Official James Comey testimony thread

[Ambrosia]

When do the fabled 'checks and balances' happen?

Since day 1 of his administration.

The checks go to him (via Mar-A-Lago from the taxpayers)

The balances are how he weighs his gold.

 

[Ambrosia]

Is it normal to do so with the intent to release it to the public?

As I understand it the unclassified memos were created so that the contents would be easier to disseminate to interested parties. It just so happened the way the chips fell that getting the information out to the public was the chosen route.

 

[jimbob]

Well for one, Trump could start acting like he's innocent. He could order his staff to meet with the congressional committees and special prosecutor and answer all the questions without this phoney gamesmanship. Trump could volunteer to provide his financials going back the last 4 years.

But I'm afraid Trump couldn't do a damn thing to prove he didn't obstruct justice because it is 100 percent clear that he did and continues to obstruct justice. I have no doubt in my mind that Comey is telling the whole truth and Trump is lying out his ass as usual.

My question back at you is if Trump fires Mueller as he did with Comey would you finally conclude the obvious fact that Trump has been engaged in obstruction of justice?

And this from the sister thread:

Sessions memory is dangerously suspect for a man holding the office of AG.

An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

Sessions testified under oath on Tuesday that he did not believe he had any contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests over the course of Trump’s campaign. But Richard Burt, a former ambassador to Germany during the Reagan administration, who has represented Russian interests in Washington, told the Guardian that he could confirm previous media reports that stated he had contacts with Sessions at the time.

“I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign policy officials and Senator Sessions,” Burt said.

 

[Ambrosia]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?

Being exonerated by the ongoing investigation in due course. It'd help lots if he started acting as though he was innocent and directed people to co-operate fully with it so that it could be concluded as swiftly as possible.

What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

Since Comeys testimony that ship has sailed. It's clear that Comey felt that Trump was asking him to end the investigation of Flynn. It's one way that intent is inferred, you don't look so much at the exact words you look at how the person who was listening to them chose to interpret them. (along with other cues like tonality, body language and such, which generally aren't recorded.) Comey explicitly left the question of whether or not he felt Trump had in fact attempted to obstruct justice for Mueller to decide.

He also left most of a bakeries worth of breadcrumbs to assist Mueller as much as possible.

 

[jimbob]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?

Being exonerated by the ongoing investigation in due course. It'd help lots if he started acting as though he was innocent and directed people to co-operate fully with it so that it could be concluded as swiftly as possible.

What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

Since Comeys testimony that ship has sailed. It's clear that Comey felt that Trump was asking him to end the investigation of Flynn. It's one way that intent is inferred, you don't look so much at the exact words you look at how the person who was listening to them chose to interpret them. (along with other cues like tonality, body language and such, which generally aren't recorded.) Comey explicitly left the question of whether or not he felt Trump had in fact attempted to obstruct justice for Mueller to decide. He also left most of a bakeries worth of breadcrumbs to assist Mueller as much as possible.

t
Well put

 

[acbytesla]

Since Comeys testimony that ship has sailed. It's clear that Comey felt that Trump was asking him to end the investigation of Flynn. It's one way that intent is inferred, you don't look so much at the exact words you look at how the person who was listening to them chose to interpret them. (along with other cues like tonality, body language and such, which generally aren't recorded.) Comey explicitly left the question of whether or not he felt Trump had in fact attempted to obstruct justice for Mueller to decide.

t
Well put

When the President of the United States asks you to do something as in 'I hope you can let this go' and then fires you when you don't the intent of his message and actions is clear. And then when he tells a reporter on camera that he fired the man BECAUSE of the investigation any doubts about his intentions should be gone with any honest thinking adult.

I have some doubts about collusion, but absolutely zero about obstruction.

 

[Resume]

What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

Trump not having obstructed justice.

That would do it.

 

[fishbob]

Why would it be important to Comey that the information be made public, as opposed to simply being made available to others in his organization?

Because everybody above him is politically appointed instead of professional law enforcement.

 

[fishbob]

I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. Again, I'm not questioning his decision to make notes. I'm questioning his premeditated decision to make unclassified memos, on the (perceived) expectation of releasing them to the public.

See my previous post.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
Trump isn't under investigation, and has never been. Are you suggesting that in order to conclude he has not colluded with Russia, you require the FBI to launch an investigation, regardless of the fact that to date they have apparently felt that such investigation was not merited?
<>

Ruh Roh Shaggy....

ETA: sorry I see quadraginta covered it already
ETA: and oh **** tony stark did too

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trump could cooperate with the inquiry.

In what way has he not cooperated with the inquiry? Especially given that he is not the object of the investigation?

Trump could go back in time and not ask Comey to drop the investigation, fire Comey when he doesn't, and then tell the Russians that firing Comey had taken the heat out of the investigations.

I see. So nothing would change your mind then.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's hard to answer in a straightforward manner, because this isn't a normal situation. How many times do we have a case of a very powerful person who suspects he is going to be fired by the President of the United States, and expects that the President will lie about it?

Why would he have suspected he was going to be fired at the point in time that he began creating unclassified memos? Especially since he repeatedly said he was completely surprised that he was fired.

What information led him to suspect that he would need to be a whislteblower from his very first encounter with Trump? Nothing in his testimony suggests that Trump's behavior in that Jan 6 meeting indicated that - it seems based on Comey's personal feelings about Trump.

