And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia

[Steeltime]

There's nothing normal about releasing the written testimony of a public figure like former FBI director James Comey 24 hours in advance of his appearance at a Congressional hearing. But James Comey wanted it that way.

This isn't Comey's first tussle with an executive branch nor is he a neophyte in dealing with the current commander in chief. Indeed, Comey notes in his testimony that after having two totally unremarkable interactions with Barack Obama during his entire presidency, he's already engaged in "nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months"—each one more cringeworthy than the last.

So Comey knows a thing or two about how Donald Trump operates and he apparently wanted to deliver a pre-emptive strike of his own before testifying Thursday. Why exactly isn't clear. But it's easy enough to imagine.

First, it blocks Trump from pulling some last-minute stunt like trying to invoke executive privilege—it's all out there now and it's all attributable. Second, it serves as a buffer against the pathetic smear campaign Trump's henchman are already mounting against Comey. If you haven't seen this attempt to defile an unelected public official by a pro-Trump group in advance of his testimony, it's worth a look.

Which leads to the question: Just how desperate is Trump? Well, pretty damn desperate—like a rat cornered behind a dumpster by a herd of raccoons. The Washington Post's Phil Rucker told MSNBC Wednesday that Trump's "ready to go to war."

As Rucker and his colleagues reported:

Alone in the White House in recent days, President Trump — frustrated and defiant — has been spoiling for a fight, according to his confidants and associates.

Glued even more than usual to the cable news shows that blare from the televisions in his private living quarters, or from the 60-inch flat screen he had installed in his cramped study off the Oval Office, he has fumed about “fake news.” Trump has seethed as his agenda has stalled in Congress and the courts. He has chafed against the pleas for caution from his lawyers and political advisers, tweeting whatever he wants, whenever he wants. The president may be seething, but he also barely has an army inside the White House to go to war with. The "war room" idea floated a week ago died just as soon as White House aides realized it would have to be staffed. Apparently, no one's super excited about jumping into that role. Even the RNC had trouble finding talking heads.

The Republican National Committee has lined up a roster of surrogates to appear on conservative news stations nationwide to defend Trump. But a list the RNC distributed on Tuesday could hardly be described as star-studded: The names include Bob Paduchik, an RNC co-chair who worked on Trump’s Ohio campaign; Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R); and Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R). What Trump’s down to then is him and his thumbs vs. Comey's highly detailed 7-page written testimony and the tidbits he'll add tomorrow during his sworn testimony.

Uhhh, okay.

Of that, what has a whit of relevance to an investigation for alleged "collusion" or obstruction of Justice?

Remember these reports about Obama before the election in 2012?? That he was supposedly despondent, isolated, uninterested in the campaign, watched ESPN all day?

Yeah, those reports are exactly the same as the drivel this article offers. "Trump ready to go to war, seething."

Over what? Comey's statement from two weeks ago that Trump told Comey, "I hope you can let this go. He's a nice guy"?

Wait, what? That is not remotely close - not in the same ******* ballpark - as obstruction of justice:

Here are the well-defined actions that constitute obstruction of justice, under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73:

§ 1502 - Resistance to extradition agent
§ 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
§ 1504 - Influencing juror by writing
§ 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
§ 1506 - Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
§ 1507 - Picketing or parading
§ 1508 - Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
§ 1509 - Obstruction of court orders
§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
§ 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
§ 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1514 - Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
§ 1514A - Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
§ 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
§ 1516 - Obstruction of Federal audit
§ 1517 - Obstructing examination of financial institution
§ 1518 - Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
§ 1520 - Destruction of corporate audit records
§ 1521 - Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title

Oh, what about § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, you ask? That statute provides:

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Nope. Does not apply.

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States,or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Nope. The quoted statement, "I hope you can let this go. He really is a nice guy," is vastly, woefully short of the conduct deemed to "corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law."

