Two issues with Comey's testimony

[Qball]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) The flaw is that Putin hated (still hates) Clinton bitterly. He wanted Trump to win as much as he wanted to spread confusion, which is why he hacked the RNC, so people could ask questions without thinking it all the way through.

(2) Comey did more than "flatly rejected Trump's tweets"; he emphasized the DOJ authorized him to say that nowhere in (Sessions) DOJ was there any evidence to support Trump's tweets.*

"Noncommital" was clearly explained by Comey in that he would say there was an "ongoing investigation", but that he would not clarify it more at this time.

Yes, I believe another shoe will drop: Trump and his associates will be identified as in criminal collusion with Russians.

* "And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets," he said.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

 

[yiostheoy]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

Comey and/or Clapper would have known about a Trump Tower phone tap.

They knew nothing.

Ergo there was none.

Robert's your uncle, Fanny's your aunt, and Trump slandered Obama.

 

[yiostheoy]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Trump is digging his own grave.

 

[mudwhistle]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

He's obviously hiding the facts and trying to mislead the public and congress.
He only there to discredit Trump and prevent Hillary and Obama from being properly investigated.

 

[Joanimaroni]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

Good post.

 

[TheOldSchool]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

1) The RNC was against Trump

2) Trump is a notorious pathological liar. Remember, when he accused Ted Cruz's dad of involvement in the JFK assassination, no other shoe dropped.

 

[Reasonable]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

 

[Slade3200]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

1. Russia and other countries have been trying to hack our institutions for a long time. Its called gathering intel. The more they have and the more they know the more leverage they obtain. So the fact the Russia tried to hack the RNC doesn't prove anything. When you look at their actual actions and how they leaked the information the motives of trying to discredit and impose harm on Clinton became apparent.

2. Comey and many others have all said that there is no evidence to back up Trumps claim. This verifies what most of us knew when we first read Trumps tweets. That he was just emotionally reacting to the Sessions debacle and trying to change the narrative. His claims were baseless. By you saying that surveillance still could have happened, well that may be true, but you are on what they call a Witchhunt. Searching for evidence to fit a narrative. The truth remains that Trump wrote those tweets without evidence, probably after reading some infowars or breitbart story... it was reckless and irresponsible and way beneath the actions of what our president should be doing. What an embarrassment.

 

[Slade3200]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

He's obviously hiding the facts and trying to mislead the public and congress.
He only there to discredit Trump and prevent Hillary and Obama from being properly investigated.

How are trolls like you allowed on this board... do you just make this shit up?

 

[mudwhistle]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

He's obviously hiding the facts and trying to mislead the public and congress.
He only there to discredit Trump and prevent Hillary and Obama from being properly investigated.

How are trolls like you allowed on this board... do you just make this shit up?

It's a free country, cocksucker.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

He's obviously hiding the facts and trying to mislead the public and congress.
He only there to discredit Trump and prevent Hillary and Obama from being properly investigated.

How are trolls like you allowed on this board... do you just make this shit up?

It's a free country, cocksucker.

You are the one who sucks, sweet cheeks. The fact is that qball is learning what those of us who have been on here for years have learned ~ you make things up and outright lie. Comey was clear today. He is credible. You Alt Right mutants are liars, end of story.

 

[Divine Wind]

Trump is digging his own grave.

Agreed here....just like Hillary "Sniper" Clinton dug her's.

While wildly partisan asshats think it's best to just attack the opposition, smart people know the wisdom of letting off-the-wall politicians have enough rope to hang themselves. If Trump is off-the-wall, he will, indeed, dig his own grave. If he isn't, then he won't. I'm content to let the Federal government and those running it to play it out.

 

[Slade3200]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

He's obviously hiding the facts and trying to mislead the public and congress.
He only there to discredit Trump and prevent Hillary and Obama from being properly investigated.

How are trolls like you allowed on this board... do you just make this shit up?

It's a free country, cocksucker.

Very true, but at some point the children get sent into the other room so the adults can talk. Maybe you can come back in a few years after you've learned how to have a reasonable conversation

 

[Seawytch]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

1) Intel gathering is normal, weaponizing the gathered intel is not. Our intelligence agencies say the RNC was also hacked. The GOP's emails could be released if they pissed off the wrong people.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

 

[Care4all]

The RNC email hack was probably damaging....to Trump's election and Republicans overall,
as example, it could have caused more infighting within the Republican Party like the division the Russians caused in the Democratic party between Clinton and Bernie voters...with the DNC leaks, plus it would have diluted the impact of the DNC leaks.

if the public had received all of the rnc emails showing how the RNC was trying to back stab Trump during the primary, all hell and war could have broken out between the NEVER TRUMP groups and Trumpettes, and Republican congress critters and senate critters running, could have lost their seats/elections...and for DJT to impact the love-fest between Russia and the usa, he needed the R's to be the majority!

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Damn, too bad we weren't concerned about government officials using private servers way back when...last year...during the hillary failure.

 

[Seawytch]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Damn, too bad we weren't concerned about government officials using private servers way back when...last year...during the hillary failure.

Wait, don't you mean back when the Bush admin was using a private server and millions of emails went missing?

George W. Bush's White House "lost" 22 million emails

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Damn, too bad we weren't concerned about government officials using private servers way back when...last year...during the hillary failure.

Wait, don't you mean back when the Bush admin was using a private server and millions of emails went missing?

George W. Bush's White House "lost" 22 million emails

From 2003. You would think by the time clinton was there the emails would have been a bit more under control than signing up for AOL. Oh wait, they were! It's how and why she set up her own private server in the denver companies shitter thinking nobody would look there.

Where is Trumps private server? The one you claim to be directly connected to Moscow. Yeah, that one that makes everything shrillary did ok. Can you produce that one?