• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Comey opening statement posted, now with in person testimony

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
[DHT]Osiris said:
That depends on how much of a hypocrite he is (we all are to some extent).
Click to expand...

Very true, everyone has some hypocrisy in them. DSF is kind of the world heavyweight champion of hypocrites though, at least as far as this site goes.

Let's just say that I find it unlikely that he is honest enough with himself or with us to apologize for his previous posts.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I'm interested in all aspects of his testimony and found his comments regarding Lynch to be very enlightening. And it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't give a shit about her corrupt actions.
Click to expand...

If there is some in need of obstruction of justice investigation, it would be Lynch. Comey testified that Lynch explicitly told him to alter the way he was handling the Clinton investigation. Did he take notes of the meetings he had with her?

It's going to be great once this investigation leads to shining the light on how corrupt the Dimocrats and Obama's administration was. Dimocrats get a double Trump nothing-burger while the nice cut of Obama corruption filet mignon is being dry aged in the back.
 
brandonbull said:
If there is some in need of obstruction of justice investigation, it would be Lynch. Comey testified that Lynch explicitly told him to alter the way he was handling the Clinton investigation. Did he take notes of the meetings he had with her?

It's going to be great once this investigation leads to shining the light on how corrupt the Dimocrats and Obama's administration was. Dimocrats get a double Trump nothing-burger while the nice cut of Obama corruption filet mignon is being dry aged in the back.
Click to expand...
Lol she didn't tell him to alter the investigation. She asked for a different label. Explain how changing how it's referred to in any way impedes the investigation.

Jesus it's like you guys are incapable of rational logical reasoning.
 
brandonbull said:
If there is some in need of obstruction of justice investigation, it would be Lynch. Comey testified that Lynch explicitly told him to alter the way he was handling the Clinton investigation. Did he take notes of the meetings he had with her?

It's going to be great once this investigation leads to shining the light on how corrupt the Dimocrats and Obama's administration was. Dimocrats get a double Trump nothing-burger while the nice cut of Obama corruption filet mignon is being dry aged in the back.
Click to expand...

You can't be this stupid.

<reviews post history>

Never mind. Shine on you crazy diamond.
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
Yes, Comey is the liar here, the master fabricator of falsehoods.
Not drumpf, who's the owner of this
DB4xrlyVwAEqR3Z.jpg:large
Click to expand...
The source for this is WaPo's fact-checking team. This article also contains information about all 492 falsehoods.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0775b0c009fe
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Because it doesn't rise to the level of obstruction. It's inappropriate but in no way does it interfere or attempt to interfere with the progress of the investigation. It's a stupid statement that shouldn't have been made but that's it. End of story.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Lynch's order to Comey constituted obstruction, I said she abused her power as AG for political purposes and was corrupt. End of story.
 
brandonbull said:
If there is some in need of obstruction of justice investigation, it would be Lynch. Comey testified that Lynch explicitly told him to alter the way he was handling the Clinton investigation. Did he take notes of the meetings he had with her?

It's going to be great once this investigation leads to shining the light on how corrupt the Dimocrats and Obama's administration was. Dimocrats get a double Trump nothing-burger while the nice cut of Obama corruption filet mignon is being dry aged in the back.
Click to expand...
I don't see any obstruction of justice on Lynch's part here...instead I see blatant corruption and abuse of power.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
That depends on how much of a hypocrite he is (we all are to some extent).
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way. Just two months ago DSF was arguing in favor of Trump's airstrike on Syria, saying we must think of all the poor children being doused with chemical weapons. After I linked to him saying, two years prior when Obama was in office, the exact opposite of everything he was arguing, he disappeared from the thread.

I don't think there's much of a limit to his hypocrisy.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Let's put it this way. Just two months ago DSF was arguing in favor of Trump's airstrike on Syria, saying we must think of all the poor children being doused with chemical weapons. After I linked to him saying, two years prior when Obama was in office, the exact opposite of everything he was arguing, he disappeared from the thread.

I don't think there's much of a limit to his hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and it's good to remind others of this fact. Frankly, if more politicians were raked over the coals in the same fashion as this, we'd have more reasonable candidates.
 
So, the conservatives talking point is, we believe Comey when he's talking about a democrat, but not what he says about a republican. Sorry, you can't have it both ways..
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Fair enough, and it's good to remind others of this fact. Frankly, if more politicians were raked over the coals in the same fashion as this, we'd have more reasonable candidates.
Click to expand...
It's been my observation that reason is far less reasonable than winning with this lot. Be damned the nation.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Without an explicit order from Trump, I have trouble putting much weight on someone's perception of such a nebulous comment. There is nothing here that can be used to indict imo....nothing.
Click to expand...

And what are your prosecutorial credentials compared to those of Comey/Mueller? Just curious.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Fair enough, and it's good to remind others of this fact. Frankly, if more politicians were raked over the coals in the same fashion as this, we'd have more reasonable candidates.
Click to expand...
I've been in and out of this forum in recent months and don't recall this. Woolfe, please link your post exposing my alleged hypocrisy on that particular issue and I'll respond in that thread.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Without an explicit order from Trump, I have trouble putting much weight on someone's perception of such a nebulous comment. There is nothing here that can be used to indict imo....nothing.
Click to expand...
Intent can be measured without implicit instruction. Any reasonable person would have judged his 'I hope this is a thing that can happen' as intent and near as I can tell, every person on that panel yesterday (Comey included) agrees with that notion, so we cannot viably separate the two situations as being 'one was an order and one wasn't'. Now having said that, that may not be enough for an indictment, but it may be enough for congress to consider a 'no confidence' vote for impeachment, and I don't think the majority would argue them on that.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Intent can be measured without implicit instruction. Any reasonable person would have judged his 'I hope this is a thing that can happen' as intent and near as I can tell, every person on that panel yesterday (Comey included) agrees with that notion, so we cannot viably separate the two situations as being 'one was an order and one wasn't'. Now having said that, that may not be enough for an indictment, but it may be enough for congress to consider a 'no confidence' vote for impeachment, and I don't think the majority would argue them on that.
Click to expand...
And what are your prosecutorial credentials! j/k (Just poking a resident idiot lurking around here)

But seriously, do you really think Congress will proceed with a 'no confidence' vote based on Comey's perception of a "I hope" comment? I'm not seeing it.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
And what are your prosecutorial credentials! j/k (Just poking a resident idiot lurking around here)

But seriously, do you really think Congress will proceed with a 'no confidence' vote based on Comey's perception of a "I hope" comment?
Click to expand...
I think that the 'I hope' comment will be one of many, many things on the table when the time comes (if it comes) for Congress to consider such an action. There's probably a minority right now already considering it (prematurely) based on that alone, but I think that's silly, reactionary, and just as extreme as Trump himself.

There's no doubt in my mind, personally, what he meant, but that does not a legal case make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top