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.

 

Watch Live: Mr. Comey Goes To Washington

page: 14
16
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The election was not hacked... that is a very poorly worded statement and should never have been used because it makes it sound like the Russians just logged into the machines and changed the numbers.

What they did was a phishing attack on a couple groups involved around voter registration, and people involved with the machines.. .not the machines themselves last I read.

ETA: Decided to refresh myself some on voting machines and it appears that they are hack able, but this is not something a lone hacker could do from the comfort of their house you need to gain access to the machine that loads parameters onto the voting machine.

Problem is lots of machines are used to load parameters... so they would need a country wide effort to somehow hit all the EMS machines in a very short period of time... oh and some states still use Paper ballots as well... so cant hack those either.

So in short yes it is possible, no it is not likely due to the sheer magnitude of machines that would need to be hacked.
edit on 8-6-2017 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%, exactly as predicted by the final polls. This is proof no voting machine was hacked. Although I'm sure Russia backed Democrats 100%. Democrats are good for Russia.
edit on 8-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



The election was not hacked... that is a very poorly worded statement and should never have been used because it makes it sound like the Russians just logged into the machines and changed the numbers.


Doesn't matter how you think it "sounds". It appears to be factually correct.



What they did was a phishing attack on a couple groups involved around voter registration, and people involved with the machines.. .not the machines themselves last I read.


Comey stated it was part of a broad attempt that affected 100's if not 1000's of entities.



So in short yes it is possible, no it is not likely due to the sheer magnitude of machines that would need to be hacked.


I've not seen anything that indicates they were successful. My point is that they tried, which many have denied.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



He wasn't in the plane on that meeting. No memos to make. His opinion is informed by some sort of other evidence that was gathered and presented to him. I wonder what that is and it would seem to me that there maybe an investigation on that being conducted. Whatever he saw caused him to go to the public 1st.


But he amditted, after the tarmac meeting, that he had a discussion with I htink Lynch (if not someone) were it made him uncomfortable because they7 asked him not to call it an investigation.

Given the Tarmac situation, and the fact that this conversation about using the word matter instead of investigation made him uneasy, why did he not keep a memo of this conversation (not the tarmac where he wasn't).

There is no explanation for this.





That is not what he said. He knew there was no case that could be made. She was not innocent by any means.



You are wrong. He said he given the conflicts of interests, he heavily thought about appointing a special prosecutor. However, he knew that Hillary was innocent, and that appointing a special prosecutor would look bad, so he did what he did.

Note that Comey is an investigator, not a prosecutor. It is not up to him to decide rather or not someone is guilty. His job is to collect evidence, and then give it to a prosecutor. If he felt that the prosecutor, Loretta Lynch was acting inappropriate given her meeting on the tarmac, and the fact they asked him (and it made him uncomfortable) to use the word matter instead of investigation, he should have recommended a special prosecutor, regardless of wht he FELT about Hillarys guilt or innocence.




Yes, because he is not in a position to be part of a full and complete investigation that could conclude whether charges are warranted or not. He is not in a position to make any judgement.



Nor was he in a position to make a judgement with Hillary. He was an INVESTIGATOR, not a judge or prosecutor.

He admits on Hillarys behalf, he did what he could to avoid a special prosecutor because it would make her look bad.

But for trump, he did what he could to ensure a special prosecutor. Again,. Comey's job was never to determine guilt or innocence, only to investigate.

So he acted bias to make Hillary look good, and Trump look bad.






No. He said he did what he did because the investigation had concluded and he had concerns about Lynch's actions. So he brought it to the public. He probably didn't want to be part of the political shenanigans going on with Lynch.


This is not what happened. Keep in mind, Comey has no legal authority to go forward with charges.

He investigates, and then the AG (would have been Lynch) takes his RECOMMENDATION (which is the extent of the input he gives) and she decides rather to press charges. Comey admits that the person he was reporting to (Lynch) who did not recuse herself, was acting inappropriately.

He recommendation means nothing in regards to a fair investigation.

Just because his recommendation ended up being what the inappropriate Lynch wanted, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't report that inappropriate behavior, and recomend a special prosecutor. By his own admission, he should have recommended a special prosecutor, then presented him/her the evidence, and HIllary would have been found innocent.

He did not do this because he was worried for HIllarys image, which should never come into consideration.



I disagree. I don't think he has any bias and did what he thought was right for the FBI, justice system and the American people.