In United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600, 115 S.Ct. 2357, 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995), the defendant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 for obstructing a judicial proceeding. The indictment alleged that Aguilar had intentionally given false information to federal investigators who were potentially going to be called to testify before a grand jury. The Supreme Court held that lying to an investigating agent who “might or might not testify before a grand jury” did not constitute obstruction of a judicial proceeding. Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 600. The Court held that in order to be indictable for obstruction of a judicial proceeding, the defendant's actions must have a “natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.” Id. at 601 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ryan, 455 F.2d 728, 734 (9th Cir.1972) (“The acts complained of must bear a reasonable relationship to the subject of the grand jury inquiry.”); United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952, 956-57 (6th Cir.1998) (holding that the act must have a relationship in time, causation or logic with the judicial proceedings)."

U.S. v. Hopper (9th Cir. 1999) 177 F.3d 824, 830

The significant, patent, undeniable problem with charging that Trump's statement, "Can you see your way to letting it go, he's a nice guy" clearly did not have the effect of interfering with the investigation in any respect and nobody claims otherwise.

In short, no possible obstruction. Zero.

See, this is why we attend these classes in big buildings where they teach us something called "law," and why we take this very difficult test called a "bar exam" before we can practice law.

Because amateur lawyers are wrong, wrong, more wrong, suck ***, misquote the law, don't understand the law, and don't know a single ******* thing about the actual law.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Not one word in that statement was incriminating. Comey will testify and it will be nothing exactly the same way it was when he did about Hilliary. Not one word broke a law, and there is still zero proof about him doing anything with Russia. What a joke.

 

[Tibs]

Alex, I'll take 1510 for $800, thanks.

§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

 

[SCSteeler4life]

CNN big headline last week Comey will testify that he didn't tell Trump he was not under investigation.

WRONG !

He told him he wasn't on the record.

 

[Stryker]

Hey Ron,

I'm not sure if Donald is talking about an internal audit or a Government Audit. The IRS audits are never done in advance of a submission. They're usually done between 3 and 7 years after the tax year in question. I've been audited twice, and each took about a month to execute. Trump has accountants to handle this, and with their help, it would expedite the process. He is fully able to submit his 2016 taxes, since he would not be under an IRS audit, and his internal auditing would be completed before submitting the forms.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Speaking of Impeachment - and DO NOT expect a retort from Tibs, because Jerry Brown is a Democrat. And Tibs likes Global Warming.....but...Russia...Trump...

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...igns-deal-with-china-to-combat-climate-change

http://thetruthdivision.com/2017/06/just-california-governor-violates-constitution/

In Article 10, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, it’s very clear about what is prohibited of states:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.”

And that is exactly what California Governor Jerry Brown did in his alliance with China, against Congress and the President of the United States — in other words, it’s an impeachable offense.

Keep Article 10, Section 1 in mind as you read The Hill’s report:

“California Gov. Jerry Brown signed an agreement to work with China to lower greenhouse gas emissions Tuesday, just days after President Trump pulled the United States out of an international climate change agreement.

“The agreement aims to expand cooperation between China and California on renewable energy, zero-emission vehicles and low-carbon urban development, Brown’s office said. It will establish a joint working group of Chinese and Californian officials to come up with ways to work together, and to invest in programs that would cut carbon emissions.

“Brown signed the pact with Wan Gang, China’s minister of science and technology, before meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“’California is the leading economic state in America and we are also the pioneering state on clean technology, cap and trade, electric vehicles and batteries, but we can’t do it alone,’ Brown said Tuesday. ‘We need a very close partnership with China, with your businesses, with your provinces, with your universities.’

“Brown is in the middle of a weeklong trip to China, where he has signed similar agreements with leaders from Sichuan and Jiangsu provinces. Brown will headline the Under2 Clean Energy Forum on Wednesday in Beijing, a gathering of 170 cities, states and nations working to keep the global average temperature increase under two degrees Celsius.”

---------------------------

Zero outrage to be shown.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

But, but, but...Donald Trump might have gotten a post card from Russia?! Outrage by Tibs and Liberals? There will be none to be had. These were Democrats, by God!

Fast and Furious hearing rips Holder, DOJ for deception in gun-running scandal

Members of a congressional committee at a public hearing Wednesday blasted former President Barack Obama and his attorney general for allegedly covering up an investigation into the death of a Border Patrol agent killed as a result of a botched government gun-running project known as Operation Fast and Furious.

The House Oversight Committee also Wednesday released a scathing, nearly 300-page report that found Holder’s Justice Department tried to hide the facts from the loved ones of slain Border Patrol Brian Terry – seeing his family as more of a “nuisance” than one deserving straight answers – and slamming Obama's assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to records pertaining to Fast and Furious.

“[Terry’s death] happened on Dec. 14, 2010, and we still don’t have all the answers,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, committee chairman, said of Terry’s death. “Brian Terry’s family should not have to wait six years for answers.”

Terry’s death exposed Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) operation in which the federal government allowed criminals to buy guns in Phoenix-area shops with the intention of tracking them as they were transported into Mexico. But the agency lost track of more than 1,400 of the 2,000 guns they allowed smugglers to buy. Two of those guns were found at the scene of Terry's killing.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, testified Wednesday in front of the committee, accusing DOJ and ATF officials of obstructing the investigation and working to silence ATF agents who informed the Senate of Fast and Furious.

“The Department of Justice and ATF had no intention of looking for honest answers and being transparent,” said Grassley, now chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a staunch supporter of whistleblowers.

“In fact, from the onset, bureaucrats employed shameless delay tactics to obstruct the investigation.”

One of those silenced ATF agents, John Dodson, testified Wednesday that he remains “in a state of purgatory” since objecting to Fast and Furious and has been the subject of reprisals and ridicule at the agency.

“That decision, the single act of standing up and saying, ‘What we are doing is wrong’… instantly took my standing from being that of an agent of the government – to an enemy of the state,” Dodson said. “ATF and DOJ officials implemented an all-out campaign to silence and discredit me… Suffice to say, the last six to seven years at ATF have not been the best for me or my career.”

Grassley's and Dodson's testimony reinforced findings of the report, which states that the Justice Department knew before Terry’s death that the ATF was “walking” firearms to Mexico and knew the day after the agent’s death that Fast and Furious guns were involved in the shootout -- despite denying these facts to the media. It goes on to state that the Justice Department’s internal investigation focused more on spinning the story to avoid negative media coverage than looking into lapses by either the DOJ or ATF.

Several emails revealed in the report appear to indicate that some Justice Department staffers were working to keep information from political appointees at the department.

“I don't want to jinx it but it really is astounding that the plan worked -- so far,” former Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in an email to Holder, according to the report.

The report also says that Holder’s Justice Department stonewalled inquiries from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and deceptively told him that the “ATF makes every effort to interdict” firearms purchased by straw buyers. The controversial act of straw purchases – where a person who is prohibited from buying firearms uses another person to buy a gun on his or her behalf – has been a popular method that Mexico’s drug cartels use to obtain guns.

“There are important reasons for not giving Grassley everything he is asking for: it would embolden him in future fights and would 'use up' a lot of the material that we will eventually need to release to (California Rep. Darrell) Issa . . . as the oversight struggle continues,” the Office of Legislative Affairs Assistant Attorney General Ron Welch said in an email to DOJ colleagues.

---------------------------

Video of testimony: https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness/videos/10155439590810238/

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

What the hell? This is beautiful to watch. Watch Putin rip out his ear piece and leave Megyn Kelly dumbfounded. But, but...but...Putin...Russia...WashPo and NYTimes said so!

----------------------------------

 

[Tibs]

Don't look now but somebody is trying to change the subject, yet again.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

And the best for last tonight. Tibs, Allen B. West is describing you.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Ahead of Comey testimony, video emerges showing PROOF of Russian connection; liberals in UPROAR

Since the election of Donald Trump in November, liberals have been twisting a complex tale about Russian collusion to steal the election. As the story goes, Trump had business ties to Russia. Those ties were so deep that Russia was either willing to, or bullied him into, colluding with them to win him the election.

Of course, there’s just one problem with this story… there’s no proof. After months of speculating, leaking, and media hysteria, nobody can prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. From the beginning, the “investigation” has been a giant dead end.

The truth is that liberals will never find the link between Russia and the Trump campaign, but that doesn’t mean there are no links to Russia at all. In fact, a new video points out that there were plenty of links to Russia during the 2016 campaign, just not from where liberals expect.

Who received $500,000 from a company linked to Russian intelligence agencies to give a speech in Moscow? Not Trump, but Bill Clinton.
Who facilitated the sale of 20 percent of America’s uranium to the Russians? Not Trump, but Hillary Clinton.
Who received $145 million from a Russian uranium company? Not Trump, but the Clinton Foundation.
Who received millions of dollars in donations from Russian oligarchs? Not Trump, but the Clinton Foundation.

While congressional Democrats and the media desperately try to connect Russia and Trump, the Clinton connection to Russia has been completely ignored. Why? Because these inconvenient facts don’t help the liberal narrative. <------Tibs, Liberals

Of course, the truth of the matter is that this is one big political charade. It’s an attempt to excuse their shocking defeat and discredit a new president. Democrats aren’t really concerned about Russian influence in American politics. If they were, they’d be equally as interested in whether or not Clinton was colluding with the Russians. <---the argument I've been making for days

So while Democrats foam at the mouth in anticipation for the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey, the facts continue to get in the way of their story. When Comey takes the stand tomorrow, he’ll offer liberals yet another dead end. Maybe they’d have more luck investigating Clinton instead.

------------------------

They would have more luck investigating Clinton, but Clinton isn't their target. Trump is. And Liberals don't lose. Everyone gets a medal, and this. Simply. Couldn't. Have. Happened. He must fall.

 

[Tibs]

And the best for last tonight. Tibs, Allen B. West is describing you.

Well, Allen B. West can suck my dick. Investigating Trump and investigating Clinton are not mutually exclusive. If there are boatloads of evidence as you claim, then get on it! Who the **** is keeping anyone from investigating Hillary or pressing charges? Just stop your incessant whining, for the love of God.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Well, Allen B. West can suck my dick. Investigating Trump and investigating Clinton are not mutually exclusive. If there are boatloads of evidence as you claim, then get on it! Who the **** is keeping anyone from investigating Hillary or pressing charges? Just stop your incessant whining, for the love of God.

Tibs you know I try to be reasonable with you, but you or any other liberal making that statement in today's political environment is maybe the funniest thing I have read in along time. Really can you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? Granted there was a fair amount of whining from the right for the last eight years but nothing that ever came close to the sheer volume, magnitude and virulence of the whining currently on the liberal side. YInz are making the extreme far right look almost sane if that is possible and they are a bunch of lunatics too.

 

[madinsomniac]

Boring.... ive heard enough russian boogyman stories... cant they at least imagine up some new and creative stuff to throw at him... i demand entertainment people!!!

 

[Steeltime]

Alex, I'll take 1510 for $800, thanks.

§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Nope.

(b)(1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Nope.

(2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies--
(A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a subpoena for records; or
(B) any other person named in that subpoena;

about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(3) As used in this subsection--
(A) the term “an officer of a financial institution” means an officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or for a financial institution; and
(B) the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate--
(i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344, 1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or
(ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution.
(c) As used in this section, the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.

Nope.

(d)(1) Whoever--
(A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, or
(B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business,

with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, section 1033 of this title.
(e) Whoever, having been notified of the applicable disclosure prohibitions or confidentiality requirements of section 2709(c)(1) of this title, section 626(d)(1) or 627(c)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)(1) or 1681v(c)(1)), section 1114(a)(3)(A) or 1114(a)(5)(D)(i) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act1 (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)(A) or 3414(a)(5)(D)(i)), or section 802(b)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436(b)(1)), knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibitions or requirements applicable by law to such person shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined under this title, or both.

Nope.

You see why actually knowing the law, researching the law, examining the particulars of the governing statute are what it means to be a lawyer. So ...

Amateur lawyers. God loves them.

Nobody else does.

 

[Spike]

BWAhahahahahaha - loonie tune conspiracy theories collapse



ABC, NBC Disparage Intelligence Chiefs as Anonymous Reports Collapse

In the days and hours leading up to a hearing of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBC, and NBC) were giddy at the prospect of two heads of U.S. intelligence agencies fingering President Trump in a plot to shut down the Russian investigation.

But after the two and a half hour long hearing, they weren’t kicking themselves for getting their hopes up, they were kicking Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and NSA Director Michael Rogers for not giving them what they wanted.

During their testimonies, both DNI Coats and NSA Director Rogers told the panel of Senators that they had never felt like President Trump was trying to influence them to interfere with any investigation. “I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” said Rogers, while Coats said, “I never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way.”

Their sworn public testimony goes against press reports that cite anonymous sources who claim both men were pressured by Trump to interfere with the FBI’s investigation.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...sparage-intelligence-chiefs-anonymous-reports

 

[Tibs]

Amateur lawyers. God loves them.

Steeltime, I appreciate the detailed legal breakdown, fascinating read, kudos for that.

I have a sinking feeling if there are grounds for a legal case against the president, it will be duly processed regardless of what you or I think about it. The situation here, as with Nixon, is of course not necessarily a legal one. It's the overall standing of the president, his ability to govern, his ability to lead, the trust, or lack of trust, the nation has in him. If we get to that point with Trump, that these issues are at the forefront and the possibility of legal procedings against him are tenable, that is the point 99.9% of elected officials will grab their coats and resign.

We're currently working our way backwards in the overall case against Trump, as whatever he did by pressuring Comey, influencing Comey, firing Comey is the 2nd phase of this thing. The first phase of course is investigating if Trump - through his campaign staff, advisors and family members - colluded with Russia leading up to the election. Which was exactly what Comey and the FBI were investigating when Trump tried to exert pressure on him and then ended up firing him.

So now, thanks to Trump, Robert Mueller has both of these issues to look at - side-by-side and cumulatively, to reach an assessment.

What a way to begin a presidential term. So much mayhem, chaos and confusion eminating from the White House. Not good, not good at all.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I'm still trying to figure out why people think Putin would prefer Hillary over Trump, when he walked all over us when she was Sec. of State and continued to do so under the entire Obama admin. She'd already proven herself to be an inept adversary.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Interesting blog, pointing out an open point from the House Intel committee meeting on Russian interference from March (full transcript - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ence-in-2016-election/?utm_term=.c8ad3cb6f9c3 )

On March 20th, 2017 a young freshman representative from New York named Elise M. Stefanik used a probative timeline to question FBI Director James Comey. Using simple common sense Ms. Stefanik single-handily exposed a significant level of intentional intelligence community deception yet no-one seemed to notice.

In the segment of the questioning (video below - VIDEO NOT WORKING) Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.

The response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent oversight officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.

With the statement that such counterintelligence notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:

…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?

BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI to notify -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

FBI Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.

The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.

The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.

There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and James Clapper (ODNI), and then keeping it under wraps from congress: James Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.

It became clear during that testimony that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for political purposes; presumably in favor of the 2016 White House.

Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:

No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (James Clapper) and the White House?

….. then it would get a little ugly:

Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?

It would be great if someone did follow up that line of questioning today.

from - https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ey-today-on-this-line-of-inquiry/#more-134017

 

[DBS1970]

I'm still trying to figure out why people think Putin would prefer Hillary over Trump, when he walked all over us when she was Sec. of State and continued to do so under the entire Obama admin. She'd already proven herself to be an inept adversary.

There in lies the rub.

Also let's not forget the Clintons have been willing to do pay for play political favors since bills time is Arkansas Attorney General. Directions would sure as hell rather have someone who is not only inept in the White House but shows a propensity for being bought off.

 

[IndySteel]

And libtard lawyer Dershowitz puts it to bed. Sorry Tibs, time to hit your safe space. Comey proves that the Russian story is just a made up collusion between the democrat party and the MSM, nothing more. And the President has the constitutional right to tell the director to do whatever he wants him to do. The President is his boss. Stupid ******* liberals.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/dershowitz-comeys-statement-fails-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html

 

[hamster]

Just stop your incessant whining, for the love of God.

Whining? Did someone say whining?

 

[Steeltime]

Steeltime, I appreciate the detailed legal breakdown, fascinating read, kudos for that.

No problem.

I have a sinking feeling if there are grounds for a legal case against the president, it will be duly processed regardless of what you or I think about it. The situation here, as with Nixon, is of course not necessarily a legal one. It's the overall standing of the president, his ability to govern, his ability to lead, the trust, or lack of trust, the nation has in him. If we get to that point with Trump, that these issues are at the forefront and the possibility of legal procedings against him are tenable, that is the point 99.9% of elected officials will grab their coats and resign.

A "lack of confidence" or "lack of trust" does not merit criminal prosecution. Think about how terrible government would be if that were not the case. Politicians being criminally prosecuted because they are bad at their jobs? Further, the "lack of confidence" is addressed at the ballot box, not the courtroom.

We're currently working our way backwards in the overall case against Trump, as whatever he did by pressuring Comey, influencing Comey, firing Comey is the 2nd phase of this thing. The first phase of course is investigating if Trump - through his campaign staff, advisors and family members - colluded with Russia leading up to the election. Which was exactly what Comey and the FBI were investigating when Trump tried to exert pressure on him and then ended up firing him.

But that is simply incorrect. First, the comment does not constitute "pressuring" or "influencing" Comey. The statute gives a litany of specific behaviors that constitute actionable interference - bribes, threats, destruction of evidence, notification of subpoenas, etc. Statutory analysis does not then permit judges to add something like a comment, "I hope you can let it go, he's a nice guy," to that list. The legal doctrine is known as "ejusdem generis."

Second, if you can prosecute a politician for firing somebody, then the system is beyond ****** up. The FBI Director can be fired by the President at any time.

Third, firing the FBI Director does not interfere with an investigation. Seriously, does anybody think COMEY was interviewing witnesses, looking over documents, etc.?? Of course not. The investigation was being done by career FBI investigators. It is ridiculous to believe that firing Comey would have any effect on the investigation.

So now, thanks to Trump, Robert Mueller has both of these issues to look at - side-by-side and cumulatively, to reach an assessment.

What a way to begin a presidential term. So much mayhem, chaos and confusion eminating from the White House. Not good, not good at all.

But the mayhem, chaos, etc. right now consists of ... nothing. What actual information suggests that Trump "colluded" with the Russians? What witness has suggested collusion? Nobody.

What witness has said that he or she was intimidated to drop the investigation, or sabotaged in the investigation, or prevented from investigating? Yep, nobody.

It is all a big political show. The media is out to show its relevance and is pounding on this issue relentlessly. Meanwhile, the investigation continues and at some point, Mueller will say what he has found.

I believe that as is true with most of these investigations, he will find nothing, but will go after some people for "process crimes," i.e., lying to the investigator. There was no crime until the investigation took place, and the alleged wrongdoing stems from the investigation, not the behavior being investigated.

 

[IndySteel]

Uh oh, Tibtard...

Ex-FBI Director James Comey said flatly that President Trump did not tell him to drop his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election; did not try to obstruct justice in his opinion. Watch live on Fox News Channel, FoxNews.com

 

[IndySteel]

Wah-Waaaaaah,

UPDATE 10:53 A.M. Comey just killed the case against Trump over “obstruction of justice” that the media is building, as fast as they began building it. He said Trump saying he hopes Comey lets the investigation of Flynn go was not an order to drop the investigation.

I hope Tibs dog is ok. I wonder how many plates he's smashed so far.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Well, Allen B. West can suck my dick. Investigating Trump and investigating Clinton are not mutually exclusive. If there are boatloads of evidence as you claim, then get on it! Who the **** is keeping anyone from investigating Hillary or pressing charges? Just stop your incessant whining, for the love of God.

We know Tibs. He's just another Uncle Tom to you and Liberals. A useless black man because his black skin doesn't serve your dark Left objectives. I'll stand by him and his impeccable credentials.

Do you need a tissue or to cuddle with kitty? You're getting awfully angry.