|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 09 2017 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:
"Why did you not report this up the chain of command" Who exactly did this senator expect him to go to? There is no one above its literally Comey>Trump>nothing unless you believe in god.
He can go to the senate or the AG. But I think that question answers itself.
Remember, some of these questions are for the benefit of the public too. The public might not know who the FBI director can report to.
|
On June 09 2017 00:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 00:32 ahswtini wrote:On June 09 2017 00:31 Kipsate wrote:On June 09 2017 00:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 09 2017 00:26 Kipsate wrote:
Did Comey just say that Trump was not under personal investigation and wouldn't be? thats pretty big. Aha! Here's the very specific rub -- He was not under personal investigation before he left -- In the context of intelligence investigations re: the Steele dossier -- Comey was clear in this in his testimony (spoken) and written if you read it carefully could you explain further I am confused sorry. comey has not ruled out that trump is under personal investigation for other matters unrelated to russian intelligence Even if Trump is under personal investigation for something else, Comey isn't doing future prosecutors any favors by telling Trump that he isn't under personal investigation in arguably misleading ways and Trump believing that he's not under personal investigation, period.
Cops, and at there core the FBI are most similar to cops, can lie to subjects all the time. I do not believe he is lying there because why would he be under investigation at this point. Even if he did something, and I can not stress how big an if that is, he would likely not be directly involved so like with an organized crime investigation you go up the food chain from the grunts to the top.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
apparently there is precedent for 'i hope' to be interpreted as obstruction of justice
|
Dat Meddlesome Priest reference! Hilarious.
|
The idea that "I hope" is automatically innocent is about as blindly partisan as you can get.
|
Canada13405 Posts
|
Trump is not doing anything novel or original. It is mind boggling that we are talking about secret tapes in the White House for a second time.
|
Canada13405 Posts
wait ... can't answer questions about what he knows about a bank beyond that it exists in an open setting.
Wow..
And this russian embassy question about kislyak
Beyond "he's a diplomat" hes not answering much
Welp
|
The whole Kushner/Russian bank that's a Russian intelligence asset/using Russian facilities is extremely suspect.
|
Well, the "I hope" there is directly packaged with an unveiled threat immediately afterwards which made it much easier than an "I hope" in a potentially threatening context.
I earnestly hope the "I hope" stuff is what Trump focuses on, because that makes it more likely he's blindsided when it turns it's either not part of impeachment charges or one of the smaller articles compared to the firing.
|
can't talk about the bank, that's an interesting bit.
|
On June 09 2017 00:47 Doodsmack wrote:
The whole Kushner/Russian bank that's a Russian intelligence asset/using Russian facilities is extremely suspect.
So if the bank is in the US, any information that Comey would talk about would be gained to surveillance in an active case. If the bank is in Russia, anything they know would be due to intelligence gathering and talking about it would risk those sources.
So I don’t think it is odd that he can’t really answer substantive questions.
|
Canada13405 Posts
why are we on the damn emails again
|
On June 09 2017 00:39 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 00:32 ahswtini wrote:On June 09 2017 00:31 Kipsate wrote:On June 09 2017 00:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 09 2017 00:26 Kipsate wrote:
Did Comey just say that Trump was not under personal investigation and wouldn't be? thats pretty big. Aha! Here's the very specific rub -- He was not under personal investigation before he left -- In the context of intelligence investigations re: the Steele dossier -- Comey was clear in this in his testimony (spoken) and written if you read it carefully could you explain further I am confused sorry. comey has not ruled out that trump is under personal investigation for other matters unrelated to russian intelligence Even if Trump is under personal investigation for something else, Comey isn't doing future prosecutors any favors by telling Trump that he isn't under personal investigation in arguably misleading ways and Trump believing that he's not under personal investigation, period. it's irrelevant how trump chooses how to interpret what comey told him
No, it's not, especially when the rest of the Comey narrative strongly suggests that Trump wasn't under investigation, period. Again, look at this portion from the end:
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. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)
Pay attention to the highlighted part below. The reason Comey gives for not publicly announcing that Trump wasn't under investigation isn't that Trump was already under criminal investigation. It's that the FBI didn't want to have to publicly correct itself if it did investigate Trump. Yes, you can parse this (yet again) and say that Comey was only referring to the counter-intelligence investigation and not any criminal investigation, but when there's no mention of a criminal investigation against Trump personally anywhere in the seven-page narrative (or anywhere else), it becomes pretty clear which version of events is strained.
|
Yeah, and pay attention to all of the other facts that came with that "I hope" statement. Those are what controlled that decision.
|
On June 09 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 00:47 Doodsmack wrote:
The whole Kushner/Russian bank that's a Russian intelligence asset/using Russian facilities is extremely suspect. So if the bank is in the US, any information that Comey would talk about would be gained to surveillance in an active case. If the bank is in Russia, anything they know would be due to intelligence gathering and talking about it would risk those sources. So I don’t think it is odd that he can’t really answer substantive questions.
Oh I meant that Kushner's actions are what is extremely suspect.
|
On June 09 2017 00:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 00:39 ahswtini wrote:On June 09 2017 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 00:32 ahswtini wrote:On June 09 2017 00:31 Kipsate wrote:On June 09 2017 00:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 09 2017 00:26 Kipsate wrote:
Did Comey just say that Trump was not under personal investigation and wouldn't be? thats pretty big. Aha! Here's the very specific rub -- He was not under personal investigation before he left -- In the context of intelligence investigations re: the Steele dossier -- Comey was clear in this in his testimony (spoken) and written if you read it carefully could you explain further I am confused sorry. comey has not ruled out that trump is under personal investigation for other matters unrelated to russian intelligence Even if Trump is under personal investigation for something else, Comey isn't doing future prosecutors any favors by telling Trump that he isn't under personal investigation in arguably misleading ways and Trump believing that he's not under personal investigation, period. it's irrelevant how trump chooses how to interpret what comey told him No, it's not, especially when the rest of the Comey narrative strongly suggests that Trump wasn't under investigation, period. Again, look at this portion from the end: Show nested quote +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. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.) Pay attention to the highlighted part below. The reason Comey gives for not publicly announcing that Trump wasn't under investigation isn't that Trump was already under criminal investigation. It's that the FBI didn't want to have to publicly correct itself if it did investigate Trump. Yes, you can parse this (yet again) and say that Comey was only referring to the counter-intelligence investigation and not any criminal investigation, but when there's no mention of a criminal investigation against Trump personally anywhere in the seven-page narrative (or anywhere else), it becomes pretty clear which version of events is strained.
Didnt he follow that up later (as in less then 10 minutes ago) by saying there is no investigation of Trump as of when he was fired?
|
On June 09 2017 00:55 ZeromuS wrote:
why are we on the damn emails again
Have you seen the movie Candy Man? If you say Clinton Emails enough times, the CNN will cover it as breaking news.
|
Can't watch it live, but ticker here says that Comey admitted that he initiated the leaks about his memos by telling a friend to forward those to the media...
|
Trump is so fucked if there are tapes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
