It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Comey's Public hearing - opening statement

page: 21
38
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Why not? A crime is a crime. Let's let the courts decide how far "executive privilege" goes, shall we?

So, Obama, Bush, Clinton, go back as far as you want, committed crimes by pardoning people?

You remind me of the Sonic commercial with the two guys drinking shakes: "Dude, that's not a straw! Cherry stem! Cherry stem!." "Damn, now my straw's broken."

All Trump had to say was, "I'm pardoning Flynn." Bang! Investigation is over.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



All Trump had to say was, "I'm pardoning Flynn." Bang! Investigation is over.


It's not that simple.

That could be considered using his power as president to interfere with an ongoing investigation in which he was closely tied to. That would be somewhat similar to what Nixon did. Here is a piece of the articles of impeachment from Watergate:


interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;


watergate.info...



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

A pardon would not stop the investigation, it would only mean no punishment for flynn.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Why would Comey complain about how he felt meeting trump alone when he was the first to initiate a one on one meeting with trump?
www.npr.org...


I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment. The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing. The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct

From his opening statement
Then this account from his testimony yesterday
time.com...


And let's start with the January 6th meeting in trump tower. Where you went up with a series of officials to brief the President-Elect on the Russia investigation. My understanding is you remained afterwards to brief him on again, quote, some personally sensitive aspects of the information you relayed. Now you said after that briefing, you felt compelled to document that conversation that you actually started documenting as soon as you got into the car. Now, you've had extensive experience at the Department of Justice and at the FBI, you've worked on the president's of both parties, what was it about that meeting that led you to determine that you needed to start putting down a written record? James Comey: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances first, I was alone with the president of the United States. Or the President-Elect, soon to be president. The subject matter, I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI's core responsibility and it related to the President-Elect personally. And then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before but it led me to believe I got to write it down in a very detailed way.


If as stated the DNI asked comey to do this why did comey not relay the same concerns to the DNI?
Also Comey was the one that first met with trump in a one on one situation after everyone left yet later when trump wanted to meet one on one in the same situation comey freaks out and feels inappropriate? It is ok when comey initiates it but not ok when trump does?

Also Comey was asked about this meeting again later...
time.com...


Susan Collins - Maine: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence investigations or ere you talking about any kind of FBI investigation? James Comey: I didn't use the term counterintelligence. I was speaking to him and briefing him about some salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true, and my reading of it was, It was important for me to assure him we were not personally investigating him, and so the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I just talked to him about but very important because it was first true and second I was very, very much about being in kind of a -- kind of a J. Edgar Hoover type situation. I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this, to sort of hang it over him in some way, I was briefing him on it because we had been told by the media it was about to launch, we don't want to be keeping that from him, and if there was -- he needed to know this was being said. But I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him, and so that's the context in which I said, sir, we're not personally investigating you.

And now Comey tells us "I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this , to sort of hang it over him in some way."
And again Comey tells us that he told trump there was no investigation into trump himself.
So in their first meeting Comey tells trump we have this stuff that is getting ready to come out but it is not verified and we are not investigating it.

Then we get this testimony


Susan Collins - Maine: And then on -- and that's why you volunteered the information. Then on the January 27th dinner, you told the President that he should be careful about asking you to investigate because, quote, you might create a narrative that we are investigating him personally, which we weren't. Were you limiting that statement to counterintelligence investigations or more broadly such as a criminal investigation? James Comey: The context was similar, I didn't modify the word investigation. Again, he was reacting strongly against that unverified material saying I'm tempting you to order to investigate it and I said you want to be careful about that because it might create a narrative that we're investigating you personally.

So comey tells trump he is not under investigation then the hotel bed hooker story breaks and Comey wont go public with the fact that they are not investigating trump about it. Trump wants his name cleared and when he inquires about ordering an investigation comey tells him doing that would create a narrative that trump is under investigation.

But comey "doesnt want to hang anything over trump"? That is EXACTLY what he was doing by not publicly stating trump was not under investigation.

Also it appears comeys memos were also nothing more than something to hang over trump as he stored them until he was fired and had someone else leak them to the media.

These are from comeys own statement and sworn testimony.

Comey has stepped in it big time. He used info from his investigation to manipulate the AG into recusal, to manipulate the deputy ag into appointing a special prosecutor. Comey did exactly what he said he would not do, and I suspect he did similar things while in the employ of the obama administration.


edit on 9/6/2017 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DJW001


Why not? A crime is a crime. Let's let the courts decide how far "executive privilege" goes, shall we?

So, Obama, Bush, Clinton, go back as far as you want, committed crimes by pardoning people?

You remind me of the Sonic commercial with the two guys drinking shakes: "Dude, that's not a straw! Cherry stem! Cherry stem!." "Damn, now my straw's broken."

All Trump had to say was, "I'm pardoning Flynn." Bang! Investigation is over.

TheRedneck


Trump is also fully within the law if he actually ordered Comey to stop an investigation - even though he didn't anyway. Along with the fact there is zero for Trump to answer for, that is why there is no chance that Mueller will waste time on an obstruction of justice charge.
edit on 9/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheRedneck



All Trump had to say was, "I'm pardoning Flynn." Bang! Investigation is over.


