Comey opening statement posted, now with in person testimony

[MomentsofSanity]

Nixon was not impeached. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton.

Oh please he was going to be without any question of doubt. You're arguing semantics instead of the point.

 

[vi edit]

I read it and it is mostly a summary of everything we already knew, just in a more detailed and consolidated format. Nothing really salacious in there. I'm not buying the hype being sold but will wait to see what shakes out from it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Nixon was not impeached. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton.

Quit being obtuse, you know what he meant.

 

[fskimospy]

Nixon was not impeached. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton.

I am not. You're right that Nixon was not impeached but that is only because he resigned before the articles could get a final vote in the House once he was informed that he would be convicted by the senate. If you think 'he quit before he was fired' is a meaningful distinction here can you explain why?

So again, do you have any source you can provide that shows this sort of behavior to be normal as you claimed? Again, everything I have read says this is extremely, extremely abnormal.

 

[First]

Nixon was not impeached. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton.

You're right, he cut and run right before impeachment. Meanwhile Clinton was impeached and immediately won Dems more seats in an off-year election. Solid correction.

 

[Younigue]

Quit being obtuse, you know what he meant.

But please explain what you think he meant.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I read it and it is mostly a summary of everything we already knew, just in a more detailed and consolidated format. Nothing really salacious in there. I'm not buying the hype being sold but will wait to see what shakes out from it.

It does confirm everything that was released via 'anonymous sources' though, and should, in theory, shut up the naysayers in respect to that. Of course I know there'll just be another magical bandwagon they'll hop on to promise themselves that no, really, everything's totally normal here, this is just people looking for a problem.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But please explain what you think he meant.

That what is confirmed in this document is the kind of thing that got Nixon on the road to being impeached, or got him impeach-worthy, or whatever word salad whomever chooses to use for this situation.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Except when it came to Hillary's email investigation, I guess

"aye, fully engaged, herr drumpf"

 

[Younigue]

That what is confirmed in this document is the kind of thing that got Nixon on the road to being impeached, or got him impeach-worthy, or whatever word salad whomever chooses to use for this situation.

Umm, I think by mentioning Clinton and splitting hairs about Nixon makes him obtuse. Yes?

 

[DrunkenSano]

That what is confirmed in this document is the kind of thing that got Nixon on the road to being impeached, or got him impeach-worthy, or whatever word salad whomever chooses to use for this situation.

I think Nixon was most likely smarter and craftier than Trump, which was why there was a road to impeachment for him. Trump, on the other hand, is a bumbling idiot that has no political experience and is trying to use his business experiences to guide him. It's a completely different realm, unfortunately, and his goals are more for personal gains than the interest of the American people, which is why it's so easy for so many people to have a field day with him as our President. I am sure no one is surprised with what came out so far or will be surprised when Comey is done testifying. As for impeachment, I doubt they will find anything on Trump's past, his goons may be ousted but no the President. That said, it doesn't mean Trump won't be impeached in his first term, since he may step on a major political and legal landmine while he's bumbling about for the rest of his term.

 

[K1052]

I read it and it is mostly a summary of everything we already knew, just in a more detailed and consolidated format. Nothing really salacious in there. I'm not buying the hype being sold but will wait to see what shakes out from it.

While it is true that most of the content has leaked out to see it laid out in context and detail is kind of amazing. There are a number of things that will also prompt a ton more questions like what was the President talking about with McCabe, "that thing", why did the Deputy AG not respond to Comey's questions, etc. Also it seems that this was released today at Comey's request....presumably so that Senators could further prep for tomorrow and swamp WH efforts to distract/discredit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Umm, I think by mentioning Clinton and splitting hairs about Nixon makes him obtuse. Yes?

Huh? What is going on here? I'm lost as to what you're actually talking about now.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Reading the statement, now I understand why Trump felt the need to say "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation" line in the Comey firing memo. He repeatedly asked Comey to do it and Comey repeatedly refused. So obviously Trump had to sneak that in the firing memo. ROFL

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The statement does also seem to confirm that Comey told Trump he wasn't under investigation personally during the dinner.

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it

 

[pauldun170]

Comey's testimony explicitly says that this sort of thing didn't go on behind the scenes under Obama. In addition, this is exactly the sort of thing that got Nixon impeached.

I'm not aware of any credible authority that thinks the President asking the FBI director to drop an investigation into his National Security Adviser is normal or anywhere on even the same planet as normal. Do you have any sources that say otherwise? Everything I've read says this is EXTREMELY abnormal.

It's the "They all do it" line of BS found in internet forums dating back to the 18th century.
Favorite argument by the fringe right wing forum folks whenever a Republican does something blatantly stupid or illegal.

 

[UNCjigga]

Huh? What is going on here? I'm lost as to what you're actually talking about now.

I have no idea, but if we're going to bring up Clinton, let's discuss how Comey's statement of his dealings with Trump compares with Bill Clinton stepping on to Lynch's plane. Surely, that was much cause for alarm from the GOP, and even the MSM media concluded that was bad optics/Clinton should know better. AG Lynch eventually recused herself from the then-ongoing Hillary emails investigation. We have no idea what was discussed on the plane, but based on Comey's testimony I don't see how you'd call this anything but obstruction.

 

[Roflmouth]

It's the "They all do it" line of BS found in internet forums dating back to the 18th century.

And it especially sucks when you cry hysterically over your failure to refute it

 

[First]

And it especially sucks when you cry hysterically over your failure to refute it

Aw that's sad, rolfmouth thinks it hasn't already been refuted. Read up kiddie.

 

[zinfamous]

And it especially sucks when you cry hysterically over your failure to refute it

I think you need a DMSA treatment.

 

[J.Wilkins]

It's no different than a police chief telling investigators to let go of an investigation into him or his friends.

It's clearly obstruction of justice and that does not change because the person who does it is the President, it just makes it that much worse.

 

[FIVR]

It's no different than a police chief telling investigators to let go of an investigation into him or his friends.

Bad example. "Obstruction of Justice" is 100% legal in the US, for police officers, and actually is standard policy in most PDs. Chief does what he wants and gets away with it, and if somebody investigates.... bad things happen to them.

And there is loads and loads of evidence of this fact. But watch out! Just google it a little and you'll be falling down the rabbit hole of police misconduct in the US. Which btw, is illegal and you are a criminal for scrutinizing.

http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/law-enforcement/lee-baca-PEPLT007559-topic.html

 

[Jaskalas]

He also discussed it with FBI leadership at the time. Those people are now witnesses.

That's a key component. The other is the question of WHICH investigation the President asked Comey to drop. Comey himself states he believed it to be re: Flynn's "misleading" statements... not the Russian investigation. Whether Trump acted to obstruct justice is hanging on a razor's edge and certainly up for interpretation.

It comes down to... does that distinction matter? Legally it probably does not.

 

[interchange]

Reading the statement, now I understand why Trump felt the need to say "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation" line in the Comey firing memo. He repeatedly asked Comey to do it and Comey repeatedly refused. So obviously Trump had to sneak that in the firing memo. ROFL

This is really it. It's pretty concrete. Trump asked him to release this information publicly for PR purposes, and Comey said he'd "do what he could". Trump followed up and he directed him to the DOJ instead. Then he gets canned, and Trump puts this in his memo regarding Comey's firing and goes on TV saying he was thinking of this "Russia thing" and how it's a "made-up story". Connecting the dots is basically that Comey wasn't doing what he requested to facilitate his media spin.

And think about what media reports says he actually asked Coats and Pompeo: to publicly deny evidence of collusion. He wanted independent agencies to make him look good.

None of this is precisely to stop the investigation, although his advocacy for Flynn itself may overtly cross that line. Certainly, though, his firing in context with his public statements and memo and Comey's testimony on demanding loyalty and discussing whether he wanted to keep his job and discussing the deputy director, makes it pretty overt that Trump used Comey's job as a bargaining chip to influence, at a minimum, the public statements RE: the Russia probe. As Comey details in his opening statement, selective release of such information is absolutely vital to a counter-intelligence investigation differently than a criminal investigation.

That's obstruction. Presuming he delivers this statement in testimony and Coats/Pompeo similarly confirm the media reports on the record, there is no benefit of the doubt left for me to give Trump.

Of course, Congress taking action on this information is another story.

 

[Younigue]

Huh? What is going on here? I'm lost as to what you're actually talking about now.

*Sigh*

Never mind, may have had my quick-to-judgement panties on when I first read the OPs post.