Comey's Public hearing - opening statement

a reply to: rickymouse

He thought he had gotten Comey to pledge loyalty when Comey gave in on honest loyalty.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: queenofswords

The Grandfather Clock is where the mystery is.

He mentions that Grandfather Clock more than once.

Priebus did it with the gavel by the Grandfather clock.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

He thought he had gotten Comey to pledge loyalty when Comey gave in on honest loyalty.

Yep which is what Trump confirmed he wanted - according to Comey.

a reply to: UKTruth

We can only go on what the history books tell us,

I will remember this if you ever play the "the victors write the history" card.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

We can only go on what the history books tell us,

I will remember this if you ever play the "the victors write the history" card.

Good idea - especially as in this story, you'll certainly be on the losing side.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: proximo

It is impossible to obstruct justice on a counter intelligence investigation - it only applies to criminal investigations.

And what happens when the counterintelligence investigation produces evidence of criminal acts...?

At that point they can start a criminal investigation - and if that investigation gets interfered with - than it would be Obstruction of Justice.

In other words nothing that has happened up to this point could be obstruction - it would have to be a new act of obstruction to a criminal investigation.

a reply to: proximo


What term applies to what President Trump did, since it was not a "criminal" investigation, involving Michael Flynn?

It's all in the enunciation my dear friends

Shock n Awe from W had a certain ring to it

Shock and Awe;(..... from CNN this week will be epic!

a reply to: carewemust

Hope.

a reply to: proximo

I believe the investigations of Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn are both criminal.

a reply to: proximo

So you're cool with the President of the United States trying to prevent the Department of Justice with investigating a Russian agent? Noted.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
When we first heard about this document, or documents, " ATS Team Trump Extraordinaire" vehemently denied there were documents. Remember that? There were no documents, many of you said. It was 'fake news".

Well, here they are, and you claim now the documents and testimony are somehow a vindication? Sorry, not in this timeline.

There is no vindication, but nor is there a conviction.

However, last time I checked if you rob a bank, and make the excuse that you didn't know it was illegal, the crime still counts.

Robbing a bank is entirely different. Poor analogy. In the case of whether this was obstruction of justice, 'no conviction' is vindication. Sorry, your hopes of obstruction of justice are dead unless Comey drops something else tomorrow. Get over it.

Yawn.

Do you ever change your rhetoric? Even a little to try keep it interesting? Just a smidgeon?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: proximo

So you're cool with the President of the United States trying to prevent the Department of Justice with investigating a Russian agent? Noted.

Please provide proof that Flynn is a Russian agent.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

He thought he had gotten Comey to pledge loyalty when Comey gave in on honest loyalty.

People hear what they want to hear, Trump is no different. Trump likes to surround himself with yes men yet his people working with him at the White house are actually stronger willed than he is, he won't challenge some of them too much. Comey has a strong will and that is why Trump let him go, he wants more of a puppet in that job. His new appointee is no puppet either though. But Comey was more meek with Trump, he got stomped on, the new guy will butt heads with trump I think, and trump respects people who like to butt heads once in a while. I know a few people like Trump, they aren't bad. They actually respect me pretty well because I don't bow down to them.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
When we first heard about this document, or documents, " ATS Team Trump Extraordinaire" vehemently denied there were documents. Remember that? There were no documents, many of you said. It was 'fake news".

Well, here they are, and you claim now the documents and testimony are somehow a vindication? Sorry, not in this timeline.

There is no vindication, but nor is there a conviction.

However, last time I checked if you rob a bank, and make the excuse that you didn't know it was illegal, the crime still counts.

Robbing a bank is entirely different. Poor analogy. In the case of whether this was obstruction of justice, 'no conviction' is vindication. Sorry, your hopes of obstruction of justice are dead unless Comey drops something else tomorrow. Get over it.

Yawn.

Do you ever change your rhetoric? Even a little to try keep it interesting? Just a smidgeon?

If you want to be entertained with nonsense about obstruction of justice, when there is nothing that warrants it, then I can't help you. A healthy dose of realism that your hopes in that regard are dead unless Comey says something new is good for you, despite lacking the entertainment factor that you are after.

a reply to: UKTruth

Almost everything used in this thread is made in 🇨🇳

Why is Russia the new canada 🇨🇦 A

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: proximo

It is impossible to obstruct justice on a counter intelligence investigation - it only applies to criminal investigations.

And what happens when the counterintelligence investigation produces evidence of criminal acts...?

At that point they can start a criminal investigation - and if that investigation gets interfered with - than it would be Obstruction of Justice.

In other words nothing that has happened up to this point could be obstruction - it would have to be a new act of obstruction to a criminal investigation.

Stop it. A criminal investigation is not necessarily required for there to be obstruction. The act of attempting to impede an official investigation is criminalized. Sarbanes-Oxley was modified by Congress to allow for this.

Ya know, if he had just left it at "I need loyalty" rather than adding "I expect loyalty". That doesn't bode well.

If someone said that to me, I would notice the hidden "or else".

a reply to: UKTruth


Pajama Boy Comey will Do or Say Anything to Keep his Present " Lifestyle " . He is Keenly Aware who Butter's his Bread on Both Sides........

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: proximo

So you're cool with the President of the United States trying to prevent the Department of Justice with investigating a Russian agent? Noted.

A. He did not try to stop it. Hoping comey lets it go is not stopping it.

B. There is zero proof whatsoever Flynn is a Russian agent.

So no I would not be cool with it, but it has not happened.