|
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 00:58 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 00:55 xDaunt wrote: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: 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?
I don't know, I haven't been watching the proceedings.
|
On June 09 2017 00:59 mahrgell wrote:
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...
This part was very interesting. Comey also admitted that he did this specifically to cause there to be a special counsel appointed. Which is exactly what happened. I suppose Comey thought he was simply doing the right thing; the contents of the memos were disturbing.
|
On June 09 2017 00:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump is so fucked if there are tapes.
Considering from a legal perspective Comey's memos are functionally tapes, Trump's fucked if he wants to dispute events unless there ARE tapes and they show Comey was a liar.
It's hard to say pit Trump's word against Comey's when the very first thing Trump did was lie about what the FBI thought of Comey.
|
i'm impressed by this man. whatever he did with the Clinton situation he seems professional and ethical
|
People should not forget that Republicans are trying to lawyer for Trump here.
|
Tom Cotton thought he had something then Comey said yes. Talk about awkward.
|
Comey says the Feb 14 NYT article stating that there were frequent contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence was almost entirely wrong.
|
On June 09 2017 01:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 00:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump is so fucked if there are tapes. Considering from a legal perspective Comey's memos are functionally tapes, Trump's fucked if he wants to dispute events unless there ARE tapes and they show Comey was a liar. It's hard to say pit Trump's word against Comey's when the very first thing Trump did was lie about what the FBI thought of Comey.
A couple things here. First, the memos aren't as good as tapes. These are Comey's recollections. Second, the memos are not going to be helpful to Comey because he is going to be limited by what's in them. Let's just presume that Comey isn't an idiot and his opening remarks are entirely consistent with his memos factually (if they're not, then Comey is a liar, and Trump wins anyway). If that's the case, then Trump doesn't have anything to worry about because all that's in the memos isn't going to be enough to show obstruction of justice.
|
|
|
I don't get why they are trying to use a lack of resignation as a point, if the FBI is independent any bad actions by the Whitehouse admin wouldn't warrant a resignation would it?
|
kamala harris slicing through the attempted smokescreen about "i hope... x"
|
Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
|
And that should wrap things up...
|
Trump now has to deny the asserted 'I hope' facts. If he let's that stand, then the existence of the lean is proven.
|
Canada13410 Posts
The fact there was no MOU from AG to FBI about his recusal is setting off alarm bells in this public servant's mind.
|
United States44178 Posts
xDaunt, that says that Trump said "I hope you can let this go" and that Comey, who was in the room with Trump, took it as a direction. It confirms the opposite of what you think it does. We have both the text and a participant in that exchange saying what was meant by the text and how they took it.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it: Show nested quote +
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
you really are trying to stretch this aren't you
|
|
|
On June 09 2017 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 09 2017 00:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump is so fucked if there are tapes. Considering from a legal perspective Comey's memos are functionally tapes, Trump's fucked if he wants to dispute events unless there ARE tapes and they show Comey was a liar. It's hard to say pit Trump's word against Comey's when the very first thing Trump did was lie about what the FBI thought of Comey. A couple things here. First, the memos aren't as good as tapes. These are Comey's recollections. Second, the memos are not going to be helpful to Comey because he is going to be limited by what's in them. Let's just presume that Comey isn't an idiot and his opening remarks are entirely consistent with his memos factually (if they're not, then Comey is a liar, and Trump wins anyway). If that's the case, then Trump doesn't have anything to worry about because all that's in the memos isn't going to be enough to show obstruction of justice.
The taken-immediately-afterwards memorandums and recollections of an FBI agent are about as good as you can get, bar actual tapes. If Trump wants to contest the contents of any of the memos, he needs tapes. Period.
The memos are designed to show intent for Trump to obstruct by firing, not necessarily by what Trump did in the memos themselves. This is why Republicans aren't touching on the firing at all, because it's a hot garbage fire.
If Trump could refute the memos and spin his outrageous "my statements should be taken literally or seriously or whatever" about everything he said after the fact, it would be harder to show any intent to obstruct the Russia investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
