• 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

BobTheCoward said:
If I was president, I would use my pardon power to protect me from ever being impeached.
Click to expand...

Fun fact: The acceptance of a pardon requires that one admit guilt. It is unclear if a president can pardon himself, but because of the above fact, Trump would never be able to accept one.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Fun fact: The acceptance of a pardon requires that one admit guilt. It is unclear if a president can pardon himself, but because of the above fact, Trump would never be able to accept one.
Click to expand...

You missed the part where I said I wouldn't pardon myself.
 
Tero said:
Trumpeteers on another are cheering: "it's over, Comey cleared him!"
Click to expand...

Comey cannot clear Trump. Comey is a witness to the possible obstruction of Justice by Trump.

Trumpeteers must have forgotten about Robert Mueller and that the criminal investigation into Trump campaign is not over.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Which he can prevent federal charges for the duration of his presidency.
Click to expand...
And be arrested for obstruction of justice immediately after. So the answer to
If Trump had the authority say to Comey "I hereby order you to stop the investigation," how is it "obstruction" if he says "Flynn is a good man, I hope you can wrap this up soon"?
Click to expand...
Is "he doesn't have that authority. That is obstruction as well."
 
Thoughts on today's testimony.

I haven't read a lot of in depth coverage, but as best I can tell, there were no bombshells. There's nothing that Trump or his lawyers need fear, except that he shows himself once again to be a rather despicable human being. There was an interesting comment in National Review saying words to the effect of, "So Trump's a liar? Of course. We knew that.' However, it isn't impeachable.

I heard famous right wing big-mouth and mindless Republican Sean Hannity yapping on the radio today and I was trying to make sense out of his opening rant for the 4:00 hour. There were two main points.

1. Comey leaked classified information.

I didn't see this anywhere else. I admit I haven't looked too deep, but I did just enough google searching to make me think that if he leaked classified information, I would have read about it. I don't believe it's true. I believe Hannity is spreading lies. (Say it ain't so!)

2. Comey leaked "privileged information"

WTF? "Privileged information"? What the heck is that? Comey isn't Trump's attorney, nor a health care provider, nor Trump's confessor. is 'privileged information' even a thing? He and his guest were strongly implying that there was something illegal or unethical about revealing the contents of a private conversation if one of the parties was the POTUS.
Seriously?


It was kind of bizarre.
 
Meadmaker said:
Thoughts on today's testimony.

I haven't read a lot of in depth coverage, but as best I can tell, there were no bombshells. There's nothing that Trump or his lawyers need fear, except that he shows himself once again to be a rather despicable human being. There was an interesting comment in National Review saying words to the effect of, "So Trump's a liar? Of course. We knew that.' However, it isn't impeachable.

I heard famous right wing big-mouth and mindless Republican Sean Hannity yapping on the radio today and I was trying to make sense out of his opening rant for the 4:00 hour. There were two main points.

1. Comey leaked classified information.

I didn't see this anywhere else. I admit I haven't looked too deep, but I did just enough google searching to make me think that if he leaked classified information, I would have read about it. I don't believe it's true. I believe Hannity is spreading lies. (Say it ain't so!)

2. Comey leaked "privileged information"

WTF? "Privileged information"? What the heck is that? Comey isn't Trump's attorney, nor a health care provider, nor Trump's confessor. is 'privileged information' even a thing? He and his guest were strongly implying that there was something illegal or unethical about revealing the contents of a private conversation if one of the parties was the POTUS.
Seriously?


It was kind of bizarre.
Click to expand...

Hannity is full of crap. What Comey "leaked" was in no way classified or privileged.
 
The whole "Comey leaked!" meme is self-defeating, regardless. It forces one to acknowledge that the meeting took place. After all, how can one leak details of a meeting that never occurred?
 
TraneWreck said:
I disagree. I think there is plenty, at this point, to justify a probable cause inquiry focused on obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you see that. Is apparent that Comey himself does not believe that. It looks like he was assuming Trump would slip up moving forward but never had that materialize, at least not before he was canned. Outsider random judicial opinions withstanding, do you honestly believe what has been presented so far will bring about any legal proceedings? Not hope for, actually believe will happen?
 
Meadmaker said:
Thoughts on today's testimony.

I haven't read a lot of in depth coverage, but as best I can tell, there were no bombshells. There's nothing that Trump or his lawyers need fear, except that he shows himself once again to be a rather despicable human being. ...
Click to expand...


Trump had nothing to worry about until he had his lawyer come out and lie (and possibly defame Comey) after the sessions this afternoon.

Trump thinks his position makes his every utterance privileged. Bollocks.

And Comey's intentional crafting of his notes to keep them free of classified data does not mean they still contain, let's say... hints, that would require classification.

Our Emily has another take upthread IIUC... that because he drafted at least some of the notes on an agency's secure laptop... they're automatically "classified" and cannot be simply removed/copied and disseminated.

I admit I disagree just on a feeling... that these weren't "work product" but rather personal recollections and activities. I don't see why they couldn't be simply recreated and sent out as was the case.

As always... I could be wrong about that. :p

--- And I still think McCain had a stroke. :boggled:
j/k... but boy, that DBacks game must have run late.
 
Last edited:
It has been brought up by some pundits already:

Comey cleared his testimony with Mueller first, so it's unlikely that they've shown all their cards already.
I think the point of the hearing from the POV of the Special Investigator is to tell Trump&co. to back off and not try interfere in any way, since they are now in the spotlight.
 
rdwight said:
Not sure how you see that. Is apparent that Comey himself does not believe that. It looks like he was assuming Trump would slip up moving forward but never had that materialize, at least not before he was canned. Outsider random judicial opinions withstanding, do you honestly believe what has been presented so far will bring about any legal proceedings? Not hope for, actually believe will happen?
Click to expand...

I fully believe that if he was poor and cops were angry at him it would be more than enough. I even cited something in this thread today where a court recognized "I hope..my" was obstruction.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I fully believe that if he was poor and cops were angry at him it would be more than enough. I even cited something in this thread today where a court recognized "I hope..my" was obstruction.
Click to expand...

That's not the question though. It's easy to say worst case scenario, sure. But we have to live in reality. What can be prosecuted for joe shmoe vs the President is not the same, whether you want to present them as such or not.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I fully believe that if he was poor and cops were angry at him it would be more than enough. I even cited something in this thread today where a court recognized "I hope..my" was obstruction.
Click to expand...

And it would be enough for Republicans to impeach him. If he was a Democrat.
 
rdwight said:
That's not the question though. It's easy to say worst case scenario, sure. But we have to live in reality. What can be prosecuted for joe shmoe vs the President is not the same, whether you want to present them as such or not.
Click to expand...

They literally can be the same, but we don't. I think your question cant be answered without first clearly stating he is poor person guilty. But what happens when we apply that double standard.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They literally can be the same, but we don't. I think your question cant be answered without first clearly stating he is poor person guilty. But what happens when we apply that double standard.
Click to expand...

most penniless defendants are not found guilty but pressured into admissions of guilt in return for a plea bargain.
I agree that Poor Trump is at the point where he would plead guilty in return for clemency if he couldn't afford bail.

Of course, he still can afford everything, so he doesn't feel the pressure - yet.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
They literally can be the same, but we don't. I think your question cant be answered without first clearly stating he is poor person guilty. But what happens when we apply that double standard.
Click to expand...

No. Rich/poor are not even part of the equation. Citizen/President would be a more apt description, and still wouldn't paint the picture perfectly. I don't think a sitting President would ever legally be convicted[edit] in regards to these charges*, especially not on any level a civilian would. You can piss and moan about it, but it's just the facts.
 
Last edited:
rdwight said:
No. Rich/poor are not even part of the equation. Citizen/President would be a more apt description, and still wouldn't paint the picture perfectly. I don't think a sitting President would ever legally be convicted[edit] in regards to these charges*, especially not on any level a civilian would. You can piss and moan about it, but it's just the facts.
Click to expand...

Of course a sitting president was forced to resign the presidency for trying to get the FBI to drop an investigation. And he probably would have faced criminal charges after he left office if he wasn't granted a pardon.

The difference? Republicans are bigger scumbags than they were back then (and Democrats controlled Congress).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom