MAXINE WATERS Weighs In On Comey … Is It An Act, Or Is She REALLY That Dumb?

Maxine Waters has something to say about Comey. Which is in direct conflict with what Maxine Waters had to say about Comey.

Try to keep up. Her ‘logic’ is dizzying.

It helps to keep in mind that she’s desperate for Trump’s impeachment. She does not, nor has she ever, been willing to accept Trump’s legitimacy.

She left a briefing late last year, incensed with Comey. [Yes. SHE has security clearance. God help us.] She said ‘all I can tell you is the FBI Director has no credibility.’

Then she tries to make a case for how Trump’s firing of Comey was wrong. And self-interested. It smacks of a cover-up.

Ok. Have you got those two thoughts in the air? Can you keep them both going without thinking too deeply about how they contradict each other? Good. Because she does. But we’re not done yet.

Pressing a little further, the interviewer — on MSNBC no less! — actually asked the obvious question. About whether it would have been ok for Hillary to fire him, had she won.

ALEXANDER: Understood. So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House, would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?

WATERS: Well, let me tell you something. If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes.

A: So she should have fired him but had he shouldn’t fire him. This is why I’m confused.

W: No, you’re not confused. If the president is implicated in an investigation —

A: I am confused.

W: — the president of the United States who has a history of firing people who get close to, you know, him and his allies like Flynn, and like Miss Yates, he will fire them if he believes somehow they’re getting too close to him in these investigations. I believe that the president of the United States should not have done this in the middle of an investigation. That’s it.

So she can freely impugn the motives of Trump who — thus far — officials have not had anything definitive to pin on Trump… it is assumed that dismissing Comey should be interpreted as a ‘cover up’.

And yet Clinton dismissing someone who has had her under investigation for specific KNOWN and DELIBERATE acts that are KNOWN to be felonies — including the forwarding of classified files to Weiner’s Computer, and potential conflicts of interest relating to Pay-for-play — would NOT be evidence of a Cover-up if a Clinton had done it.

Nope. No ridiculous bias there. With such fair-minded officials in office we can’t POSSIBLY imagine how Government branches under Obama’s admin managed to become weaponized.

Share if such statements make you wonder if she’s mentally fit to DRIVE, let alone sit in on briefings.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.