Pages

Friday, May 19, 2017

Sworn Testimony - May 3rd 2017

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something like that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

88 comments:

Loretta Russo said...

Every liberal on here knows the Russian storyline is a lie.

They don't care, they don't like Trump so they go with the lies and propaganda.

Roger Amick said...

You can not speak for me. I remain suspicious because the President continues to stop the investigation. If he was innocent, he would say,"go for it "

james said...

Why did Ch omit the actual context of the question?


HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can THEY halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo because he's not smart enough to have his own opinion.

Loretta Russo said...

"continues to stop the investigation."

Garbage.

The investigation by the FBI was continuing, stop lying.

james said...

LOL Why did Ch omit the actual context of the question?

Commonsense said...

Really?

Scooter Libby was innocent of the underlying "crime" that was investigated.

How'd that work out for him?

Trump is innocent and he still has good reason to worry about a long never ending investigation.

"There must be witches and witches will be found."

james said...

I repeat my question.

Commonsense said...

james said...
LOL Why did Ch omit the actual context of the question?


What exactly is your point?

I can tell you right now Clintonesque term splitting is not going to fly.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo

james said...

THEY. Not Frump. THEY.

C.H. Truth said...

James - By the laws of the constitution the President is the direct boss of the Attorney General and by nature the entire Justice Department.

He would be the "Senior most official" of all branches of law enforcement, including the Justice Department.

Couple that with the law that would require Comey to report directly to the Attorney General any attempts by anyone to obstruct Justice.

and it becomes clear that Comey would be setting himself up for criminal charges if he actually tried to argue "now" (after being fired) that there was obstruction.

James Comey, James... is nothing but a disgruntled ex-employee.

james said...

He answered the question asked about THEM. THEY never did that in his experience.

Loretta Russo said...

"James Comey, James... is nothing but a disgruntled ex-employee."

Comey and Boswell have something in common.

Loretta Russo said...

"But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience."

NOT exactly rocket science.

Loretta Russo said...

Heads up Boswell....

Your fellow pedo is pleading guilty, he could go to prison for ten years....

opie said...

Loretta Russo said...
Every liberal on here knows the Russian storyline is a lie.

Tell that to the R's who are now jumping on board......Again, if you only had a brain you would call trump a pathological liar, just like you called Obama..... LOL and a chuckle....

opie said...

The cultist pondered......

What exactly is your point?


CH is the consummate cherry picker, puts the cultist to shame......

Loretta Russo said...

Fat insignificant troll.

opie said...

And the heat goes on.....as we head into the 4th straight year of record temperatures... BTW, this is not fake news to those with brains, but I jest when it comes to the sycophants here who think trump is guiltless. LOL

70 missing. Image credit: Ejército Nacional de Colombia via Facebook.
April 2017 was the planet's second warmest April since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) on Thursday; NASA also rated April 2017 as the second warmest April on record. The only warmer April was just last year, in 2016. April 2017 ranked as the eighteenth warmest month (expressed as the departure of temperature from average) of any month in the global historical record in the NASA database. The extreme warmth of January 2017 (thirteenth warmest month of any month in NASA’s database), February 2017 (sixth warmest), March 2017 (fifth warmest) and now April gives 2017 an outside chance of becoming Earth’s fourth consecutive warmest year on record--if an El Niño event were to develop this summer and continue through the end of the year, as some models are predicting. It's more likely, though, that 2016 will remain as the warmest year in Earth's recorded history. For the year-to-date period of January–April 2017, Earth's temperature was 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average of 12.6°C (54.8°F). This was the second highest such period since records began in 1880, behind 2016 by 0.19°C (0.34°F.)

Global ocean temperatures last month were the second warmest on record for any April, and global land temperatures were the fourth warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the fifth warmest for any April in the 39-year record, according to the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).

From the wunderground tropical site.....https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/april-2017-earths-2nd-warmest-april-record

Even trump cannot lie about this......Idiots.

opie said...

Loretta the twat Russo posted...
Fat insignificant troll.

Wow, coming from you that surely impresses the enthralled masses of sycophants like rathole. Keep up the inanity, it is what you do best. Asshole.

Loretta Russo said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

rrb said...

Couple that with the law that would require Comey to report directly to the Attorney General any attempts by anyone to obstruct Justice.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

but when that anyone is the attorney general colluding with the clinton's on an airport tarmac to let granny off the hook... that's when things get complimented and it's part of the reason we end up where we are today.

lynch brazenly breaks the law, and when caught gets away by recusing herself.

ALL of the bullshit the nation is having to deal with right now can be laid at the feet of the clinton's. ALL of it.



Loretta Russo said...

Clinton and her sycophants.

rrb said...

I remain suspicious because the President continues to stop the investigation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

my anonymous sources are right. you ARE back on the sauce. trump has "stopped" nothing but your sobriety.

and SO close to your 5 year participation poker chip, alky.

damn.



Roger Amick said...

James, good catch. The usual suspects, insults.

rrb said...



carlos danger is copping a feel, i mean plea today.

how much you wanna bet he gets away without having to register as a sex offender?

rrb said...

Why did Ch omit the actual context of the question?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

he omitted nothing, pederast. the "context" you demand is a fucking given.

so i can see why the alky is rushing to your defense.

Loretta Russo said...

He's a pig pedo, YOU approve of his behavior,,,,, I don't.

Run along now drunkard.

Roger Amick said...

An anonymous source sank Nixon. You probably hadn't reached puberty.

Would you have chosen not to believe deep throat.

A side comment. The bar I frequented, ran the movie "Deep Throat. An older man cheered at the moments. He died of a heart attack the next day.

Roger Amick said...

Fuck off Twit.

rrb said...




The best evidence that that’s what Trump meant and how Comey understood it is what happened next: Nothing. Comey didn’t say anything about shutting down the investigation. And he didn’t resign.



If Comey had been ordered to stand down, I expect he would’ve quit. He didn’t — which suggests he didn’t think he had to abandon the investigation. Nor did he, it seems. Testifying before the Senate last week, acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe, a Comey loyalist and Democrat, said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

Before we rush to judgment, therefore, recall that false rumors have been squelched before. For example, based on anonymous sources, The New York Times has reported that Trump held up funding for the Russian investigation. However, this was debunked by McCabe. McCabe also rejected the idea that a special prosecutor was needed, as the FBI hadn’t been interfered with and would carry out the investigation scrupulously and thoroughly.

So when you add it all up, what’s the most plausible takeaway? Clearly, Trump talked to Comey about Flynn. And Trump probably felt bad about having had to fire Flynn just a few days before. Their friendship goes back a ways, and Flynn was on the short-list to be Trump’s vice president.

And just how serious were Flynn’s offenses? There was nothing wrong with him talking to the Russian ambassador, or with the new administration’s announced desire for a thaw in relations with Russia. The transcript apparently revealed that, at the end of the conversation, the ambassador asked about lifting sanctions against Russia. Flynn said that didn’t happen, then said he had forgotten about it. It wasn’t nearly as big a deal as Trump haters made it out to be.

What’s frustrating about all this is the anti-Trumpers’ irrebuttable presumption Trump is a lying scoundrel. When that’s how you begin, you don’t need much by way of evidence to prove what you’ve assumed all along. The intemperate attacks on the president, the willingness to credit any rumor however fantastic, does nothing to make us want to believe Trump’s critics.

There may be more to the story; I’ve gotten used to shoes dropping all over the place. But I have confidence that, should more facts emerge, they’ll not change things overmuch. In particular, I think that the FBI and all of the investigative tools Congress possess will give us the rest of the story — if there is more to it.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/comeys-actions-dont-show-any-trump-obstruction/

James said...

LOL, Roger. I'm neither unemployed nor a pervert.
And you are a RECOVERING/ED alcoholic.

Take a look at this:
What James Comey Told Me About Donald Trump
By Benjamin Wittes Thursday, May 18, 2017

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
An anonymous source sank Nixon.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


being a REPUBLICAN sank nixon. the WaPo's tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber wouldn't have gone after him had there been a "D" after his name. and what happened at the watergate hotel would've been reported in the metro section of the WaPo as a B&E, forgotten the next day.

and here we are again. everything old is new again. including liberal temper tantrums over losing an election.

"donnie two scoops" won fair and square, alky. painfully obvious to those of us who know how government works.



rrb said...


Blogger James said...
LOL, Roger. I'm neither unemployed nor a pervert.
And you are a RECOVERING/ED alcoholic.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


and i have several anonymous sources that refute both claims.



opie said...

Loretta the twat Russo said...
He's a pig pedo, YOU approve of his behavior,,,,, I don't.

Look who is calling a james a pig....the hog of kansas.....Now that is truly a trumpian statement. LOL

rrb said...




here we go again...


WASHINGTON — President Trump called the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, weeks after he took office and asked him when federal authorities were going to put out word that Mr. Trump was not personally under investigation, according to two people briefed on the call.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/james-comey-memo-fbi-trump.html?_r=0


"according to two people briefed on the call."


really.

so the extreme overuse of phony anonymous sources has give the msm the ability to just make shit up at will.

fucking amazing.

rrb said...


WOLF BLITZER, CNN: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I’m quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “Well, not—no, it hasn’t.”


BLITZER: “But I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the—you’ve had access from the intelligence committee, from the Judiciary committee, all of the access you’ve had to very sensitive information, so far you’ve not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzrlpKtY2DY&utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt_5/19/2017&utm_term=Jolt

wphamilton said...

Do you believe that Comey's May 3 statement about no "political" squashes of investigations exonerate's Trump's claims that he never pressured Comey to stop investigating Flynn and Trump's campaign?

I would note that the context of "political reasons" don't necessarily describe the Trump investigation, which have elements beyond that scope.

rrb said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
Do you believe that Comey's May 3 statement about no "political" squashes of investigations exonerate's Trump's claims that he never pressured Comey to stop investigating Flynn and Trump's campaign?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

well wp, that would have been up to comey to decide. comey was duty bound to report any effort to block an investigation and would've been subject to penalty of law had he not.

a large part of why we find ourselves where we are today is liberals desire to have it both ways, and to parse every letter of every syllable of every word spoken by trump...

ultimately bestowing upon themselves the right to say AH HA!!!, GOTCHA!!! no matter what was said, in what context, to whom, and when.

Commonsense said...

That's reaching.

If Comey felt he was being pressured by Trump at the time it is extraordinary that he not mention it when directly asked.

rrb said...




To buy the media narrative on this latest Russian nonsense, you must believe:

1. That whatever was revealed was super-secret, though we don’t know exactly what it was. When in doubt, assume it’s on par with the nuclear codes!

2. That there was no good reason to share this info with Russia, like coordinating our fight against our joint enemy or to prevent another Russian airliner massacre. Because why would we want another power fighting ISIS or civilians not to be blown out of the sky?

3. That LTG McMaster, who literally wrote the book on soldiers standing up to misbehaving civilian leaders and displayed immense personal courage in battle, turned chicken and sat there silently as Trump monologued about this unknown mystery info of doomsday-level import.

4. That LTG McMaster lied on camera. Twice. And that Secretary of State Tillerson lied too.

5. That random anonymous sources in an intelligence community that hates Trump with a burning passion must be believed without question, though we don’t know their identities or their motives.

6. That these anonymous randos must be believed, even though they were not actually in the room to, you know, actually hear what happened. The traditional bar on hearsay is apparently now just a bourgeois conceit.

7. That when the Washington Post and the rest of the media publishes classified stuff (including intelligence provided by allies) leaked by anyone not named “Donald Trump,” it’s awesome.

8. That the Washington Post and the rest of the media, which has been wrong over and over again in their reporting, are not wrong again.

9. That the Washington Post and the rest of the media are objective and have no anti-Trump bias, even though they are literally cheering the hits on the president.

10. That there are unicorns.

[...]

This is a concentrated, coordinated effort by elite insiders to take down not this president – Trump’s not the point here – but to take down us, the normal American they seek to rule. Someone came to Washington who wasn’t part of the club, and that’s intolerable. So they are desperate to expel him, and by extension, us.

Every day will be a crisis, every action he takes will be the worst thing that has ever happened, and every step towards keeping his promises a crime.

Repeal Obamacare? TRUMP’S SENTENCING MILLIONS TO DEATH!

Talk to Russians? IT’S TREASON!

Telling Comey he wishes this nonsense would stop? OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE EVEN THOUGH NOTHING WAS OBSTRUCTED!

[...]

The target of this constant barrage is the soft and the stupid, the smug and the sanctimonious, the wusses and the surrender flunkies. That’s why you get the girlish-handed likes of David Brooks writing dainty columns that give Trump such a pinch! That’s why David Frum starts using words like “courage” to impugn actual men who have done actual man-things, like LTG McMaster. That’s why Kasich spews his bilious funk of sanctimony and submission, among other funks. It’s all to appeal to the Fredocons, the soft-headed RINOs who are smart, not dumb like everyone says, who just want something for themselves – attention, approval, and media pats on their pointy little heads.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/18/this-is-a-coup-against-our-right-to-govern-ourselves-n2328059

opie said...

Strict gun laws saves lives.....Imagine that!!!!

Melissa HealyContact Reporter
Fatal shootings of civilians by police officers are less common in states with stricter gun laws than they are in states that take a more relaxed approach to regulating the sale, storage and use of firearms, new research says.



A study published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health has found that fatal police shootings were about half as common in states whose gun laws place them in the top 25% of stringency than they were in states where such restrictions ranked in the bottom 25%.

The new findings draw from an analysis of 1,835 firearms-related deaths involving a police officer in the United States — all such fatalities reported in the 22 months following Jan. 1, 2015. It found that, of 42 laws enacted by states, the ones most strongly linked to lower fatal police shootings were those that aimed to strengthen background checks, to promote safe firearm storage, and to reduce gun trafficking.

“We suspect that because these states have more robust gun laws, they’re better able to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people,” said the study’s lead author, University of Indianapolis psychology professor Aaron Kivisto. The likely result, he suggested, is that police in such states “are just less likely to encounter people in circumstances where they shouldn’t have a gun.”

From LA Times

rrb said...

If Comey felt he was being pressured by Trump at the time it is extraordinary that he not mention it when directly asked.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

when asked, comey said no.

so liberals would have us believe comey perjured himself.

that's what's so maddening about this. either way it's bullshit, yet liberals would have us believe they have trump backed into a "heads i win, tails you lose" corner.

rrb said...

“We suspect that because these states have more robust gun laws, they’re better able to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people,” said the study’s lead author, University of Indianapolis psychology professor Aaron Kivisto.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

professor kivisto,

i take it you've never been to chicago. you're in indy so you could be there by car in a few hours. i suggest you make the trip. weekends are best. and the south side is where the action is.why not take a ride up there tonight? unarmed of course. it's safe, i promise. chicago and the state of illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

go ahead, you'll be fine, i guarantee it...

opie said...

i take it you've never been to chicago.

Again, you choose the outlier. Can't fix stupid or the NRA. Maybe you can also cite the argument Iraq is safer than Chicago like the good little idiot you are. LOL

rrb said...

Again, you choose the outlier.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

outlier?

let's go back to the professor's statement:

“We suspect that because these states have more robust gun laws, they’re better able to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people,” said the study’s lead author, University of Indianapolis psychology professor Aaron Kivisto. The likely result, he suggested, is that police in such states “are just less likely to encounter people in circumstances where they shouldn’t have a gun.”

chicago has some of if not THE toughest or "more robust" gun laws in the nation. a city that falls squarely in the sweet spot of the professors proclamation. an outlier IT IS NOT.

"Can't fix stupid"

you prove that every day, d0pie.

now go eat a pistol. the life you save might be the alky's.

wphamilton said...

rrb said ... well wp, that would have been up to comey to decide. comey was duty bound to report

At this point I don't care much about what was up to Comey to decide or report, other than as it affects the credibility of his recollections and records. Be that as it may, Comey did circulate his written records of the meetings to appropriate individuals. That he didn't mention anything about Trump in his May 3 discussion in Congress most likely reflects that it wasn't pertinent to the particular question.

It seems relevant to point out now, that while the Special Counsel can be (and is) conducting a criminal investigation, if it comes down to impeachment that will be a political trial. That's what impeachment is, by definition: a political trial by a political body.

As always, the odds are against that because there is always blow-back for the politicians in Congress. But I only see one way for Trump to climb out of the hole he's dug. He needs some high-profile, tangible successes in leadership. Get out of the country, get some traction with international diplomacy, that will be a smart move if Trump can pull it off.

Unfortunately for Trump, he doesn't know when to stop digging. If he keeps screwing up he's going to find himself isolated politically.

rrb said...

Eli Lake is right: The DOJ’s appointment of widely-respected former prosecutor Robert Mueller to lead the special inquiry into the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia is a reprieve for a Trump Administration in crisis—a reprieve that it will almost certainly squander, but a reprieve nonetheless.

How do we know? Because the responses from Trump’s most dogged critics on the Russia question betray a kind of anxiety about the Mueller appointment—an anxiety that the no-nonsense law enforcement wise man will lower the temperature in Washington without actually uncovering enough damaging material to bring down the President.

Take, for example, Josh Marshall declaring that while he has confidence in Mueller to identify and expose any criminal activities undertaken by Trump or his associates, he won’t be able to prosecute the real Trump-Russia wrongdoing: a labyrinthian “conspiracy” which may not even involve any illegal behavior.

It is critical to understand that the most important details we need to know about the Russian disruption campaign and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with it may not be crimes. Indeed, I would say that the crimes we’re likely to discover will likely be incidental or secondary to the broader actions and activities we’re trying to uncover. Just hypothetically, what if Russia had a disruption campaign, Trump campaign officials gave winks and nods to nudge it forward but violated no laws? That’s hard to figure but by no means impossible. (Our criminal laws are not really designed for this set of facts.) The simple point is that the most important ‘bad acts’ may well not be crimes. That means not only is no one punished but far, far more important, we would never know what happened.

And here’s David Frum in the Atlantic making a similar objection:

The special counsel will investigate whether people in the Trump campaign violated any laws when they gleefully leveraged the fruits of Russian espionage to advance their campaign.

By contrast, what happened in plain sight—cheering rather than condemning a Russian attack on American democracy—will be treated as a non-issue, because it was not criminal, merely anti-democratic and disloyal.

Since the summer before the election, Trump’s critics have been suggesting or sometimes stating outright that Russia is involved with a criminal conspiracy that reaches to the highest levels of Trump’s inner circle. But now that an unimpeachable bulldog prosecutor has been named to probe these very allegations, the critics seem to be trying to move the goalposts, saying that the real problem isn’t criminality, but the sleaze and outlandish behavior of the Trump campaign more generally—behavior that was already obvious to voters when they went to the polls in 2016, and will be even more obvious when they go to the polls in 2018.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/18/after-mueller-trump-critics-worry-maybe-theres-no-scandal/

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

In order to believe that Trump was trying to obstruct justice you would have to believe three things:

1) That Comey lied under oath
2) That the Deputy Director lied under oath
3) That the head of the FBI violated the law by not reporting it


It would seem that three crimes would have had to be committed to believe that Trump obstructed Justice...

Moreover as many other legal experts have pointed out, obstructing justice requires "action". By all accounts there was no action taken by anyone in the White House or the Justice Department that has been described by anyone as Hampering. In fact, all sworn testimony has denied any hampering.


Under normal circumstance... a Man who would (after being fired) contradict his own sworn statements to say malicious things about the person who fired him... would be seen for what that is. A disgruntled former employee trying to get back at people.

rrb said...

At this point I don't care much about what was up to Comey to decide or report, other than as it affects the credibility of his recollections and records.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

comey had a legal obligation under penalty of law to report any obstruction of an active FBI investigation.




But I only see one way for Trump to climb out of the hole he's dug. He needs some high-profile, tangible successes in leadership.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________\

which requires someone to actually report it. fat chance of that happening.

trump could cure cancer and the WaPo headline would read "trump puts thousands of oncologists out of work."

he could walk across the surface of the potomac and the ny times reports it as "trump can't swim."

wp, we have descended into the absurd on this whole exercise. as schlichter wrote above -

"Someone came to Washington who wasn’t part of the club, and that’s intolerable. So they are desperate to expel him, and by extension, us."

this is a coup waged against those who voted for and carried trump to a fair and square victory. a temper tantrum on a galactic scale. a fishing expedition hoping to land a whale, and won't result in as much as a minnow from a criminal and legal perspective.




rrb said...

A disgruntled former employee trying to get back at people.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and so a friend and former colleague is enlisted to enact his revenge.

Loretta Russo said...

Fat insignificant troll.

wphamilton said...

C.H. Truth said...In order to believe that Trump was trying to obstruct justice you would have to believe three things:

Removing the hyperbole, you describe conditions which would generally exist any time the FBI faced obstruction. Congress might not know about it, and your fanciful reporting requirements would not be met.

In other words, you think that it's literally impossible for the FBI to make an obstruction of justice charge, without the FBI having committed a crime.

It's probably moot since none of your three requisites are indicated by these events.

wphamilton said...

this is a coup waged against those who voted for and carried trump to a fair and square victory. a temper tantrum on a galactic scale.

Don't be melodramatic. You knew that it was a longshot for Trump to be anything but the Trump we'd known for decades. You knew before you ever cast a vote that he was a loud-mouth egotistical phony, and you hoped that there was something behind the cartoon charade.

Apparently there is nothing there after all. Trump is going to violate laws, among other screw-ups, because Trump simply doesn't know any better and doesn't care. After enough of that people want him out of office, whether or not they voted for him. It's not a coup; it's normal political process for that caliber of politician.

C.H. Truth said...

WP....

I think perhaps our definition of Obstruction is different. But when the FBI director and the Deputy Director both testify under oath that there has not been any interference in their probe...

That seems pretty compelling evidence that there was no obstruction.

Obstruction generally requires action being taken that actually Obstructs.

Even if one wants to charge the President for wishing that the Director might let something go... which at best might be "attempted obstruction" rather than "obstruction".

As many legal experts have pointed out... the President probably has the constitutional authority to make determinations about which investigations are pursued by the DOJ and FBI. The FBI is not outside that chain of command and the President may be well within his rights to request (or even demand) that certain investigations not be pursued. The argument that there could be Political (not legal) fallout for doing so.

But in this case... we don't know what was actually said, and diaries/etc are generally not considered valid evidence to events. Nor would a "memo of a meeting" be considered more legally valid than testimony delivered under oath.

Bottom line is that I think Comey is likely full of shit.

wphamilton said...

That's not what they testified CH. Where are you reading these misinterpretations?

Pressuring the lead investigator with threats to his job, to drop an investigation, would certainly qualify as obstruction if that is indeed what happened.

Commonsense said...

But there were no threats. Even Comey said as much.

C.H. Truth said...

Nobody ever suggested that Holder or Lynch were "independent" of President Obama or ever had to be. Nobody would try to pretend that Lynch did not play a significant role in the Clinton email probe.

Remember, it was the DOJ that granted immunity to Clinton staffers during that probe. The DOJ basically made a decision that removed the possibility of criminal charges from those people... which of course is their right?

Correct?

The FBI only is supposed to investigate (and to some degree investigate what they are told to investigate). It's up to the DOJ to determine what to prosecute (and to some degree even what to investigate).

It's why the FBI director is required (by law) to report anything they may see as attempts to obstruct justice - as technically they are not responsible for making those decisions. Hiding it, would be akin to their own level of obstruction (or accessory after the fact).

C.H. Truth said...

Pressuring the lead investigator with threats to his job, to drop an investigation, would certainly qualify as obstruction if that is indeed what happened.

Then it was his responsibility under the law to report it to the DOJ.

C.H. Truth said...

"As you know, senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decision. There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date"

McCabe said.

wphamilton said...

Nobody ever suggested that Holder or Lynch were "independent" of President Obama or ever had to be.

You lost me. I was talking about Starr and the independent probe of Bill Clinton, which strayed far beyond the original scope. What does the email probe have to do with Special Counsel investigations?

wphamilton said...

Comey doesn't have to report to the DOJ every detail of his conversations with individuals under investigation as they occur. It's just another piece of evidence, that may be given meaning in the proper context. As happened in this case.

And it doesn't matter if Comey erred in not going public, or in not accusing Trump at the Cabinet level - I don't think so, but even if so that doesn't matter. Trump is under investigation, not Comey.

BTW, he meticulously recorded the details to paper, as is the policy in the FBI, and indications are that people in the DOJ DID have those notes.

wphamilton said...

"McCabe said". ... that would be the acting Director that Trump just appointed to replace Comey, who was fired for not dropping the investigation?

Note that this quote is in response to the firing of Comey, not whatever Trump said to him. He was saying, explicitly and literally, that the firing of Comey does not impede the investigation, because more agents than just Comey are working it.

And in fact:

"I can't comment on any conversations the director may have had with the president."

Commonsense said...

He's required by law to report even the appearance of obstruction of justice.

Either Trump's actions, in Comey's judgement, didn't even rise to the "appearance of obstruction" or Comey broke the law by keeping it a secret.

Which is it?

C.H. Truth said...

It's about assumptions WP...

When the former AG decided to give Clinton aides immunity it was considered her right as AG. Even though many people believed that there was a criminal case to be made against them.

The reality is that the FBI wasn't given the leeway to make that decision, because it's not the FBI's decision to make. They do not work outside that chain of command. They work "under" the DOJ. So nobody saw obstruction when Obama was President and Lynch was AG. Even though there is probably a stronger "ethical and logical" case to be made.

But now that the President is Donald Trump... there seems to be an assumption that the FBI works outside that same chain of command that has existed since the conception of our country. Suddenly if the White House or the DOJ were to get involved in what the FBI was doing, it would be considered "Obstruction"... when in fact it would be nothing different than the same chain of command that has always existed.

So if you can explain to me why those above Comey got to decide who was given immunity and who might be prosecuted when Obama was President... but that same concept no longer exists now that Trump is President.. I would like to hear the explanation.

Because at this point, neither Obama or Trump were or are under investigation. In both cases it was former department heads who were under investigation (or said to be). Why was it okay for the Obama Administration (by way of DOJ) to make decisions and interfere... but you somehow take issue with whats going on today when by all accounts there has been none of the same interference?

wphamilton said...

And furthermore, he was talking about ongoing FBI investigations in general, not simply the Russian investigation.

"has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects"

"Our investigation" in McCabe's statement refers to the work of the FBI in general. Not any specific investigation. Not the Trump investigation. There could be any number of instances of obstruction and his answer would still be sound and correct.

Nice try, but it says literally nothing about whether Trump was obstructing justice.

wphamilton said...

He's required by law to report even the appearance of obstruction of justice.

Not true, and he's not even required by law to investigate obstruction of justice.

I'm beginning to agree with CH that we have different understandings of obstruction. Do you guys believe that it's only when you send a goon threatening to break your legs if you testify? It's not necessarily any single act, that by itself in every conceivable context is clearly "obstruction of justice". A gift might be just a gift for instance, but it's the context of why, the understanding of parties involved, and what happened subsequently that make it a bribe.

Until you guys get over looking for proof in isolated events, diced down into ever smaller pieces, you're not going to get what's going on.

Commonsense said...

Not true, and he's not even required by law to investigate obstruction of justice.

Per 18 US Code 4:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

C.H. Truth said...

Actually WP - there are statutes:

§ 1501 - Assault on process server
§ 1502 - Resistance to extradition agent
§ 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
§ 1504 - Influencing juror by writing
§ 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
§ 1506 - Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
§ 1507 - Picketing or parading
§ 1508 - Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
§ 1509 - Obstruction of court orders
§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
§ 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
§ 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1514 - Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
§ 1514A - Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
§ 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
§ 1516 - Obstruction of Federal audit
§ 1517 - Obstructing examination of financial institution
§ 1518 - Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
§ 1520 - Destruction of corporate audit records
§ 1521 - Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title

C.H. Truth said...

I didn't see breaking legs as one of the statutes.

opie said...

WP said

Do you guys believe that it's only when you send a goon threatening to break your legs if you testify?

It is multi faceted like sending pence out of the room to speak privately with comey.....Not that single act is bad, but judges hold that as knowledge of that the act may be wrong...don't remember the legalese term.. Then you have the hope you will be nice to flynn,,,,,,he's a patriot and a noble man.... none of them alone is against the law, but it indicates a pattern. I'm sure CH will disagree, but his record on law is rather simple and naive. I've suggested more than once he should stick to statistics, something he might know something about. The above list is throwing it against a wall and hoping it sticks, typical of the CH method of debate.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I get exactly what's going on.

You assume the following:

1) NY Times article about the memo is 100% true
2) NY Times implication about what the memo means is 100% true

Which is to say that you believe that when the NYT stated that Trump asked Comey that he "hoped he could move past this" that it was in the context of talking about General Flynn and any investigation.

(which I am not inclined at this point to take as fact - but your trust in the NYT, WaPo, Politico, etc... is going to be much higher than mine. I am still a cynic)

All of this being held you believe:

3) that asking Comey was an implied "threat"
4) that the eventual firing of Comey several months later carried through on that threat.

_____

Now where you and I "differ" - besides your own inherent trust in newspaper sources - is that I don't believe such a statement (if made) can be truly held to be a threat.

Moreover I am not 100% convince that the President doesn't have the constitutional right as head of the executive branch to offer advice or his personal opinion to his Department heads (even if it is advice you believe he shouldn't give). In other words, I am not sure that the President doesn't have the right to make determinations about which investigations should move forward, when we can already establish that people who work for him (AG/DOJ) are allowed to. That would make his personal opinion that he hopes Comey doesn't decide too pursue an investigation to be perfectly legal.

Furthermore... I would offer that once Trump provided that advice and opinion (assuming he did) that Comey obviously didn't follow it. Meaning even if Trump had "intended" to obstruct justice... he really didn't. The investigation moved forward... which by definition means it wasn't obstructed.

So what would that make it "attempted obstuction of justice"?

Either way... I would have expected such a threat (if it was) to be followed up with some interference or maybe another threat or something else.

But I don't see how you make a case of obstruction of an investigation that continued forward without "obstruction" and still continues to this day?

opie said...

Yep,,, CH you have it correct.....The white house is under assault by its own people OOPS wonder if this is obstruction or espionage....Incredible you still defend him. Are you that shallow or being paid by Putin?????



BREAKING NEWS
White House adviser close to Trump is a person of interest in Russia probe
Investigation into Russian meddling reaches highest level of government
The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, according to people familiar with the matter, who would not further identify the official.
By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky

opie said...

I am not 100% convince that the President doesn't have the constitutional right as head of the executive branch to offer advice or his personal opinion to his Department heads (even if it is advice you believe he shouldn't give).

Which is why you are not a lawyer or politician.....you'd be disbarred or impeached with such a stand.

C.H. Truth said...

In other words...

It's like accusing someone of robbing a bank...

but the bank was never robbed...

opie said...

C.H. Truth said...
In other words...


IOW's you got nothing but BS. The only one robbed has been you, of your objectivity and logic....Its blowing up big time and you can't find your own ass and see the absolutely bizarre behavior and crap that you buy into. Sad, just getting married again has clouded your intellect.

opie said...

It's like accusing someone of robbing a bank...

but the bank was never robbed...