 

[Emily's Cat]

However, I think it is at least possible that Trump did commit a crime, so for me, the question would be what would make me dismiss that possibility as anything other than a hypothetical. For me, the answer is the report of the Special Counsel, or whatever Bob Mueller's title is. I am confident that he will conduct a proper investigation and tell the truth about it. If it says there's no evidence, then I'll say there's no reason to suspect Trump. If it lays out a case he broke the law, in anything other than a trivial fashion, I'll support impeachment. Between those two ends, there are other possibilities, but I think they all involve more suspicion and more investigations.

I would agree with that... however, Trump is not and has not been a subject of investigation. What if Mueller never investigates Trump?

 

[Tony Stark]

Why would he have suspected he was going to be fired at the point in time that he began creating unclassified memos? Especially since he repeatedly said he was completely surprised that he was fired.

What information led him to suspect that he would need to be a whislteblower from his very first encounter with Trump? Nothing in his testimony suggests that Trump's behavior in that Jan 6 meeting indicated that - it seems based on Comey's personal feelings about Trump.

The fact that Trump is a lying piece of ******

 

[Tony Stark]

I would agree with that... however, Trump is not and has not been a subject of investigation. What if Mueller never investigates Trump?

Mueller is investigating Trump. For obstruction of justice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I still haven't decided that.

I have decided that the indications his staff did are becoming overwhelming. I have decided that his knowledge of this is becoming more likely. I am increasingly suspicious that his staff acted not only with his knowledge, but also with his blessing.
But "convinced" of that? No. Not quite yet.

Despite the fact that several members of the congressional committee have stated repeatedly that in six months of investigation they have seen no evidence of wrongdoing by anyone on Trump's campaign?

At what point will you stop looking for evidence to support the conclusion you've reached without evidence?

That particular horse is long out of the barn.

Anyone trying to pretend that he didn't is either willfully ignorant or a hypocritical liar.

This has gone waaayyy past the 'room for reasonable doubt' period, and has reached the 'no one who isn't a shamelessly dishonest Trump apologist could pretend otherwise' stage.

His guilt couldn't be more obvious if he was holding the cookie jar with his hand in it, mumbling "No. I didn't take any.", around the cookie in his mouth.

Ah. So without evidence you have determined his absolute guilt.

 

[Emily's Cat]

1. nothing. I will always be suspicious of Trump. It's not possible not to be suspicious of someone who lies like he does.
2. I already don't believe Trump was involved in direct collusion, but i feel he is aware that someone in his camp was involved. If Mueller can't confirm that is true, then I'm happy to accept the special counsel's conclusions.
3. Probably nothing. Every single aspect of Trump's nature points toward a contempt for propriety and expectation of personal loyalty and subservience to him. Trump views everything in terms of loyalty, and through this prism he sought to protect someone he views as dog-loyal to him from an investigation. Whether Flynn is innocent or not, Trump, in my view, was absolutely trying to shield him, and that is obstruction.

There aren't too many people around Trump who he would stick his neck out this far for. His bodyguard is one of them. If any one of the people that Trump is fiercely loyal to gets into trouble I have zero doubt that Trump would obstruct justice again if he needs to. Those loyalty bonds are more important to Trump than any notion of justice that he might have. It's that simple.

So again, nothing is gong to change your mind? If the special investigator concludes that Trump didn't directly conclude, you'll let it drop... but it appears that you would still believe he was guilty, and just managed to get away with it. Is that an accurate interpretation of your post?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Generally when one, single, ethically bankrupt political party doesn't have a stranglehold on two of the the branches of government, and an undue (but probably justified most of the time) amount of confidence in the subservience of the third.

I see. Everything republican is completely bad by definition, as far as you're concerned?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?
What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

A) Trump colluding with Russia is a bit of a loaded question. It was his campaign and certain players, not Trump himself. I don't think that he was necessarily colluding with Russia.

B) It would have to start with a reasonable explanation of the events leading up to the firing. A timeline of events. Explaining why he changed his mind on what a great guy Comey was. . A detailed explanation of what he spoke with Coates and Rogers about.

If those items are somehow materially different than what common sense and all the current evidence points to... then that could be a start.

I don't see it likely that there are believable alternate explanations, though. Possible, but not likely.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't have suspicions. I know what Trump is. He's a lying sack of ****.

I don't think that Trump colluded with Russia in the way some people suspect, I think he was probably just doing 'business as usual'. But even if he did I don't care. We are in a post-fact world now. Reality doesn't matter - only perceptions.

I wake up and find out I was in the Matrix. But again, it doesn't really matter to me whether he did or not.

Perhaps in this case Trump is telling the truth (at least as he sees it). But that doesn't make up for all the other times that he lied. He has lied himself into the hearts and minds of millions of Americans by preying on their fears, encouraging bigotry and propagating insane conspiracy theories - just so he can stroke his own ego. The damage he has done is incalculable, and for that he must pay.

So I don't care whether Trump really colluded with the Russians or tried to obstruct justice. The only that matters is that he be perceived to have done those things. He hoodwinked millions of Americans into believing that Obama wasn't legitimate, that Hillary was a crook, and that he knew how to Make America Great Again, so I don't care if he gets crucified for things he didn't actually do. It would just be karma.

Justice and facts don't appear to matter to you. You have made up your mind, and there is nothing that exists that can change your view.