Comey opening statement posted, now with in person testimony

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,536
33,078
136
Thanks for effectively admitting that Comey's perception of intent means nothing meaningful in and of itself regarding legitimate grounds for indictment. Do you know of any other evidence of possible obstruction...or is this just wishful thing?
Giving a de-facto order to drop the Flynn investigation. Maybe not enough for criminal obstruction but damn sure enough for impeachment.

Why do you think he had people leave the room before making "request"?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Nope, the president actually being indicted might not even be legal after all. Do I now expect the investigation to mushroom into additional congressional investigations and additional inquiries from the special prosecutor into Trump himself which could eventually lead to impeachment? Absolutely.

In the end it's primarily a political question of how bad the stench has to get before either congressional Republicans feel compelled to act or Democrats take one of the houses of Congress back, but this is absolutely huge stuff. The fired director of the FBI for all intents and purposes outlined activity that could be reasonably construed as criminal by the President to Congress, under oath. That's about as big a 'burger' as you will ever see before a congressional committee.

Again, think about the sequence of events here:
1) Trump asks for loyalty from Comey.
2) Trump asks Comey to stop investigating one of his surrogates.
3) Comey refuses Trump's request
4) Trump fires him and admits he did it because of his investigation.

That's awfully obstruction-of-justice-y, wouldn't you say? That's now all in the record, under oath. That's really, REALLY bad. If you ever had ANY concern about abuse of federal power by Obama this is exponentially worse.
So we agree on one point...there was NOTHING in Comey's testimony that warrants an indictment.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,629
10,335
136
Here's a fun question. Where are the chips going to fall at the end of the day?

A) Trump/campaign colluded with Russia...
B) Trump/campaign did not collude with Russia, but did something else illegal that will be made public as a result of the Russia investigation...
C) Trump/campaign did nothing illegal, and the incompetent imbecile President decided to obstruct justice anyway because his fragile ego demanded it...
D) Trump/campaign did something illegal, and the rotten scumbag President decided to obstruct justice in a half-assed effort to make it go away...
E) This is all just smoke but nothing illegal happened and there was no obstruction...The President and his Administration are just morons with no clue how to play this out...

Which narrative does Trump nation go with here? What's the best defense they have left??

I'm leaning somewhere between B and D, but I don't think it was C...
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,141
47,345
136
I don't think Trump did the right thing, in fact the opposite. You know I have no love for that man. Nevertheless in a proceeding Comey's testimony alone should not be sufficient grounds for a successful prosecution. If the standard is lowered for Trump it is for us all.

I agree that this would not be enough for a criminal case. Seems sufficient for a case of impeachment though if the House were so inclined. It is not inclined yet. If fact I'd say it's in full repose and playing dead on this issue hoping against hope it will just go away.

That could change though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,429
16,723
146
So we agree on one point...their was NOTHING in Comey's testimony that warrants an indictment.
I would argue that in a different time, there would be more than enough for a call for impeachment. Something this detailed would have run Nixon out of office, no question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
Thanks for effectively admitting that Comey's perception of intent means nothing meaningful in and of itself regarding legitimate grounds for indictment. Do you know of any other evidence of possible obstruction...or is this just wishful thing?

The current FBI director's impression of Trump's intent at the time is absolutely, hugely meaningful regarding legitimate grounds for indictment.

I mean on what planet would the opinion of the law officer that the president was allegedly trying to obstruct not matter when it comes to evidence of his attempt at obstruction? That's probably the single most meaningful piece of evidence you're ever likely to find.
 

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
On planet Earth, in the US, in 2017. This country has the national and political equivalent of vascular dementia and late-stage fatty liver disease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrByte

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
So we agree on one point...there was NOTHING in Comey's testimony that warrants an indictment.

You misunderstand me, indicting a sitting president might simply not be constitutional at all so indictment isn't really relevant here. That being said, Comey strongly suggested that Trump is now under investigation for obstruction of justice, presumably for his actions detailed today. So if nothing else the special prosecutor seems to think there is activity here that potentially warrants indictment.

As a note, people have been sent to prison for obstruction of justice for making statements substantially similar to what Trump did.

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/872835418194157568
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
After reading Comey's statement yesterday I expected Trump would have to go with trying to call him a liar. The testimony is too damning for him not to deny it. Trump loses a competition of credibility against O.J Simpson, never mind one against Comey. This will only get worse for him now. Trying to accuse Comey of having made this up and Trump is telling the truth is farcical. Even the Republicans questioning him lauded his integrity. Expect the smear machine to ramp up against Comey from the degenerate Trump camp. I feel badly for the man, he got caught up in the pile of steaming shit that is Trump and is going to have endure Trump's filth in trying to cover for his lies and indiscretions.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
The current FBI director's impression of Trump's intent at the time is absolutely, hugely meaningful regarding legitimate grounds for indictment.

I mean on what planet would the opinion of the law officer that the president was allegedly trying to obstruct not matter when it comes to evidence of his attempt at obstruction? That's probably the single most meaningful piece of evidence you're ever likely to find.
So you consider one person's perception of the intent of a question allegedly posed in a private conversation to be legitimate grounds for indictment. Really? You sir are batshit crazy.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,536
33,078
136
Giving a de-facto order to drop the Flynn investigation. Maybe not enough for criminal obstruction but damn sure enough for impeachment.

Why do you think he had people leave the room before making "request"?
Also add to impeachable offenses
abuse of power
malpractice
malphesence
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,536
33,078
136
So you consider one person's perception of the intent of a question allegedly posed in a private conversation to be legitimate grounds for indictment. Really? You sir are batshit crazy.
Ordering others to leave the room is evidence you are trying to setup that very situation. Is there any other explanation?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
After reading Comey's statement yesterday I expected Trump would have to go with trying to call him a liar. The testimony is too damning for him not to deny it. Trump loses a competition of credibility against O.J Simpson, never mind one against Comey. This will only get worse for him now. Trying to accuse Comey of having made this up and Trump is telling the truth is farcical. Even the Republicans questioning him lauded his integrity. Expect the smear machine to ramp up against Comey from the degenerate Trump camp. I feel badly for the man, he got caught up in the pile of steaming shit that is Trump and is going to have endure Trump's filth in trying to cover for his lies and indiscretions.

Him and Yates for that matter. They both are on record in front of huge audiences being absolute professionals. Yates in particular was amazing in standing up to the bullying and her riposte to Cruz and Corwyn was brutal. These two know what they are doing and appear to be strong enough to endure the shitstorms parked over their heads. Most people are so divided on this administration in the first place that all of these show and tell sessions are doing little to change any opinions. It just strengthens the ones we already have.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
So you consider one person's perception of the intent of a question allegedly posed in a private conversation to be legitimate grounds for indictment. Really? You sir are batshit crazy.

Yes, I consider the sworn testimony of law enforcement officers who were eyewitnesses to the alleged behavior as to a suspect's intent to be important evidence that can form the basis for an indictment. Intent has been established that way for literally millions of crimes throughout US history. You don't? You sir, are batshit crazy.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,620
17,194
136
After reading Comey's statement yesterday I expected Trump would have to go with trying to call him a liar. The testimony is too damning for him not to deny it. Trump loses a competition of credibility against O.J Simpson, never mind one against Comey. This will only get worse for him now. Trying to accuse Comey of having made this up and Trump is telling the truth is farcical. Even the Republicans questioning him lauded his integrity. Expect the smear machine to ramp up against Comey from the degenerate Trump camp. I feel badly for the man, he got caught up in the pile of steaming shit that is Trump and is going to have endure Trump's filth in trying to cover for his lies and indiscretions.

That's precisely what trumps lawyer just did. He simultaneously called comey a liar and said he leaked privileged information. His lawyer also told an easily verifiable lie when accusing comey of leaking information because of a tweet and saying comey lied because the new York times article came out before the tweet.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Ordering others to leave the room is evidence you are trying to setup that very situation. Is there any other explanation?
I think him getting two scoops of ice cream while everyone else gets one to be evidence enough for impeachment! /s
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,888
11,575
136
So you consider one person's perception of the intent of a question allegedly posed in a private conversation to be legitimate grounds for indictment. Really? You sir are batshit crazy.

When the person in question happens to be a lifelong prosecutor and head of the FBI? Yeah, might want to take his opinion into consideration.

And you're calling others batshit crazy ... wow.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,629
10,335
136
So you consider one person's perception of the intent of a question allegedly posed in a private conversation to be legitimate grounds for indictment. Really? You sir are batshit crazy.
Lordy, I hope there are tapes to back him up...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
When the person in question happens to be a lifelong prosecutor and head of the FBI? Yeah, might want to take his opinion into consideration.

And you're calling others batshit crazy ... wow.

Yeah yet again it seems that DSF hasn't exactly thought this through. Odd that these basic lapses in logic always seem to happen in ways that favor conservatives. I'm sure it's all a coincidence.

By his logic if the mob comes by your shop and says "nice place you have here, sure hope it doesn't burn down" your testimony that you believed he was doing that to intimidate you into giving him money is no basis for a charge of extortion. After all, that would be batshit crazy. :)
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,455
33,160
136
Yes, I consider the sworn testimony of law enforcement officers who were eyewitnesses to the alleged behavior as to a suspect's intent to be important evidence that can form the basis for an indictment. Intent has been established that way for literally millions of crimes throughout US history. You don't? You sir, are batshit crazy.
Who said anything about a law enforcement officer? Doc said one "person." I'm sure his characterization of the former FBI Director as nothing more than a "person" was not calculated at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yes, I consider the sworn testimony of law enforcement officers who were eyewitnesses to the alleged behavior as to a suspect's intent to be important evidence that can form the basis for an indictment. Intent has been established that way for literally millions of crimes throughout US history. You don't? You sir, are batshit crazy.
ROFL...don't you ever get tired of living in an alternate reality of wishful thinking? Sorry to pop your little bubble...but based of what we know right now...it ain't gonna happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morkinva