I disagree. It is obvious that he was concerned about Hillarys image, and yet on the opposite wanted Trump to look bad. he admits a special prosecutor would make someone look bad, so he went out of his way to make sure it didn't happen to Hillary, but went out of his way by leaking to make sure it happened for Trump.

In fact, he wouldn't even publicly admit Trump wasn't under investigation because of concerns. So he won't tell the truth to make Trump look good, but will leak info to make him look bad. This is obvious bias.



He already stated that the material he leaked was unclassified and personal property. He has the right as a private citizen to disclose whatever he wishes, now that he is no longer head of the FBI.

He's the former head of the FBI...he's covered his ass.


Wrong. He said some of his memos were unclassified, and otehrs were, and he admitted giving them to his friend to leak to the press.

If he covered his ass so well, why did he lie and say he released these in result of Trumps tweet, but as has been shown, the NYT reported on these memos a day before the Tweet Comey is talking about.

And if Comey leaked this to ensure a special prosecutor, how do we know he isn't responsible for some of the other leaks? Especially given that he didn't seem to concerned with finding the leakers.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I already know Russia tried to hack the voting machines. Like I said, I didn't need the FBI telling me that. Hacking voting machine is not possible.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ever single major nation in the world and many of the minor have dicked around in other nations elections/politics .... I find it frightening that some people (left and right) are trying to use this story to whip people into a frenzy for a shooting war.

They may have been searching for information, but a phishing attack is not going to get you into the machines... if you cant adjust the votes that is not hacking the election, its another cyber attack.

FFS we saw less outrage when China spent 6 months inside the OPM network stealing personal information from upwards to 22 million americans... by the way that violated a law, (not providing adequate security for privacy act information)(or when they stole secrets during the Clinton years) yet this attack as far as we have been told so far stole nothing... damaged nothing, and changed nothing is something to freak out over?



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



There is no explanation for this.


He wasn't asked to do anything illegal or overly concerning. Having Lynch ask him to use a specific word when discussing a certain matter is not comparable to a sitting president suggesting he stop an investigation.



You are wrong. He said he given the conflicts of interests, he heavily thought about appointing a special prosecutor. However, he knew that Hillary was innocent, and that appointing a special prosecutor would look bad, so he did what he did.


Yes, it would look bad and would draw-out the entire ordeal, even though their investigation had concluded.

It was done and over with. They had come to their conclusion and did not want to play in to the politics Lynch may have been engaging.



Note that Comey is an investigator, not a prosecutor. It is not up to him to decide rather or not someone is guilty. His job is to collect evidence, and then give it to a prosecutor. If he felt that the prosecutor, Loretta Lynch was acting inappropriate given her meeting on the tarmac, and the fact they asked him (and it made him uncomfortable) to use the word matter instead of investigation, he should have recommended a special prosecutor, regardless of wht he FELT about Hillarys guilt or innocence.


That's not entirely correct. The FB investigates and then recommends action to the DoJ based on what they found. He did not play judge or jury. He simply gave his recommendation, as he normally would, but this time he took it public for the sake of transparency.



This is not what happened. Keep in mind, Comey has no legal authority to go forward with charges. He investigates, and then the AG (would have been Lynch) takes his RECOMMENDATION (which is the extent of the input he gives) and she decides rather to press charges. Comey admits that the person he was reporting to (Lynch) who did not recuse herself, was acting inappropriately.


Now you are starting to get it.

So in the interest of transparency, he went public in order to show what the FBI recommends without the political filter through Lynch.



Just because his recommendation ended up being what the inappropriate Lynch wanted, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't report that inappropriate behavior, and recomend a special prosecutor. By his own admission, he should have recommended a special prosecutor, then presented him/her the evidence, and HIllary would have been found innocent.


Judging by his words, I think it may be entirely possible the Lynch aspect may be under investigation. He may have "reported" that bad behavior.



I disagree. It is obvious that he was concerned about Hillarys image, and yet on the opposite wanted Trump to look bad. he admits a special prosecutor would make someone look bad, so he went out of his way to make sure it didn't happen to Hillary, but went out of his way by leaking to make sure it happened for Trump.


This has nothing to do with Hillary's image. It has to do with the image of the FBI and him trying to separate the FBI from the political nonsense.



In fact, he wouldn't even publicly admit Trump wasn't under investigation because of concerns. So he won't tell the truth to make Trump look good, but will leak info to make him look bad. This is obvious bias.


He explained why he didn't publicly state Trump was not under investigation. It would have complicated things in the event something else came up.

Also, he did not leak info to make Trump look bad. He released his personal memos for the sake of transparency with the American citizenry.

You're too focused on the political optics instead of the context of what he said.



Wrong. He said some of his memos were unclassified, and otehrs were, and he admitted giving them to his friend to leak to the press.


I don't recall him saying that. He said the personal, unclassified memos wne to his friend and the entirety of his memos went to the DoJ.



If he covered his ass so well, why did he lie and say he released these in result of Trumps tweet, but as has been shown, the NYT reported on these memos a day before the Tweet Comey is talking about.


Not sure. There may have been discussion about Comey's intentions and the tweet was his final nail.



And if Comey leaked this to ensure a special prosecutor, how do we know he isn't responsible for some of the other leaks? Especially given that he didn't seem to concerned with finding the leakers.


I don't think one really has much to do with the other.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



Ever single major nation in the world and many of the minor have dicked around in other nations elections/politics .... I find it frightening that some people (left and right) are trying to use this story to whip people into a frenzy for a shooting war.


I've said nothing about war and I am not responsible for other people's comments. I am only saying that the narrative was puched that Russia did not try to hack the election. That appears to be false.



They may have been searching for information, but a phishing attack is not going to get you into the machines... if you cant adjust the votes that is not hacking the election, its another cyber attack.


A cyber attack is a hack conducted by hackers.



FFS we saw less outrage when China spent 6 months inside the OPM network stealing personal information from upwards to 22 million americans... by the way that violated a law, (not providing adequate security for privacy act information)(or when they stole secrets during the Clinton years) yet this attack as far as we have been told so far stole nothing... damaged nothing, and changed nothing is something to freak out over?


Deflection.

And I'm not freaking out. I'm trying to discuss the issue logically and productively.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



He wasn't asked to do anything illegal or overly concerning. Having Lynch ask him to use a specific word when discussing a certain matter is not comparable to a sitting president suggesting he stop an investigation.


Neither was he asked to do anything illegal by Trump. Even if Trump had told him to drop the investigation (which he didn't) that would not be a crime. he said he felt "queasy" about what the dems asked him to do using the word matter instead of investigate, and he knew they did this to align the FBI stance with the campaign of Hillary.

Yet he did this. Now with trump when he feels queasy, he takes memos (something he didn't do with the convo about using the word matter) and leaks them to the press.





Yes, it would look bad and would draw-out the entire ordeal, even though their investigation had concluded.

It was done and over with. They had come to their conclusion and did not want to play in to the politics Lynch may have been engaging.


That's not entirely correct. The FB investigates and then recommends action to the DoJ based on what they found. He did not play judge or jury. He simply gave his recommendation, as he normally would, but this time he took it public for the sake of transparency.

Now you are starting to get it.

So in the interest of transparency, he went public in order to show what the FBI recommends without the political filter through Lynch.



Exactly my point! He can only recommend. He admits in this testimony that he felt the people he was giving that recommendation to were acting inappropriately and with bias. He should not matter that they agreed with him, he has the obligation to make sure that whoever was receiving his recommendation would act appropriately.

It is entirely possible, and I bet happens a lot, that investigators give a recommendation, but prosecutors go in a different direction. By failing to act because the bias prosecutor agreed with him, Comey was in fact acting as judge and prosecutor instead of investigator.




Judging by his words, I think it may be entirely possible the Lynch aspect may be under investigation. He may have "reported" that bad behavior.



There is no proof of that. What he said today was that he felt queasy and the only reason he didn't recomend a special prosecutor was because it would have looked bad for Hillary.




This has nothing to do with Hillary's image. It has to do with the image of the FBI and him trying to separate the FBI from the political nonsense.



Are you serious? Yeah he did a good job of that. Both republicans and Democrats have been outraged by his behavior with the Hillary statement. It is an almost unanimous belief on all sides that he handled it poorly.

How would apponting a special prosecutor made the FBI look political. If it would have, does having a special prosecutor into Russia collsuion also make the FBI look bad? So why did Comey push for that?

The only possible expklanation is that he didn't want Hillary to look bad, but did Trump.

If it was the FBI, I look forward to you explaining why special [prosecutors for hillary make the FBI look bad, but for Trump make them look good.




He explained why he didn't publicly state Trump was not under investigation. It would have complicated things in the event something else came up.

Also, he did not leak info to make Trump look bad. He released his personal memos for the sake of transparency with the American citizenry.

You're too focused on the political optics instead of the context of what he said.


I saw what he said. So when it came to admitting Trump wasn't under investigation, he didn't care about transparency to the American people. But in making him look bad, now all of the sudden he does?

Again, it shows bias.




I don't recall him saying that. He said the personal, unclassified memos wne to his friend and the entirety of his memos went to the DoJ.



Perhaps I missed that. Can you show me in the transcript where he says he only sent the unclassified memos?




Not sure. There may have been discussion about Comey's intentions and the tweet was his final nail.



But you are adding things based on what you want to be true.

he said, I sent my friend these memeos to leak to the press because of Trumps tweet.

The NYT reported on these memos a day before the tweet.

This is a lie.

Why are you willing to fill in gaps and make excuses for this lie? I thought you were impartial?




I don't think one really has much to do with the other.


I guess we will see. Comey is going to be investigated at least for the leaks he admitted.
edit on 8-6-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That is not hacking the election, hacking the election implies their actions effected the outcome... it did not, the narrative being pushed by the media implies heavily that without Russia Trump gets blown out of the water... which leads to people thinking Russia managed to change votes... a Phishing attack is pretty a fricking basic level of hacking... effective but not what you do if you are trying to hack your way to changing the outcome of an election.

You want to say the hacking of the DNC had an effect, yea Ill buy that...



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Hillary did win the popular vote by 3 million or 2.1%. Trump worked his butt off and did many more events than Hillary did. I don't believe Russia is the reason Trump is president. I followed the election very closely. The Podesta emails had no effect. Who's to say Podesta is not the one who sent his emails to wikileaks to frame Russia? There is no evidence either way.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Neither was he asked to do anything illegal by Trump.


Sorry. Let me clarify. What Lynch did was not illegal. It was political. What Trump did may have been illegal.



and he knew they did this to align the FBI stance with the campaign of Hillary.


Where did he state that?



Yet he did this. Now with trump when he feels queasy, he takes memos (something he didn't do with the convo about using the word matter) and leaks them to the press.


The situations are not comparable.



Exactly my point! He can only recommend.


And that is what he did. He did not sentence anyone or decide guilt or innocence. He only gave his recommendation of a concluded investigation, in public considering he thought there may be some shenanigans at the JD. He made a distinct separation between the FBI and them.



Are you serious? Yeah he did a good job of that. Both republicans and Democrats have been outraged by his behavior with the Hillary statement. It is an almost unanimous belief on all sides that he handled it poorly.


Yes, because of politics. He did what was right instead of playing politics.



How would apponting a special prosecutor made the FBI look political. If it would have, does having a special prosecutor into Russia collsuion also make the FBI look bad? So why did Comey push for that?


The special prosecutor aspect has nothing to do with politics. Their investigation was over. He gave his recommendation of the results of that conclusion.



The only possible expklanation is that he didn't want Hillary to look bad, but did Trump.


Then why did he reopen the email investigation when the laptop was found?

Your explanation does not make sense.



I saw what he said. So when it came to admitting Trump wasn't under investigation, he didn't care about transparency to the American people. But in making him look bad, now all of the sudden he does? Again, it shows bias.


Did you not listen to his explanation about duty to correct?



Perhaps I missed that. Can you show me in the transcript where he says he only sent the unclassified memos?


I'll see what I can do.



But you are adding things based on what you want to be true.


I only want the truth and I have not added anything other than reasonable speculation based on what we know.



Why are you willing to fill in gaps and make excuses for this lie? I thought you were impartial?


I am being impartial. I have not said anything is set in stone and have been very specific in my wording when discussing aspects I am unsure of. Did I not say I was unsure?



I guess we will see. Comey is going to be investigated at least for the leaks he admitted.


He may be. But that is different than suggesting he is the source of other leaks.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
If I say I hope you die. That's pretty weak. That's not an order or a request or a threat. I do not see how Trump hoping Comey drop Flynn is obstruction of justice.
edit on 8-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



That is not hacking the election, hacking the election implies their actions effected the outcome...


No. Hacking means that they hacked. Whether they were successful or not is secondary to the fact they tried.



the narrative being pushed by the media implies heavily that without Russia Trump gets blown out of the water... which leads to people thinking Russia managed to change votes


That's irrelevant to my point. The fact is the hack/s took place.



a Phishing attack is pretty a fricking basic level of hacking... effective but not what you do if you are trying to hack your way to changing the outcome of an election.


That is not how Comey described it.



You want to say the hacking of the DNC had an effect, yea Ill buy that...


I've said no such thing.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The Russians absolutely did try to influence our election.

The Chinese tried to influence our election.

The UK tried to influence our election.

South Africa probably tried to influence our election.

We try to influence theirs as well. It's called 'spying' in the vernacular, and it's wrong. We shouldn't do it. They shouldn't do it.

The questions that matters are

  • DID they influence our election?
  • How are they trying to influence our election?

The answer to the first question is no, by Comey's own testimony. Had it been yes or maybe, then we could talk prosecution.

The answer to the second is not as cut and dried. The only thing it can be used for is to harden our defense against outside influence. That is procedural, not criminal. There is no investigation on Donald Trump. There is no evidence against Donald Trump. There is no case against Donald Trump. We just head a from very single leader of he intelligence community.

I swear Jesus Himself could come down in a chariot of lightning and declare in a voice loud enough to shake the heavens that Trump is innocent, and people would still try to spin it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I tried to influence the election by making public posts and threads on the subject.



sorry



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


Sorry. Let me clarify. What Lynch did was not illegal. It was political. What Trump did may have been illegal.


No it wasn't. Trump could legally asked Comey to end the investigation. He admitted in the testimony. He just said we have norms not to do that, but he could have anyone investigated or end investigated that he wanted.



Where did he state that?


During testimony with Lankford.


She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter. They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.


www.politico.com...

They wanted the FBI to use the campaign language.




The situations are not comparable.


Why? Both situations made him feel uneasy. You are merely making arbitrary distinctions.





And that is what he did. He did not sentence anyone or decide guilt or innocence. He only gave his recommendation of a concluded investigation, in public considering he thought there may be some shenanigans at the JD. He made a distinct separation between the FBI and them.


Ok did it end with his recommendation? If it was only a recommendation, who was he recommending to?

Thats right, Loretta Lynch! Who Comey admits was trying to get him to use language to help Hillary.

How can you not see this?





Yes, because of politics. He did what was right instead of playing politics.


Show me one credible person that says that. You seem to be the only one who thinks that. All pundits, journalists, and legal minds seem to think he did a poor job.




Then why did he reopen the email investigation when the laptop was found?

Your explanation does not make sense.


Two things. First, you admit that Comey was incorrect then in his testimony when he said the investigation was finished in July and he knew there was no reason to indict her. This again proves why it was a bad idea to not appoint a special prosecutor, it turns out Comey didn't have all of the facts like he thought he did.

Secondly, maybe because he had to because there was more evidence, and he knew he couldn't just sweep it under the rug.

This is unresponsive to the fact that Comey said in his own words he didn't want a special prosecutor for Hillary because it would have been a bad look, but he did want one for Trump. You seem to be pretending this isn't problematic.





Did you not listen to his explanation about duty to correct?


Yes, it makes no sense. He declared no special prosecutor for hiullary and the investigation was over because he was concerned she would look bad, and then he had to correct and say they found new evidence. Duty to correct didn't bother him their.

And its a poor excuse anyways.






I only want the truth and I have not added anything other than reasonable speculation based on what we know.

I am being impartial. I have not said anything is set in stone and have been very specific in my wording when discussing aspects I am unsure of. Did I not say I was unsure?


Then why can't you admit that what Comey said was a lie. FACT; Comey said he released the memos to be leaked in response to Trumps tweet. FACT; The NYT reported on the memos the day BEFORE the Trump tweet.

When this is shown to you, you start to make excuses for Comey. This doesn't sound impartial



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



The questions that matters are DID they influence our election? How are they trying to influence our election?


Reasonable questions. As long as we can agree that there was an effort in place to try and do so, my point has been made.



The answer to the first question is no, by Comey's own testimony. Had it been yes or maybe, then we could talk prosecution.


Agreed. Nothing has presented to suggest they succeeded. Again, I was not asserting as much.



The answer to the second is not as cut and dried. The only thing it can be used for is to harden our defense against outside influence. That is procedural, not criminal. There is no investigation on Donald Trump. There is no evidence against Donald Trump. There is no case against Donald Trump. We just head a from very single leader of he intelligence community.


I disagree. Comey said he handed over his material to a special prosecutor in reference to his interactions with Trump. That would indicate a case has begun and a special prosecutor appointed, would it not?



