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 - investigation was not a 'hill worth dying on'

page: 3
57
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Why would you lower yourself to the level of these lying idiots? Comey used a common expression, Politico had an error in their transcript, the OP is a moron and the result should be hoax binned/LOL'd.

You really want to jump in this hole and start digging with them in a vain effort to salvage this garbage? Come on, you're better than that!


You sound so angry and bitter. If I were you though I would be careful, those are heavy insults.





posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
You mean everyone else gets one scope while Trump gets two?


If you want to scope Trump twice that's your bag, I'm not really an expert on proctology.

BREAKING! Partisan hack bleeds out when someone tells him to 'wear his heart on his sleeve'.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Comey - investigation was not a 'hill worth dying on'


Actually, in context, it was about his questioning why she wanted him to call it a "matter" instead of an "investigation."



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

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Why would you lower yourself to the level of these lying idiots? Comey used a common expression, Politico had an error in their transcript, the OP is a moron and the result should be hoax binned/LOL'd.

You really want to jump in this hole and start digging with them in a vain effort to salvage this garbage? Come on, you're better than that!







Was it not a False Dichotomy"

Wouldnn't YOU fear for your life?





posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
What he meant was, that the decision to argue with Hillary about her choice of words regarding the "investigation/matter," was not "a hill worth dying on." It's a phrase. You're taking it way out of context, though it does fit the narrative of certain ATS members.


Of course your right. He didn't mean he would be killed. He met it would be a large struggle, in the extreme mabye costing him his job.

But it is curious that he felt dirty about this and didn't think it was a hill worth dying on, but did find Trump comments about loyalty a hill worth dying on.

Keep in mind, its not as if Comey just let the Hillarys people's comment go, he actually agreed to use influencing language that he knew was being requested to help mislead the public. He was willing to go along with this, for Hillary, but with Trump he not only did not go along woth it, he eventually leaked info to the press so to make Trump look bad.

This shows unbelievable bias to me.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: Stevemagegod

That's a heck of a reach, even for you Stevemagegod...

Comey even said he wasn't going to call it a "matter" as requested. If he had been afraid of the Clintons he would have done as requested...and never reopened the investigation.

Try again...

This hearing is about your emperor and his new clothes.


Why is that such a stretch? He called Trump a Liar but was Deathly afraid of the Clintons.


Well...it's a stretch mostly because you're latching on to a demonstrably incorrect typo in a transcript and crafting an entire narrative based off the demonstrably incorrect typo.

Hack.



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

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
You mean everyone else gets one scope while Trump gets two?


If you want to scope Trump twice that's your bag, I'm not really an expert on proctology.

BREAKING! Partisan hack bleeds out when someone tells him to 'wear his heart on his sleeve'.


Did you see the headline about the partisan hack who spent hours looking for the hot potato? Of course, that was only after he viciously harangued someone for not giving him the penny they offered for his thoughts. Hilariously, he then spent the rest of the day making dog-like noises at every oak tree he could find, after being told he was barking up the wrong one.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

BREAKING! Partisan hack suffocates on change when told to put 'his money where his mouth is'.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
A third possibility, it's a Freudian slip.

The most obvious explanation is that he chose his words carefully....showing intent.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod


Transcript



COMEY: Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for months. And was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don't call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? 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.




I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't worth dying on


Wow. So charging Hillary with a Crime wasn't worth getting Killed over it.


I could care less about the dying reference. What is MOST intriguing is that Lynch asked him to call it a "matter.

The Trump administrations long game is playing out perfectly. He knows there is nothing on him and is 5 steps ahead of everyone.

Comey's testimony is just the tip of the iceberg.

Nice that he finally put to rest the nothing burger about the Russian narrative and having nothing involving Trump though....cant wait to see what pops up next to deflect!

I think it's funny how so many demtards just blindly follow. They have crazed, literally insane, leaders that make all kinds of ludicrous statements that they can't back up with any proof, yet the sheep still follow.

I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel right now.

Comey is the one person that they counted on to come out with damning evidence on Trump and it went down exactly how I thought and exactly opposite of what they wanted.

Internally smiling for a while here.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
What he meant was, that the decision to argue with Hillary about her choice of words regarding the "investigation/matter," was not "a hill worth dying on." It's a phrase. You're taking it way out of context, though it does fit the narrative of certain ATS members.


It also fits the narrative given, by understanding the Clinton body count.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Just because I don't really think many know the meaning of loyalty:


Loyalty is devotion and faithfulness to a cause, country, group, or person. Philosophers disagree on what can be an object of loyalty as some argue that loyalty is strictly interpersonal and only another human being can be the object of loyalty.

John Kleinig, professor of philosophy at City University of New York, observes that over the years the idea has been treated by writers from Aeschylus through John Galsworthy to Joseph Conrad, by psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, scholars of religion, political economists, scholars of business and marketing, and—most particularly—by political theorists, who deal with it in terms of loyalty oaths and patriotism. As a philosophical concept, loyalty was largely untreated by philosophers until the work of Josiah Royce, the "grand exception" in Kleinig's words.[1] John Ladd, professor of philosophy at Brown University, writing in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy in 1967, observes that by that time the subject had received "scant attention in philosophical literature". This he attributed to "odious" associations that the subject had with nationalism, including Nazism, and with the metaphysics of idealism, which he characterized as "obsolete". However, he argued that such associations were faulty and that the notion of loyalty is "an essential ingredient in any civilized and humane system of morals".[2] Kleinig observes that from the 1980s onwards, the subject gained attention, with philosophers variously relating it to professional ethics, whistleblowing, friendship, and virtue theory.[1]




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Stopping dubstep isn't worth dying for either-it's an expression.

I watched the whole thing and I get the vibe that he was tired of politics interfering with his work. I can't blame him because i've been through the same thing but never on this scale, It's good that some of the evidence is left behind closed doors and i think he did well to protect others because he's not the only one people will be watching. The KGB have a fetish for poison and if he spills the beans...



There is no KGB.... they have been disbanded and shut down decades ago....



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
This seems to be turning in to a 'who can throw the most manure contest'....

Sadly all this ignores the elephant in the room, Clinton(s).

The Lynch revelations just keep coming..

How much more can come out before something is done, or should we believe that her and hubby are on the same table as George Bush & Jnr, beyond reproach, no matter what..
edit on 9-6-2017 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: Stevemagegod

That's a heck of a reach, even for you Stevemagegod...

Comey even said he wasn't going to call it a "matter" as requested. If he had been afraid of the Clintons he would have done as requested...and never reopened the investigation.

Try again...

This hearing is about your emperor and his new clothes.


Where does he say "deathly afraid" of the Clintons???

Why is that such a stretch? He called Trump a Liar but was Deathly afraid of the Clintons.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
What he meant was, that the decision to argue with Hillary about her choice of words regarding the "investigation/matter," was not "a hill worth dying on." It's a phrase. You're taking it way out of context, though it does fit the narrative of certain ATS members.

Why would a suspected criminal have any right or power to tell the Director of the FBI how to speak??? And why would the listen, and why would the leader of the DOJ listen and bow to this possible criminal?

THAT is the making of a real investigation. Maybe with people who have some frickin' balls instead of kiss-ass Comey and Lynch.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You can pick your battles and you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't win the battle of picking your friend's nose.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You can pick your battles and you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't win the battle of picking your friend's nose.

Sure you can! In fact...I would argue that if you are in a heated discussion and reach over and pick that person's nose, the argument will likely end in either laughter or punches.

So there



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You can pick your battles and you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't win the battle of picking your friend's nose.

Sure you can! In fact...I would argue that if you are in a heated discussion and reach over and pick that person's nose, the argument will likely end in either laughter or punches.

So there


I'm guessing gooey punches.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta





top topics



 
57
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join