Pages

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Comey Testimony...

I am simply not sure that it helps Comey to come out and attack the President as "telling lies" about him. While this may be the sort of preaching to the choir that will excite the left... it will be very easy for Trump supporters to dismiss what Comey is saying as a Personal Grudge.

_______

Biggest exchange of the day: 
Comey admits that there was no obstruction in the Russian Probe.



_______

Donald Trumps twitter feed... zzzzzzzzz

_______

Most obvious tweet:


_______

You know it's turned into a snoozer when you are tweeting something like this:


_______

Comey admits that he orchestrated a leak? 
What was the classification of the material he had leaked?
Guess we know now, why Comey never found the need to investigate leaking.



_______

Comey says anonymous sources many timea "dead wrong"


_______

COMEY FINALLY ADMITS HE FELT OBSTRUCTED!!!
Oh wait... wrong investigation?




70 comments:

Loretta said...

He sounds like a jilted lover...

wphamilton said...

'Those words are not an order,' he acknowledged. But he also said: 'I took it as a direction.' - Comey

Unlike the three Directors mentioned earlier, Comey states that the President "directed" him to drop the probe. Comey declined to characterize it as obstruction, demurring to the Special Investigator to make a determination of intent.

Consider the accusations of Trump lying about the FBI in that context, the context of Comey declaring that obstruction depends on the President's intent during that conversation. What Comey is saying is that the FBI (himself as the Director) felt that the President did direct him to drop the investigation, and that the President was and is lying about his motives. This directly impacts any reasonable evaluation of the President's "intent", and calls into question any forthcoming denial from the President himself.

wphamilton said...

I don't believe a word Comey says, but his testimony has not exonerated Trump.

C.H. Truth said...

Unlike the three Directors mentioned earlier, Comey states that the President "directed" him to drop the probe.

Are you referring to the exchange regarding General Flynn?

or something everyone else missed?

Loretta said...

So Comey wasn't strong enough to walk out of the oval office because meeting alone with the President is outside of protocol? Then he was not strong enough to lead the FBI.

That will look good on a resume.

rrb said...

So Comey wasn't strong enough to walk out of the oval office because meeting alone with the President is outside of protocol?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

one things for sure -

comey certainly has a flair for the dramatic.

rrb said...




But if even a veteran grandstander like Comey — as Democrats should remember from his various statements about Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal during the 2016 campaign — isn’t willing to say Trump obstructed justice here, it’s obvious these hearings are about politics, not criminality.

You don’t have to think Trump acted wisely to know Democrats view the Intelligence Committee hearings as an attempt to set the stage for impeachment should the GOP lose control of Congress in 2018. The same is true of the attempt to twist Trump’s sympathy for Flynn as “a good guy [who] has been through a lot” — a sentiment Comey said he shared — into an impeachable offense. In the absence of evidence beyond Comey’s equivocal and self-serving memo, the obstruction charge against Trump is almost certainly a legal dead end.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/07/in-quest-for-a-trump-crime-dems-refuse-to-take-no-for-an-answer/

Loretta said...

"comey certainly has a flair for the dramatic."

LOL, that's for sure.

James said...

WpHamiton said:
"I don't believe a word Comey says, but his testimony has not exonerated Trump."
__________________

Please list here all the lies you think Comey told.

rrb said...



James Comey just confirmed the New York Times printed FAKE NEWS

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/06/08/james-comey-just-confirmed-the-new-york-times-printed-fake-news/

wphamilton said...

I don't agree that everyone missed it. Just google the quote I provided "'Those words are not an order,' he acknowledged. But he also said: 'I took it as a direction."

Comey felt that he was directed to drop the investigation, and there is not much room there for spinning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4583766/Comeys-testimony-uncomfortable-spotlight-Trump.html for example.

wphamilton said...

When a man is already known to not be trustworthy it won't add much for me to attack his testimony in detail. People are going to latch onto one thing or another that Comey said to Congress, but it's not going to make much difference. He is already known, to both sides, to mold his evaluations and even investigatory conclusions for political purposes.

Loretta said...

Donald Trump asked three things of me.

1 that he wanted my honest loyalty,

2 Flynn is a good guy and I "hope" you can let this go in which he then told press the same the next day.

3 asked if he is under investigation which was no and that it would be a good thing if all Russian facts came out and if it exposed people in his administration that did something wrong.

Good job dems on proving the non obstruction of justice in this testimony.

Rubio was a beast.

rrb said...

"'Those words are not an order,' he acknowledged. But he also said: 'I took it as a direction."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

it's either an order or it's not.

comey's interpretation does not rise to the level of obstruction.

James said...

Too bad Trump didn't say, "I hope you will back off from Flynn.
Now, I'm only expressing a hope, I'm not in any way suggesting
that you do that, nor am I in any way trying to get you to do that."

Loretta said...

"When a man is already known to not be trustworthy it won't add much for me to attack his testimony in detail."

A sad example of integrity.

cowardly king obama said...

This hearing is a disaster for the dimms

ROFLMFAO !!!

C.H. Truth said...

WP - From your story?

Said he took it as a 'direction' when Trump told him to let Flynn investigation go

Comey testified he believed the president directed him to halt a probe of security advisor Mike Flynn, said he kept copious notes because he feared Trump would lie, and acknowledged putting out information about his unusual meetings with the president after Trump tweeted after he fired Comey.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4583766/Comeys-testimony-uncomfortable-spotlight-Trump.html#ixzz4jQcIG1Rc


This was specifically about Flynn - and about the conversation that everyone concedes took place.

Flynn denied that there was any broader attempts to obstruct the probe into Russian interference and possible collusion.

I think the Flynn deal is hard to make a case out of. Again, all he would have to do is "Pardon" Flynn, which would wake up people to the fact that he is well within his authority to provide a personal opinion about the investigation or possible prosecution of a specific individual.


Loretta said...

"He did not say the words but I believe that's what he was directing me to do".

In other words... he did not break the law but he intended to in my opinion.

He told us hillary Clinton broke the law but didn't intend to in his opinion.


In the meantime, Loretta Lynch actually interfered.

You can't make this stuff up!

James said...

Questioner: He did not direct you to let it go. He only said I hope you will.

Comey said something like this:
I took it as a direction. I didn't obey that, but that's how I took it. After all, he asked other people to leave the room. And I believe I was fired because of my refusal to back off from investigating the Russians' interference in our election. I believe that because I heard the President say so.

And when I heard there were tapes, I welcomed that. I would LOVE for the President to release those tapes.

James said...

Press briefing at the White House: I can say definitely the President is not a liar.

And Nixon could say definitively that he was not a crook.

cowardly king obama said...

and now there is proof Obama and Lynch and Hillary are crooks, maybe just dumb crooks, Thanks Comey

ROFLMFAO !!!

Loretta said...

"and now there is proof Obama and Lynch and Hillary are crooks, maybe just dumb crooks, Thanks Comey"

LMAO!

James said...

Why should we believe you over the President?

Well, you can't cherry pick this.* Look at me and my record
and then look at the President and all his lying.
Also, why did he ask everyone to leave the room?

Republican chairman of the committee:
Thanks for telling it the way it is.
______________

*Comey is credible when he exonerates the President
but he is not credible when he accuses the President?

James said...

They did not really try to eviscerate Comey.
Hmmmmmm.

James said...

Prediction:
Some of the closed door stuff now being talked about will of course come out.

James said...

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Mr. Trump, release those tapes!

Loretta said...

""'Those words are not an order,' he acknowledged. But he also said: 'I took it as a direction."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

it's either an order or it's not.

comey's interpretation does not rise to the level of obstruction."

Depends on what the meaning of "IS"..."IS"....?

😎

James said...

LIES, PURE AND SIMPLE says Comey

Comey suggested his surprise at his firing turned to anger as Trump and his aides offered a series of evolving reasons for the ouster.

From the testmony:
“He had repeatedly told me I was doing a great job and he hoped I would stay... He told me repeatedly he had talked to lots of people about me including our current attorney general and had learned I was doing a great job and was extremely well-liked by the FBI.

“It confused me when I saw the president on TV saying he actually fired me because of the Russian investigation. I was also confused by the initial explanation offered publicly that I was fired because of decisions I’d made during the election … That didn’t make any sense to me.

“The administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI, by saying the organization was poorly led. Those were lies, plain and simple.”

James said...

Trump on May 12, tweets: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

Comey's response: “Lordy, I hope there are tapes. I hope there are and I’ll consent to the release of them ... The president surely knows if he taped me and if he did my feelings aren’t hurt. Release all the tapes.”

James said...

"Lordy, I hope there are tapes."

Lordy, Lordy.

James said...

Politico:
Comey declined to say whether he believes Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into his campaign associates’ ties to Russia when Trump allegedly told Comey “I hope you can let this go,” regarding the FBI’s ongoing probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Comey also alleges that Trump asked him what he could do to “lift this cloud” of the larger Russia investigation.

Comey suggested the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller would probe the question of obstruction further.

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” he said, adding, “The special counsel will work … to try and understand what the intention was there.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239294

Loretta said...

The spammer has to rely on the opinions of others.

Pitiful.

wphamilton said...

This was specifically about Flynn - and about the conversation that everyone concedes took place.

I don't see that as making it insignificant as you do. The probe was looking into Flynn's Russian ties.

Flynn denied that there was any broader attempts to obstruct the probe into Russian interference and possible collusion.

We care why?

wphamilton said...

In other words... he did not break the law but he intended to in my opinion.

More accurately, Comey meant Trump did break the law IF that was his intention. To pressure Comey into dropping the investigation. Whether or not it was a direct order.

I'm not backing Comey on whether he is right about that. He probably is, given his background and the high profile of his answer, but right or wrong that's what Comey is saying.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

Trump is in no legal jeopardy. It's pretty much a political matter.

Comey may be in some jeopardy over his directed leaking of the memos although I suspect he's smart enough to cover his tracks.

C.H. Truth said...

We care why?

Because that is the talking point. The allegation. The overall deal.

To a larger degree... it's what you have offered as the ultimate crime that Trump could get hung up on. That there is a "growing evidence" of collusion (as you apparently see it) - so Trump tries to get it shut down.

______

Telling Comey to back off Flynn is not even in the same realm. Comey even admitted that the Flynn investigation was separate to the larger Russian probe. When specifically asked if he as asked if he was ever told to back off the over probe.. he said no.

So obviously he sees the two as separate, or he would have gone back to the statement Trump made about Flynn.

______

Telling him to back off "one person" is well within his constitutional rights. Don't believe me... read Dershowitz here and explain how he is wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/08/dershowitz-comey-confirms-that-im-right-and-all-democratic-commentators-are-wrong.html

Trump could probably end the whole thing by just giving Flynn a pardon, and reminding everyone that he has such authority as President.

wphamilton said...

"To a larger degree... it's what you have offered as the ultimate crime "

That Flynn denied any pressure?? Or Flynn denied anything else? I've never offered that up ... as anything.

What Flynn was into, that could be important. Trump obviously thought so, as did Comey when Trump told him to end it.

C.H. Truth said...

and by whole thing... I don't mean the investigation.

I mean the speculation that telling Comey that he "hopes" he can back off Flynn is some sort of crime for a President. If he can pardon Flynn legally, then he can certainly direct his subordinates not to charge him. Many other Presidents have done just that... without ever being accused of obstruction.


Bottom line: Just because Comey prances around demanding that the FBI is an independent agency and that he shouldn't answer to the President... doesn't make it so. He is a subordinate. Untill someone steps up and changes the constitution, that simple fact remains.

C.H. Truth said...

That Flynn denied any pressure?? Or Flynn denied anything else? I've never offered that up ... as anything.

No WP... you have not offered anything in regards to Flynn specifically. You have offered that there was evidence that Trump was trying to get the larger investigation shut down.

Something Comey under oath today suggested didn't happen.

You can try... but attempting to confuse the matter by pretending there is no difference between the overall probe and whether or not Flynn get's charged isn't a valid argument.

Certainly not when Comey himself disputed your assertion in his testimony today.

wphamilton said...

Dershowitz is wrong in his portrayal of the President's control over the FBI as a plenary power. Sorry if that seems to easy, but his constitutional reasoning is just that wrong.

Trump could pardon Flynn - he does have that plenary power - but you're also wrong that it would end "the whole thing". The FBI would look at Flynn's associates rather than making a case against Flynn, and Flynn could be compelled to testify.

wphamilton said...

You can try... but attempting to confuse the matter by pretending there is no difference between the overall probe and whether or not Flynn get's charged isn't a valid argument.

Interference in either can be obstruction of justice.

...that Trump was trying to get the larger investigation shut down.
Something Comey under oath today suggested didn't happen.


I don't think that Comey said this in his testimony today.

However, we frankly have no idea how central Flynn is to the larger Russia investigation, other than Comey saying they are two inquiries with non-null intersections.

C.H. Truth said...

I don't think that Comey said this in his testimony today.

It was specifically stated in his written statement... that when Trump asked about "letting it go" that he understood it to mean the investigation into Flynn, and not the larger investigation.

Comey also offered that Trump told him that if there were associates of his that had a part in Russian interference that it would be "good to know".

and he was asked today... point blank... if Trump, any Trump associates, or anyone in the Department of Justice has tried to get him to shut down or end the investigation into Russian interference and possible collusion...

He stated "not to my understanding"...

C.H. Truth said...

So that is now three high ranking Intelligence community officials that have all testified that there has been no attempts by Trump, anyone in the Trump administration, or anyone in the DOJ to shut down the Russian Probe.

So far, there is no testimony by anyone suggesting that such interference took place.

james said...

Comey suggested the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller would probe the question of obstruction further.

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” he said, adding, “The special counsel will work … to try and understand what the intention was there.”

wphamilton said...

WARNER: He didn't ask to you take any specific action?

COMEY: No.

WARNER: Unlike what we did vis-à-vis with Flynn and the Russia investigation?

COMEY: Correct.

Testimony suggesting that such interference did take place.

wphamilton said...

It was specifically stated in his written statement...

So no, Comey did not testify under oath today to that effect.

C.H. Truth said...

Watch the video WP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqG70VRyhXg

KD, LOL @ Comey and Dems said...

"Hope" is now a crime?

Well when the lost years used it, yes, Hope n change.


Coward Comey ,,,, is the leaker we have been looking for, self-confessed.

Nice, he needs a lawyer.

james said...

Asking Comey to stop the entire Russian investigation is not the same thing as asking Comey to back off Flynn, Ch, no matter how many times you may want to play that very short segment of video.

More important is what I said at 2:39 above.

wphamilton said...

I made the same point in my first post James. Essentially Comey said that if the Special Investigator determines that Trump intended it to be a directive, then an Obstruction of Justice charge would be appropriate.

opie said...

Donald Trumps twitter feed... zzzzzzzzz

You think he won't tweet something stupid?????

james said...

THIS WAS A GREAT VICTORY FOR COMEY?
Not according to Rick Klein:

Comey Goes Nuclear In Showdown with Trump

Rick Klein: “He accused the president and his top aides of lying. He suggested that the president wanted special treatment in exchange for loyalty. He said he thinks he lost his job because of how he handled the Russia investigation.

“James Comey served notice that if President Donald Trump operates like a bully, there are powerful people who know how to punch back. The ex-FBI director’s powerful, riveting testimony — delivered under oath before the Senate Intelligence Committee — overflowed with headlines and revelations that will resonate for months or longer.

“Among the big takeaways: In Comey, Trump has made an enemy who knows the levers of Washington power and has already put in motion forces that are beyond the president’s ability to control.”

james said...

In other words, Comey carefully crafted a trap that Trump stupidly fell into.

james said...

error: I meant to say, THIS WAS A GREAT VICTORY FOR TRUMP?
Not according to Rick Klein. see 3:00pm

C.H. Truth said...

Essentially Comey said that if the Special Investigator determines that Trump intended it to be a directive, then an Obstruction of Justice charge would be appropriate.

Comey said that exact same thing to pretty much every "legal" question he was asked. Considering he met with Mueller to review his testimony today, it would seem pretty obvious that this the agreement Comey and Mueller made. That any legal questions would be basically passed off as something for special counsel to decide.

I wouldn't have expected Comey to make "any" personal judgement or offer "any" opinions on those sorts of "is this a crime" question. I fully expected that he would provide a predetermined non-answer to any of those questions.

If someone had asked him if there was any evidence that Trump was the second shooter on the grassy knoll, Comey would have replied that it was a question for special counsel to resolve.

james said...

So I guess Ch will want to try to convince even sane Republicans that Mueller and Comey are in collusion.

rrb said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...

Dershowitz is wrong in his portrayal of the President's control over the FBI as a plenary power. Sorry if that seems to easy, but his constitutional reasoning is just that wrong.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

you have got to be kidding.

C.H. Truth said...

So I guess Ch will want to try to convince even sane Republicans that Mueller and Comey are in collusion.

There is nothing illegal about a special prosecutor talking to a key witness who is about to testify live in front of millions of people, James. I would have seen Mueller as incompetent if he had not set some limits for Comey to testify (one of them obviously being not to provide any personal opinions on specific questions about charges or crimes). That would just be common sense.

Comey giving legal opinions in the middle of an investigation would have undermined Mueller.

rrb said...

"I can't remember a time ever where a former FBI director has deliberately leaked the contents of a government document so it would get to a reporter in the hopes that it would prompt a special counsel investigation," Herridge said Thursday afternoon.

"What you can draw here from that testimony is that once he left the office of FBI director, he was not necessarily a person of principle," Herridge said. "He made a decision to leak information on an anonymous basis in the hope of really changing the entire focus of the Russia investigation going forward."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/08/herridge_comey_made_a_leak_in_hopes_of_changing_focus_of_the_russia_investigation.html



i'm still not getting tired of all this winning.



C.H. Truth said...

you have got to be kidding.

He obviously didn't read what Dershowitz has been writing over the past couple of weeks. Dershowitz supplies numerous historical examples of Presidents making specific decisions about investigations and prosecutions.

He also points out that Comey's suggestion that the FBI is somehow an independent agency is no where to be found in any law or in the constitution. Comey is a subordinate of the President and ultimately must abide by his orders.

He also points out the obvious. Trump has the authority to put an end to any investigation into a specific person, by providing a Pardon. There have been 13,000 pardons by Presidents, and not one of them has brought a charge of obstruction or abuse of power.

rrb said...

Rick Klein: “He accused the president and his top aides of lying.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

what comey interpreted as lies were simply his own opinions.

i'm not surprised the media, especially an abc news hack like klein, is stupid enough to see it that way.

rrb said...

Trump has the authority to put an end to any investigation into a specific person, by providing a Pardon.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


you know, trump has the balls to do just this. i can actually see him pardoning everyone even remotely connected to this whole shitshow. and perhaps he should. then he can turn the investigation back onto comey, lynch, and ultimately clinton.

wouldn't that be something?

james said...

"He made a decision to leak information on an anonymous basis in the hope of"-----------------

making it impossible for this lying President to continue lying about him.

james said...

And it worked.

wphamilton said...

Not kidding. Plenary means that intent doesn't matter, context doesn't matter, circumstances don't matter. He can make the decision, for any reason under any circumstances and it's legal.

Dershowitz' mistake - and it is a mistake - is his treatment of Trump's authority over the FBI as a plenary power. It isn't - for one thing Congress has constitutional oversight - and that means that exercising his authority to kill an investigation may be legal under most conditions, and illegal under others. His entire argument is based on his flawed assumption of plenary power.

C.H. Truth said...

WP - Presidents have been directing the DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc on investigations pretty much since we had Presidents. Including "killing" investigations.

How many specific examples can you find where a President was impeached for obstruction for doing so?

_____

It's one thing to argue with a constitutional scholar about the constitution when there is only a philosophical disagreement.

It's another when the constitutional scholar has 240 years of historical examples on his side... and you have quite literally none.

wphamilton said...

Nixon attempted to impede the FBI investigation into Watergate, by ordering his chief of staff to enlist the CIA to force the FBI to drop it. When that was more or less proven, he was going to be impeached for it and was forced to resign.

I assume that was the example you wanted, CH?

Roger Amick said...

He got the special prosecutor and that is a victory for the United States