I swear Jesus Himself could come down in a chariot of lightning and declare in a voice loud enough to shake the heavens that Trump is innocent, and people would still try to spin it.


While that would be cool and all, I don't see how that addresses the issue at hand.

Who cares about the spin? Let's stick to what we know.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



No it wasn't. Trump could legally asked Comey to end the investigation. He admitted in the testimony. He just said we have norms not to do that, but he could have anyone investigated or end investigated that he wanted.


The problems arise when the particular investigation involves people close to the person that calls for an end to the investigation. That smells of corruption.

Even you can admit that. It's a basic premise.



They wanted the FBI to use the campaign language.


Yes, like I said, a political request. Not a potential illegal request.



Why? Both situations made him feel uneasy. You are merely making arbitrary distinctions.


What is arbitrary about what I said? Lynch made a political request, Trump potentially made a request that was corrupt and unethical considering the circumstances.



Two things. First, you admit that Comey was incorrect then in his testimony when he said the investigation was finished in July and he knew there was no reason to indict her.


No. He was correct in his assessment. There was no legal precedence to recommend charges at that time. As is the case with many investigations, info can become available long after the trail goes cold, look at missing person/mysterious death cases years after they have been set aside for an example.

He was honest and informed the appropriate people, even though it was seen as a kick in the balls to the Clinton camp.



Secondly, maybe because he had to because there was more evidence, and he knew he couldn't just sweep it under the rug.


Yes, more evidence was presented and he did the right thing by informing the committees. His conclusion remained the same and there is absolutely no reason to suggest he swept anything under the rug.

That's pure conspiracy on your part.



This is unresponsive to the fact that Comey said in his own words he didn't want a special prosecutor for Hillary because it would have been a bad look, but he did want one for Trump. You seem to be pretending this isn't problematic.


It's not problematic. You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between the two cases.

That is not my problem or burden to bear. I cannot hold you, or others, hand through all this.



Yes, it makes no sense. He declared no special prosecutor for hiullary and the investigation was over because he was concerned she would look bad, and then he had to correct and say they found new evidence. Duty to correct didn't bother him their.


He never said anything about "the investigation was over because he was concerned she would look bad". That is pure speculation on your part.



Then why can't you admit that what Comey said was a lie. FACT; Comey said he released the memos to be leaked in response to Trumps tweet. FACT; The NYT reported on the memos the day BEFORE the Trump tweet.


Again, there may have been talk of Comey leaking the memos before he actually did it.

We need a lot more context to this before we go too far.



When this is shown to you, you start to make excuses for Comey. This doesn't sound impartial


Not my concern about what you think when you fail to present anything that could be considered impartial, reasonable commentary.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


As long as we can agree that there was an effort in place to try and do so, my point has been made.

Of course I agree on that. There were attempts to influence the 2016 elections, the 2014 elections, the 2012 elections, the 2010 elections, the 2008 elections... every single election since I've been alive at least.

That's no reason to make an assumption that Trump collided with anyone.


Agreed. Nothing has presented to suggest they succeeded. Again, I was not asserting as much.

Then there is no crime. It is not 'illegal' for foreign governments to want to influence an election... it is not 'illegal' for them to do anything. Illegality indicates subservience to the law, and foreign governments are not subject to US law.


Comey said he handed over his material to a special prosecutor in reference to his interactions with Trump. That would indicate a case has begun and a special prosecutor appointed, would it not?

No, it would not. Comey has no power to investigate Trump. The fact he gave his memos to Mueller means only that he gave his memos to Mueller... nothing more.

If Mueller says Trump is under investigation, then we can say Trump is under investigation. Mueller has not said that, and the NSA, DoJ, DHS, CIA, and FBI have all stated he is not and has not been under investigation.


Who cares about the spin? Let's stick to what we know.

OK...
  • Donald Trump is not under investigation and has not been under investigation before Comey was fired.
  • There is no indication Donald Trump is under investigation now.
  • Donald Trump never demanded Comey stop any investigation.
  • Comey told Donald Trump he was not under investigation, but refused to admit that publicly.
  • Comey intentionally leaked his memos to the press via an anonymous source.
  • Comey's concern over Trump's statement was based on personal feelings towards Trump.
  • Loretta Lynch issued an order that also caused Comey discomfort, but he took no action and acquiesced.
  • No investigation was halted or delayed by Donald Trump.

All of those are facts, statements made directly by testifiers under oath and undisputed.

TheRedneck


edit on 6/8/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)







 
16
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join