• 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

logger said:
Lol

You really don't know do you? The word "stop" wasn't used, oh my!

He got fired because he's a moron and messed up this investigation the whole way through, don't you remember when you wanted him fired prior to the election?
Click to expand...

So the initial WH statement that he was fired for treating Hillary unfairly was a lie?
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is not pointless. When you say party over politics are you trying to make a comment about some sort of measure of the well being of the country, or are you saying that republicans are making a conclusion themselves that they are advancing a self interested agenda over what they think is best for the country?
Click to expand...

The meaning is clear. Re-read my original comment in its entirety, consider what is meant by "precedent," and you should be able to work it out.

If you want to play this tedious, stranger-in-a-strange-land naivete game, please do it with someone else.
 
Imagine how outraged Republicans would be if Obama asked Comey to drop the Hillary email investigation.
 
TraneWreck said:
The meaning is clear. Re-read my original comment in its entirety, consider what is meant by "precedent," and you should be able to work it out.

If you want to play this tedious, stranger-in-a-strange-land naivete game, please do it with someone else.
Click to expand...

The word precedent doesn't actually clear up which interpretation of party over country you are standing by. That is why I'm asking you for clarification.

We generally shouldn't say of our own statements "the meaning is clear." I would bet we often fail to achieve a level of clarity that we perceive of our own words.
 
Last edited:
When my CEO says "I hope you can find a way...", that is an order, and the only thing that will prevent me from finding a way is professional integrity
Common knowledge among people who have had to answer to other people in charge of the paycheck department


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Monza said:
Writing the synopsis of his meetings with Trump immediately after and sharing with others at the FBI was a smart thing to do. I don't doubt that Comey's description of the events are basically accurate representations. I expect he will come across as honest and unflappable at tomorrow's Senate hearing.

It was interesting that Comey mentioned they spoke about the Russian hooker story. Trump asked him to investigate and prove it wasn't true and Comey said it may appear that they were investigating Trump personally. Is this where Trump conflated in his mind that Comey told him (three times!) that he wasn't under investigation for the Russian election interference?
Click to expand...


http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/james-comey-memos-testimony/index.html

Comey did tell him he wasn't under investigation. It isn't conflation.
Jan 6
In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.
Click to expand...

Jan 27
During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.
Click to expand...

Mar 30
Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week -- at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that.
Click to expand...
 
Tony Stark said:
Imagine how outraged Republicans would be if Obama asked Comey to drop the Hillary email investigation.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to say at this point. They melted down over that stupid Lynch meeting. If Obama did that it would be non-stop 24/7 hysteria that our country was falling apart.

I'm glad Obama didn't do that. It's deeply wrong. Recall that 7 special prosecutors were appointed during Bill Clinton's presidency based on the fear that the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest would obstruct investigations.

This is an obscene double-standard that legitimately threatens the functioning of our government.
 
TraneWreck said:
I don't even know what to say at this point. They melted down over that stupid Lynch meeting. If Obama did that it would be non-stop 24/7 hysteria that our country was falling apart.

I'm glad Obama didn't do that. It's deeply wrong. Recall that 7 special prosecutors were appointed during Bill Clinton's presidency based on the fear that the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest would obstruct investigations.

This is an obscene double-standard that legitimately threatens the functioning of our government.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by the functioning of the government? I don't understand why having an obscene double standard is some problem with the US constitutional system.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The word precedent doesn't actually clear up which interpretation of party over country you are standing by. That is why I'm asking you for clarification.

We generally shouldn't say of our own statements "the meaning is clear." I would bet we often fail to achieve a level of clarity that we perceive of our own words.
Click to expand...

1) I did not say "party over politics" whatever the hell that means.
2) What is well being of the country?
3) This was your initial response:

If they think keeping him in office results in better policies for America while at the expense of their reputation isn't that country over party?
Click to expand...

Once again, prove that the sufficient condition is true or even a possibility strong enough to consider, before I start dealing with the consequences of your hypothetical.
 
TraneWreck said:
I don't even know what to say at this point. They melted down over that stupid Lynch meeting. If Obama did that it would be non-stop 24/7 hysteria that our country was falling apart.

I'm glad Obama didn't do that. It's deeply wrong. Recall that 7 special prosecutors were appointed during Bill Clinton's presidency based on the fear that the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest would obstruct investigations.

This is an obscene double-standard that legitimately threatens the functioning of our government.
Click to expand...

Republicans simply care more about their party more than they do the country.
 
uke2se said:
I don't get the "Comey testified under oath that Trump never asked him to terminate any investigation" part of the GOP talking points. From what I understand of the Comey testimony, that is the opposite of what Comey testifies.
Click to expand...

Nuance and technicality. Trump didn't explicitly ask him to terminate the investigation. Trump expressed hope that Comey would let it go.

Feb 14
The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
What do you mean by the functioning of the government? I don't understand why having an obscene double standard is some problem with the US constitutional system.
Click to expand...

Well, I have interacted with you more than anyone should. That's enough for me.
 
TraneWreck said:
I don't even know what to say at this point. They melted down over that stupid Lynch meeting. If Obama did that it would be non-stop 24/7 hysteria that our country was falling apart.
Click to expand...

Like the "I hope" meltdown going on since yesterday ?
 
TraneWreck said:
1) I did not say "party over politics" whatever the hell that means.
2) What is well being of the country?
3) This was your initial response:



Once again, prove that the sufficient condition is true or even a possibility strong enough to consider, before I start dealing with the consequences of your hypothetical.
Click to expand...

You said, "Party and self interest before country", and I was trying to shorten that to "party over country."

And I agreed with you that you shouldn't entertain that hypothetical which is why I asked you a different question. Depending on how you answer that question determines if I can answer the sufficient condition in a manner we both agree, or if it is impossible in that scenario presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom