion like religion debate. I can understand how suspicious it looks firing someone who investigates you, but that cannot be the sole basis of guilt.
    i also think that you are bringing up another interesting debate topic about the court system.  I also think that our legal system is overly complex, but at the same time KGB-like court system is even worse.  That would make an interesting debate in itself.
    Didnt mean to sound like I was lecturing, sorry about that.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
    @agsr no worries. Yes what you were just talking about was more where I wanted to discuss with this thread, but to be fair I didn't go into enough detail about what I was looking for, so it turned into something else.

    It's more interesting to me to discuss how far does "beyond a reasonable doubt" go? It's pretty vague IMO. You mention guilt solely on firing him, but there have been people hug by mobs for less I believe. We have a democracy does that mean that if most people believe someone is guilty that removes reasonable doubt? Or do we have to take into account fallacies and bias and say even though most believe a person is guilty that still isn't enough. That seems almost like treating them like children and saying that what they believe isn't good enough. And if so how do we decide who's judgement isn't ignored or distorted by fallacies and bias? 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1270 Pts
    @Coveny You're a bit late, that story has already been flatly debunked.

    "The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation," McMaster said. "At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known."

    McMaster's statement echoed earlier denials issued by two other administration officials who attended the meeting."This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy. 
    In addition, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Lavrov "did not discuss sources, methods or military operations."


    At least we can agree that investigations are unwarranted.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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

Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch