Co(up)mey talking like a criminal

[forkup]

Interesting viewpoint. You think talking about a president as trying to obstruct justice, when that same president asked you to stop a criminal investigation makes that person look guilty? Guilty of what if I may ask? Come to think about it. Does a president who didn't do anything wrong usually fire his AG because he didn't protect him from yet another criminal investigation?

What are you talking about, the anorexic Sasquatch told TRUMP he wasn't being investigated before Rosenstein fired him?

I'm talking about Sessions, and Trumps very public tweets berating him because he didn't intervene in the Mueller probe. Or I could have talked about Trumps TAPED interview were he admits he fired Comey because the investigation. Take your pick.

The courts have already ruled that TRUMP can tweet whatever he wants, and considering Comey didn't know much of what was going on regarding the FBI investigation of Russia TRUMP made the right call.

Nobody is claiming that he can't say what he wants. What I'm saying is what he does say on Twitter or to Lester Holt then becomes a matter of public record, and as such can than be used in a criminal case. For some reason you guys think that you guys can pick and choose what statements he makes are serious. The law allows for no such distinction.

So you'll be good with Republicans going after Obama for lying in an interview about not knowing Hillary was using a private server?
---------
One aspect of the Inspector Generals’ report on the FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has been a bit overshadowed by the media. The fact that President Barack Obama lied to the American people when he claimed he only learned of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized, non-secure, non-governmental email server while she was Secretary of State.

In March 2015, when the Clinton email scandal was first breaking, CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama about his knowledge of the matter:

Plante: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

IG Report confirms Obama lied about Hillary’s emails

-Yes I would. In my mind an investigation has only 2 outcomes. Either he's vindicated and hopefully people will recognise the political nature of the process and vote accordingly. Or he's guilty and he deserves the appropriate punishment. An innocent man has nothing to fear from investigation. However considering the last 2 AG's were appointed by Trump, the director of the FBI the same. Both house and senate are Republican. And Trump has shown no hesitation before using his office to settle scores. I don't think Obama did anything.
-It's not even an hypothetical for me. I'm probably the only person on the left who can say he defended Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton E-mail case on this board. My respect for the law and the constitution is more important to me then my party affiliation.
-I'll even go further. One day soon Mueller will release his report.
Say it vindicates Trump of any wrongdoing. I will then try to examine why I could have so badly misjudged him.
Say it shows he acted unethical. I will then hope people will take that in consideration in the voting booth.
Say it shows him to have commited crimes. I would then hope impeachment and ultimately punishment would follow.
Ask yourself this. When option 2 or 3 happens. Will you accept that, or will you look for excuses, or justifications why having an unethical or even criminal president is not that important?

 

[easyt65]

'Comey’s Testimony To Be Expected From a Disgraced FBI Director'

"Did anyone really think that fired former FBI Director James Comey’s Friday appearance before two congressional committees would yield anything worthwhile? I did not and certainly was not disappointed.

The hearing was an exercise in futility, but it was win-win for Comey, who looked like the hero of his own autobiography — a man with honor and decency, who was not going to run and hide but take on all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Comey was called in front of Congress to shed some light on his dubious role not only in the Clinton email scandal, but the initial phase of the Russian collusion investigation.

In short, he portrayed himself to be the stand-up guy who would genuinely cooperate with the committees. Instead, he showed up to the proceedings with FBI and DOJ legal puppeteers who no doubt counseled Comey to act like he was a candidate for an assisted living facility. At last count, Comey said “I don’t remember,” “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” 245 times. That’s a lot of amnesia for a head of the most reputable law enforcement agency in the world."

That's a whole lot of amnesia for the Director of the FBI whose agency was conducting and investigation of and illegally spying on a political candidate during a Presidential election based on illegal Russian-authored DNC candidate-paid-for opposition research. It is not as if this was some every-day insignificant investigation....as Mueller attempted to make it seem.



OPINION: Comey’s Testimony To Be Expected From a Disgraced FBI Director

 

[Slade3200]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Did you actually listen to what he said or are you reacting to a headline that you saw?

Comey was making the point that impeachment would be a disaster and a very bad idea and said if Trump is forced from office it should be by the voters at the ballot box.

So what exactly are you calling a coup?

 

[Hellokitty]

What are you talking about, the anorexic Sasquatch told TRUMP he wasn't being investigated before Rosenstein fired him?

I'm talking about Sessions, and Trumps very public tweets berating him because he didn't intervene in the Mueller probe. Or I could have talked about Trumps TAPED interview were he admits he fired Comey because the investigation. Take your pick.

The courts have already ruled that TRUMP can tweet whatever he wants, and considering Comey didn't know much of what was going on regarding the FBI investigation of Russia TRUMP made the right call.

Nobody is claiming that he can't say what he wants. What I'm saying is what he does say on Twitter or to Lester Holt then becomes a matter of public record, and as such can than be used in a criminal case. For some reason you guys think that you guys can pick and choose what statements he makes are serious. The law allows for no such distinction.

So you'll be good with Republicans going after Obama for lying in an interview about not knowing Hillary was using a private server?
---------
One aspect of the Inspector Generals’ report on the FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has been a bit overshadowed by the media. The fact that President Barack Obama lied to the American people when he claimed he only learned of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized, non-secure, non-governmental email server while she was Secretary of State.

In March 2015, when the Clinton email scandal was first breaking, CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama about his knowledge of the matter:

Plante: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

IG Report confirms Obama lied about Hillary’s emails

-Yes I would. In my mind an investigation has only 2 outcomes. Either he's vindicated and hopefully people will recognise the political nature of the process and vote accordingly. Or he's guilty and he deserves the appropriate punishment. An innocent man has nothing to fear from investigation. However considering the last 2 AG's were appointed by Trump, the director of the FBI the same. Both house and senate are Republican. And Trump has shown no hesitation before using his office to settle scores. I don't think Obama did anything.
-It's not even an hypothetical for me. I'm probably the only person on the left he can say he defended Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton E-mail case on this board. My respect for the law and the constitution is more important to me then my party affiliation.
-I'll even go further. One day soon Mueller will release his report.
Say it vindicates Trump of any wrongdoing. I will then try to examine why I could have so badly misjudged him.
Say it shows he acted unethical. I will then hope people will take that in consideration in the voting booth.
Say it shows him to have commited crimes. I would then hope impeachment and ultimately punishment would follow.
Ask yourself this. When option 2 or 3 happens. Will you accept that, or will you look for excuses, or justifications why having an unethical or even criminal president is not that important?

Okay but we have Comey who outlined crimes committed by Hillary and then went on to vindicate her of any wrongdoing.

So what will your response by if Mueller outlines crimes yet noting follows in terms of an impeachment since the Senate is controlled by Republicans?

As for your questions my response will be based on the amount of transparency provided.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Did you actually listen to what he said or are you reacting to a headline that you saw?

Comey was making the point that impeachment would be a disaster and a very bad idea and said if Trump is forced from office it should be by the voters at the ballot box.

So what exactly are you calling a coup?

The FBI using a FISA warrant based upon "unverified and salacious" information to spy on the campaign of a Presidential candidate was the start of the coup

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Wait, tRump talks like a criminal 7 days a week, does that not bother you?

Trump is a Republican criminal, that's different.

 

[Slade3200]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Did you actually listen to what he said or are you reacting to a headline that you saw?

Comey was making the point that impeachment would be a disaster and a very bad idea and said if Trump is forced from office it should be by the voters at the ballot box.

So what exactly are you calling a coup?

The FBI using a FISA warrant based upon "unverified and salacious" information to spy on the campaign of a Presidential candidate was the start of the coup

Why are you kicking the can to that talking point? You wrote an OP about his recent comments about voting and impeachment

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Did you actually listen to what he said or are you reacting to a headline that you saw?

Comey was making the point that impeachment would be a disaster and a very bad idea and said if Trump is forced from office it should be by the voters at the ballot box.

So what exactly are you calling a coup?

Comey is right.

 

[forkup]

I'm talking about Sessions, and Trumps very public tweets berating him because he didn't intervene in the Mueller probe. Or I could have talked about Trumps TAPED interview were he admits he fired Comey because the investigation. Take your pick.

The courts have already ruled that TRUMP can tweet whatever he wants, and considering Comey didn't know much of what was going on regarding the FBI investigation of Russia TRUMP made the right call.

Nobody is claiming that he can't say what he wants. What I'm saying is what he does say on Twitter or to Lester Holt then becomes a matter of public record, and as such can than be used in a criminal case. For some reason you guys think that you guys can pick and choose what statements he makes are serious. The law allows for no such distinction.

So you'll be good with Republicans going after Obama for lying in an interview about not knowing Hillary was using a private server?
---------
One aspect of the Inspector Generals’ report on the FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has been a bit overshadowed by the media. The fact that President Barack Obama lied to the American people when he claimed he only learned of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized, non-secure, non-governmental email server while she was Secretary of State.

In March 2015, when the Clinton email scandal was first breaking, CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama about his knowledge of the matter:

Plante: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

IG Report confirms Obama lied about Hillary’s emails

-Yes I would. In my mind an investigation has only 2 outcomes. Either he's vindicated and hopefully people will recognise the political nature of the process and vote accordingly. Or he's guilty and he deserves the appropriate punishment. An innocent man has nothing to fear from investigation. However considering the last 2 AG's were appointed by Trump, the director of the FBI the same. Both house and senate are Republican. And Trump has shown no hesitation before using his office to settle scores. I don't think Obama did anything.
-It's not even an hypothetical for me. I'm probably the only person on the left he can say he defended Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton E-mail case on this board. My respect for the law and the constitution is more important to me then my party affiliation.
-I'll even go further. One day soon Mueller will release his report.
Say it vindicates Trump of any wrongdoing. I will then try to examine why I could have so badly misjudged him.
Say it shows he acted unethical. I will then hope people will take that in consideration in the voting booth.
Say it shows him to have commited crimes. I would then hope impeachment and ultimately punishment would follow.
Ask yourself this. When option 2 or 3 happens. Will you accept that, or will you look for excuses, or justifications why having an unethical or even criminal president is not that important?

Okay but we have Comey who outlined crimes committed by Hillary and then went on to vindicate her of any wrongdoing.

So what will your response by if Mueller outlines crimes yet noting follows in terms of an impeachment since the Senate is controlled by Republicans?

As for your questions my response will be based on the amount of transparency provided.

-He outlined the crimes and then said no reasonable prosecutor would choose to take the case. That is not vindication.
-As to your second question. I would acknowledge that it's their constitutional perogative to not pursue the criminal behavior by a sitting president. Hope that the voters take notice and feel somewhat better in the knowledge that no matter what,history will probably judge it in a very harsh light indeed.
- I notice that you didn't answer my question.

 

[Hellokitty]

The courts have already ruled that TRUMP can tweet whatever he wants, and considering Comey didn't know much of what was going on regarding the FBI investigation of Russia TRUMP made the right call.

Nobody is claiming that he can't say what he wants. What I'm saying is what he does say on Twitter or to Lester Holt then becomes a matter of public record, and as such can than be used in a criminal case. For some reason you guys think that you guys can pick and choose what statements he makes are serious. The law allows for no such distinction.

So you'll be good with Republicans going after Obama for lying in an interview about not knowing Hillary was using a private server?
---------
One aspect of the Inspector Generals’ report on the FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has been a bit overshadowed by the media. The fact that President Barack Obama lied to the American people when he claimed he only learned of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized, non-secure, non-governmental email server while she was Secretary of State.

In March 2015, when the Clinton email scandal was first breaking, CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama about his knowledge of the matter:

Plante: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

IG Report confirms Obama lied about Hillary’s emails

-Yes I would. In my mind an investigation has only 2 outcomes. Either he's vindicated and hopefully people will recognise the political nature of the process and vote accordingly. Or he's guilty and he deserves the appropriate punishment. An innocent man has nothing to fear from investigation. However considering the last 2 AG's were appointed by Trump, the director of the FBI the same. Both house and senate are Republican. And Trump has shown no hesitation before using his office to settle scores. I don't think Obama did anything.
-It's not even an hypothetical for me. I'm probably the only person on the left he can say he defended Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton E-mail case on this board. My respect for the law and the constitution is more important to me then my party affiliation.
-I'll even go further. One day soon Mueller will release his report.
Say it vindicates Trump of any wrongdoing. I will then try to examine why I could have so badly misjudged him.
Say it shows he acted unethical. I will then hope people will take that in consideration in the voting booth.
Say it shows him to have commited crimes. I would then hope impeachment and ultimately punishment would follow.
Ask yourself this. When option 2 or 3 happens. Will you accept that, or will you look for excuses, or justifications why having an unethical or even criminal president is not that important?

Okay but we have Comey who outlined crimes committed by Hillary and then went on to vindicate her of any wrongdoing.

So what will your response by if Mueller outlines crimes yet noting follows in terms of an impeachment since the Senate is controlled by Republicans?

As for your questions my response will be based on the amount of transparency provided.

-He outlined the crimes and then said no reasonable prosecutor would choose to take the case. That is not vindication.
-As to your second question. I would acknowledge that it's their constitutional perogative to not pursue the criminal behavior by a sitting president. Hope that the voters take notice and feel somewhat better in the knowledge that no matter what,history will probably judge it in a very harsh light indeed.
- I notice that you didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question on my response would be based on the amount of transparency provided.
Just a few months ago elected democrats accused Kavanaugh of crimes and unethical behavior based on no evidence, so there is no way I will accept a judgement from these same democrats regarding crimes or unethical behavior by TRUMP without full transparency.

 

[forkup]

Nobody is claiming that he can't say what he wants. What I'm saying is what he does say on Twitter or to Lester Holt then becomes a matter of public record, and as such can than be used in a criminal case. For some reason you guys think that you guys can pick and choose what statements he makes are serious. The law allows for no such distinction.

So you'll be good with Republicans going after Obama for lying in an interview about not knowing Hillary was using a private server?
---------
One aspect of the Inspector Generals’ report on the FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has been a bit overshadowed by the media. The fact that President Barack Obama lied to the American people when he claimed he only learned of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized, non-secure, non-governmental email server while she was Secretary of State.

In March 2015, when the Clinton email scandal was first breaking, CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama about his knowledge of the matter:

Plante: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

IG Report confirms Obama lied about Hillary’s emails

-Yes I would. In my mind an investigation has only 2 outcomes. Either he's vindicated and hopefully people will recognise the political nature of the process and vote accordingly. Or he's guilty and he deserves the appropriate punishment. An innocent man has nothing to fear from investigation. However considering the last 2 AG's were appointed by Trump, the director of the FBI the same. Both house and senate are Republican. And Trump has shown no hesitation before using his office to settle scores. I don't think Obama did anything.
-It's not even an hypothetical for me. I'm probably the only person on the left he can say he defended Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton E-mail case on this board. My respect for the law and the constitution is more important to me then my party affiliation.
-I'll even go further. One day soon Mueller will release his report.
Say it vindicates Trump of any wrongdoing. I will then try to examine why I could have so badly misjudged him.
Say it shows he acted unethical. I will then hope people will take that in consideration in the voting booth.
Say it shows him to have commited crimes. I would then hope impeachment and ultimately punishment would follow.
Ask yourself this. When option 2 or 3 happens. Will you accept that, or will you look for excuses, or justifications why having an unethical or even criminal president is not that important?

Okay but we have Comey who outlined crimes committed by Hillary and then went on to vindicate her of any wrongdoing.

So what will your response by if Mueller outlines crimes yet noting follows in terms of an impeachment since the Senate is controlled by Republicans?

As for your questions my response will be based on the amount of transparency provided.

-He outlined the crimes and then said no reasonable prosecutor would choose to take the case. That is not vindication.
-As to your second question. I would acknowledge that it's their constitutional perogative to not pursue the criminal behavior by a sitting president. Hope that the voters take notice and feel somewhat better in the knowledge that no matter what,history will probably judge it in a very harsh light indeed.
- I notice that you didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question on my response would be based on the amount of transparency provided.
Just a few months ago elected democrats accused Kavanaugh of crimes and unethical behavior based on no evidence, so there is no way I will accept a judgement from these same democrats regarding crimes or unethical behavior by TRUMP without full transparency.

Mueller is not a Democrat and the very nature of the process would mean it would be all laid out. Oh and Kavanaugh was not accused by Democrats but by someone who claimed to be raped. He was not under criminal investigation he was doing a job interview. To me what you seem to be saying is that because impeachment is ultimately political you will not accept it. Cause face it since the Democrats will control the house naturally the case will be made by Democrats. As I suspected then you will look for excuses to not accept it.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Mueller sure as heck isn't a conservative either, and wasn't he best buds with Comey who just went before the media saying Trump needs to be removed. You know innocent people can be destroyed by investigations. Why would you say innocent people have nothing to fear? You don't find t odd at all that not one Democrat has been looked at under this comprehensive investigation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Did you actually listen to what he said or are you reacting to a headline that you saw?

Comey was making the point that impeachment would be a disaster and a very bad idea and said if Trump is forced from office it should be by the voters at the ballot box.

So what exactly are you calling a coup?

The FBI using a FISA warrant based upon "unverified and salacious" information to spy on the campaign of a Presidential candidate was the start of the coup

Why are you kicking the can to that talking point? You wrote an OP about his recent comments about voting and impeachment

That's where it started. How sad that you're in the "a little Fascism never hurt anyone" camp

 

[Slade3200]

How appropriate is it for the disgrace, corrupt former FBI Director to say we must use our every breath to get rid of Trump or that Trump "obstructed justice", especially when that former FBI Director was a key player in the failed coup on Trump?

I still don't know why Comey hasn't fled the country

Did you actually listen to what he said or are you reacting to a headline that you saw?

Comey was making the point that impeachment would be a disaster and a very bad idea and said if Trump is forced from office it should be by the voters at the ballot box.

So what exactly are you calling a coup?

The FBI using a FISA warrant based upon "unverified and salacious" information to spy on the campaign of a Presidential candidate was the start of the coup

Why are you kicking the can to that talking point? You wrote an OP about his recent comments about voting and impeachment

That's where it started. How sad that you're in the "a little Fascism never hurt anyone" camp

Now you are bringing up Fascism and camps? Come on man, you can do better than that.

How about you just stay on topic with your OP and stop pivoting in random directions to deflect from every point I make.

Comey made a comment about how trump should be voted out instead of impeached. What about THAT POINT do you take issue with? That comment is not insinuating a coup

If you want to talk about FISA and Comey then you should have made the OP about that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[forkup]

Mueller sure as heck isn't a conservative either, and wasn't he best buds with Comey who just went before the media saying Trump needs to be removed. You know innocent people can be destroyed by investigations. Why would you say innocent people have nothing to fear? You don't find t odd at all that not one Democrat has been looked at under this comprehensive investigation.

Why would I find it odd that in an investigation about Russian election interference and possible cooperation with a REPUBLICAN presidential election campaign no DEMOCRAT is implicated? Do you find it odd you don't see Easter eggs at Christmas?

 

[DustyInfinity]

Problem is, Mueller was supposed to investigate any possible Russian interference. Doesn't seem like he even tried to do that. I'm sure you see things as you want them. Easter Eggs all year. It must be nice that Democrats are not capable of doing something wrong. Must be nice to own the media.

 

[forkup]

Problem is, Mueller was supposed to investigate any possible Russian interference. Doesn't seem like he even tried to do that. I'm sure you see things as you want them. Easter Eggs all year. It must be nice that Democrats are not capable of doing something wrong. Must be nice to own the media.

12 Russians were indicted. He literally went as far as describing the time, building and office they used in some of their acts.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ction=click&module=Intentional&pgtype=Article
So what exactly do you mean he didn't investigate the Russian interference???????
You also seem to make an assumption about me. As I said I was probably the only person on the left that supported Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton E-mail scandal. I'm NOT at all blind to the flaws of the Democrats, or my own for that matter. What I do claim is that I don't change my principles when they become inconvenient. Something I suspect is not something you can claim since you found that statement funny.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I'm certainly glad you are so level headed. Being that you can question your own side, do you find anything fishy at all about how the probe started?

 

[Deleted member 61768]

To bad Comey did not follow the actual letter of the law when it came to Hillary Clinton's crimes.

According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.