BTW, those are not your words....I saw the same thing you stole that from.....Nice try.,

wphamilton said...

1) NY Times article about the memo is 100% true
2) NY Times implication about what the memo means is 100% true
3) that asking Comey was an implied "threat"
4) that the eventual firing of Comey several months later carried through on that threat.

Correct. Not due to any inherent trust in the Times, but this is all plausible and I've seen no reason to doubt the reporting.

To be sure, the President has the right to offer his opinion on investigations, particularly to those who work for him. And the same exact remark made in private by Trump to Comey might in one case be casual conversation, and in another a facet of a deliberate campaign to obstruct an investigation. Trump does NOT have a plenary power in that regard.

"The investigation moved forward... which by definition means it wasn't obstructed.

So what would that make it "attempted obstuction of justice"?"

You are making an arbitrary distinction which does not exist in criminal law, for this crime. Go to the source, 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

This omnibus clause HAS been subject to some dispute, but not in the way you suggest. This part is explicit: " Whoever . . . endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede ..." The disputes center around whether it broadly includes ANY conduct, with corrupt motive, which interferes with the administration of justice. But we haven't even gone there yet. I predict that we will, before this is over.

BTW the US Supreme Court favors the broad reading of the clause.

opie said...



"The investigation moved forward.." in spite of the obstruction!!!

Commonsense said...

Correct. Not due to any inherent trust in the Times, but this is all plausible and I've seen no reason to doubt the reporting.

You mean except the part where the Times haven't actually seen the memo.

Seems the Times and the Post standard for truth and accuracy has dropped to the level of the National Enquirer.

There was a time when they wouldn't run a story unless they had some proof it was true.

C.H. Truth said...

Well WP...

If you alleged a crime... then the presumption of innocence takes precedent unless otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt.

So if (as you suggest) there are two plausible explanations for this discussion (assuming it's true)... then how do you prove beyond reasonable doubt what the intentions were?

wphamilton said...

You establish motive and intent, demonstrate that the opportunity exists (as opposed to alibi's etc) and then collect evidence both direct and circumstantial that a crime was committed, and that Trump involved himself in the commission.

C.H. Truth said...

and then when all that is done... WP

You would then have to determine whether or not you have a good enough case to convince a jury unanimously that you have proven that case beyond reasonable doubt.

Or in the case of an impeachment trial... that you can convince 66 Senators that the law was broken beyond reasonable doubt. (I am fairly convinced that if the Democrats take the house that they would impeach Trump just for breathing)

Considering Clinton "admitted" to the perjury and obstruction charges he was impeached for... and he Senate still couldn't find enough members to convict him, I think it's not much more than a fantasy that Trump will be the first President removed from office over a criminal charge.



opie said...

whether or not you have a good enough case to convince a jury unanimously that you have proven that case beyond reasonable doubt.

Way to go, Captain Obvious. Stick to statistics, your law chops are 1 step above moronic......

rrb said...

Don't be melodramatic. You knew that it was a longshot for Trump to be anything but the Trump we'd known for decades. You knew before you ever cast a vote that he was a loud-mouth egotistical phony, and you hoped that there was something behind the cartoon charade.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

first of all wp, there's no melodrama. high profile pundits are noticing these things and commenting on them.

second, i got exactly what i voted for - an outsider who would call bullshit on the entrenched ruling class, loudly, vociferously, and bombastically. no surprises here for me.

cartoon you say? compared to what? a narcissistic and arrogant collection of elites who constantly berate me, declare themselves smarter, consistently decide for me how best to spend what I'VE earned while accomplishing essentially nothing of significance other than enriching themselves?

your problem is one that is shared by millions. you have no capacity to understand or relate to trump's supporters. you don't know them, who they are, what they do, how they think, or what motivates them. it's almost as if you reside within the beltway yourself.

i live and work in rural america. i deal with blue collar hard working men and women who have found themselves on the shitty end of the stick for generations. the self employed who wake up each day to another mountain of ridiculous regulations and mandates with which they must comply. those royally screwed by the ACA.

deplorables, i think they're called.

don't condescend to these folks wp. they feed you, clothe you, are at work 3-4 hours before your feet hit the floor each morning. and they've had it.

wphamilton said...

You're describing traditional Democrats, rrb.

I understand Trump supporters just fine. And regarding your talk about how I cannot understand hard-working rural Americans, you don't know where I came from, and what I've done. Obviously. Or else you'd never have said something that boneheaded.

Roger Amick said...

CH, you are disinclined to accept anything that is a negative story about the President.

I know that you believe that you are being neutral and analytical, but all we see here on a daily basis is supportive of Trump.