• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official James Comey testimony thread

Fox is going with Comey's saying a particular news report with an anonymous source was wrong, ergo it's all fake news except Fox's news.

Chris Wallace is not being so kind to Trump or Flynn.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Not really. Why would he have any interest in investigations that have nothing at all to do with him or those immediately around him?
Click to expand...


I think that's a good point, he has plausible deniability. I think that's what's gong to cause absolutely nothing to come of this.
 
TraneWreck said:
1) Bill Clinton could not fire Lynch.
Click to expand...

But Obama could fire Lynch and Comey, and Lynch was Comey's superior.

2) Lynch admitted that meeting was a problem and yielded to the FBI. She did not make any decisions on the investigation.
Click to expand...

Lynch said she would defer to the FBI, but in point of fact she never actually recused herself. And as Comey has now testified, Lynch did in fact try to pressure him to downplay the investigation.

3) The contents of the meeting were very innocuous according all participants.
Click to expand...

You say that like that means anything. But if both participants are colluding on something nefarious, what else would you expect them to say?

4) Lynch was not fired.
Click to expand...

She should have been. That she was not makes it worse, not better.

5) Pretty much everyone agreed the meeting was very stupid, but ultimately meaningless
Click to expand...

No, everyone does NOT agree that the meeting was meaningless. The people who have an interest in saying it was meaningless say it was meaningless, but quelle suprise.

And, of course, the hypocrisy runs in the opposite direction: If you think the Lynch-Bill meeting was meaningful, this stuff from Trump should set your hair on fire.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think it's sleazy, but that's it. We know that Trump's statements about the Flynn investigation didn't affect anything. We cannot in fact say the same thing about the Lynch-Bill meeting.
 
jimbob said:
This is my thought on that


​

I know that you don't have a very high opinion of Trump, but he made his wishes clear to someone with the position to effect those wishes. Just because he didn't couch it in terms of a direct order is a weak getout. His invite to the dinner with Comey was also suspicious in that way.

In fact it is hard to read it as anything other than that

Here's a vaguely relevant youtube video


Slightly NSFW at the end (1:50)
Click to expand...

Needlessly ambiguous is perfect.

Great video.
 
Ziggurat said:
The conversation wouldn't really make sense if he didn't tell Trump.
Click to expand...

Let's test that:

"I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative."
 
TraneWreck said:
I am sincerely baffled, people don't think the president asking an FBI director to stop an active investigation multiple times and requesting a loyalty oath, then firing that director when he doesn't get what he wants is nothing?

What would constitute "something"?
Click to expand...

The Democrats doing the same thing would qualify.
 
Argumemnon said:
The Democrats doing the same thing would qualify.
Click to expand...

"Something" would probably be unequivocal criminal activity. Being a bad president is probably not "something" for the same reasons being a bad president is not "something" in other areas.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, I think it's sleazy, but that's it. We know that Trump's statements about the Flynn investigation didn't affect anything. We cannot in fact say the same thing about the Lynch-Bill meeting.
Click to expand...

What would you think if Obama tried to get Comey to drop the Hillary email investigation?

(I already know you would be outraged and say it is proof of corruption)
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
But Obama could fire Lynch and Comey, and Lynch was Comey's superior.
Click to expand...

...But Obama wasn't the one who had a conversation with Lynch. Lynch could talk to Chelsea Clinton or Megan McCain or Justin Bieber, and Obama could fire Lynch and Comey. This was all over a meeting with noted dumbass, Bill Clinton. Not Obama.

This makes no sense.

Lynch said she would defer to the FBI, but in point of fact she never actually recused herself. And as Comey has now testified, Lynch did in fact try to pressure him to downplay the investigation.
Click to expand...

And yet she did defer to the FBI, allowed them to do their work, and the extent of her "downplaying" was to call it a "matter" not an "investigation." And, in fact, that investigation cleared Clinton...so, maybe it was just a matter.

"Downplay" is different than "don't investigate."

You say that like that means anything. But if both participants are colluding on something nefarious, what else would you expect them to say?
Click to expand...

What was the nefarious thing? Comey immediately wrote everything down because he knew it was improper. Everyone involved in the Clinton-Lynch meeting agrees nothing substantive was discussed.

Ergo, you're just making up the nefarious part. You have no evidence of anything improper occurring, beyond the meeting, itself, unlike Comey-Trump. You're just generating circular suspicion.

She should have been. That she was not makes it worse, not better.
Click to expand...

This is such bizarre nonsense. You need evidence of pressure. Lynch didn't stall an investigation, no pressure there. She stepped away. Obama didn't pressure her, no evidence that Clinton did.

You have Lynch pressing for a different term for an investigation that cleared the target. What are the grounds for anyone to be fired?

No, everyone does NOT agree that the meeting was meaningless. The people who have an interest in saying it was meaningless say it was meaningless, but quelle suprise.
Click to expand...

Please, show me the meaning. What was nefariously hidden? How was the investigation thwarted?

Oh, I think it's sleazy, but that's it. We know that Trump's statements about the Flynn investigation didn't affect anything. We cannot in fact say the same thing about the Lynch-Bill meeting.
Click to expand...

The opposite is true. There is an actual event in the Trump situation - Comey's firing. That it was not a successful attempt at stalling the investigation doesn't make it any less of an attempt, especially since the *********** idiot can't stop talking about it.

You don't know of anything nefarious being said by Bill; Bill had no authority; Lynch did not participate in the investigation, yielding to the FBI; Comey says that Lynch wanted a different name for the situation for PR purposes; the investigation was not affected, and it cleared Clinton.

What's the scandal?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Not necessarily. Regardless of whether Comey believes there was or was not collusion, expression of his personal opinion in an public setting has the potential to disrupt ongoing investigations. His refusal to express opinion during a fact-finding investigation isn't indicative of anything other than Comey's professionalism and integrity.
Click to expand...

I think anything but a resounding "No" is a big deal, when the question is "Do you think the POTUS colluded with a hostile foreign power?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom