FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Comey hearing
Comey hearing
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
 | |||
"i so want to hear the tapes of Comey briefing Trump in private about the allegations of him and the prostitutes in Russia.. i do not want to see the video that allegedly Putin has.. "I'd watch it  | |||
"i so want to hear the tapes of Comey briefing Trump in private about the allegations of him and the prostitutes in Russia.. i do not want to see the video that allegedly Putin has..
I'd watch it "Would it turn you on, or turn your stomach? | |||
"i so want to hear the tapes of Comey briefing Trump in private about the allegations of him and the prostitutes in Russia.. i do not want to see the video that allegedly Putin has..
I'd watch it "
you may need those special 3d glasses to balance out the orange glow from the Donalds face.. | |||
"i so want to hear the tapes of Comey briefing Trump in private about the allegations of him and the prostitutes in Russia.. i do not want to see the video that allegedly Putin has..
I'd watch it
Would it turn you on, or turn your stomach? "Probably depends on how hot the prostitutes are  | |||
"i so want to hear the tapes of Comey briefing Trump in private about the allegations of him and the prostitutes in Russia.. i do not want to see the video that allegedly Putin has..
I'd watch it
you may need those special 3d glasses to balance out the orange glow from the Donalds face.."3D? Might be a step too far  | |||
"i so want to hear the tapes of Comey briefing Trump in private about the allegations of him and the prostitutes in Russia.. i do not want to see the video that allegedly Putin has..
I'd watch it
you may need those special 3d glasses to balance out the orange glow from the Donalds face..
3D? Might be a step too far "wonder if he takes the rug off when he's cavorting? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. " He's very cool. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Trump to fall on his sword? " He never would. He may be pushed at some point... just not yet. | |||
"I'm watching and it's the first thing in ages that has made me come to this part of the site... and you're talking about sex tapes. "i know.. just shows how low the political forums have gone.. | |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. He's very cool. " would be interesting to see whether Trump would be as equally cool under such a rigorous examination.. come on Donald, fess up.. | |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. He's very cool. would be interesting to see whether Trump would be as equally cool under such a rigorous examination.. come on Donald, fess up.." The Donald will bluster and have sentences that make no sense or fail to qualify as a grammatical sentence. Then he will declare that a) it was unfair and they were out to get him and b) that he totally won. | |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. He's very cool. would be interesting to see whether Trump would be as equally cool under such a rigorous examination.. come on Donald, fess up.. The Donald will bluster and have sentences that make no sense or fail to qualify as a grammatical sentence. Then he will declare that a) it was unfair and they were out to get him and b) that he totally won. " His son has been tweeting throughout, seems they share commonalities in talking twaddle.. | |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. He's very cool. would be interesting to see whether Trump would be as equally cool under such a rigorous examination.. come on Donald, fess up.. The Donald will bluster and have sentences that make no sense or fail to qualify as a grammatical sentence. Then he will declare that a) it was unfair and they were out to get him and b) that he totally won. His son has been tweeting throughout, seems they share commonalities in talking twaddle.. " His sons tweeting about Sadiq Khan was absolutely shameful. It makes me wonder if they are positioning themselves for 2018. | |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. He's very cool. would be interesting to see whether Trump would be as equally cool under such a rigorous examination.. come on Donald, fess up.. The Donald will bluster and have sentences that make no sense or fail to qualify as a grammatical sentence. Then he will declare that a) it was unfair and they were out to get him and b) that he totally won. His son has been tweeting throughout, seems they share commonalities in talking twaddle.. " Is it the same son that said that Democrats aren't even people? | |||
| |||
| |||
"His sons tweeting about Sadiq Khan was absolutely shameful. It makes me wonder if they are positioning themselves for 2018. " I have had Americans apologising to me because of them... no matter how much you dislike them can you imagine having to apologise on behalf of your country to any American for anything either TM or JC said after a murderous attack in DC? | |||
"So, seems like Trump has nothing to answer for and Comey is a dick. Maybe now the sore losers can just get over him winning the election and let him get on with running the country" Comey, tends statement under oath and offers to answer questions under oath in public and/or in private to the Senate. Trumps Attorney releases a public statement and refuses to take or answer questions. That kinds of summarises the real day. | |||
 | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time "Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of. | |||
"Comey's got some balls. It's a shame this is being overlooked because of the election. He also has the exact same voice as Fred Willard, the station boss in Anchorman. He's very cool. would be interesting to see whether Trump would be as equally cool under such a rigorous examination.. come on Donald, fess up.. The Donald will bluster and have sentences that make no sense or fail to qualify as a grammatical sentence. Then he will declare that a) it was unfair and they were out to get him and b) that he totally won. His son has been tweeting throughout, seems they share commonalities in talking twaddle.. His sons tweeting about Sadiq Khan was absolutely shameful. It makes me wonder if they are positioning themselves for 2018. " appealing to the lowest of their own.. sad to see.. | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time "You didn't watch it and you have all this to say?! Ha! Ok.  | |||
 | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him. "I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony. | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
"I'd bloody well have leaked my memo if I'd been in his situation. I liked how he came across. | |||
"So, seems like Trump has nothing to answer for and Comey is a dick. Maybe now the sore losers can just get over him winning the election and let him get on with running the country" Not how it 'seemed' to me. | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
"it didn't no but given Trumps comments about tapes etc of their meetings i can fully see why he did so.. overall it will be remembered in a partisan manner, he has done this for the greater good one could argue given that Russia looks to have its tentacles deep in places now that 30, 40 years ago the whole country would be doing their nut over.. | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
"I personally thought the information he gave on the expected "patronage" relationship that Trump was setting up was rather serious. I'm just reporting in what the US news is focusing on... | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
I'd bloody well have leaked my memo if I'd been in his situation.
I liked how he came across."I did too but the repeated clarifications that he had given it to a friend to leak for him was the stickiest moment. | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
I personally thought the information he gave on the expected "patronage" relationship that Trump was setting up was rather serious. I'm just reporting in what the US news is focusing on..."I agree but I'm not surprised the press are focussing on the bit where he seemed less comfortable. | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
I personally thought the information he gave on the expected "patronage" relationship that Trump was setting up was rather serious. I'm just reporting in what the US news is focusing on...
I agree but I'm not surprised the press are focussing on the bit where he seemed less comfortable.
"To be fair, they're also focusing on the fact that Trump doesn't seem trustworthy - that the former director of the FBI said he made contemporaneous writings because he didn't trust the President, that Trump lied about his reasons for firing Comey, that he leaked the memo because he felt Trump would lie about the substance of the meetings..... So there's a great deal of talk around that as well... | |||
"I'm watching US news at the moment and everyone is very much focusing on the fact that Comey leaked his own memo to the press. Not good for him.
I wondered if that would be the thing they picked up on. It didn't go over well in his testimony.
I personally thought the information he gave on the expected "patronage" relationship that Trump was setting up was rather serious. I'm just reporting in what the US news is focusing on...
I agree but I'm not surprised the press are focussing on the bit where he seemed less comfortable.
To be fair, they're also focusing on the fact that Trump doesn't seem trustworthy - that the former director of the FBI said he made contemporaneous writings because he didn't trust the President, that Trump lied about his reasons for firing Comey, that he leaked the memo because he felt Trump would lie about the substance of the meetings.....
So there's a great deal of talk around that as well..."Oh good! I'm counting on you to be the voice from American (from here ).
| |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of. "Wow CLCC or, C.L.C.C you still remember what that stands for ? 
Hard to believe that you accuse _obka3 of :
"Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of."
Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black! lol....
CLCC and words like ignorant are always closely associated on these forums ....and Surprise ..... they have done it again ....
At the end of the day ..... others on here including you, mouth watering about the expectation on Comey´s testimony resulted....in NOTHING !
So _obka3 you are absolutely spot on !
And you don't need to see the whole thing , but you might find these two moments..... Interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olPPkLm400
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGmusIu7MY
I rest my case !  | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
Wow CLCC or, C.L.C.C you still remember what that stands for ?
Hard to believe that you accuse _obka3 of :
"Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of."
Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black! lol....
CLCC and words like ignorant are always closely associated on these forums ....and Surprise ..... they have done it again ....
At the end of the day ..... others on here including you, mouth watering about the expectation on Comey´s testimony resulted....in NOTHING !
So _obka3 you are absolutely spot on !
And you don't need to see the whole thing , but you might find these two moments..... Interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olPPkLm400
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGmusIu7MY
I rest my case ! "That was a whole lot of emoji and light in anything of worth. | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
Wow CLCC or, C.L.C.C you still remember what that stands for ?
Hard to believe that you accuse _obka3 of :
"Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of."
Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black! lol....
CLCC and words like ignorant are always closely associated on these forums ....and Surprise ..... they have done it again ....
At the end of the day ..... others on here including you, mouth watering about the expectation on Comey´s testimony resulted....in NOTHING !
So _obka3 you are absolutely spot on !
And you don't need to see the whole thing , but you might find these two moments..... Interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olPPkLm400
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGmusIu7MY
I rest my case !
That was a whole lot of emoji and light in anything of worth. "Ok ! sorry that all the emojis distracted you from the facts .... if you care about facts ? oops
Sorry ! its just one... or two
| |||
| |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of. "How do you know he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those notes ? You just see what you want as your blinded by dislike of Trump, I am no fan of his but I like to see both sides. Certainly wouldnt want you on a jury, you make your mind up without ever considering the other side. | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
How do you know he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those notes ? You just see what you want as your blinded by dislike of Trump, I am no fan of his but I like to see both sides. Certainly wouldnt want you on a jury, you make your mind up without ever considering the other side. "I made my mind up after listening to his testimony, or 'the evidence' in your trial analogy. You made up your mind without even listening to the evidence. | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
How do you know he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those notes ? You just see what you want as your blinded by dislike of Trump, I am no fan of his but I like to see both sides. Certainly wouldnt want you on a jury, you make your mind up without ever considering the other side.
I made my mind up after listening to his testimony, or 'the evidence' in your trial analogy. You made up your mind without even listening to the evidence. "Glad you admitted you made up your mind from only listening to one side of the story, if you actually took the time to read my first post I said I didnt know what was true and made no judgement either way but that we should hear both sides before making a judgement, so again you jump to conclusions because you want things to be how you imagine them to be despite it being written in bllack and white | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
How do you know he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those notes ? You just see what you want as your blinded by dislike of Trump, I am no fan of his but I like to see both sides. Certainly wouldnt want you on a jury, you make your mind up without ever considering the other side.
I made my mind up after listening to his testimony, or 'the evidence' in your trial analogy. You made up your mind without even listening to the evidence.
Glad you admitted you made up your mind from only listening to one side of the story, if you actually took the time to read my first post I said I didnt know what was true and made no judgement either way but that we should hear both sides before making a judgement, so again you jump to conclusions because you want things to be how you imagine them to be despite it being written in bllack and white"You said he had an axe to grind, that's making a judgement. Trump has given his side of the story, he said "well, I didn't say that. I mean, I will tell you I didn't say that. And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everbody I've read today, but I did not say that." So now we both have both sides, which do you believe? The trained legal expert with decades of experience in collecting evidence who wrote contemporaneous memos on the subject when he had been repeatedly told he was doing a great job, or a known liar recalling events months after the fact and adding clarifications that even if he had done it, that wouldn't be a problem, talking about a subject that might cost him the presidency? | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
How do you know he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those notes ? You just see what you want as your blinded by dislike of Trump, I am no fan of his but I like to see both sides. Certainly wouldnt want you on a jury, you make your mind up without ever considering the other side.
I made my mind up after listening to his testimony, or 'the evidence' in your trial analogy. You made up your mind without even listening to the evidence.
Glad you admitted you made up your mind from only listening to one side of the story, if you actually took the time to read my first post I said I didnt know what was true and made no judgement either way but that we should hear both sides before making a judgement, so again you jump to conclusions because you want things to be how you imagine them to be despite it being written in bllack and white
You said he had an axe to grind, that's making a judgement.
Trump has given his side of the story, he said "well, I didn't say that. I mean, I will tell you I didn't say that. And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everbody I've read today, but I did not say that."
So now we both have both sides, which do you believe? The trained legal expert with decades of experience in collecting evidence who wrote contemporaneous memos on the subject when he had been repeatedly told he was doing a great job, or a known liar recalling events months after the fact and adding clarifications that even if he had done it, that wouldn't be a problem, talking about a subject that might cost him the presidency? "Yet again you dont seem to be able to read, I said he PROBABLY has an axe to grind, after all he was sacked, that is suggesting that he MIGHT have an axe to grind not that he does have one, I dont know if he does anymore than you do, but unlike you I have an open mind that is not blinded by a entrenched hatred of trump, as I said I am no fan of him but there are always two sides to any situation. None so blind as that wont see | |||
"Not watched or intend to watch it but where is the prusumption of innocence until proven guilty,havent a clue as to the truth but jumping to conclusions on one bit of evidence from someone who probably has an axe to grind seems a bit niave to me, strange how its the open minded tolerant ones that do it all the time
Yet he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those contemporaneous memos did he? Although you would know that had you watched it, rather than shooting your mouth off about testimony that you are ignorant of.
How do you know he didnt have an axe to grind when he wrote those notes ? You just see what you want as your blinded by dislike of Trump, I am no fan of his but I like to see both sides. Certainly wouldnt want you on a jury, you make your mind up without ever considering the other side.
I made my mind up after listening to his testimony, or 'the evidence' in your trial analogy. You made up your mind without even listening to the evidence.
Glad you admitted you made up your mind from only listening to one side of the story, if you actually took the time to read my first post I said I didnt know what was true and made no judgement either way but that we should hear both sides before making a judgement, so again you jump to conclusions because you want things to be how you imagine them to be despite it being written in bllack and white
You said he had an axe to grind, that's making a judgement.
Trump has given his side of the story, he said "well, I didn't say that. I mean, I will tell you I didn't say that. And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everbody I've read today, but I did not say that."
So now we both have both sides, which do you believe? The trained legal expert with decades of experience in collecting evidence who wrote contemporaneous memos on the subject when he had been repeatedly told he was doing a great job, or a known liar recalling events months after the fact and adding clarifications that even if he had done it, that wouldn't be a problem, talking about a subject that might cost him the presidency?
Yet again you dont seem to be able to read, I said he PROBABLY has an axe to grind, after all he was sacked, that is suggesting that he MIGHT have an axe to grind not that he does have one, I dont know if he does anymore than you do, but unlike you I have an open mind that is not blinded by a entrenched hatred of trump, as I said I am no fan of him but there are always two sides to any situation. None so blind as that wont see"But he wrote his account months before he was sacked, after being told on multiple occassions that is job was safe. | |||
| |||
"Comey, like him or not,is an experienced prosecutor, administrator and investigator who knows exactly what he's doing. What people are missing here is that Comeys testimony has confirmed that Trump attempted to obstruct justice according to American law. Comey himself has not said it because he released his memo to get a special counsel appointed and he wants them to keep digging. Comey testified Donald said "I hope you can let this go". Case law in America has already confirmed multiple times that this is enough to meet the standard for obstruction cases. Unless Trump can deny he said this and prove to be the more reliable witness thats enough to find against him. But the Russia probe isnt going to stop there. This is only the start." 
Really ?
" Trump attempted to obstruct justice according to American law. "
No he did not !
Thank you for pointing this out ;
"Comey, like him or not,is an experienced prosecutor, administrator and investigator who knows exactly what he's doing."
Exactly !
And he was questioned as such by an also fellow prosecutor who was "speaking" the same "technical legal format" !
Senator Risch even compliments Comey´s report ! ....so watch this ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGmusIu7MY
This disproves and contradicts your statement ...
"Comey testified Donald said "I hope you can let this go". Case law in America has already confirmed multiple times that this is enough to meet the standard for obstruction cases."
BS ! There isn't one case in American legal record that sets precedent ! Not one !
And Comey confirms that !
Yet, you and others on here , ignore actual testimony and continue the witch hunt ! | |||
"Comey, like him or not,is an experienced prosecutor, administrator and investigator who knows exactly what he's doing. What people are missing here is that Comeys testimony has confirmed that Trump attempted to obstruct justice according to American law. Comey himself has not said it because he released his memo to get a special counsel appointed and he wants them to keep digging. Comey testified Donald said "I hope you can let this go". Case law in America has already confirmed multiple times that this is enough to meet the standard for obstruction cases. Unless Trump can deny he said this and prove to be the more reliable witness thats enough to find against him. But the Russia probe isnt going to stop there. This is only the start.
Really ?
" Trump attempted to obstruct justice according to American law. "
No he did not !
Thank you for pointing this out ;
"Comey, like him or not,is an experienced prosecutor, administrator and investigator who knows exactly what he's doing."
Exactly !
And he was questioned as such by an also fellow prosecutor who was "speaking" the same "technical legal format" !
Senator Risch even compliments Comey´s report ! ....so watch this ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGmusIu7MY
This disproves and contradicts your statement ...
"Comey testified Donald said "I hope you can let this go". Case law in America has already confirmed multiple times that this is enough to meet the standard for obstruction cases."
BS ! There isn't one case in American legal record that sets precedent ! Not one !
And Comey confirms that !
Yet, you and others on here , ignore actual testimony and continue the witch hunt ! "Ah Tony, how did I know you'd be the one to reply with complete inaccuracies. Poor deluded and completely uninformed Tony. You are sort of correct, there isnt one case that sets the precedent, there are many. Heres 3 for you to research: U.S. v. McDonald, https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcdonald-29 US v johnson https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-1289 US v Chujoy http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160915I98/U.S.%20v.%20CHUJOY See the problem Tony is youre not very bright which means you dont understand whats going on a lot of the time. See Comey specifically doesnt want to say Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation. But his testimony was specifically worded to leave no other interpretation (for those who actually watched it and knew any of the context). Comey didnt say there was no precedent, he said he couldnt name any off the top of his head while he sat there, but he knew damn well that there is case law pertaining to the exact situation he described that would lead Trump to be found guilty. Poor Tony, so easily manipulated and so willing to swallow anything that backs up his viewpoints. | |||
"Trump has said he would testify under oath about his side of the conversations with Comey. I would love to watch that! " I sincerely hope he does. Because then if any contrary evidence comes out he can be impeached for perjury. I bet his lawyer doesn't let him do anything of the kind. | |||
| |||
"No chance he will testify...it would be political suicide.....he would need to be stupid and lacking in any nous to do that............Hee hee you do know his ego is such that he will believe he is smarter than any lawyer or senator. So let us watch and see what happens. I would love to see him under oath. He would implode . "pretty much this.. the more he is taunted to tell his own side of the story and that in not doing so he is running away his ego will kick into overdrive .. | |||
"Comey, like him or not,is an experienced prosecutor, administrator and investigator who knows exactly what he's doing. What people are missing here is that Comeys testimony has confirmed that Trump attempted to obstruct justice according to American law. Comey himself has not said it because he released his memo to get a special counsel appointed and he wants them to keep digging. Comey testified Donald said "I hope you can let this go". Case law in America has already confirmed multiple times that this is enough to meet the standard for obstruction cases. Unless Trump can deny he said this and prove to be the more reliable witness thats enough to find against him. But the Russia probe isnt going to stop there. This is only the start.
Really ?
" Trump attempted to obstruct justice according to American law. "
No he did not !
Thank you for pointing this out ;
"Comey, like him or not,is an experienced prosecutor, administrator and investigator who knows exactly what he's doing."
Exactly !
And he was questioned as such by an also fellow prosecutor who was "speaking" the same "technical legal format" !
Senator Risch even compliments Comey´s report ! ....so watch this ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGmusIu7MY
This disproves and contradicts your statement ...
"Comey testified Donald said "I hope you can let this go". Case law in America has already confirmed multiple times that this is enough to meet the standard for obstruction cases."
BS ! There isn't one case in American legal record that sets precedent ! Not one !
And Comey confirms that !
Yet, you and others on here , ignore actual testimony and continue the witch hunt !
Ah Tony, how did I know you'd be the one to reply with complete inaccuracies. Poor deluded and completely uninformed Tony.
You are sort of correct, there isnt one case that sets the precedent, there are many. Heres 3 for you to research:
U.S. v. McDonald, https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcdonald-29
US v johnson https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-1289
US v Chujoy http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160915I98/U.S.%20v.%20CHUJOY
See the problem Tony is youre not very bright which means you dont understand whats going on a lot of the time. See Comey specifically doesnt want to say Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation. But his testimony was specifically worded to leave no other interpretation (for those who actually watched it and knew any of the context).
Comey didnt say there was no precedent, he said he couldnt name any off the top of his head while he sat there, but he knew damn well that there is case law pertaining to the exact situation he described that would lead Trump to be found guilty.
Poor Tony, so easily manipulated and so willing to swallow anything that backs up his viewpoints."lol..... Guess we will have to wait and see wont we ?
Thanks for the links .... will take a look !
But I do wonder if the cases against you refer in your links , pertain to US presidents !
That makes a difference, in case you don't know !
Presidential powers are such that he actually had the authority to stop Comey, investigating Flynn or any other of the alleged Russia "colusion" . But he did not ! Quite the opposite, according to Comey !
"Poor Tony, so easily manipulated and so willing to swallow anything that backs up his viewpoints."
Projecting are you ?
lol..... if that venting makes you feel better .... great !
But unlike you , I have an open mind , and thus far, all the BS you and others have been pushing, backed by the "lamestream" media you so adore, has not materialised ... Has it ?
This begs the question of who is being manipulated and swallowing what they want to believe , instead of what is actually there !
A bit like the "selective" parts of the hearings that the media has been "promoting"
Here is an example ;
If you want to save time watch from minute 4 !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olPPkLm400
Also ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6LV8kz2Hg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovlo8hehqh8
Call it what you will ... a witch hunt, is a witch hunt even if you try and paint it with a "legal" tint !
| |||
"Trump has said he would testify under oath about his side of the conversations with Comey. I would love to watch that! I sincerely hope he does. Because then if any contrary evidence comes out he can be impeached for perjury. I bet his lawyer doesn't let him do anything of the kind. "He is not the kind of man who would perform well under questioning. It's interesting to watch taped depositions from his numerous law suits before he became president. | |||
" lol..... Guess we will have to wait and see wont we ?
Thanks for the links .... will take a look !
But I do wonder if the cases against you refer in your links , pertain to US presidents !
That makes a difference, in case you don't know !
Presidential powers are such that he actually had the authority to stop Comey, investigating Flynn or any other of the alleged Russia "colusion" . But he did not ! Quite the opposite, according to Comey !
"Poor Tony, so easily manipulated and so willing to swallow anything that backs up his viewpoints."
Projecting are you ?
lol..... if that venting makes you feel better .... great !
But unlike you , I have an open mind , and thus far, all the BS you and others have been pushing, backed by the "lamestream" media you so adore, has not materialised ... Has it ?
This begs the question of who is being manipulated and swallowing what they want to believe , instead of what is actually there !
A bit like the "selective" parts of the hearings that the media has been "promoting"
Here is an example ;
If you want to save time watch from minute 4 !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olPPkLm400
Also ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6LV8kz2Hg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovlo8hehqh8
Call it what you will ... a witch hunt, is a witch hunt even if you try and paint it with a "legal" tint !
"It makes a difference while he's in office. While in office it could be the basis of impeachment proceedings and then become a criminal case. But obviously it wont become criminal before then. The president is also the head of law enforcement in the US and that does mean he can fire, hire and direct or end investigations. But these powers are not unlimited. Its also not particularly relevant because Congress gets to decide if the President gets charged and Senate votes to convict. They also have huge latitude to decide whats an impeachment worthy offence. If enough of the american voters feel that this is obstruction then that will be enough. | |||
"Trump has said he would testify under oath about his side of the conversations with Comey. I would love to watch that! I sincerely hope he does. Because then if any contrary evidence comes out he can be impeached for perjury. I bet his lawyer doesn't let him do anything of the kind.
He is not the kind of man who would perform well under questioning. It's interesting to watch taped depositions from his numerous law suits before he became president. "I've seen the tapes of his depositions. It's part of why I hope he decides to go under oath - I could use a good laugh. Maybe they'll ask him to read part of the Constitution and he'll say he can't because he doesn't have his glasses. | |||
"Trump has said he would testify under oath about his side of the conversations with Comey. I would love to watch that! I sincerely hope he does. Because then if any contrary evidence comes out he can be impeached for perjury. I bet his lawyer doesn't let him do anything of the kind.
He is not the kind of man who would perform well under questioning. It's interesting to watch taped depositions from his numerous law suits before he became president.
I've seen the tapes of his depositions. It's part of why I hope he decides to go under oath - I could use a good laugh. Maybe they'll ask him to read part of the Constitution and he'll say he can't because he doesn't have his glasses. "Famous glass wearer that he is | |||
| |||
"Jeff Sessions saying he will go under oath now. " He's another one I'd love to see speak under oath. But, if Comey was right, then he wouldn't be able to speak about anything interesting in an open hearing, anyway. From what Comey insinuated, there are aspects of his dealings with the Russians that are still unknown by the general public and which are part of the ongoing investigation. In my opinion, the special investigator has a lot of subpoenas to issue. If Trump and Sessions are so willing to testify, then he should speak with them first.....or at least after subpoenaing Trump's taxes and those of his business associates. | |||
