- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,571
- Reaction score
- 6,246
- Points
- 113
Sorry, that's not my job. You'll have to look into it yourself. My apologies.
And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
- Status
The FBI's inquiry into Russian involvement began months before the election results were known. They saw something was going on well before Trump was elected. The witchhunt angle coming from you guys makes little sense. There's enough bullshit piling up on this board to fully load the back of a horsedrawn cart. No offense, I'm all for leaning back and listening to opposing political viewpoints. Trump apologists deserve an ice-cold beer at the end of each and every day. The work it must take to sit there and defend El Presidenté, now that's a personal achievement award like no other.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 3,599
- Reaction score
- 1,148
- Points
- 113
No, it's not. He didn't pressure him or hold his job over his head. At best it's a breach of decorum, nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,571
- Reaction score
- 6,246
- Points
- 113
So you're okay with it, you think it's presidential. This is how you expect a president to conduct himself. Got it.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 3,599
- Reaction score
- 1,148
- Points
- 113
Nope, I think he should've just fired him on day 1. As for his attempt to "persuade" Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, it really doesn't bother me a great deal after enduring 8 years of "in your face" corruption under Obamanation.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Still laughing
Comey's Statement Fails To Deliver The Smoking Gun Democrats Craved
Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.
The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the president and the then director. According to Comey's contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn "is a good guy." Comey replied: "He is a good guy."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html
Comey's Statement Fails To Deliver The Smoking Gun Democrats Craved
Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.
The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the president and the then director. According to Comey's contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn "is a good guy." Comey replied: "He is a good guy."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
They are FINISHED
The whole corrupt Obama/Clinton cabal regime is being exposed...it's all good
They are FINISHED
The whole corrupt Obama/Clinton cabal regime is being exposed...it's all good
Get your *** back in the pens forum. Focus we need you!
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,109
- Reaction score
- 6,007
- Points
- 113
Wait. Trump makes claims about his conversations with Comey and then suggests he has tapes to back them up. Comey calls him a liar and says release the tapes.
If this is an orchestrated take down, Trump may as well be the maestro.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 3,599
- Reaction score
- 1,148
- Points
- 113
Judicial Watch: New Hillary Email Shows She Admitted to Using Her Blackberry 'Against Advice of Security Hawks'
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...itted-using-blackberry-advice-security-hawks/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...itted-using-blackberry-advice-security-hawks/
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
BREAKING NEWS!
Comey exonerates Trump – so much for obstruction
o put it simply, “hoping” that something happens is not a crime. The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act “corruptly.” The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.
Instead, the fired FBI Director recounts how President Trump expressed compassion for the man he dismissed as his National Security Adviser, calling Michael Flynn “a good guy” who “has been through a lot.” Comey agreed. Then the president said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”
The president’s statement is not an order or mandate. It is not even a “request,” though Comey insists he understood it to be. But even if we construe it as such, it is not enough to constitute obstruction. Not even close. There must be a “corrupt” act that accompanies the directive.
For example, if the president had said, “Bury whatever incriminating evidence you have, exonerate Flynn, and terminate the investigation of him entirely… or I will fire you.” That is, arguably, obstruction. It includes two corrupt elements –a threat and concealing evidence. However, this is not what happened.
Comey knows all this. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, posed the key question: “Do you know of any case in which someone has been charged with obstruction based on the word ‘hope’?” Comey answered, “I don’t.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...exonerates-trump-so-much-for-obstruction.html
Comey exonerates Trump – so much for obstruction
o put it simply, “hoping” that something happens is not a crime. The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act “corruptly.” The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.
Instead, the fired FBI Director recounts how President Trump expressed compassion for the man he dismissed as his National Security Adviser, calling Michael Flynn “a good guy” who “has been through a lot.” Comey agreed. Then the president said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”
The president’s statement is not an order or mandate. It is not even a “request,” though Comey insists he understood it to be. But even if we construe it as such, it is not enough to constitute obstruction. Not even close. There must be a “corrupt” act that accompanies the directive.
For example, if the president had said, “Bury whatever incriminating evidence you have, exonerate Flynn, and terminate the investigation of him entirely… or I will fire you.” That is, arguably, obstruction. It includes two corrupt elements –a threat and concealing evidence. However, this is not what happened.
Comey knows all this. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, posed the key question: “Do you know of any case in which someone has been charged with obstruction based on the word ‘hope’?” Comey answered, “I don’t.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...exonerates-trump-so-much-for-obstruction.html
So let me get this straight...
Trump meets with Comey after asking others there to leave the room, including the A.G. who absolutely should have been present.
Trump speaks to Comey in mafiaese " I hope you can let this go...."
Comey does not "let it go"
Trump fires Comey....
What part of that sequence of events do you think is "a breach of decorum"? I mean really you are not that naive.
Libtards are so unhinged over this non-story, it fun to watch and laugh at. Not as fun as election night, but pretty frickin fun.
I thought today was an excellent civics lesson. And if you were lucky enough to watch it in its entirety, as I did, you can't be wagged by the left and right trying to tell you what happened.
Keep in mind that the left, and the right, had nothing but respect and admiration for Comey, and went out of their way to say so. You got to see a passionate servant of the executive branch report on his due diligence. That type of frankness and honesty is rare in a senate hearing, and was commented on being so by both sides. The people here attacking Comey's character are being told what to think. Because the senators on the left AND the right, do not agree with you.
The intelligence agency is not corrupt. It is pretty ******* far from being blue vs red. Their job is to take in all of the information. Investigate it. Uncover more information (Turning over all the stones), and deliver a ruling. Like when they ruled that Clinton's emails were not criminal. The right still can't accept that fact, and love feeding into the fake news stories that keep it going. They keep wanting to see a link to criminal act when none is there. Conversely, they can not see a link between Russia and Trump's people? 3 people have already been fired or let go, because of their relations with Russia. It's an actual smoking gun, that no one on the right wants to see. Hell, Comey even testified that Trump stated he should investigate all of his people to find the truth, and punish them if they find anything. Even Trump realizes there may be some Russian influence with his satellites (which means in the orbit of his sphere of influence).
Comey rightly reported that Trump was not under investigation. However, it does not give Trump an "investigation free" card. Since Trump's election staff is under criminal investigation, there is a possibility of a link in the future. The R senators did stay the party line to get Comey to repeat that Trump was not under investigation, to create a narrative. Other than that, I thought both sides did an excellent job asking questions, and Comey did an excellent job being forthright and answering as much as he could. Intelligence officers do not make mistakes in hearings like the general public, or politicians.
I love McCain, but I did not like his 'old man schtick' pretending not to understand, while pushing a party line of questioning that was so uncomfortable, that I actually felt bad for him. He was intentionally asking questions that could not be answered in this hearing, to create a narrative of mistrust of the intelligence agency, when in fact, he was not able to answer due to the active investigation. I also think Clinton's people aren't under investigation on the Russian front, probably because, they didn't have multiple people on their team, with Russian ties, or lied about those ties, if they were there.
Conversely, that dem making a party line comment about having a gun to your head and saying "I HOPE you give me your wallet" was ******* stupid, reckless, and didn't make any ******* sense. I would never expect anyone with a gun to use the word HOPE ever. I'd expect them to say "Give me your ******* wallet before I shoot you. Maybe give me your money if you HOPE to live? That was cringeworthy.
All in all, there was not much really here in this testimony. Too bad we can't be flies on the wall for the security council hearing. That's where the dirt was. This was just, Trump was intimidating, untrustworthy, and inappropriate. I don't see anything impeachment worthy there. But I did see cause for further investigation, by looking into Comey's testimony for more information.
My favorite moment of the testimony was a moment of levity. A senator was asking Comey about how Trump came to ask him to dinner. Comey said he got his phone call and Trump eventually set a time, then Comey had to call his wife to break his plans for dinner that night. The Senator joked, stating when the president calls, at least that's a heck of an excuse to break dinner plans. Comey replied, I would have rather had dinner with my wife...
Keep in mind that the left, and the right, had nothing but respect and admiration for Comey, and went out of their way to say so. You got to see a passionate servant of the executive branch report on his due diligence. That type of frankness and honesty is rare in a senate hearing, and was commented on being so by both sides. The people here attacking Comey's character are being told what to think. Because the senators on the left AND the right, do not agree with you.
The intelligence agency is not corrupt. It is pretty ******* far from being blue vs red. Their job is to take in all of the information. Investigate it. Uncover more information (Turning over all the stones), and deliver a ruling. Like when they ruled that Clinton's emails were not criminal. The right still can't accept that fact, and love feeding into the fake news stories that keep it going. They keep wanting to see a link to criminal act when none is there. Conversely, they can not see a link between Russia and Trump's people? 3 people have already been fired or let go, because of their relations with Russia. It's an actual smoking gun, that no one on the right wants to see. Hell, Comey even testified that Trump stated he should investigate all of his people to find the truth, and punish them if they find anything. Even Trump realizes there may be some Russian influence with his satellites (which means in the orbit of his sphere of influence).
Comey rightly reported that Trump was not under investigation. However, it does not give Trump an "investigation free" card. Since Trump's election staff is under criminal investigation, there is a possibility of a link in the future. The R senators did stay the party line to get Comey to repeat that Trump was not under investigation, to create a narrative. Other than that, I thought both sides did an excellent job asking questions, and Comey did an excellent job being forthright and answering as much as he could. Intelligence officers do not make mistakes in hearings like the general public, or politicians.
I love McCain, but I did not like his 'old man schtick' pretending not to understand, while pushing a party line of questioning that was so uncomfortable, that I actually felt bad for him. He was intentionally asking questions that could not be answered in this hearing, to create a narrative of mistrust of the intelligence agency, when in fact, he was not able to answer due to the active investigation. I also think Clinton's people aren't under investigation on the Russian front, probably because, they didn't have multiple people on their team, with Russian ties, or lied about those ties, if they were there.
Conversely, that dem making a party line comment about having a gun to your head and saying "I HOPE you give me your wallet" was ******* stupid, reckless, and didn't make any ******* sense. I would never expect anyone with a gun to use the word HOPE ever. I'd expect them to say "Give me your ******* wallet before I shoot you. Maybe give me your money if you HOPE to live? That was cringeworthy.
All in all, there was not much really here in this testimony. Too bad we can't be flies on the wall for the security council hearing. That's where the dirt was. This was just, Trump was intimidating, untrustworthy, and inappropriate. I don't see anything impeachment worthy there. But I did see cause for further investigation, by looking into Comey's testimony for more information.
My favorite moment of the testimony was a moment of levity. A senator was asking Comey about how Trump came to ask him to dinner. Comey said he got his phone call and Trump eventually set a time, then Comey had to call his wife to break his plans for dinner that night. The Senator joked, stating when the president calls, at least that's a heck of an excuse to break dinner plans. Comey replied, I would have rather had dinner with my wife...
False. Completely false. The POTUS can meet with whoever he wants, in any circumstance he wants. You just made this **** up.
Why don't you cite a statute supporting your claim that the AG "absolutely should have been present"? An actual statute - a law.
Not some blithering blog or opinion piece or other bullshit.
If the AG "absolutely should have been present," then there should be a law saying that. Cite it or suck it.
Typical amateur lawyer. You read the evidence the way you WANT IT to read, not the way it actually is. Trump actually allegedly said [Trump says bullshit, by the way], "I hope you can let this guy. Mike Flynn is a great guy."
Because you don't know a ******* thing about the law, you are unaware that Comey's opinion as to what the statement was - a suggestion, an inquiry, a directive, etc. - is irrelevant and inadmissible. Does not ******* matter what the listener claims to think an innocuous statement means. The only relevant issue is what the SPEAKER meant by the statement.
Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
elfie said:
Where exactly is a single illegal activity? Where?
Oh, and you think I don't know that the original allegation - "Trump colluded with Russians" - has died from lack of evidence, so the lefties bring up the next argument - "Trump supposedly obstructed justice by supposedly saying 'I hope you can let this go, Flynn is a great guy'"?
Yeah, I noticed.
I love the celebrating from the CONservatives here. They forget this is Comey's public testimony. Mueller is going to get the good stuff.
Again; this is just beginning and it's obstruction that we are looking at anyway. It was going to be very difficult to prove collusion when much of the transactions were in cash...pallets of cash.
Yes, of course, we could all see how Comey was holding back and trying to protect Trump.
Amateur ******* lawyers. Always wrong.
Oh, so the "collusion" claim is admittedly PURE ******* BULLSHIT.
But the investigation should continue.
Got it.
We are now down to wanting to impeach Trump because of a breach of decorum? Oh My God. LOL.
A real breach of decorum (and illegality) is using federal agencies to attack political opponents, like using the IRS to target Conservatives.
CRICKETS
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
- Reaction score
- 7,872
- Points
- 113
Do you think this is the first time a president ever discussed an investigation with an FBI director and offered his opinion on whether it should go forward? I doubt it, but it is probably the first time an FBI director took detailed notes on the conversation and then rather than sharing them through the proper legal channels if he had a concern, leaked them to the press.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
- Reaction score
- 7,872
- Points
- 113
What part of that job entails "leak private conversations to the media in order to sway public opinion"?
- Status