Official James Comey testimony thread

[acbytesla]

Lol, that's funny. What do you think my view is? Have you considered the bias of the other posters in this thread, or does that only come in to play for people who don't jump on the bandwagon of "guilty and nothing can prove innocent"?

You pretend as if others haven't been reading your posts for months. You can't really believe that we have been oblivious to them. If you believe I am under a misapprehention, feel free to correct me, but please cease playing coy. It is tedious and disingenuous.

Trump lies about a lot of things... but there are also a lot of things that the media and/people on the interwebs cast as lies, claim are lies, that may not actually be lies. Seriously, even the boy who cried wolf sometimes told the truth. I don't expect anyone to accept what Trump says, or even to assume it is true - I certainly don't. But I also don't think that it's reasonable to assume that everything he says is false. And I definitely don't approve of the cherry-picking approach where anything he says might make him look less like an evil person is clearly a lie... and anything that can be spun to make him look bad is clearly the truth.

Because as it stands right now, the "truthiness" of Trump is entirely subjective, and is frequently conditional. So... Trump says Russia was on his mind when he fired Comey therefore Trump is being completely honest and is admitting that he fired Comey because of Russia. Trump says he has a great relationship with Putin and he's totally honest. Trump says he really doesn't know Putin and he's totally lying. Trump says he was "wiretapped" and he's a total liar. Turns out he was being surveilled, but it wasn't actually a literal wiretap, so he's not just a liar but a stupid liar. The media, and many vehemently anti-Trump folks, are very selective about what constitutes lying. He's perceived as a liar when it suits them to do so, and he's perceived as honest when it suits them to do so. Evidence has little to do with it.

I'm sorry. Can't you see you're being disingenuous in how you're defending this turd? The tu quoque fallacies are unbecoming of someone of your intellect.

Yes, I'm sure there are times when Trump tells the truth. But unfortunately, it is so rare that it seems as if Trump only discovered it by stumbling over it. More of a random occurrence than anything deliberate. The problem inherent with the Donald is that he simply doesn't care if what he says is true or false. If it sounds good in his head, it just comes tumbling out of his pie hole with no filter. This might be fine for a real estate developer in New York (I don't believe anyone should do this though) but the damages done by the leader of the free world being reckless with the truth are immeasurable.

I hate this situation. In some ways I agree with Trump far more than I do with his vice president but Trump is the most untrustworthy human being I have ever seen. He is a terrible President who will only continue to harm this nation and the world.

That's a reasonable point, I guess. I suppose I would think that a month after that, he wouldn't still be expressing surprise about it, but maybe he's slow.

Oh, c'mon that's beneath you. That Comey felt surprised and may still feel surprised doesn't reflect his intellect. That is a silly attack.

 

[sts60]

Nice jab. Whatever you need to feel holier good I guess.

Pot, kettle, black. You keep presenting yourself as the principled voice of reason and chastising others for faulty skeptical thinking. That's not a good place from which to call people "holier than thou", especially when you bend over backwards to interpret things in favor of one party.

I am in error, due to a lack of explicit phrasing that I believed was understood from context.

You were in error because you claimed Trump was not under investigation.

It is my mistake in thinking that in a discussion of this sort, the participants could track the context rather than reading each sentence and post as if it existed in a vacuum.

Holier than thou? Your interlocutors are under no obligation to read your mind. You made an unconditional statement, and the participants in this thread (including you) have been discussing possible charges of obstruction of justice quite a bit in this thread.

Allow me to correct my errant statement: ...

Thank you for correcting your error.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Lol, that's funny. What do you think my view is? Have you considered the bias of the other posters in this thread, or does that only come in to play for people who don't jump on the bandwagon of "guilty and nothing can prove innocent"?
Trump lies about a lot of things...

Yes!
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...orized-database-of-false-things.html#analysis

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Just go down the lists. Sure, occasionally you find one that is forgivable, but really he's got quite a problem.

but there are also a lot of things that the media and/people on the interwebs cast as lies, claim are lies, that may not actually be lies.

Perhaps a few, but his lack of credibility is a direct result of his telling so many untruths, and then insisting he is right even in the face of contrary facts.

Seriously, even the boy who cried wolf sometimes told the truth. I don't expect anyone to accept what Trump says, or even to assume it is true - I certainly don't.

That's wise because he has certainly shown himself to be "loose with the facts". He may contradict himself at any moment.

But I also don't think that it's reasonable to assume that everything he says is false.

Certainly not, I agree with you.

And I definitely don't approve of the cherry-picking approach where anything he says might make him look less like an evil person is clearly a lie... and anything that can be spun to make him look bad is clearly the truth.

There is certainly some of this going around.

Because as it stands right now, the "truthiness" of Trump is entirely subjective,

Is it? Isn't his credibility so low because he actually makes false claims and then sticks by them in spite of being proven wrong? Things like "my inauguration crowd was the biggest" or "I only lost the popular vote because there were 3 million illegal votes for Hillary". If a person is shown two photographs of the same scene with different sized crowds he should be able to pick the larger crowd, and say "o, I see, I must have been mistaken".

and is frequently conditional. So... Trump says Russia was on his mind when he fired Comey therefore Trump is being completely honest and is admitting that he fired Comey because of Russia.

That does seem to be a reasonable assumption don't you think? Some things he says must be true? Of course who knows really, he may say the opposite tomorrow.

Trump says he has a great relationship with Putin and he's totally honest. Trump says he really doesn't know Putin and he's totally lying.

Here I think the problem is that he claims both to know a man well, and to not be acquainted with the same man. There is a lie there somewhere, would you agree?

Trump says he was "wiretapped" and he's a total liar.

He tweeted "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
6:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017". This is not true by any stretch. If Trump communications were intercepted during contact with FBI suspects well, OK, but how does this involve Obama, or reflect on Obama's reputation?

Turns out he was being surveilled, but it wasn't actually a literal wiretap, so he's not just a liar but a stupid liar.

Yes, he was spreading a detrimental falsehood about his predecessor in the oval office. He deserves to be called out on it. He is wrong.

The media, and many vehemently anti-Trump folks, are very selective about what constitutes lying. He's perceived as a liar when it suits them to do so, and he's perceived as honest when it suits them to do so. Evidence has little to do with it.

The evidence is that Trump often tells falsehoods which are easily disproved, sometimes directly contradicts himself, and never admits he is mistaken.

He's perceived as a liar because he tells a lot of falsehoods, and then doubles down when he is confronted with the facts. It is now impossible to determine with any degree of certainty whether anything he says is true or false. Everyone is left guessing, and this is his great tactic of negotiating, "keep them guessing"!
If it is working against him its his own fault for not appreciating the value of truth.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes!
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...orized-database-of-false-things.html#analysis

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Just go down the lists. Sure, occasionally you find one that is forgivable, but really he's got quite a problem.


Perhaps a few, but his lack of credibility is a direct result of his telling so many untruths, and then insisting he is right even in the face of contrary facts.
That's wise because he has certainly shown himself to be "loose with the facts". He may contradict himself at any moment.
Certainly not, I agree with you.

There is certainly some of this going around.

Is it? Isn't his credibility so low because he actually makes false claims and then sticks by them in spite of being proven wrong? Things like "my inauguration crowd was the biggest" or "I only lost the popular vote because there were 3 million illegal votes for Hillary". If a person is shown two photographs of the same scene with different sized crowds he should be able to pick the larger crowd, and say "o, I see, I must have been mistaken".

That does seem to be a reasonable assumption don't you think? Some things he says must be true? Of course who knows really, he may say the opposite tomorrow.

Here I think the problem is that he claims both to know a man well, and to not be acquainted with the same man. There is a lie there somewhere, would you agree?
He tweeted "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
6:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017". This is not true by any stretch. If Trump communications were intercepted during contact with FBI suspects well, OK, but how does this involve Obama, or reflect on Obama's reputation?
Yes, he was spreading a detrimental falsehood about his predecessor in the oval office. He deserves to be called out on it. He is wrong.
The evidence is that Trump often tells falsehoods which are easily disproved, sometimes directly contradicts himself, and never admits he is mistaken.

He's perceived as a liar because he tells a lot of falsehoods, and then doubles down when he is confronted with the facts. It is now impossible to determine with any degree of certainty whether anything he says is true or false. Everyone is left guessing, and this is his great tactic of negotiating, "keep them guessing"!
If it is working against him its his own fault for not appreciating the value of truth.

What's funny is this idea that we think every word out of Trump's mouth is a lie. I don't. But Trump lies so often I can't trust a word. There is a difference. As for Trump's totally contradicting statements about Putin, what are we supposed to think? It would be irresponsible not to dig deeper.

Here's a message for Trump, STOP LYING! Although, Trump's credibility is so shot I doubt it can ever be rehabilitated.

 

[dudalb]

What's funny is this idea that we think every word out of Trump's mouth is a lie. I don't. But Trump lies so often I can't trust a word. There is a difference. As for Trump's totally contradicting statements about Putin, what are we supposed to think? It would be irresponsible not to dig deeper.

Here's a message for Trump, STOP LYING! Although, Trump's credibility is so shot I doubt it can ever be rehabilitated.

He has been a habitual liar for most of his adult life. Think he is going to stop now?

 

[acbytesla]

He has been a habitual liar for most of his adult life. Think he is going to stop now?

No, I am not under such illusions.

 

[quadraginta]

How would you characterize it?

I wouldn't characterize it as anything in particular.

Trump made public claims which, among other things, cast slurs against Comey.

Which Comey contradicted. With proof.

This is not a scenario most people would describe as "whistle-blowing".

 

[Emily's Cat]

You pretend as if others haven't been reading your posts for months. You can't really believe that we have been oblivious to them. If you believe I am under a misapprehention, feel free to correct me, but please cease playing coy. It is tedious and disingenuous.

I see that you cannot actually state what my view is.

And yet you'll continue to insult me for it, as well as implying that I'm dishonest.

I'll ask again - what do you think my view is?

Yes, I'm sure there are times when Trump tells the truth. But unfortunately, it is so rare that it seems as if Trump only discovered it by stumbling over it.

And yet... anything he says will be cherry picked and considered either truth or lie depending solely on whether it confirms the bias of choice in that matter. It sure does seem rare... but if the idiocy uttered from his mouth can be used to make him look bad, you can be sure it's going to be accepted as complete and utter truth with no dissembling!

I hate this situation. In some ways I agree with Trump far more than I do with his vice president but Trump is the most untrustworthy human being I have ever seen. He is a terrible President who will only continue to harm this nation and the world.

I agree with you.

Oh, c'mon that's beneath you. That Comey felt surprised and may still feel surprised doesn't reflect his intellect. That is a silly attack.

It's no more or less silly than the overwhelming number of arguments put forth in this forum. The only difference is that Comey's statements confirm your bias, therefore any objection or doubt cast on his veracity is "silly" whereas the thinnest of all complaints about someone else is simply the obvious truth .

I'm really tired of this game. Reason and honest discourse have been stretched to the point of taffy. Reality has been warped to fit to whatever emotional stance the arguer wants to take. Fact is optional, it's only perception that counts now. Objectivity is for losers, the real big-shots all rely on speculation and allegation now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Pot, kettle, black. You keep presenting yourself as the principled voice of reason and chastising others for faulty skeptical thinking. That's not a good place from which to call people "holier than thou", especially when you bend over backwards to interpret things in favor of one party.

I'm not bending over backwards. I'm just refusing to kneel down and accept the blessed truth as present to me by those who have already made the decision about what reality will be defined as.

You were in error because you claimed Trump was not under investigation.

Again, context. You do understand how that works, right? Do I actually have to include the phrase "for collusion with Russia" in every post in a continuous discussion of that specific topic? Does taking one statement out of context make you feel justified in twisting it to mean whatever you want it to mean, and then hopping up on a very tall pony in order to castigate someone else as being untruthful? Is that how that game works?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is it? Isn't his credibility so low because he actually makes false claims and then sticks by them in spite of being proven wrong? Things like "my inauguration crowd was the biggest" or "I only lost the popular vote because there were 3 million illegal votes for Hillary". If a person is shown two photographs of the same scene with different sized crowds he should be able to pick the larger crowd, and say "o, I see, I must have been mistaken".

Oh, you've got a very good point. I mean, look at these completely tangible and incontrovertible cases where Trump is known to be wrong. They're material things right? I mean, the size of his crowd is a really big deal, and has bearing on... what exactly? And you know, insisting that Clinton got a bunch of illegal votes... that's so much worse than insisting that Trump only won because of bigots, and stupid people, and misogyny, and the reasons that Clinton tossed out... right? These two things that keep coming back around as such absolutely solid evidence of Trumps lack of credibility... they're very meaningful... aren't they?

Here I think the problem is that he claims both to know a man well, and to not be acquainted with the same man. There is a lie there somewhere, would you agree?

Ahh, yes, of course. You've got a sparkling point. I mean, it's not like he made these claims at vastly different times or anything, right? They're occurring in the same time span, aren't they? I mean, it's not like a hyperbolic bombast could possibly consider exaggerating a brief encounter with someone important when that reflected glory makes them seem more important, right? It's clear, of course, that there's no reason to think critically at all about the veracity of what he said on an interview where he was trying to make himself seem important. It makes perfect sense to accept that statement as the one that's totally and completely true, and use it as justification for alleging collusion! It's perfectly reasonable and objective, no cherry picking at all here, but my this fresh pie sure is yummy.

He tweeted "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
6:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017". This is not true by any stretch. If Trump communications were intercepted during contact with FBI suspects well, OK, but how does this involve Obama, or reflect on Obama's reputation?
Yes, he was spreading a detrimental falsehood about his predecessor in the oval office. He deserves to be called out on it. He is wrong.
The evidence is that Trump often tells falsehoods which are easily disproved, sometimes directly contradicts himself, and never admits he is mistaken.

He's perceived as a liar because he tells a lot of falsehoods, and then doubles down when he is confronted with the facts. It is now impossible to determine with any degree of certainty whether anything he says is true or false. Everyone is left guessing, and this is his great tactic of negotiating, "keep them guessing"!
If it is working against him its his own fault for not appreciating the value of truth.

And yet, they aren't dismissed as evidence of nothing. They aren't ignored. They're not treated as being impossible to determine. If his statements disagree with the current narrative, then they are presented as yet more evidence that Trump is a liar without credibility and he's untrustworthy. But on those occasions where his statements strengthen the current narrative, then those statements aren't questioned at all - they're accepted as being perfectly 100% true... and are often spun as being an admission.

That's the nice thing about this game. You get to pick and choose which statements work best for you. If they disagree with the narrative you're pushing, you just get to say that they're false statements, lies, dishonesty from a known liar. If they agree with your narrative, you get to say that they're evidence, admission, and just go to show how bad a person he is. If his empty rhetoric (and make no mistake, it's almost all empty) contradicts what you want reality to be, then you can investigate and keep on investigating, and if nothing comes up you can claim there's a cover-up or that someone is a shill or whatever you need to say in order to justify continuing to dig and dig and dig. And if his empty rhetoric supports what you want reality to be, you don't have to bother with fact checking anything - he said it, so by god, it must be true!

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's funny is this idea that we think every word out of Trump's mouth is a lie. I don't.

Of course you don't. You only think the things that don't confirm your bias are lies.

But Trump lies so often I can't trust a word. There is a difference.

The difference being that you only trust the words that support the narrative you have chosen.

As for Trump's totally contradicting statements about Putin, what are we supposed to think? It would be irresponsible not to dig deeper.

Lol. Sure it would. It would be totally irresponsible not to dig deeper into comments made several years ago wherein it was obvious to everyone at the time that Trump, a die-hard bombast and blowhard, was latching on to reflected glory and exaggerating a passing encounter with someone famous. But hey, he said it, so those are the true words. He once said he was "great friends" so clearly that's the bit you accept as true. That way you can justify continuing to dig and dig and dig, deeper and deeper. Because logic, right? Trump said they were "great friends", so that's an admission. Then he said that he doesn't know the guy, so that's a denial that indicates falsehood.

Here's a message for Trump, STOP LYING! Although, Trump's credibility is so shot I doubt it can ever be rehabilitated.

Doesn't matter. Even if it came out that he had not been lying 90% of the time, it would make no difference. Again, if it supports the narrative you have accepted, you'll view it as true. If it contradicts the narrative you've accepted, then it will be viewed as a lie. Reality and facts just aren't important anymore.

 

[sts60]

You claim that what you really meant was obvious from thread context, but there was more than one context operative in this thread. More importantly, as I've already said, you made an unconditional statement that was incorrect, which I and others pointed out. That's not twisting any thing out of context; that's simply taking you at your word.

But hey, you corrected your erroneous claim. Good for you.

Now, speaking of high horses, I've never said you've been untruthful. I've said you consistently interpret things in one direction, while lecturing everyone else about proper unbiased skepticism. You're still doing it. That's your prerogative, but no one else is obliged to give you a pass.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh, you've got a very good point. I mean, look at these completely tangible and incontrovertible cases where Trump is known to be wrong. They're material things right? I mean, the size of his crowd is a really big deal, and has bearing on... what exactly? And you know, insisting that Clinton got a bunch of illegal votes... that's so much worse than insisting that Trump only won because of bigots, and stupid people, and misogyny, and the reasons that Clinton tossed out... right? These two things that keep coming back around as such absolutely solid evidence of Trumps lack of credibility... they're very meaningful... aren't they?

Indeed they are. I'm glad you finally realize that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You claim that what you really meant was obvious from thread context, but there was more than one context operative in this thread. More importantly, as I've already said, you made an unconditional statement that was incorrect, which I and others pointed out. That's not twisting any thing out of context; that's simply taking you at your word.

But hey, you corrected your erroneous claim. Good for you.

Now, speaking of high horses, I've never said you've been untruthful. I've said you consistently interpret things in one direction, while lecturing everyone else about proper unbiased skepticism. You're still doing it. That's your prerogative, but no one else is obliged to give you a pass.

Not in those words exactly, no. What did you intend to imply with this:

Yes, you've been carrying Trump's water thoroughly skeptical and selectively uninformed occasionally unaware of various negative items concerning Trump, but now that he's blurted it out himself on Twitter: will you finally believe that your statement is, well, false?

 

[sts60]

Not in those words exactly, no. What did you intend to imply with this:

That you interpret things consistently in favor of one viewpoint, or a collection of related viewpoints. To be clear, I do not think and do not intend to imply that lying is part of that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That you interpret things consistently in favor of one viewpoint, or a collection of related viewpoints. To be clear, I do not think and do not intend to imply that lying is part of that.

Okay, I will withdraw my complaint then. I haven't been "in favor of" a viewpoint, so much as I've been "against a speculation-fueled" viewpoint.

I'll reiterate that there's a bit of hmm... selection bias? Find me a ravenously anti-Democrat thread that is chock-full of bad logic and speculations-accepted-as-fact, and I promise I'll give you the same arguments I give here. All the threads right now are anti-Trump. Most of them are vehemently so. Many of the posters have pre-existing beliefs based on allegation and speculation, and are perfectly willing to interpret obvious spin as proof of whatever it is they've already decided to believe. Several posters have pretty much stated that nothing at all will change their minds about Trump having colluded with Russia. Several have expressed that any denial of collusion is "proof" of collusion having occurred.

It's become pretty clear that any argument against bad logic will be viewed as "Pro-Trump". The only thing that can prevent someone as being labeled "Pro-Trump" is if they vacuously accept the narrative that has been pushed, and go ahead and just parrot the unreasonable and unreasoned assertions put forth. Daring to question this dogma means that one is "Pro-Trump".

 

[wareyin]

Okay, I will withdraw my complaint then. I haven't been "in favor of" a viewpoint, so much as I've been "against a speculation-fueled" viewpoint.

I'll reiterate that there's a bit of hmm... selection bias? Find me a ravenously anti-Democrat thread that is chock-full of bad logic and speculations-accepted-as-fact, and I promise I'll give you the same arguments I give here. All the threads right now are anti-Trump. Most of them are vehemently so. Many of the posters have pre-existing beliefs based on allegation and speculation, and are perfectly willing to interpret obvious spin as proof of whatever it is they've already decided to believe. Several posters have pretty much stated that nothing at all will change their minds about Trump having colluded with Russia. Several have expressed that any denial of collusion is "proof" of collusion having occurred.

It's become pretty clear that any argument against bad logic will be viewed as "Pro-Trump". The only thing that can prevent someone as being labeled "Pro-Trump" is if they vacuously accept the narrative that has been pushed, and go ahead and just parrot the unreasonable and unreasoned assertions put forth. Daring to question this dogma means that one is "Pro-Trump".

No, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt every single time, while not extending that benefit of the doubt to Comey (among others) is a pretty good indicator that one is "Pro-Trump".

Further, your caricatures of arguments made by other posters are frankly far too distorted to recognize. A good caricature ought to at least look a little like what it's representing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, I will withdraw my complaint then. I haven't been "in favor of" a viewpoint, so much as I've been "against a speculation-fueled" viewpoint.

I'll reiterate that there's a bit of hmm... selection bias? Find me a ravenously anti-Democrat thread that is chock-full of bad logic and speculations-accepted-as-fact, and I promise I'll give you the same arguments I give here. All the threads right now are anti-Trump. Most of them are vehemently so. Many of the posters have pre-existing beliefs based on allegation and speculation, and are perfectly willing to interpret obvious spin as proof of whatever it is they've already decided to believe. Several posters have pretty much stated that nothing at all will change their minds about Trump having colluded with Russia. Several have expressed that any denial of collusion is "proof" of collusion having occurred.

It's become pretty clear that any argument against bad logic will be viewed as "Pro-Trump". The only thing that can prevent someone as being labeled "Pro-Trump" is if they vacuously accept the narrative that has been pushed, and go ahead and just parrot the unreasonable and unreasoned assertions put forth. Daring to question this dogma means that one is "Pro-Trump".

Addition: There are some posters who often make zealous comments against democrats, but whose posts I routinely don't read. It's also possible that I'm not arguing against their really bad logic simply because I'm blissfully unaware of their posts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt every single time, while not extending that benefit of the doubt to Comey (among others) is a pretty good indicator that one is "Pro-Trump".

I have expressed doubt about exactly one thing that Comey did - his purposeful shift to unclassified memos, with the expectation of releasing them publicly. I have had no complaints about any of his testimony, and have been perfectly willing to accept it as given. Similarly with Brennan. I fail to see how I'm not extending Comey the benefit of the doubt by accepting his testimony as accurate. Please expand on what you mean here.

 

[ahhell]

I wouldn't characterize it as anything in particular.

Trump made public claims which, among other things, cast slurs against Comey.

Which Comey contradicted. With proof.

This is not a scenario most people would describe as "whistle-blowing".

I think this is the sort of thing cat is talking about. What was Comey's "proof"? And note, Trump cast slurs against Comey, is it so hard to believe that Comey might have some issues with trump and being casting their conversations in light of that?