Official James Comey testimony thread

[BobTheCoward]

Aren't you getting tired of this game?

As for the highlighted, can you clarify what you mean by "is"?

What are you talking about game?

Let me rephrase. I don't understand how an obscene double standard interferes with the ability to perform their job as legislator.

 

[3point14]

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?"

Personally, I think that Putin has his hand so far up Trump's backside that Trump can't do a thing without Kremlin approval, after all, Trump needs to keep it quiet, Putin can tell the world about it and point out how brilliant he is (and he does seem to be brilliant. Evil, but brilliant).

Can it be proven? Nope.

Net result - President Donald Trump remains President Donald Trump, leader of the free world, dancing on the strings of the Kremlin.

 

[Firestone]

Good point:

"...and also that none of the GOP's various defenses of Trump provide an alternate explanation for why Comey was fired."

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/872861349910544384

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I think that Putin has his hand so far up Trump's backside that Trump can't do a thing without Kremlin approval,

Nah. Trump is beholden to no one. He was just the useful idiot Putin prefered over Clinton, one who happens to have ties to and sympathies with Russia. The question is whether there was actual collusion.

 

[lomiller]

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"?

Being a Democrat. Not “Being a Democrat and doing those things”, just being a Democrat.

 

[timhau]

Personally, I think that Putin has his hand so far up Trump's backside that Trump can't do a thing without Kremlin approval, after all, Trump needs to keep it quiet, Putin can tell the world about it and point out how brilliant he is (and he does seem to be brilliant. Evil, but brilliant).

Can it be proven? Nope.

Counterargument: Trump can't keep quiet. About anything.

 

[LSSBB]

Hmmm, which is the bigger slap to Hillary, Slick Willie getting his Willie slicked by an intern, or Slick Willie triggering the FBI director just before the election?

She stood by her man.

 

[rdwight]

Welp, not too much gained from this overall. Few things I guess caught my interest.

Why did Comey feel the need to leak his memos in order to push for a special prosecutor? Feel that should have been expanded on. In regards to the Russian investigation, he was not directed by the president to take any action beyond looking into the Steele dossier. He was not under investigation himself. Comey said multiple times that the investigative agents were not influenced. Sessions had already recluse himself. Was it just fear of future Trump actions?

As for Comey, he seems honest overall but I don't like this soft portrayal he put forward for himself. He was the director of the FBI. Everyone buying that he lacked the backbone to refute the presidents bad behavior in person, on the spot? I felt the Senator that brought up his past regarding putting forward his resignation in 2004 made a great point. Either he was playing a different angle on this or he lost his balls since then.

Will also love to hear the explanation in regards to clearing the room to speak about the Flynn investigation. Intentions aside, perception is terrible no matter how you view this. His only somewhat saving grace is that the subject was never brought up again.

 

[fuelair]

Heard about 15 minutes with some ******* republicker trying to trick Comey into admitting/misstating stuff. Failed, but clearly tried

 

[Belz...]

Sessions had already recluse himself.

If only he had!

 

[Ziggurat]

...But Obama wasn't the one who had a conversation with Lynch.

We don't know that.

And yet she did defer to the FBI

Sure, because she got the desired result. She still could have overridden Comey even if he had recommended something else.

Everyone involved in the Clinton-Lynch meeting agrees nothing substantive was discussed.

Two people say nothing substantive was discussed, but if something substantive was discussed, they would still say the same thing.

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

The meeting itself is obviously improper. It isn't plausible that neither Clinton nor Lynch understood this. So why have it at all, if nothing substantive was going to be discussed?

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

That's unknowable

The opposite is true. There is an actual event in the Trump situation - Comey's firing.

Comey's firing is eminently justified. He's handled everything incompetently.

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 like it when I speculate, but you do it too. You're speculating that this is the reason for Comey's firing. But you have no actual evidence to that effect.

You don't know of anything nefarious being said by Bill

No, I don't. And in fact, the most plausible scenario isn't Bill saying anything, it's Lynch. All she needed to do is tell bill that Hillary would get off the hook, provided she didn't lie during her upcoming FBI interview.

Comey says that Lynch wanted a different name for the situation for PR purposes

To affect the election. Which is supposedly a very bad thing to do.

 

[Arcade22]

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that President Trump is “not a liar” hours after ousted FBI Director James Comey said the president had lied about the FBI.

“I can definitively say the president is not a liar,” Sanders told reporters during an off-camera briefing at the White House. “I think it is frankly insulting that question would be asked.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336952-white-house-trump-is-not-a-liar

Well that convinced me.

 

[Belz...]

We don't know that.

You know, at some point this sort of make-believe uber-skepticism is hard to take seriously.

 

[fuelair]

His executive power isn't unlimited to the point that it makes him above the law.

Bob clearly does not understand impeachment and once the pres is impeached successfully even if true (it is not) he would then be not pres and thus available for trial and hopeful execution for espionage.(yes, I know trumpf is not bright enough to actually know that treason and espionage (i.e. collaborating with and providing aid and comfort to enemies) are bad and executable/jailable, but..........).

 

[William Parcher]

Maybe the only bombshell from this is that McCain has Mad Cow Disease.

 

[eeyore1954]

Good grief, John McCain just can't let it go that the FBI completed the Clinton email investigation. What an ass.

He even wants to draw her into the Russian investigation, as if she colluded against herself.

McCain sounds a tad senile this morning.

I didn't hear much but I was on my way to lunch when McCain was speaking and it was sad. Also he said Comey a couple of times when he meant Trump.
The radio host Curtis Sliwa said "Can't someone throw him a preserver."

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Thus the "nuance and technicality" in my post.

I'd also point out that suspicion and assumption aren't fact. Regardless of what we might believe to be Trump's intent... there's wiggle room on Trump's part here. He didn't actually request that Comey close the investigation. Any half-way decent lawyer could make a pretty good case that he meant something else. It's still innocent until proven guilty... and suspicious or questionable behavior probably isn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

 

[TraneWreck]

We don't know that.

Just kept this to represent the multiple times you've used a total absence of evidence to run wild. It's frankly hilarious.

But whatever, if you think a situation for which you have no evidence of pressure is a big deal, you should be freaking the **** out over the situation where there is evidence of pressure. And yet you aren't. Strange, isn't it?

The meeting itself is obviously improper. It isn't plausible that neither Clinton nor Lynch understood this. So why have it at all, if nothing substantive was going to be discussed?

I wouldn't say it was improper, I would say it was dumb. There were no rules that forbid it, but it was not wise.

Comey's firing is eminently justified. He's handled everything incompetently.

That isn't remotely the issue. Someone's firing can be justified in the abstract but still improper.

Ty Lue, for example, could be a bad basketball coach who deserves to be fired. Still wrong to fire him BECAUSE he's black.

Comey may be inept, but firing him to squelch an investigation should result in serious consequences.

You don't like it when I speculate, but you do it too. You're speculating that this is the reason for Comey's firing. But you have no actual evidence to that effect.

Haha. Come on, that's even more desperate then the multiple times you've used an absence of evidence to fuel your speculation about Clinton and Lynch.

Evidence:
1) Story staff told immediately contradicted by Trump.
2) Trump says he was thinking about Russia.
3) Trump tells the Russians the pressure is off.

That's plenty of evidence. Maybe not sufficient to convict, but most definitely enough to draw a reasonable conclusion.

No, I don't. And in fact, the most plausible scenario isn't Bill saying anything, it's Lynch. All she needed to do is tell bill that Hillary would get off the hook, provided she didn't lie during her upcoming FBI interview.

"Don't lie to Congress" may be the lamest conspiratorial message I've ever heard. Lynch followed up, "Make sure you don't say the N-Word, show up without pants, or kick the chairperson in the junk."

Deeply disturbing stuff.

To affect the election. Which is supposedly a very bad thing to do.

No, almost everything "affects" the election - it's the how and why that matters.

Lynch looking at the evidence, realizing it's a whole lot of nothing, and pointing out to Comey that treating the whole lot of nothing like a serious investigation will be bad PR. She was over-ruled (more evidence of her dark, manipulative powers) and the rest is history. 538 and others have directly tied Clinton's fall in the polls to Comey's statement, which was highly explosive in an investigation where Clinton was cleared.

Again, nothing remotely sinister.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, at some point this sort of make-believe uber-skepticism is hard to take seriously.

Way to miss the point, genius.

 

[logger]

The meeting itself is obviously improper. It isn't plausible that neither Clinton nor Lynch understood this. So why have it at all, if nothing substantive was going to be discussd?

An excellent point that needs repeating!