• 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

ahhell said:
He's also undermining faith in the system that got him where he his. Delusion, self-aggrandizement, and self sabotaging, yet he refuses to accept that Russian interference in the election is a serious problem. Tilting at windmills when there's a real giant in plain view. Very odd and disturbing behavior in a leader for sure.
Click to expand...
It also plays into the false GOP narrative about voter fraud. They can use it to attempt to block minorities and the poor from voting with onerous voter ID laws. They're basically a modern day poll tax or literacy test at this point.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think so.

The crowd size, not quite as much, but the claim of illegal votes? That's a very big deal indeed. Really. It shows a combination of delusion and self-aggrandizement that is dangerous.

The reason that the votes thing is more important than the crowd size is that the crowd size is unimportant, but the votes claims are very, very, important, and he has demonstrated he is incapable of accepting reality on a very important subject. He will make stuff up to stroke his ego, even on subjects that really matter.

That's bad.
Click to expand...

Emily's Cat said:
YEah, totally odd. It's really weird that I repeatedly accept that Trumps claims could be complete ********, but also say that there are other interpretations. It's even weirder that I would consider suggesting that one thing Comey did seemed questionable to me, and that he seemed to have had some intent. Yep, that's really dastardly of me to dare to consider a heretofore not considered alternative interpretation of either of those events.

As for "so angry that blood was coming from her... " Who the hell fills in "vagina" as their very first thought? That's not even a thing! I mean, seriously, who comes up with that as their fill-in-the-blank? Trump: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her — wherever."

Yeah, I can totally tell that "vagina" is the logical thing to go there, I mean, we can all *see* bloody vaginas. :rolleyes: I mean, she's a woman, right, so that's totally the only thing that could go there!
Click to expand...


ETA: It's not that Trump's statements could be complete asterisks but that the other interpretations are that the multiple people accusing Trump of lying about the various aspects of his case are telling the truth. And the blood thing. It's a bit like your questions about the "88" and Rhodesian flags in the Dylan Roof thread - it's probably nice for you that you have a sheltered life, but just as those are well known neo Nazi symbols fo r well-understood reasons, a certain class of *** does make comments like Trump, but with the c word replacing the blank.

Why do you have any trust in Trump's statements? He has shown no regard for the truth in matters that are important as well as matters that are unimportant*. Unless one has supporting evidence, one should ascribe absolutely zero credence to any of Trump's statements.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien

A decade ago, my lawyers questioned Trump under oath during a deposition in a libel case he filed against me for a biography I wrote, “TrumpNation.” (Trump lost the case in 2011.) Trump had to acknowledge 30 times during that deposition that he had lied over the years about a wide range of issues: his ownership stake in a large Manhattan real estate development; the cost of a membership to one of his golf clubs; the size of the Trump Organization; his wealth; the rate for his speaking appearances; how many condos he had sold; the debt he owed, and whether he borrowed money from his family to stave off personal bankruptcy.

Trump also lied during the deposition about his business relationships with organized crime figures.

When my lawyers asked him whether he planned to sever his partnership with a developer named Felix Sater because of Sater’s mob ties, Trump said he hadn’t decided.

"Have you previously associated with people you knew were members of organized crime?" one of my lawyers asked.

"No, I haven't," Trump responded.

That wasn't true, however. Trump, despite what he said in the deposition, had knowingly associated with mob figures before.
Click to expand...

*Unless they are all equally important to Trump and his sense of self.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
FTFY.

Again.

Can't help yourself, can you?

Since this simple distinction has been explained to you on repeated occasions I am forced to conclude that your deceit is intentional.
Click to expand...

Oh baloney. I have ONE and only one item around Comey that you think is somehow disastrously evident of me being deceitful. This is crapola, my friend.

The rest of your ad-homs are exactly that: ad homs.
 
TofuFighter said:
No, it isn't an accurate interpretation. It's you trying to twist it to look like you want it to because you seem to dislike any anti-trump sentiment.

The first highlighted 'nothing' was my statement that nothing would stop me from being suspicious of him. It was clear and i know you know that doesn't support your "you're-not-a-skeptic-gotcha", but you tried to weave it in anyway.

In the hypothetical that Mueller clears Trumps of collusion, I won't "let it drop", I will "happily accept his conclusions", as i stated. I'd prefer you didn't put your own slant on my words to suit your needs.

The second was a 'probably nothing', specifically to the obstruction charge and not to the collusion charge as your interpretation dishonestly represents, wherein I leave space for something i haven't anticipated or am not yet aware of. That said, I'm not sure what other information can come to light with regard to this charge and I would guess that the investigating authority will probably issue a statement to the effect of "there is not enough evidence to support legal action", just like they did with the Hillary email story.
Click to expand...

Sorry TofuFighter, I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction here.

If nothing will stop you from being suspicious of him... how is that distinct from saying that nothing is going to change your mind?

You stated that you feel Trump was aware of collusion in his camp. This seems to indicate that you believe collusion exists. You also phrased it as "If Mueller can't confirm that it's true" you'll accept it. This seems to indicate that you already believe it is true, and that your view is that Mueller won't find it to be baseless - at best he won't be able to absolutely confirm it. How is that different from me saying that you would feel he "got away with it"?

You also went to some length to explain how Trump's nature is such that you believe he absolutely tried to obstruct justice, and doesn't give any indication that you're willing to change your mind on that. I don't see anything in your post that indicates you're open to new things on that front.

Let me be more direct, in light of your reference to Clinton. In the case of Clinton, the interpretation of :not enough evidence to support legal action" was generally viewed as being tantamount to "Clinton is innocent".

1) Do you believe that Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing with respect to her handling of emails?

2) Would you hold that same view if the same statement were made regarding Trump...
2a) with respect to knowledge of collusion with Russia?
2b) with respect to obstruction of justice?

3) Or would you believe he was probably guilty but that there just wasn't quite enough to bring to trial?
 
jimbob said:
Why do you have any trust in Trump's statements?
Click to expand...
I don't have any trust in Trump's statements - neither those that support a negative view of him nor those that support a positive view of them. Everything out of his mouth is air. It may be correct or incorrect, true or false, seemingly at random. I have no basis to either accept or deny anything he says... so I pretty much ignore almost all of it and consider none of his statements to be support for anything at all ever.

I also, however, don't have any trust in the interpretations of Trump's statements, and the presumption of what he really secretly truly meant.
 
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat
YEah, totally odd. It's really weird that I repeatedly accept that Trumps claims could be complete ********, but also say that there are other interpretations. It's even weirder that I would consider suggesting that one thing Comey did seemed questionable to me, and that he seemed to have had some intent. Yep, that's really dastardly of me to dare to consider a heretofore not considered alternative interpretation of either of those events.

As for "so angry that blood was coming from her... " Who the hell fills in "vagina" as their very first thought? That's not even a thing! I mean, seriously, who comes up with that as their fill-in-the-blank? Trump: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her — wherever."

Yeah, I can totally tell that "vagina" is the logical thing to go there, I mean, we can all *see* bloody vaginas. :rolleyes: I mean, she's a woman, right, so that's totally the only thing that could go there!
Click to expand...

I laughed for about five minutes after reading this.

Seriously.
 
quadraginta said:
You're the one who keeps babbling on about them being released to the public. What do you need me for?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension. Try actually comprehending what I've written, without your own presumptions tossed in. Here, let me help you with that, since I have a bit of doubt as to whether you would find them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11886185#post11886185
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not necessarily opposed to it being in the open. It's the intentional and purposeful intent to release what would otherwise be considered confidential that makes me leery of it.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11884088#post11884088
Emily's Cat said:
I also have no objection to him having kept notes on every encounter. I also think that's a pretty reasonable thing to do. It's the premeditated and purposeful efforts to make sure it was unclassified that seemed odd. I mean, if there was simply no reason for it to be classified, and that was normal operating business for him, I wouldn't question it. But he himself says that he made a conscious decision to make them unclassified.
Click to expand...

I'll also point out some of the things that you seem to have overlooked. I'm the one who provided evidence to support that nothing Comey did constitutes "leaking", and that none of the information he released was in any way classified. I'm the one who pointed out that Comey was not an employee of the FBI at the point when he released that information, so could reasonably argue that he isn't subject to department rules regarding release of information.

But hey, that's not important. I mean, seriously. I questioned the perceived intention behind Comey's memos, and that... that means I'm totally biased, right? :rolleyes:
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why do you have any trust in Trump's statements?
Click to expand...
I don't have any trust in Trump's statements - neither those that support a negative view of him nor those that support a positive view of them. Everything out of his mouth is air. It may be correct or incorrect, true or false, seemingly at random. I have no basis to either accept or deny anything he says... so I pretty much ignore almost all of it and consider none of his statements to be support for anything at all ever.

I also, however, don't have any trust in the interpretations of Trump's statements, and the presumption of what he really secretly truly meant.
Click to expand...

You missed out the bit below:


Unless one has supporting evidence, one should ascribe absolutely zero credence to any of Trump's statements.
Click to expand...

We do have evidence supporting his assertion that he thought firing Comey would take the heat out of the Russia investigation.

We are in a situation where two people are disagreeing about events.
Either Comey is right and Trump is lying, or Trump is right and Comey is lying.

Comey minimised the possibility of faulty recollection by taking the memos at the time and timestamping them.

Trump has no credibility. Comey has. There is also circumstantial evidence supporting Comey.
 
jimbob said:
We do have evidence supporting his assertion that he thought firing Comey would take the heat out of the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...
We have one comment made to a Russian ambassador, after the fact, implying that some of the pressure is lifted. It can certainly be interpreted the way you say.

jimbob said:
We are in a situation where two people are disagreeing about events.
Either Comey is right and Trump is lying, or Trump is right and Comey is lying.
Click to expand...
Or they both think they're saying something else, and each is hearing the other saying something different. Always a likelihood when people start trying to assume the intent and motivation of others.

jimbob said:
There is also circumstantial evidence supporting Comey.
Click to expand...
Which is?
 
Emily's Cat said:
We have one comment made to a Russian ambassador, after the fact, implying that some of the pressure is lifted. It can certainly be interpreted the way you say.


Or they both think they're saying something else, and each is hearing the other saying something different. Always a likelihood when people start trying to assume the intent and motivation of others.


Which is?
Click to expand...

Ignored it would seem.
 
quadraginta said:
Nope.

Which makes his comment that Comey, "better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!", perfectly reasonable.

Why wouldn't he say that?
Click to expand...

"It's a nice marriage you got there. Be a real shame if a recording of an affair got out."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom