• 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

On MSNBC just now: Senator Collins has an interesting excuse for Trump. FBI director cleared the room once before to discuss the dossier with Trump. So Collins extrapolates that maybe Trump thinks any of these discussions need one on one privacy. :rolleyes:

Watch Trump adopt this excuse in 3...2...1...
 
varwoche said:
To fill out the example, it's more like I hope you stop working on this project, never mind that the board of directors expects it to be completed as a high priority, we've promised the shareholders, and I'm purposefully leaving your direct boss out of this discussion, despite that s/he is the person who will own the project once you complete phase one.

And to update the scenario, the person doesn't stop, and you fire them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We don't have to guess at the boss's response to its "hope" going unfulfilled. It happened and we didn't even have to a wait a week before it started mouthing off about why it actually did it.
 
Darat said:
You need to read the post I was replying to.
Click to expand...

:confused: I quoted the post you were responding to, in addition to having read it.

Was your response intended to be out of context? Were you responding solely to that one statement, with no consideration given to the discussion that led to it?
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
That's some serious intellectual dishonesty. You know what I was asking but instead are answering some other question that's more agreeable with the point you're failing to make. I didn't say "push back" or reprioritize, I said "stop."
Click to expand...

I know that you were trying to maneuver me into a corner by selective word selection. You said "stop". Trump didn't. So... where's the intellectual dishonesty here?
 
Just curious: Is the FBI director considered a law enforcement officer, that is, does he personally have arrest powers? Is is authorized to carry a firearm?
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious: Is the FBI director considered a law enforcement officer, that is, does he personally have arrest powers? Is is authorized to carry a firearm?
Click to expand...

Are you wondering if the temptation crossed his mind, to shoot Trump right then and there?
 
Not so much that as wondering whether Trump actually tried to intimidate a 6'8" federal agent who was packing heat.
 
Emily's Cat said:
1) The assumption is that Trump intended to purposefully do something improper... which may not have been the case. Regardless of what happened, clearing the room of those particular people does NOT show intent to do something improper. Those people should NOT be in the room during any discussion of the investigation, regardless. Clearing the room doesn't indicate intent of impropriety. In particular, failing to clear the room for a discussion about the investigation would definitely have been improper.
Click to expand...

Including the freaking Attorney General? He shouldn't have been in the room for a discussion of the investigation?

Do you actually believe this ridiculous nonsense?
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious: Is the FBI director considered a law enforcement officer, that is, does he personally have arrest powers? Is is authorized to carry a firearm?
Click to expand...
Since the Director is in charge of the regulations governing such things for the FBI, presumably the only people who could tell the Director s/he can't would be the AG and POTUS. In practice, unless the Director happened to have a background including service as an officer/agent, I doubt one would do either.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It doesn't exist. Trump fired Comey, and gave whatever invented reasons he gave. He was asked in an interview whether he was thinking about Russia when he decided to fire Comey. Trump answered that yes, of course he was.

Well duh. Pretty sure Trump spends most of his time thinking about Russia... as has pretty much everyone posting in this thread. It's kinda the hot topic all over the news - not sure you noticed that.

An admission that it was on his mind is not an admission that it was the reason for the action taken. And it's certainly not an admission that he fired Comey in order to try to stop the investigation into Russia's actions.
Click to expand...
Well, uh, wow. That's...um...really...

Yeah, I've got no words.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It doesn't exist. Trump fired Comey, and gave whatever invented reasons he gave. He was asked in an interview whether he was thinking about Russia when he decided to fire Comey. Trump answered that yes, of course he was.

Well duh. Pretty sure Trump spends most of his time thinking about Russia... as has pretty much everyone posting in this thread. It's kinda the hot topic all over the news - not sure you noticed that.

An admission that it was on his mind is not an admission that it was the reason for the action taken. And it's certainly not an admission that he fired Comey in order to try to stop the investigation into Russia's actions.
Click to expand...

And how do you excuse away him bragging to the Russians about how firing Comey relieved pressure on him that existed due to the investigation?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
On MSNBC just now: Senator Collins has an interesting excuse for Trump. FBI director cleared the room once before to discuss the dossier with Trump. So Collins extrapolates that maybe Trump thinks any of these discussions need one on one privacy. :rolleyes:

Watch Trump adopt this excuse in 3...2...1...
Click to expand...

Why do all their excuses for his behavior make him sound like a toddler that is too cognitively deficient to be President?
 
Stacko said:
Why do all their excuses for his behavior make him sound like a toddler that is too cognitively deficient to be President?
Click to expand...

Because that's all they have.

And it is actually true that he is a toddler that is too cognitively deficient to be president.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And once again only half the evidence is looked at and declared to mean x or not mean x.

If you fire the head of investigations, knowing you will be choosing the replacement, and admit publicly the reason you fired him was because the investigation was unnecessary, the "I hope" part of the case is corroboration, but not the only evidence.
Click to expand...

And we still left off the fact that Comey testified that Trump never expressed any concern about Russian hacking.
 
Friday May 12th Trump Tweet
Monday May 15th Comey gives memos to Professor in reaction to the Tweet
Tuesday May 16th NYT reports that a source read some of the memos to their reporter

Would someone please cite whatever NYT article Fox News et al keep claiming is some sort of evidence Comey lied about when he leaked the memos because the NYT story was reported before the 15th?

Not to mention, it's possible the NYT source was someone else who knew about the memos. I don't get this right wing talking point yet I keep hearing it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom