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.

 

Lets go through Comeys testimoney in detail

page: 12
92
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The answer to the question might be the following:

www.nbcnews.com...


Trump spokesman Sean Spicer said on the TODAY Show that the president would let the investigation go wherever it leads.

"Of course — absolutely, I think he's made that clear," Spicer told Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd. "He's not going to shut anything down."

Former intelligence officials told NBC News that President Trump would technically have the authority to order an end to the investigation, given that the intelligence agencies report directly to him. But it would be politically disastrous for him to do so, they said.

"I remember the last president who ordered a stop to an investigation and it cost him his presidency," said Raymond Batvinis, a former FBI counter intelligence agent who teaches national security at George Washington University, speaking of Richard Nixon and Watergate.


It's important to remember that the main things in impeachment proceedings are political considerations, not legal considerations.

There is a good, but very unflattering, article on the president's situation here:

www.nybooks.com...


Unlike ordinary crimes, impeachable offenses are “political” questions—ones that deeply affect the polity. Alexander Hamilton said that impeachable offenses were political, “as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” For example, of the three articles of impeachment adopted by the Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974, the most important was for “abuse of power.” The critical holding by the committee was that a president can be held accountable for the acts of subordinates as well as for actions that aren’t, strictly speaking, crimes. In the end, an impeachment of a president is grounded in the theory that the holder of that office has failed to fulfill his responsibility, set out in Article II of the Constitution, to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Unless a single act is itself sufficiently grave to warrant impeachment—for example, treason—a pattern of behavior needs to be found. That could involve, for example, emoluments or obstruction of justice.

edit on 10-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: GramblerNo one is abve

Excellent summary, and thanks! Was without my laptop for a few days, due to a fan issue, and haven't had time to watch all the video, so this is quite welcome! I'd seen info on some of the details, but you have included many I'd missed. Much appreciated!

His testimony makes him look quite complicit in the illegal maneuverings we saw happening prior to the election, and even after. At this stage, Comey, Lynch, Hillary, and even O, among others, should be facing some serious charges. No one is above the law.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Bush ordered stopping an investigation and it didn't cost him his presidency. He must have meant Nixon. Nixon didn't order stopping an investigation. Nixon tried to get rid of a special prosecutor. Totally different from ordering stopping an investigation. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

You're right about that. Stopping an FBI investigation might have political fallout, but it's certainly legal and not an impeachable offense. A special counsil, however, is appointed specifically to ensure impartiality from the administration. While Trump could stop Mueller's investigation legally, doing so (without a day-um good reason) would be a direct political assault on the legal process and could be an impetus to impeachment.

That was Nixon's mistake.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Mueller is not a subordinate to Trump. Trump can stop the FBI director who is his subordinate. It is an impeachable offense if Trump tries to stop a special prosecutor.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

You go right ahead and support someone leaking protected investigation information to the media.
www.nytimes.com...


COLLINS: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice? COMEY: Yes. COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies? COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday, after I got fired, that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape. And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.


You can look it up for yourself but I dont think "to get that into the public square" is a valid reason and "it might prompt the appointment of a special council" is a valid reason either.


Another point to ponder from the above testimony: If Comey thought there might be corrobaritive tapes, then why leak? Some kind of disconnect in his narrative there from my take of it.


A follow up on this;
If Comey felt that something fishy was up, there are a number of official channels he could have gone through to handle this, but instead felt it was necessary to leak it to the media?

Anyone else getting that gawd awful feeling that Comey is nothing more than a big fat smoke screen. For me the questions are:

What's being investigated? It seems to me that this Russian/Trump investigation isn't being taken as seriously as it should be by either side (a lot of fake outrage)

The long term Politicians (mostly Dems but some GOP too) are more interested in distancing themselves from any kind of wrong doing, while crudely covering their tracks (like having a fit over a detained laptop, going off about impeachment, or sadly hampering an investigation with late night MLB games?)

Both side haven't shown any kind of collusion between Trump and the Russians, but vow to keep digging. On the counter of this the more this investigation goes on the more evidence of DNC/Hillary wrong doings are becoming clear. It was even shown that Obama publicly interfered with Hillary's private servers, but the topic gets dropped as soon as it's reported. I wonder whos going to report on any collusion between the DNC/Hillary and the media?

I think somethings going on behind the curtain, and all we're seeing is the magicians hand waving back and forth leaving us in awe over the floating story. Deep down inside I think we all know somethings going on behind that curtain, the trick we're seeing is just a trick, but unlike a magic act we need to see how the story floats. We need to see the people pulling the strings on this act, and reveal how the trick is being done and by whom.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Er, that's what I just said. Mueller is under contract to the Executive Branch, so legally he can be stopped by Trump, but it is considered an impeachable offense. It would do Trump no good to try... impeached by indictment or impeached for interfering with a special council is still impeached either way. Ask Nixon.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: ipsedixit

Bush ordered stopping an investigation and it didn't cost him his presidency.


