Slashdot Mirror
Former FBI Director Admitted He Was the Source Of At Least One Leak To the Press (theoutline.com)
Shortly after his dismissal as head of the FBI, James Comey authorized "a close friend" to leak the contents of his memos to the press in order to prompt a special counsel investigation, he said today. From a report: Former FBI Director James Comey testified that he asked a friend, a law professor at Columbia University, to leak details of his dinner with the President to The New York Times, including the claim that the President asked Comey to drop the investigation into former national security advisor Michael Flynn's contacts with Russian officials. Comey kept meticulous memos of all of his interactions with Trump, and he gave that memo to a friend to pass it along to the Times in order to spark a special investigation. "You considered this not a document of the government, but your own personal document that you could share with the media as you want to?" Senator Roy Blunt asked Comey. "Correct," Comey replied. "I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out." Edward Snowden tweeted, "It seems the [former] FBI Director agrees: sometimes the only moral decision is to break the rules."
Who else could leak a private memo written by Comey except Comey himself?
Yes, yes, I would say this headline is absolutely, 100% the key takeaway of the Comey testimony, yes.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Comey's memos were intentionally unclassified. The same can't be said of Snowden's leak.
I don't think Comey actually broke any rules.
No rules were broken. The documents were completely unclassified, and he was fully within his rights to release them. The only mistake is calling it a "leak".
The director of the FBI leaks his own memos in order to spur an investigation outside his agency.
That's the headline?! I know that was a big part of the testimony, but the real story is that Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it (all Trump has at this point is a thin veneer of plausible deniability--"I only said that I hoped...it was a wish, not a command."). That's the part that's really worth talking about, not the Comey leak.
By the way, Snowden is wrong. Comey didn't break any rules. It's not like he leaked classified information.
It wasn't and I don't.
Whether you're just some Putinbot or just a pathetic alt-right basement dweller, the time has come, whether or not any of this rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to label Trump what he is; corrupt and careless, and pretty fucking stupid as well.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's not a leak. He was a private citizen releasing a document he wrote (while in a government employment) but in a way (unclassified, not pertaining to an investigation, etc.) that he could legally distribute as a private citizen. Leaking refers to releasing content that you don't have authority to release.
"You considered this not a document of the government, but your own personal document that you could share with the media as you want to?" Senator Roy Blunt asked Comey. "Correct," Comey replied. "I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out."
If that is the case, then it really isn't a leak, or the breaking of a rule. Or, at the least, he didn't believe it was the violation of a rule - perhaps others may feel differently.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Asspained snowflakes. Asspained snowflakes everywhere.
Conversely, if all the branches of government conducted the people's business honorably, the exception to the rule would be a rare withholding of information for some aspect of genuine national security.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I presume that is what the Administration response is gong to be.
The classification system is different than people think: sensitivity does not require a classification. "Sensitive but Unclassified" is a thing.
I also doubt that his communications are actually unclassified. Something he said is probably within the net of a classification guide, but even not, the whole Executive Privilege doctrine also applies.
I think he has a problem now.
The only snowflakes I see are the pathetic alt right trolls
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Break the rules or not, you know what you are doing and you accept the consequences of your actions. You don't run away to another country like a coward.
Impeach him for what. First you have to have a crime. Since people like yourself have been crying "Impeach" since ... November, it just comes across as lame hate.
Second, the best thing for Democrats is to leave Trump in office. But the Democrats aren't the brightest people in the world, they tried twice to foist Hillary on us, and that has worked out well now ... twice.
Third, the Democrats hate Pence as much, maybe even worse than Trump.
Fouth, Fifth and Sixth, you have no idea how hard it is to actually impeach a president ... on purpose. House has to bring charges(where's the crime?) (Republican, not likely), the Senate has to have a have the trial (Republican, not likely) and convict (Republican, not likely ).
So, fanciful thinking on your part. Just suck it up cupcake, you can take your shot in 3.5 years. Perhaps with Pocahontas and Bernie.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Sadly, I think you're right. It's a more than a little Machiavellian of the GOP if true, though, which is scary enough in and of itself; they knew Pence by himself wouldn't have a snowballs' chance in Hell, so he rides Trumps' coattails into the Whitehouse. Then give Trump enough rope to hang himself. If all the above is true then I wouldn't put it past them to have turned a blind eye to any inappropriate/illegal/treasonous Russian involvement with the Trump cabinet -- until the appropriate time to 'discover' it all, and get Trump removed from office. Of course the whole thing is a Hail Mary play if you ask me, by the time the dust settles they'll have the entire country so thoroughly polarized, that by 2020 we'll be back to a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Congress -- or more interestingly, maybe more Independents or third-party? Who knows?
No matter. Can't plan too far ahead. I'm going with the assumption that Trump will be discredited, disgraced, and run out of D.C. on a rail, leaving Pence in charge. Too much to hope for that the entire Cabinet could be run out with him, so Job One at that point will be to prevent Pence from turning the U.S. from a Democratic Republic into a 'Christian' Theocracy.
Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
PROTIP: When someone writes a post in the president's speaking style, he is probably making fun of it and him, and therefore far more likely to be a liberal.
Trump himself was not under investigation and the memos were not classified -- how was this a leak?
No. You need a public declaration, which is what Comey delivered just today. We're only talking about a former FBI director here.
Oh, no, we couldn't possibly let a little thing like THE TRUTH get in the way of someone's personal agenda, now could we? Get over it, your boy Trump and his minions are likely traitors and need to be REMOVED. You fucked up, get over that too. Your penance will be dealing with Pence, and may whatever God you believe in have mercy on you for that.
No actually the press reports that make the claim Comey implicated the president or anybody other than Flynn in his testimony are what he's going to call fake news... And he will be RIGHT... How do I know? I just listened to the whole open session first hand on CSPAN radio, I heard every question asked and every answer given. There was nothing new here, except that Comey is the one who leaked his own memo...
IF you hear that Comey's words somehow implicate anybody in the Trump administration or campaign beyond Flynn (for failing to file the proper paperwork and/or lying about his finances), they are feeding you fake news.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How dumb are you to not notice the comment you were replying to was a joke? Hint: its worded like Trump wrote it.
You don't need a crime for an impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not legal.
See the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors which are basis for impeachment. Despite the jargon, there's little related to actual legal crimes in there.
If any President attempts to pressure the FBI Director or Attorney General or any other official to obstruct justice, it is the duty of that official to take action. If none can be taken within the government, he should resign, and call a press conference to publicly say why.
Comey did not do his duty. The sequence of events he claims reflect very poorly on him, and show him to be someone not fit to be Director of the FBI, no matter what anyone may think of the Tangerine Troglodyte.
There's nothing in the public testimony likely strong enough to urge the Republicans in the direction of impeachment. Even for the Dems, only a couple of no-name firebrands in the House think impeachment is even remotely possible at this point. Some Dems would in fact argue the very best thing for them going into the 2018 mid-terms is to keep Trump in the White House, where he seems to have made a high art of shooting himself and his party in the foot.
So far as I can tell, the "experts" (whomever they may be) seem to be leaning away from Comey's evidence being strong enough to bring an obstruction of justice charge, and further, a good many seem to think it probably isn't even constitutional to bring such a charge against a sitting President. But really, this is all academic, since I doubt very much there is any such indictment in the works.
As to the question of impeachment, well, if it happens, it is still a long ways off. First and foremost, investigations are ongoing, and Comey can only speak to those investigations up to the point he was fired. What the attempt to strongarm Comey into "loyalty" and the attempt, no matter how weakly, to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation do indicate is a man who, possibly out of ignorance, but maybe some malice as well, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the necessary limitations of his office or of the at-arms length nature of the FBI. It suggests Trump is a pretty piss poor president, at the very least, but whether it rises to the level of impeachment will take a lot more time, and really, the final calculus will be as much about whether the GOP thinks Trump remaining president as the mid-terms approach will threaten the party's political fortunes.
Impeachment is a quasi-judicial, perhaps if pseudo-judicial process. What constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors", as Gerald Ford so bluntly put it, "is whatever Congress says it is".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Waaaah, someone is saying something mean about my president, waaaaah! He's saying that it looks more and more like obstruction of justice and treason and that that several people involved in the campaign and administration already have grand juries against them while the investigation expands every several weeks to include new persons of interest as investigation keeps turning up new evidence of wrongdoing, waaaaah! Somebody stop the big mean liberal, he's hurting my feelings!"
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
What's less easy to understand is why Slashdot is shilling articles for a traitor sitting in Russia at this very moment for stealing classified material.
Impeach him for what. First you have to have a crime.
Actually, all you need is suspicion of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as per the constitution. From there, impeachment takes a simple majority of the house. Should the motion pass, it's then sent to the Senate, which conducts a "trial" which then eventually needs a 2/3rds majority to remove the president from office. However, unlike trials in the legal system, the standards of evidence and due process are much more relaxed in one sense. However, the 2/3rds majority makes it an exceedingly difficult bar to hit (which I suppose was part of the point).
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
How about obstruction of justice, for one? Unless you think Comey was lying in his sworn testimony today, Trump has already committed the same offenses that Nixon was accused of, and resigned rather than be impeached over.
How about violation of the constitutional prohibition on emoluments? Here's just one example of his businesses taking money directly from foreign governments - the profits on which goes to him.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, and not even getting into some of the shadier stuff that may involve Russia.
A lot of this is going to hinge on how the fallout from SCOTUS's gerrymandering ruling. The GOP has been using gerrymandering for a while now to cover up the demographic black holes in a number of states that could flip them blue in the years ahead. That may not make a difference in 2018, but the 2016 election aside, the US is growing bluer, and if Republican state governments can't use redistricting to paper that hole over in the future, that spells a long term problem for them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not sure which is worse, the people who take Fight Club seriously, or the people who take Ayn Rand seriously?
At least for the next 18 months, at which point one and a half more years of Trump presidency will be a big help when the time comes to regain control of congress.
Yelling about impeachment being "lame hate." Hm, that coming from a Republican that for eight years yelled impeachment is pretty hypocritical. But, then again, morals, shame, or critical thinking skills aren't your strong points are they?
What the attempt to strongarm Comey into "loyalty" and the attempt, no matter how weakly, to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation do indicate is a man who, possibly out of ignorance, but maybe some malice as well, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the necessary limitations of his office or of the at-arms length nature of the FBI. It suggests Trump is a pretty piss poor president, at the very least, but whether it rises to the level of impeachment will take a lot more time, and really, the final calculus will be as much about whether the GOP thinks Trump remaining president as the mid-terms approach will threaten the party's political fortunes.
I do agree with quite a few of your points: I must add though when you are president there is no weak attempt at strong arming anyone. Even a hint (which based on Comey's testimony was stronger than a hint) is significant. The president discussing an investigation like this and "hinting" (I'll bite and call it that) that someone should be let off or implying he is a good guy (whats next a stand up man?) is beyond the limits of Trump's office and if you or I had done that in any position of power, we'd be screwed.
But yes, at minimal - this proves Trump is not mature enough and also lacks the common sense to be president.
Comey also told us that yes, Pence knew...
Comey directly implicated Trump. He just declared under oath that the POTUS was pressuring him into dropping an active investigation on a staff member.
Tremendous. The best.
He will not be impeached for that, because the case for obstruction of justice is too unclear to convince enough Republicans to impeach him. Trump deliberately dismissed other witnesses and used careful wordings like "I hope you can...", as Comey made 100% clear in his testimony. It's one of those borderline cases in which the evil intention is obvious but the behavior is technically still legal or in a gray zone.
If Comey thought this was all above board and that "As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out.", then why didn't Comey hiimself share/leak the information directly?
Instead, we get "he asked a friend, a law professor at Columbia University, to leak details of his dinner with the President to The New York Times,"
Why go through a third party to share/leak this information that he felt free to share as a private citizen?
I move we make it a simple 20 person vote count. It's just a procedural thing after all. ;)
Though we don't know, maybe Bill Clinton might have said to Loretta Lynch: "I hope you can see your way to dropping this."
As long as the GOP thinks it's going to maintain control of the House after the 2018 midterm elections, I'm not sure that there's _ANYTHING_ that would be strong enough for Paul Ryan to allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House.
But if it starts to really look like the GOP could lose control of the House due to carrying Trump's water.... well, that could change things. Now, that would require the GOP to lose over 20 seats in the House, so it would take a metric shitload of disaffected GOP voters for that to happen. And with the gerrymandering currently in place that makes a lot of those seats very safe.... it's not likely to happen.
But the threat of it could still make them look at impeachment more seriously.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Actually, all you need is suspicion
An impeachment is an indictment. It's certainly supposed to be based on more than suspicion.
> Actually, all you need is suspicion of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as per the constitution
This might shock you, but you'll have to actually tell congress what he did that is treasonous, a bribe or a crime. I've yet to see that enumerated other than emotional screeching.
And no, firing Comey is none of those things. Nor is talking to a nuclear armed country in an attempt to ease hostilities. The left spent 50 years telling us we should be friends with the Russians, but suddenly that tune has changed. Geee. I wonder what makes their opinion so malleable.
There doesn't have to be anything that will urge the Republicans to impeach. They're not going to impeach no matter what happens. Degrading Trump's legitimacy and ability to advance his agenda is enough.
There's also plenty of indication from the testimony today that obstruction of justice will be something the special prosecutor will be looking into. A very strong case was made. It also puts the word "hookers" into the congressional record in regards to Trump, and that's entertaining.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He openly stated Russia interfered with the election, and will continue to do so, so fuck off with this nonsense. Russia is an enemy of the West, and will remain so.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
His listed evidence was the DNC server. The FBI NEVER LOOKED at the DNC server, as stated by Comey under oath today. The ONLY ones who did was that private company. That private company is UNWILLING to testify under oath that Russia hacked the DNC server. So the only source refuses to even testify their finding. There is literally no one even willing to SAY they have seen evidence of Russian interference. How do you build a case without a single witness or piece of evidence?
Unless you can list a SINGLE shred of evidence that states otherwise, there is NO EVIDENCE of Russian interference.
You fell for the entire thing. Repeating it now makes you a liar, because at this point you now also know it didn't happen.
It's Comey's interpretation of what the President said, but NOT what the President said. A wold of difference
At the time, Comes was a private citizen who shared his knowledge of the contents of an unclassified document. Please explain to me how that is illegal.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
All the stuff from and about Comey today, and this is the one and only article posted up to this point?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
No, he said that this was how he interpreted what Trump said. However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way. Plus Comey made it clear this was discussed only ONE time directly with Trump.
Obstruction requires intent by statute. So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events. Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction.
I'm willing to stipulate that Trump said some ill-advised things to Comey in that private meeting, but we are a long way from having a provable obstruction charge here. What we have is a inexperienced President who is unfamiliar with the vagaries of how lawyers talk and phrase things who chose a direct way to express himself that Comey thought was fraught with legal peril that should have been avoided. I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time. What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired.
This is why Comey leaked this memo, in order to get the special council in place (Yes Comey SAID that was why). He's just angry, looking to cause trouble for a man he doesn't respect, doesn't like and whom he has the ability to harm in some way.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So 'hoping that an investigation is dropped' for a business associate is enough? That's pretty ridiculous.
love is just extroverted narcissism
You understand, I trust, that the other portion of the testimony will not be public. So this idea that you can just simply declare "the FBI has no evidence of Russian interference" is a load of horse shit. He stated Russia interfered with the election, he demurred when asked specific questions on the investigations and evidence that lead him to that conclusion, so what you're doing is basically taking his inability to publicly reveal what he knows as some sort of evidence that there is no evidence.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Impeach him for what.
Gross incompetence
First you have to have a crime.
Oh, you want crimes? He's had enough scams, frauds, and offenses to sink a battleship. His university, his golf courses, his money laundering, all replete with his malfeasances.
Since people like yourself have been crying "Impeach" since ... November, it just comes across as lame hate.
People like yourself have been aghast at any criticism of Trump...since you suddenly fell in love with the Great Orange Turd. It just comes across as forced devotion.
Second, the best thing for Democrats is to leave Trump in office.
Maybe Democrats are more loyal to the country than to seek Partisan advantage by letting the GOP have an incompetent burn them down.
But the Democrats aren't the brightest people in the world, they tried twice to foist Hillary on us, and that has worked out well now ... twice.
Actually, Republicans have been hating on Hillary since the Nineties, and it's worked out...terribly for them. They aren't the brightest people in the world, they fell in love with Trump. Even if you believe he's a stalking horse employed by Hillary, you managed to become his sycophant yourself.
Third, the Democrats hate Pence as much, maybe even worse than Trump.
Oh? You want to impeach him too? That'll be easy enough. He committed felonies while governor of Indiana.
Fouth, Fifth and Sixth, you have no idea how hard it is to actually impeach a president ... on purpose. House has to bring charges(where's the crime?) (Republican, not likely), the Senate has to have a have the trial (Republican, not likely) and convict (Republican, not likely ).
All easy and trivial steps, once Republicans realize they need to bail the stinking ship. Or once the electorate decides they want to be represented again.
So, fanciful thinking on your part. Just suck it up cupcake, you can take your shot in 3.5 years. Perhaps with Pocahontas and Bernie.
Ah, is the little muffin still bitter that he couldn't shut up the Respectable Senator from Massachusetts? You are still freaking out over regulation of hearing aids because you so desperately hate and despise her.
Bet you're going to cry bitter tears when the outsider from DC crashes in Georgia. She was so frenetic over trying to stop Planned Parenthood that she put tens of thousands of women at risk for not getting Breast Cancer screenings. That had to hurt. Almost as much as having a known violent thug in Montana who, if the GOP had any sense, would be rejected.
They'd gain by doing that. A simple vote, toss him out, and start over.
But you won't even see them realize that.
If Trump goes down, I think Pence will be joining him. Comey implicated Pence in this as well. An impeachment will likely lead to President Ryan, not President Pence.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Let's say everything Comey says is 100% correct.
Why does Trump get to be under investigation, and possibly be hit with impeachment/criminal charges, while Comey also said that Loretta Lynch pressured him about the Clinton investigation, and she's not?
So you couldn't find any.
Know why? Its doesn't exist.
Are we going to charge Comey for running a fake investigation, for leaking a memo to get a special prosecutor appointed under false pretenses, for lying under oath? I think we might. Looks like the ONLY one telling the truth here has been Trump. Isn't that funny?
There is NO EVIDENCE, period.
No, he didn't say that. Stop lying. He explained how he felt about it, appropriateness-wise. If he actually thought there was a REAL attempt to obstruct justice, he was obliged to report it to DOJ immediately, and if he didn't he not only perjured himself in his sworn testimony in March, he also committed the felony of not reporting it. He didn't report it, and swore in March that it didn't happen (an attempt at obstruction) because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. At least, it's his sworn opinion that there was no obstruction attempt. He said today that it was up to Mueller. And Mueller has interviewed him extensively, and approved of his remarks today. If Mueller thought there was an obstruction crime to pursue, he wouldn't have sent his ONLY witness (Comey) out to say under oath that it didn't happen.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
corrupt and careless
Last time I checked, that's not an impeachable offense.
The problem is the tack the they are taking works directly against them. If the Democrats were smart they would start acting like the adults and present real alternatives to Trump's positions. Instead they are just pig wrestling and when you do that it's hard to to who is who.
love is just extroverted narcissism
OK, you've got the procedure correctly described. But you're still avoiding any description of the actual crime you think has been committed, and why.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not to be confused, of course, with the Democrats' obscene gerrymandering, which they've been doing for decades. Oh, right, that's OK because they're Democrats and always get a pass.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually it seems like a great litmus test. Patriot or tool? Tools will make excuses for Trump like he didn't really mean it, or he didn't actually say it, or it wasn't that bad, etc. Patriots interested in the rule of law will find Trump's pressuring of the FBI to drop the investigation and requests for personal loyalty over loyalty to the country completely inappropriate and a demonstration that Trump is unfit to be president and a danger to our very values. I am heartened to see that maybe it really is just simply impossible for a party-driven dictator to control the U.S. It was so far out of bounds that Comey had no idea how to react when the president this flagrantly violated the public trust. That he would simply do the bidding of Trump was unthinkable to him. The personal loyalty that Trump was requesting is a direct violation of the entire American ideal of non-partisan democratic government and the rule of law. Anyone standing by Trump now is simply a tool, and that will separate them from the patriots.
They should make an example of Comey the same way they made an example of Winner and Manning.
If they do not make this example of Comey we should dissolve the FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA immediately as they are all broken and working against the people instead of for the people.
Or they should all update their mission statements to clarify that the FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA only work for government 'people' and specifically 'deep state' 'people' but definitely not 'regular people'.
And here's my preemptive F U to 'the government' because Comey is going to somehow walk away from this just because of who he knows and associates with.
Maybe not, but it clearly establishes a pattern of conduct that contributes to the case that Trump is unfit for office. It severely undermines his credibility and shows disregard or outright contempt for established norms and legal prudence.
If or when Trump ends up in a situation were his job really is on the line this will just be another incident in a long, long, long list of doings that will undermine the notion that he's acting in good faith or upholding his oath of office.
You know, the legal equivalent of 'Yeah remember when you fired the Director of the FBI without notice, at a suspicious time, with dubious justification, then a month later he came before Congress and in an irrefutable, documented way, called you out as lying sack of shit on the world stage?'
An impeachment will likely lead to President Ryan, not President Pence.
I'm okay with that. So long as we don't have a Dominionist in the Whitehouse.
Martian, Martian, Martian. You do yourself and your "side" no favors by pretending that an Anon mocking Lord Trump was somehow a Trumpian alt-righter. Really, can you get any more delusional my arch nemesis? Log off and go home for a bit. A night's rest will do you a bit of good so that your villainy won't come off as so deranged.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf
For all that talk, it seems like they don't have anything.
So 'hoping that an investigation is dropped' for a business associate is enough? That's pretty ridiculous.
We are clearly through the 'pretty ridiculous' looking glass at this point. You'd have to be a complete idiot to expect him to be granted any quarter by the cast of enemies that he has assembled.
People, many of them more powerful than him, are never going to stop chipping away. First because he is just an asshole. Second, because there is a good likelihood that even if there is nothing to see so far, he can be goaded into giving them something to work with. Even if he never makes a critical error, he won't accomplish anything else because he is distracted by the fact that important people are saying mean things about him.
That's the problem with pining your hopes on an obnoxious dimwit.
So 'hoping that an investigation is dropped' for a business associate is enough? That's pretty ridiculous.
Telling your subordinate who is performing the investigation that you want it to end, and then firing them when they continue the investigation, is a very difefrent animal from "hoping" it will end.
"I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that."
Not sure about the law in the USA, but here in Europe, nothing you write as part of your job is your private notes. Your employer pays for the time you spend writing it down, they probably paid for the pen and paper, and they paid you for being there and having that conversation. The notes are theirs, not yours.
Whether you support the leak or not, technically speaking he did break the law, didn't he?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You're upset I know but honestly all that Comey enlightened us on was that Trump is an inexperienced politician and unfamiliar with legal acceptable language for high profile politicians. Go figure his first time in public office.
Yet here he is, leaking information to the press to influence things. This just adds credence to the idea that Comey was a loose cannon and needed to be let go.
love is just extroverted narcissism
With all his announcements into the Clinton email server investigation, he meddled in the election as much if not more than the Russians did. But to give him some credit, he did feel bad about it.
How can it be a "leak" if it is his own notes?
I think they need to look up that word.
I do not believe they will lose any seats in House or Senate. It has been pointed out that CNN, NYT, Washington Post have done nothing but lie since the campaign last year. All the whining, screaming and childish behavior that has been going on from the left is not going to alter their image and may even reinforce the perception that a Democrat should never hold office again. They have damaged their party that much.
Lynch is no longer a federal employee, and unless she tries to return to government or run for office, it doesn't matter much. President Obama has served his term, he's done now and he won't be coming back. So how does it matter what happened during her tenure? She and her boss are out, that's it, it's over.
Or do you mean because you think Clinton should be prosecuted? Well guess what? She lost the election, and is also likely done. That aside Donald "Lock her up" Trump is now President and controls the justice department. He could push for it, if he wanted, yet he has publicly said he isn't going to.
So how is it in any way they "key takeaway"? You are as bad as the liberals who kept pointing to shit President Bush did to try and excuse things President Obama did. The important takeaways are about the administration in power NOW. They are the ones that can cause problems, they are the ones that need to be looked at. The old administration is old news. The bad shit they did is done. Worry about the present.
I think his statements today go some way towards explaining his treatment of the DNC leak, and a lot of it has to do with Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac.
I think Comey is just one unlucky fucking bastard, who got stuck being director of the FBI during an election year when both candidates were pretty damned dubious individuals and the Russians were trying to fuck things over.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess you [BradleyUffner] deserve the insightful mod, but you didn't dig deep enough. There's another "mistake" when Slashdot uses that framing of the disclosure of the information. My question is whether Slashdot's mistake was an innocent form of clickbait or symptomatic of a deeper and darker sickness. Here's a couple of darker theories:
One theory is that Slashdot has been invaded and largely destroyed by rightwing trolls and (paid?) thugs merely because it was there and a soft target. Not a juicy target these days, since it is obvious that the readership and participation are way down, but Putin's novice cyber-warriers have to start somewhere.
Another theory is worse. Maybe Slashdot's bad financial model and possible desperation from the new owners (of the debt?) are making it cheap and easy to bribe them to tilt the system in that direction.
Anyway, I think there is a fairly skilled liar at work here. The premise of this story is a high-level lie of framing. Reporting the truth about matters of public record to the media, even through an intermediary who has friends who are reporters, is NOT the same thing as leaking secret information. Trying to present the information in the "Leak" frame is a LIE, and no more truthful just because it is a "clever" Level 4 lie. In contrast, #PresidentTweety is a quite unskilled liar, usually operating at Levels 0 (self-contradiction) and 1 (counterfactual statements (where any fool can check the facts)). Quite rare that the Donald can even get as high as Level 2 (partial truth) as in his recent out-of-context attack on the Mayor of London.
The REAL issue here is whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. I'm convinced he has, but it might be that his feeble attempts to obstruct justice are his most serious offenses since he got into the White House. That also depends on the definitions of "emoluments" and "bribery", and as regards bribery, the directions of the bribes. I'm not at all certain about what sorts of pre-White-House crimes would really carry forward as grounds for impeachment. I actually believe that Trump's most serious crimes are hidden in his tax returns and they involve money laundering for Putin and his cronies.
Closing with a joke: Be careful what you wish for, Vladimir. How much money will you lose if Trump's dirty laundry gets unlaundered? The fall of the house of Trump could be costly--but I suppose you were too smart to trust the Donald with much money anyway.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Obama started this.
...that suggestion is typically best treated as an order. You might have some wiggle room on delivery timing, but you had better make it happen.
One of the few exceptions? Suggestions for a lunch venue.
Obstruction of Justice when the FBI guy has said there wasn't any obstruction?
You listened to a different testimony than I did. But lets ASSUME you're side is correct.
James Comey, being obstructed was obliged to report it immediately to the Department of Justice. It is a legal requirement, one that is a felony for not reporting it. So, what you're saying, is that there was obstruction, and James Comey committed a felony for not reporting it and should be arrested and removed from office for not reporting it.
The problem here is, that in order for your version to be true, James Comey should be charged with a Felony. Are you saying James Comey should be arrested and charged with a Felony? Otherwise, you've discounted your own opinion. I'll let you pick which one is more accurate.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Republians yelling Impeachment during Obama years was ... idiocy of the republicans. Yelling it for the next few years by the Democrats is idiocy. The difference is that Obama had the whole "Racist Republican" cry to refute any attempt, while Trump doesn't.
But if you think, that "high crimes and misdemenors" for some unnamed, unsupported claims of "obstruction" or "Love Trumps Hate", I wonder how you feel about the idea that no matter who won the election this year, there was going to be "impeachment cries" from either side.
I would suggest to you, that t he GOP would be actually impeaching Clinton and have a much better shot than the cries starting in November about Trump. After all, he hadn't taken office when the cries started.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Rigging an election
Hiding Emails on a Private server
Uranium One Deal
Podesta ties to Russian Banks
Seth Rich's death
Wikileaks
Gawd, you'd think the Democrats were saints listening to your view of things. Hillary is a scandal. And that is the best the DNC could foist upon us.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"Comey ADMITTED there is no credible evidence of Russian interference with the election." WHAAAA???
From the transcript:
BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?
COMEY: None.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the D triple C systems and the subsequent leaks of that information?
COMEY: No, no doubt.
BURR: Do you have any doubt the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?
COMEY: No.
You don't know it, though. The only reason anyone would think like you do is personal animus against the guy.
Your penance will be dealing with Pence, and may whatever God you believe in have mercy on you for that.
Being from Indiana, that is one of my greatest fears, honestly.
More to the point, Trump acting as he always has. His supporters claim he's not a politician, so we must look past his faults. All his faults are faults that various politicians have, he simply has them all in one body.
Another point his supporters make is that he's a businessman, rebounded from several bankruptcies, and made his money on his own. Nope, not even close. He ran a Ma and Pa Kettle operation of a business that was rife with nepotism. He screwed countless investors out of money, he's screwed countless contractors out of money after they performed work on contracts he signed. He accepted Russian "loans" to promote himself.
Trump is businessman in the sense that Championship Wrestling is a business, or to borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams, Trump is above reproach in the same sense that a brick is above the Sargasso Sea. When asked, people who watch wrestling know it is fake, one wag said he recognized it was fake, but it was real for him. Trump supporters are no better.
You realize the WORST thing anyone has actually accused Trump of is saying "I hope you can let this go"
Think about that for a second. 10 months of non-stop Trump is corrupt, worked with Russians, obstructed justice, and EVERYTHING else, that is the worst anyone has come forward with.
In addition, Comey pretty much confirmed there is no evidence that would hold up in a court room that Russia was involved. I know you want to convict on "double secret evidence", but that doesn't fly in the US. Innocent until proven guilty. So you have no charges, no hope of charges, and no evidence.
Not sure why you think Pence is involved. You have pretty much proven yourself an outright liar now. You haven't shown where we can see evidence and keep making false accusations. I think that is libel and against the law.
Agreed. This election will be memorable for a long time to come.
This is hilarious! Trump thought he would get away with obstruction of justice by firing Comey and shutting down the Russia investigation. Instead Comey has the last laugh by leaking a memo that resulted in an independent special prosecutor that Trump can't fire being appointed. Trump is almost as dumb as his voters. Almost....
Well, how can one suggest this in a positive statement, I'll try, "Prove it bitch."
You have evidence of this? Of course you do. Or else you're just blowing snow flake smoke in our collective faces. Offended? I don' care; I think you're reality would be more comfortable in the northern part of what's on the other side of the North American continent.
He's saying you don't exactly need to prove there was a crime if you can get enough votes in Congress (and maybe get the Chief Justice to go along). Impeachment doesn't really follow normal legal procedures.
But the good news for you is that it's not a normal conviction either, though it does allow follow-on prosecution:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Right. Firing the FBI director because, by Trump's own words "the Russia thing", can in no way be interpreted as attempting to obstruct justice.
I guess you think people are pretty stupid. Well, they elected Trump so I guess you have every right to think that.
What make their opinion so malleable?
Possibly the changing nature of the Russian Government under Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and now Vlad the Invader, fool.
Actually, you have connected a couple of dots that don't go together. What Trump said about Flynn was specifically limited to Flynn (according to Comey's testimony today) AND Comey clearly understood that Trump was supportive of the Russian investigation, even if it implicated those around Trump. All Trump was asking Comey to do was to make a public announcement that Trump wasn't being investigated because of this "Russian thing" what ever that is.
What do you think "the Russian thing" means to Trump? I recommend you read the memo firing Comey and listen to the hearing, all of it. Why do you think Trump keeps saying "I'm not being investigated!". But clearly Comey didn't think the conversation about Flynn (the only remotely possible obstruction case you have) had anything to do with the actual "Russian investigation".
What you are doing is stringing sound bites together that are unrelated and making assertions about what they mean when taken together.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not to be confused, of course, with the Democrats' obscene gerrymandering, which they've been doing for decades. Oh, right, that's OK because they're Democrats and always get a pass.
Oh, yes, we remember the Conservative Southern racists (the ones who welcomed into the GOP like Rick Perry and Strom Thurmond, for example), but we already had that handled in a lawsuit, perhaps you remembered it? Baker v. Carr. Also Reynolds v. Sims.
But now? They're dead, even your favorite one to complain about, Byrd, is DEAD. You can't punish them. It's too late.
All you can do is piss on their graves, and tear down their monuments. Oh wait, you don't want to do that, you're marching against the demolition of Confederate monuments, aren't you?
If you wanted to do something more timely, you should have acted at the time, you might have had some legitimacy if you'd done something other than embrace the same methods. But you didn't.
Now the shoe's on the GOP side, and suddenly, you're all set to ignore it, and pretend that the party that somehow doesn't get a majority of the actual vote mysteriously manages to get a strangely disproportionate win.
Even as you lose lawsuits in Alabama, Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona...you still stroke your ego over it. But you keep losing, in court, after court, and the only activist judges? Are your own. And they get knocked down too.
Heck, you couldn't even reapportion the House properly, could you?
It's kinda your own fault, Slinkloam, you crowed over "victories" but then started playing denial when the rigged methods became clear. Voter purges. Gerrymandering. Outright fraud.
And then you had to go and elected a piece of scum for President who not only admitted it happened, declared that a revolution was the proper response by the people. You're going to enjoy being tarred and feathered, I think.
If you aren't executed by your own party first. Trump is on a firing spree after all.
That's what you get for giving a .22 caliber mind the firing trigger of a GAU-8.
...
A University of Texas law professor, Stephen Vladeck, was quick to debunk [newsweek.com] the idea that Comey had broken a law, and stated that analysis should not get stuck on the term “leak.”
Vladeck cited two cases and a legal statute before concluding that, in his opinion, there seems to be little possibility or a “real legal argument” to claim Comey crossed a legal line.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
When the Wiener fell into his lap, he was screwed both ways.
Bull. Quote: "I took it [Trump's remarks] as a direction. It’s the President of the United States we me along, saying this is what he is hoping I’m going to do. I did not obey that. But that the way I took it.”
While Lynch's actions are absolutely regrettable, there is a world of difference between asking to call an investigation "a matter" and outright asking to shut it down.
No.
“I took it as a direction. It’s the President of the United States we me along, saying this is what he is hoping I’m going to do.”
That's a literal quote from the goddamn FBI chief talking about the POTUS.
As an expert on commenting about politics, I generally agree with much of your assessment.
A cupla points...
"a good many seem to think it probably isn't even constitutional to bring such a charge against a sitting President"
I believe Nixon was brought down for, amongst other stuff, obstruction of justice. Clinton got impeached for lying, which is an obstruction. Anyways, by definition, you don't impeach a non-sitting prez.
"Some Dems would in fact argue the very best thing for them going into the 2018 mid-terms is to keep Trump in the White House, where he seems to have made a high art of shooting himself and his party in the foot."
Absolutely. It might be risky, as politics 101 sez "get yourself a good war going", but the Brits decided to call off the assassination project against AH, for exactly that type of reasoning.
I'm not sure yet where Trump would pick a war. Pundits might say that it's either Germany or France. But Trump is an outside-the-box thinker. It will probably be neither of those places. I wouldn't expect it to be Russia, NK or Turkey as he respects those leaders, but you never know.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
True, true. The moral cyclops in the land of the blind.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I'll have some of what you're smoking.
An impeachment will likely lead to President Ryan, not President Pence.
Awwww maaaaaaaaaaaan...
"Obstruction requires intent by statute. So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events. Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction."
The words recorded by Comey do not clearly establish intent... unfortunately the later public admissions by Trump himself that firing Comey was an attempt to "take the pressure off" could be construed as such. And according to official sources there has still not been a White House denial that Trump taped the conversations when the Senate panel has asked for them informally, which is odd. There is the very real possibility that Trump, who has been known in the past to tape associates secretly, taped the conversation himself. Which I like to think is ridiculous, since what moron would pull a full Nixon and do exactly what got that president impeached. And then I remember Trump doesn't read, and may not have a strong understanding of how that eerily similar scenario played out.
Obviously not his first offense and classified info was discussed. Maybe he can hook up with Reality Winner while doing his time. I doubt they will put a former head of the FBI in general population. Clearly he also violated the government records act and failed to turn over his papers. I guess the FBI will let him erase his laptop though, like they did with Hillary and crew. So much for proper procedure in the Federal Bureau of Matters.
Ahh, the Paul Ryan defense.
So, what is it? Is Trump a crook or simply too incompetent for office?
Comey did not state that there wasn't any obstruction. The guy was in fact super careful in that regard:
“I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct... I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense.”
He also was exceedingly clear about Trump asking him to drop the Flynn investigation in more than one occasion.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So no evidence of Russia interfering, and now Comey is the best guy in DC?
Lets see...
He ignores IRS targeting individuals.
He REWRITES the law to get Hillary off the hook.
He fails to report Lynch interfering with the investigation.
He usurps the DOJ job of deciding to prosecute or not.
He FAILS to report obstruction of justice until AFTER he is fired and is a disgruntled employee (I am assuming he made it up after he was fired).
He lied under oath saying 10s of thousands of Clintons emails were on Weiner's computer, it was 12.
He lied under oath that no one in Trumps campaign was wiretapped,
Carter Page had a FISA warrant used against him granted to the FBI.
He said he leaked the memo because of a tweet, the tweet happened the day AFTER the NYT printed his memo contents.
He REWRITES the law a second time to make "I hope you can let this go" suddenly becomes obstruction of justice, for the first time in US history according to him.
He lies about evidence of Russia interfering, his evidence being from a company that REFUSES to corroborate it.
Yea, Comey was the good guy. I have 4 cases of him lying under oath listed there that are provable. I have a 5th time but it is "double secret evidence" that I can't show you.
Oh noes. We have a new level for prosecuting law breaking, straight from MightyMartian.
You are allowed to break the law ALL YOU WANT. You just need to be running for office and lose the election. Losing the election gets you off the hook for lying under oath, taking foreign bribes, and rigging an election.
Are you being serious here? The only election rigging evidence we have isn't from Russia, its Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And you think that is ok because they lost?
I guess everyone should rig elections now. If you win, just tell the DOJ not to prosecute. If you lose, choose the MightyMartin defense of "I lost the election and can't be charged"
You are literally saying nothing that makes ANY sense today. You are smearing people who haven't been charge, claiming "double secret evidence" without even knowing if it exists or not, telling us people lying under oath non-stop is ok because they are saying what you like, and that laws don't apply to members of the DNC.
YOU are the swamp people want to see Trump drain.
What a joke.
OK, how about ... Maryland? Considered the worst example of gerrymandering in the country, and it's been done by and for a purely Democrat, monolithic state legislature that has maintained its power through truly absurd district boundary definitions. Of course, you know this, and are pretending you don't for lazy rhetorical reasons. But that's a great example, and it is 100% on the Democrats, and has been for years and years. It reached its current level of crazy specifically to split a district that was long represented by a very moderate Republican (Connie Morella) so that Chris Van Hollen could occupy that seat. I know, it's still OK with you, because it's Democrats doing it.
Here, enjoy a taste of how the Democrats designed the 3rd District, some of which only occupies the shoulders of certain roads, so that voting blocks could be glued together for maximum D control:
https://patch.com/maryland/ann...
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...of course, seeing as Trump took the active step of clearing his senior staff from the room before saying these things to Comey, one might suggest there's a rather strong consciousness of guilt argument to be made.
Between that and Comey's testimony, it strains credulity to suggest that Trump was just kinda bumping around the room with the lights out and didn't really know he was doing something wrong. The dude knew perfectly well what he was doing wasn't on the up-and-up. He wouldn't have cleared the room otherwise.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Of course he's blowing smoke, StenchToke knows that there are legal cases directly involving Republicans in North Carolina (Harris v. Cooper (ex McCrory), League of Women Voters v. Rucho and Common Cause v. Rucho, North Carolina v. Covington), Wisconsin (Gill v. Whitford), Virginia (Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, Vesilind v. Virginia Board of Elections), Alabama (Alabama v. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus), Texas (Perez v. Texas) and Georgia (Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Georgia) and Arizona (Leach v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) while Democrats only have Maryland with Benisek v. Lamone. Of course, there are also efforts in Michigan (lawsuit in the stages of preparation), Ohio (so badly gerrymandered the lowest margin of victory in Congressional Elections was in the 20% range, competitive elections? Hah!), Pennsylvania (where Vieth v. Jubelirer was only non-interventional because they didn't have a standard to use, Kennedy was itching to act).
That's right, SpankGnome is only able to produce ONE state to bitch and moan and pretend he cares about, while he's completely ignoring the log in his own eye. Because you know, he'll never speak as to the examples that weigh against him. He even used to complain about California, until it was forcibly shown to him that the state had a Citizen's Redistricting Commission, and the Jungle Primaries, as well as the state almost exactly matching its legislative representation with the turnout. Burned in his gullet it did, that he can't rant and rail against the evil Libruls in Commiefornia.
He's a 100% Gold Star Partisan Monkey. Wins prizes for how much GOP cock he can fit in his mouth. And ass. At the same time.
However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way.
Trump took at least two actions if Comey is to be believed, he made it abundantly clear in private correspondence that he wasn't happy that Flynn was being investigated and he fired Comey. The second action specifically was linked to the investigation by Trump himself in an interview. The first action was spoken in the phrasing of someone who needs plausible deniability, and yet in the context they were uttered it would have been difficult not to feel pressured.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
You sure have it all figured out.
Do you have a newsletter we can subscribe to?
Lack of loyalty? Because he was in general tired of having a backbiter on his staff?
There are any number of possible factors that could have led to the firing.
A direction, as in North, South, East or West???
(that just has a whiff of the infamous 'with a cloth' thing)
Actually, the way things are going, Pence will be up for reelection in 2028.
So you went to Purdue then went off to jackoff on the West Coast. That explains a lot.
Comey also said he was Time Traveler because he got made about Trumps "tape" tweet on May 12 , went back in time leaked the memo and story was published in the NYTimes on May 11 about Comey's memo.
You can always tell which side is losing when they have to resort to what the other side was "thinking" instead of what actually said.
"Anthony" isn't a double-end. So Hillary and Huma have no use for it.
It's not often that you admit that your whole purpose in life is to promulgate shitstains.
And it's fine that we appear to have a permanently obstructed government in Washington now.
So let's just shut down the whole fucking place and save a lot of money.
I can't wait for the surplus office equipment auctions as they empty the dud civil servants out of those buildings.
Actually Trump can pardon Flynn and it's over. But keep reading it like you know what Trump was think, you can always tell who is losing the argument when they have to result to going of what they thought the other was "thinking" to prove their point.
Comey is no boy-scout , he was basically blackmailing the president by commenting well " we are investigating possible influence into Trump's campaign" but refused to say publicly that the FBI wasn't investigating Trump. Then goes on to tell Trump he isn't under investigation , Trump says that the FBI told him he wasn't , Comey still refuses making Trump look like he is lying. Notice how Comey seems to make a habit of commenting on items that harmed the president, and when it was positive for Trump, for some reason there was some DOJ/FBI precedent that Comey couldn't say a word. Yeah Comey is slim, and likely was one of the leakers of classified information.
That's the problem with pining your hopes on an obnoxious dimwit.
It would be easy to elaborate on the issue of people who are pining their hopes on their opponent being an obnoxious dimwit, but what the hell? Put that much work into a reply to an A.C. ???
It's such a relief that Comey is now flushed and we're rid of him.
He can write his book, of course, but he's sort of radioactive now, like Ralph Nader.
Trump is the President of these United States.
(did that make you twitch?)
There's no point in proving any of it.
Hillary Clinton is finished. (what a relief)
-----------
The best thing about the whole 2016 election cycle is that a wooden stake was driven into both the Clinton and the Bush dynasty. The only way it could have worked out better would be if Rand Paul had run as a Libertarian and was sleeping in the W.H. tonight.
They were privileged. And they were not his property. Notes about his job are government records.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
On top of that, he isn't even American. He's an inbred Brit.
I was not a Trump supporter.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The real question is "Is Comey going to jail for violating the Official Secrets Act" The rest is a sideshow. Flynn spoke to the Russian Ambassador? Big deal. Its the NSA chiefs jobs to talk to foreign leaders and representatives and normal during the transition. He lied to Pence about it? Big deal . The VP is NOT the President and not Flynn's boss and he was not under oath. However Comey leaking a conversation with the President which took place in the White House? Definitely jail time if not a treason charge with a possible death penalty.
I am somewhat concerned that you might actually believe the horse shit that you're writing. If that's the case you either need to start taking your medications, or stop self-medicating.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Whether you're just some Putinbot or just a pathetic alt-right basement dweller, the time has come, whether or not any of this rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to label Trump what he is; corrupt and careless, and pretty fucking stupid as well.
If that's your conclusion following Comey's statements, then what you have is an extreme case of panties in a bunch. I know you were probably sitting at the edge of your seat like other sore losers, hoping for some evidence of all that bullshit people like you have been posting all over internet since you lost your elections, so I'm sorry if reality doesn't match your biased views. But dude it's time to grow up and accept that you're just wrong.
lucm, indeed.
Are you intentionally misinformed? No, he wasn't allowed to have communications with Russia when he did, and he wasn't allowed to lie about it. By saying this is no big deal, outs you as a shill. You are pretty pathetic.
Well, the declaration pretty much confirmed that all the propaganda posted by bitter liberals since election night was baseless, so I'm not sure what has been accomplished today from your point of view.
lucm, indeed.
Dear lord. What if there are people who take them both seriously?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Ahem.
(en.wikipedia.org)
The Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...
Been reading Bond this week? Or Howard's Laundry novels?
Except your wrong. Read Dershowitz on this. The President has the legal authority to direct his investigation departments to "cease and desist" any investigation especially if it's not about him. Think about it, Trump could just have pardoned Flynn and that's the end of it.
So Trump isn't "sophisticated" in the way of communications amongst Federal employees that report to him. That hardly counts as "not mature enough". Though other things he's done (tweeting about Obama "bugging" TT might be one).
You don't even need that. All you need is a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives and they can make up whatever charge they want and push it through. OTOH, the Republicans can and will act like whiny obstuctionist crybullies in exactly the same way the next time the tables are reversed.
Documents produced by government officials are official records. The FBI director was not documenting the result of a conversation when he was acting in an official capacity not as a private citizen.
So what you're saying is that Comey committed a felony by not reporting an actual attempt at obstruction immediately as he is required to do, and then he also perjured himself in March when under sworn testimony he again said he was never asked to alter or stop any investigation. That's what you're saying, right? Felony misprision and perjury on Comey's part, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
For the last time, the President can't obstruct justice. He can flat out tell Comey he's pardoning Flynn and to take the investigation and shove it. He has that power granted in our constitution. And you might want to read up on watergate.
So 'hoping that an investigation is dropped' for a business associate is enough? That's pretty ridiculous.
How do you figure? Lying about a blowjob was enough 20 years ago.
Taken by itself, Comey's testimony isn't strong enough for an Obstruction of Justice charge. It does however show part of a disturbing pattern. Add in the non-testimonies by the other intelligence heads the day before and their refusal to definitively state that Trump did not discuss the subject with them and it points in a very distinct direction that at least warrants further investigation. Now if the reports that Trump had similar discussions with those officials as well end up being verified...
Rigging an election
Yes, that happened with Trump, not to mention GWB back in 2000. But you're too afraid to face that one, even though Trump himself has admitted to the voter fraud. You wouldn't even prosecuted the admitted criminal in North Carolina.
Hiding Emails on a Private server
Oh my, you're still on about that one? You had nothing, you couldn't even tie it to Benghazi like you wanted.
You desperately wanted, because you wanted to pretend you cared about an attack on an Embassy, after ignoring dozens during the Bush years, or didn't want a new government in Libya at a bargain price, compared to the 6 trillion you flushed down the drain invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Uranium One Deal
Wait, wait, you mean the one that you lied about how it suddenly resulted in US supplies of Uranium being shipped to Russia? The one that Clinton was one of many bodies to sign off on, none of whom raised an objection.
Yet you want us to believe that Clinton herself went down to the UPS store and mailed the rocks to Moscow.
Podesta ties to Russian Banks
Oh gosh, wait, you Podesta was involved with an American company that got a Russian investor too?
The horrors! It's just like Trump's own sons getting Russian mob money to launder in their properties!
Wait, no, it isn't! It's completely different.
Seth Rich's death
You know even Fox News is backing off that one as quickly as they ran away from Pizzagate and much quicker than they ran away from the Birther nonsense.
Good that you're bringing it up. It tells us about you. You can't even stay away from it even though you know it's bad for you.
Wikileaks
Oh no, not Wikileaks, that Swedish meatball smorgabord! You know you're not even alleging an actual crime with that one.
Gawd, you'd think the Democrats were saints listening to your view of things.
Compared to the shit-stained idols you worship so fervently, almost anything is pure.
Hillary is a scandal. And that is the best the DNC could foist upon us.
With your accusations, the scandals are more a cause for endorsement. Anybody you're that upset about, what with your character, has something to be esteemed about them on your opposition to them alone.
Of course, given your repeated endorsement of Republicans, and your slavonly devotion to all things, Trump, it's pretty much a given that your partisan bias shows clear. Really, you might as well have been reading from Michelle Bachmann's list of imaginary places that implemented Sharia law, Anne Coulter's list of assassins that tried to make Marcus Junius Brutus a Democrat, and the menu at the Trump Hotel.
You know, it's kinda obvious that you signed up for the mailing list, isn't it? You swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker.
Are you still desperately pretending to be non-partisan? You know it only hurts your credibility every time you lie about your adherence.
Oh wait, this comes from the party member whose leader claimed we should forgive Trump's crimes because Trump was too ignorant!
Nevermind, please proceed. And yes, it was telling that Mitt Romney's criticism hinged upon the use of a set of words, not on any matter of substance.
You've got a history to live down, kemosabe.
That's why we won't leave you alone with the goats.
Not again.
Now go back to lying about Trump some more, you know you get paid a nickel for every post.
If you're called into a board of directors meeting with the CEO of the company, and then the CEO clears the room except for you and then says "I hope" for something, something that is explicitly in your realm of responsibility at the company to make happen, how would you take it? At a minimum I would think my job or at least any potential for a raise in the next ten years is riding on making that something happen.
Mob bosses don't run around telling their goons to go murder person x. They use colorful euphemisms on the off chance they're being recorded so that they can claim they meant something else if their statements get used against them in court.
Its the NSA chiefs jobs to talk to foreign leaders and representatives and normal during the transition.
The National Security Advisor does not lead the NSA.
But the question is intent. How do you prove intent? Assuming you can establish intent (and I don't think you can)....
Then you have to answer another question. How is it a problem if Trump DID intend to stop the investigation into Flynn? It may not be a good thing, but Trump IS the head of the administrative branch and the FBI is under his authority.
I'm saying Trump has two ways to defend himself on your "obstruction" charge. 1. What Comey thought he heard wasn't what Trump intended and intent is required for something to be obstruction. 2. Trump could claim he had the authority to issue the order had that been his intent. It's Trump's word verses Comey's here on what was intended, and Comey's version of what Trump said doesn't clearly establish intent, regardless of what Comey's interpretation of the exchange was.
You can think what you want, but an obstruction charge isn't going to stick based on the hard evidence we have in the public domain. It will do PR damage to Trump, which I believe is the whole point here and why Trump's political opponents won't let it go anytime soon... Just like the Russian collusion nonsense that Comey put to death yesterday has for the last 6+ months..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Nope, the worst example of gerrymandering is in North Carolina.
As usual, your blatant partisan bias leads you to highly exactly how morally decrepit you actually are.
You'll wail over Maryland, ignore North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Utah, Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. To be honest, the only states I can be sure that GOP hasn't gerrymandered are the ones with statewide districts. Of course, it is their fault for not apportioning Congress correctly, so really, they're responsible for that in a way. We should have a lot more members of the House than we do. Even the Wyoming Rule, inadequate though it is, would add about 100 members.
But you don't care. You're just busy ranting and fuming over Maryland, like Trump fuming over Comey leaking a memo. All smoke, no fire.
And that isn't even getting into the documented record of voter suppression in Florida, Kansas, Indiana, Texas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina...
Tell you what though, I'll support PPR, I'll tell you ALL gerrymandering is wrong, and that NPCD is a way out of it, as is NPJP, but you? You won't do anything except pretend it's the 1930s again. When Herbert Hoover was sticking his rod in your butthole. Rail at them Democrats! Show your hate! Embrace the Right-wing!
But hey, at least you're no longer lying about California.
No wait, wait, you did. Not even a week ago.
"Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction."
The success of a criminal act is not relevant to it being a criminal act. Comey didn't allow attempted obstruction to interfere, that doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.
"So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events."
On the first point, you simply stating it does not make it true. Comey refused to make that judgement himself because it was not his place to do so. It's not your place to do so either. Regarding the second point, Trump is "free to deny" regardless, that has little bearing. Trump asserts that there may be tapes. If so, his "freedom to deny" may be irrelevant.
"I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time."
Comey felt he understood what Trump intended as well, so much so that he changed his personal policy of taking notes because he believed he may need them for just the kind of fight that is unfolding. It's quite clear that Comey felt the opposite of what you claim.
"What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired."
And here you're really showing your hand.
So you went to Purdue then went off to jackoff on the West Coast. That explains a lot.
Apparently not.
Didn't go to Purdue, and still in Indiana, fucktard.
I do still jackoff, though. Thanks for asking!
That probably explains why he is an ex-director, the FBI are probably better off without him.
The Russian hookers leaked on Trump. Comey leaked on Trump. Who's next?
A lying con-artist being President? Who can't even tell the truth about the circumstances of the election?
I'm sitting pretty, knowing that pustule ain't on my behind.
You do realize that how you see this is more about perceptions than actual hard facts. Comey's issues look to be more about his personal feelings about Trump than what was actually said or did. Comey, a lawyer and persecutor has nearly zero experience with brash New York real-estate developers, they don't run in the same circles. Such differences make misunderstandings and distrust more likely. Comey describes this as being "uncomfortable" with Trump, as having an upset stomach in Trump's presence.
I'm not saying Trump's behavior wasn't ill-advised, but I am saying that given the vast differences in style and experiences make it likely Comey misunderstood what Trump intended. That Comey admits to being uncomfortable around Trump only adds to the likelihood that he'd misunderstand Trump's intent and meaning.
Good communication requires that we abandon our preconceived notions and seeing this situation in light of what both sides may have been thinking requires the same thing. I get what Comey was thinking and why he felt the way he did, but I also see why this could easily be that Comey was missing the real intent in all his discomfort.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Lack of loyalty"? The head of the FBI owes no "loyalty" to the goddamn POTUS. It works under the jurisdiction of the DOJ.
So the GP asks for evidence of Democrat gerrymandering, and I provide what most reformers on that subject consider to be the most egregious long-running example of it in the country, which has been festering for decades under one-party control. This was provided in response to the GP's you-must-be-lying tone. Democrats who complain about local legislatures setting up congressional districts are famously pious about it, but only when it suits them. Show me some hand-wringing from the left over the example I provided, and we'll talk.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Will you at least allow for the possibility that Trump intended nothing improper even if Comey perceived otherwise?
You have to understand that in the long run, it doesn't really matter. Based on what we know as fact, there is no proof of an obstruction charge here. Sure, Comey may think that was being attempted, but the undisputed facts make this impossible to prove. Trump can just claim he didn't say or intend to convey the message Comey claims and in the absence of something to prove otherwise Trump walks. Also Trump can claim he actually has the legal authority to actually issue the order that Comey claims was made (Which is backed up by Comey's previous statements before congress). Think about it, he could just pardon Flynn outright and end this whole thing anyway....
I think you are driven by your perceptions too... Unless you admit that it's possible Comey didn't correctly understand Trump's statements.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No. Neither did Comey either, and he stressed this point several times over his testimony - that is a decision for Robert Mueller.
The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president.
Actually, the whole executive branch of the government is under the direct authority of the president which includes the DOJ, the FBI and just about every other "department" you can imagine.
Where firing the director of the FBI might not be a good idea for a president to do, the president DOES have the right to do this..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So you don't think it's possible that Comey misunderstood Trump?
If Comey thought Trump was asking for him to do something unethical or illegal should he not have at least attempted to verify the instruction at some point? Shouldn't he have confirmed the order? "Mr. President, are you telling me to stop the FBI from investigating this Flynn issue? Yes, can I get that in writing please?" Or, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot stop the FBI investigation into Flynn." Why all the cloak and dagger, Memo writing and leaking instead?
Comey didn't confirm the order, communicate his concerns to his superior or anything. In fact, he didn't say or do anything until AFTER he got canned....
Tell me Comey's actions are all above board here.... You can not do so because Comey made some serious mistakes in all this too.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president.
The president serves under the law just like everyone else.
The law doesn't give employers carte blanche on how to treat employees. Firing somebody may or may not be fine, depending on the circumstances. The circumstances surrounding Comey's firing raised suspicions (you can say those suspicions are unfounded, but to use your own argument, people have the right to be suspicious as much as POTUS has right to fire the director of the FBI), and so here we are with an investigation into the details of those circumstances.
It's also worth noting that any authority POTUS (and government) has derives ultimately from the people. The boss isn't the owner of the business. He may be the CEO, but he still has to answer to the board of directors, shareholders, and the actual owners of the business (i.e the people)
So if the shareholders really don't like it, then it may not even matter that the CEO didn't technically break any rules. It's kinda how Trump go into office in the first place: nobody could nail Hillary or Obama for breaking any law or rules (and not for lack of trying), but the people just plain don't like the Dems enough to keep them in power.
- As has been pointed out _numerous_ times prior in these comments, identifying the release of Mr. Comey's personal memo as a 'leak' is misleadingly (and I think intentionally) implying that its release is illicit, which it is not. This is trollery and a clear intent to mislead, plain and simple.
- With regard to Mr. Snowden's comment, there is no rule against what Mr. Comey did, so his comment is stupid.
Up until he was fired, there was almost nothing, and it was his word against Trump's.
THEN he was fired, and quite clearly, by Trump's own interview, because of the Russia investigation.
It is pretty clearly obstruction of justice. Of course as long as he has enough support, the senate won't vote for impeachment, so well have to wait a bit until more of Trump supporters are tired of winning.
This is the reality manipulation right wingers must incorporate into their daily lives to avoid breaking down mentally from the massive cognitive dissonance they are suffering more from every day.
Supreme Court has ruled, that whatever Congress Impeaches for is deem an Impeachable Offense. Because an Impeachment is a Political tool and not a Legal one, an Impeachment does not mean a Crime has occurred; just that a Majority of the Congress(51% house, 60% Senate and thereby the states) believes that the President should not be the President.
From a Non-US viewpoint.
Trump is a money guy, that's his source and he'll bend like a pretzel to get more.
Sanctions against Russia have had a huge financial impact on the value of Russian resource contracts.
There's a connection between Trumps Team and Russia, this is on the record, hence the terminations
Comey appears to be a bit of a straight laced guy with a moral compass with a strong reputation
Comey leads a further investigation into these connections
Trump discusses the matter with Comey
Trump fires Comey (with extremely poor form)
Comey leaks details of conversations.
Reading between the lines, Trump was extremely threatened by the investigation into links between the Trump's presidency and Russia and he acted to remove the source of this threat. He knew that there was a chance that Comey would leak but he's also misjudged Comey's finesse in the manner of the leak.
What is truly ironic, given the recent US-USSR history is that the US leadership appears to be under the thrall of Russia and the associated resource values that are being impacted by US economic sanctions.
The other source of tension is that the Orwellian US state surveillance might actually already know answers however to do so would require the admission of the actual scope of this program which nobody wants to do. Because Trump's team were outsider's their understanding of the capability of these programs was infantile and they didn't modify their actions.
RIGHT. It's all Republicans 'gerry mandering', except when Democrats testify under oath to doing it...http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/01/maryland-democrats-finally-confess-gerrymandering-republican-office/
Gerrymandering goes on in almost every democratically elected government in the world & has been going on for as long as democracies existed.
I'd be wary of what you wish for.
Hey, the 80's called and want their Russian memes back. That's soooo 2012 all over isn't it ?
Russians did fuck all. Jiggered with the actual votes ? No, Tried to do so ? No. Published false information ? No. Possibly involved in releasing actual, real, truthful, emails from one party's organising committee and others showing how they had subverted the Democratic primary to ensure that "their" candidate won ? Yes, possibly. Though no one but a private security firm paid by the DNC has ever examined the DNC's server, the FBI hasn't seen it themselves; and Podesta was "hacked" by script-kiddy level phishing.
So Trump expressed a wish that the investigation could be concluded soon and positively for Flynn. Did that stop the investigation ? No. Did the previous head of the DOJ express a "wish" that Comey NOT refer to the Criminal investigation underway on Clinton's eMail server ? Yes, and did Comey acquiesce, Yes; and did he write a memo to himself ? No.
Double standards anyone ?