It's not that simple.

That could be considered using his power as president to interfere with an ongoing investigation in which he was closely tied to. That would be somewhat similar to what Nixon did. Here is a piece of the articles of impeachment from Watergate:


interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;


watergate.info...


Firstly Trump is not closely tied to the charges against Flynn for not telling the truth to the FBI. I don't know where you got that from.

Secondly, there is not even a remote resemblance to Watergate. Nixon was responsible for destroying evidence and refusing a subpoena underpinned by a Supreme Court decision.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



The President has the constitutional right to start or stop any investigation. Sorry, there is nothing for Mueller to investigate with regard to a crime of obstruction of justice.


Yes, there may be. While the president can stop any investigation, he is not immune from the consequences of doing so if there are clear conflicts of interest and such.


There were no conflicts of interest. He hoped Comey could see his way to letting Flynn go, on a charge that had absolutely nothing to do with President Trump.

Just face facts, the propaganda did not work. Now, IF there were any in Trumps campaign that were colluding with Russia to influence the campaign, Mueller will find out. As yet there is no evidence of such, but President Trump is free and clear of the lies spun by the media and democrats.
edit on 9/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

A pardon would not stop the investigation, it would only mean no punishment for flynn.


That's not what Redneck said.

Who am I to believe?



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

A pardon would not stop the investigation, it would only mean no punishment for flynn.


That's not what Redneck said.

Who am I to believe?


A pardon is simply that - if someone wanted to continue to commit the resources to an investigation they could, but it is highly doubtful considering they would have no possible result.
Trump could even pardon the people in his campaign Mueller is investigating and leave Mueller's entire investigation moot., not that he will, but he COULD.
edit on 9/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Trump is also fully within the law if he actually ordered Comey to stop an investigation - even though he didn't anyway.


That's true, but it's not automatically exculpatory simply because he can.



Along with the fact there is zero for Trump to answer for,


Let's not get carried away...while the affected directors serve at the pleasure of the President, the President serves at the pleasure of the US citizens, and if we as citizens say he has something to answer for, then he does as evidenced by the Congressional inquiry and subsequent testimony by former Director Comey.



that is why there is no chance that Mueller will waste time on an obstruction of justice charge.


Nonsense. Bob Mueller is going to look into whether or not there is reason to believe there was obstruction, at this point with so many people saying there may have been, just to assuage those concerns he will feel compelled to have an answer to that. Not to mention it follows a pattern of logic to do so even were it not being discussed on so many fronts.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

Trump is also fully within the law if he actually ordered Comey to stop an investigation - even though he didn't anyway.


That's true, but it's not automatically exculpatory simply because he can.



Along with the fact there is zero for Trump to answer for,


Let's not get carried away...while the affected directors serve at the pleasure of the President, the President serves at the pleasure of the US citizens, and if we as citizens say he has something to answer for, then he does as evidenced by the Congressional inquiry and subsequent testimony by former Director Comey.



that is why there is no chance that Mueller will waste time on an obstruction of justice charge.


Nonsense. Bob Mueller is going to look into whether or not there is reason to believe there was obstruction, at this point with so many people saying there may have been, just to assuage those concerns he will feel compelled to have an answer to that. Not to mention it follows a pattern of logic to do so even were it not being discussed on so many fronts.


Why would Mueller look into a charge of obstruction of justice regarding something that Trump is legally allowed to do? You are not making sense.
Seriously, you are just flogging a dead horse. The nonsense about obstruction of justice AND Trump colluding is over.

The only avenue left open is impeachment, which has about as much chance of the world ending today, but criminal investigations? Nope.
edit on 9/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: marg6043

all this witch hunt on assumptions and media word playing, is going to come back and bite them in their nasty dirty butts.



Yeah. So far not so much eh? The Committee (bipartisan) reassures the American people this is not a "witch hunt", and you keep forwarding this hyperbolic rhetoric? Come on now.

So far, President Trump's "butt" seems the only one that is being bitten...but keep on.


Appears not. He's smoking a cigar right now I would imagine, whilst Lynch is looking for flights out of the country and the MSM are busy editing old stories.


As I said in another thread, the Lynch aspect may have something to it, but this also doesn't look good for Trump. Sounds to me like the FBI is already investigating his interactions with Comey.

Also, Comey said the Russians did interfere in our election.


I heard that the investigation said last night that they will be wrapping up the investigation quickly. Not looking good for those that have invested so much in pushing fake news about collusion and obstruction of justice. I can already see some dialling it back down as they see the writing on the wall.


Which one? If you listened to what Comey said yesterday, he handed over all of his notes to a special counsel. That means there may be an open investigation going on Trump and his actions towards Comey, or one is about to start.


Really?? Start an investigation by putting your ONLY witness on the stand to say he was never directed to stop any investigation by the president?!?!?!

Sounds like a solid case....I would expect President Trump to be behind bars by the end of the weekend..(end sarcasm)

Don't be so silly my friend...Even you know there is not going to be ANY obstruction charge, collusion charge, or any charge for that matter.....laughable.,



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

Trump is also fully within the law if he actually ordered Comey to stop an investigation - even though he didn't anyway.


That's true, but it's not automatically exculpatory simply because he can.



Along with the fact there is zero for Trump to answer for,


Let's not get carried away...while the affected directors serve at the pleasure of the President, the President serves at the pleasure of the US citizens, and if we as citizens say he has something to answer for, then he does as evidenced by the Congressional inquiry and subsequent testimony by former Director Comey.



that is why there is no chance that Mueller will waste time on an obstruction of justice charge.


Nonsense. Bob Mueller is going to look into whether or not there is reason to believe there was obstruction, at this point with so many people saying there may have been, just to assuage those concerns he will feel compelled to have an answer to that. Not to mention it follows a pattern of logic to do so even were it not being discussed on so many fronts.


Why would Mueller look into a charge of obstruction of justice regarding something that Trump is legally allowed to do? You are not making sense.



Simply because he CAN order to investigation to be stopped, as I said does not automatically assume an exculpatory state. I never said he can order an investigation to be stopped with impunity. There are consequences for every action taken by the President. Sure he CAN order an investigation to be stopped, but he will also have to understand the consequences based on that.

Bob Mueller will be looking into it.
edit on 9-6-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

Trump is also fully within the law if he actually ordered Comey to stop an investigation - even though he didn't anyway.


That's true, but it's not automatically exculpatory simply because he can.



Along with the fact there is zero for Trump to answer for,


Let's not get carried away...while the affected directors serve at the pleasure of the President, the President serves at the pleasure of the US citizens, and if we as citizens say he has something to answer for, then he does as evidenced by the Congressional inquiry and subsequent testimony by former Director Comey.



that is why there is no chance that Mueller will waste time on an obstruction of justice charge.


Nonsense. Bob Mueller is going to look into whether or not there is reason to believe there was obstruction, at this point with so many people saying there may have been, just to assuage those concerns he will feel compelled to have an answer to that. Not to mention it follows a pattern of logic to do so even were it not being discussed on so many fronts.


Why would Mueller look into a charge of obstruction of justice regarding something that Trump is legally allowed to do? You are not making sense.



Simply because he CAN order to investigation to be stopped, as I said does not automatically assume an exculpatory state. I never said he can order an investigation to be stopped with impunity. There are consequences for every action taken by the President. Sure he CAN order an investigation to be stopped, but he will also have to understand the consequences based on that.

Bob Mueller will be looking into it.


You still don't seem to understand. Looking into Trump hoping that Comey could see his way fit to letting Flynn go would like looking into you eating your dinner tonight. Nothing illegal at all. Investigations are not started when no crime has even been committed.

I can see your hope - i get it, you're invested in this - but it is OVER.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

You still don't seem to understand. Looking into Trump hoping that Comey could see his way fit to letting Flynn go would like looking into you eating your dinner tonight. Nothing illegal at all. Investigations are not started when no crime has even been committed.


I understand perfectly fine. But as with most other topics you choose to hammer away at with only your perspective in mind, you're wrong. An entire Committee of the intelligence oversight seems to believe there is reason for Mueller to investigate so I doubt there will be any ceding on that to UKTruth's truth's.



I can see your hope - i get it, you're invested in this - but it is OVER.


As an American citizen you're right, I AM invested in this, but ya know who isn't? You. It's far from over.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

You still don't seem to understand. Looking into Trump hoping that Comey could see his way fit to letting Flynn go would like looking into you eating your dinner tonight. Nothing illegal at all. Investigations are not started when no crime has even been committed.


I understand perfectly fine. But as with most other topics you choose to hammer away at with only your perspective in mind, you're wrong. An entire Committee of the intelligence oversight seems to believe there is reason for Mueller to investigate so I doubt there will be any ceding on that to UKTruth's truth's.



I can see your hope - i get it, you're invested in this - but it is OVER.


As an American citizen you're right, I AM invested in this, but ya know who isn't? You. It's far from over.


Clearly you don't understand, or you would know that there is nothing criminal in the President asking for an investigation which he is not attached to in any way, to be stopped.

Far more than American citizens are invested in the incredible levels of innuendo, BS, and lies they have told for over a year. I understand it must be hard for you when all that nefarious effort doesn't pay off.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Clearly you don't understand, or you would know that there is nothing criminal in the President asking for an investigation which he is not attached to in any way, to be stopped.


There may be, it's called abuse of power.



Far more than American citizens are invested in the incredible levels of innuendo, BS, and lies they have told for over a year.


I have to agree with that much










I understand it must be hard for you when all that nefarious effort doesn't pay off.


I think in the Senate Intelligence committee's and further as Bob Mueller continues investigating, will be all the reward necessary.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


A pardon would not stop the investigation, it would only mean no punishment for flynn.

So what would be the purpose?

"Yep! After spending $10,000,000.00, we know you did it! Have a nice day, Mr. Flynn! Your record is still clear, and you're free to go."

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


That's not what Redneck said.

Who am I to believe?

It would render the investigation a moot waste of time, since the pardonee could not be prosecuted in any way.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join