He also ignored something like 29 congressional subpoenas and that certainly didn't get him impeached and neither did the extraordinary renditions that took place on his watch or the torture.


He must have meant Nixon. Nixon didn't order stopping an investigation. Nixon tried to get rid of a special prosecutor. Totally different from ordering stopping an investigation. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.


He's speaking loosely. Nixon tried to fire the Special Prosecutor when he insisted on the surrender of tapes of conversations Nixon had had with some of his staff.

The whole story is here:

en.wikipedia.org...

There is very little difference between firing a prosecutor, attempting to steer the investigation of oneself or ordering a halt to an investigation. The net result is the same, obstruction of justice.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I can think of a variety of reasons but what difference does that make?



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

If he had that authority why didn't he use it?


He didn't want to.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

He was smarter than Nixon. Realizing he was in a hole he stopped digging.

Trump is either a big enough crook and malfacteur that Mueller is going to get enough on him to have him impeached or he is a shifty rogue who has stepped lightly enough over the political and legal pitfalls to escape his pursuers, this time.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

If Trump had the authority to stop the investigation but did not, it was for political reasons. Some contend that he chose to attempt to obstruct the investigation instead. If that is the case, the question of what "authority" he had becomes irrelevant.

If Superman chose to jaywalk rather than fly over the road, he could be cited for jaywalking, legitimately, despite his power, had he chosen to use it, to fly over the road.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: UKTruth

He was smarter than Nixon. Realizing he was in a hole he stopped digging.

Trump is either a big enough crook and malfacteur that Mueller is going to get enough on him to have him impeached or he is a shifty rogue who has stepped lightly enough over the political and legal pitfalls to escape his pursuers, this time.


Option 3: he's done nothing wrong and the entire narrative is based on everyday interactions President's have always had and the whole thing is politically motivated in an attempt to regain power after a hard to take loss.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you mean that the Republicans are trying to remove Trump and replace him with Pence? The Democrats would not regain power even if Trump were to be impeached.

I think at some point the Republicans will try to get rid of Trump, and maybe they are already doing so. There is a kind of sliding scale that one can apply to the Trump administration and Republicans, the party establishment, will be aware of where on that scale the administration currently is, ranging from wonderful, efficacious, fulfilling of their agenda, through problematic, ineffective, embarrassing, counterproductive, shambolic. At a point, somewhere along that scale, active efforts to remove Trump will get under way, even among the Republicans.
edit on 11-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you mean that the Republicans are trying to remove Trump and replace him with Pence? The Democrats would not regain power even if Trump were to be impeached.

I think at some point the Republicans will try to get rid of Trump, and maybe they are already doing so. There is a kind of sliding scale that one can apply to the Trump administration and Republicans, the party establishment, will be aware of where on that scale the administration currently is, ranging from wonderful, efficacious, fulfilling of their agenda, through problematic, ineffective, embarrassing, counterproductive, shambolic. At a point, somewhere along that scale, active efforts to remove Trump will get under way, even among the Republicans.


The narrative is designed to weaken the GOP going into 2018. Power is not the President's alone. Controlling the house and senate is actually more important as Obama found out. You should know this.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes I should (and do).

If the mid terms are a disaster for the GOP, Trump's agenda will be impossible to achieve. In one way, this might actually prioritize, for Republicans, Trump's removal at the earliest possible moment. From their point of view, the sooner Pence is president, the better. Pence in the Oval Office might rally support for the Republicans leading into the mid terms.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Lynch is wrong for offering Comey to be Judge jury and prosecutor. Comey is wrong for accepting being Judge Jury and prosecutor.

The sit ins and oversight of investigation into Hillary compared to Trumps is off the charts. Also obstructions from Hillary's people in her case and push and resources put towards Trumps is mind boggling.

I can maybe assume but doubt Comey taking notes on Trump was learning a lesson from the Clinton investigation. It seems more Comey did not want as much documenting on Clinton and more on Trump to try and nail him guilty before even investigated. Could be Comey knew Trump had no collusion so wanted that to be documented. According to his testimony that can't be true it seems.

I wish there was a good mashup of Comey, Lynch and others testifying......some of It is really mind blowing.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: randomthoughts12

Comey is no white knight. He is a very deceptive character. His handling of the Omar Mateen case in Florida is full of obfuscating statements to the press/public designed to conceal who Mateen was and what was really going on with him. That's fine (from a government perspective) if Comey was trying to conceal intelligence related operations from public scrutiny, but it does make very clear that this guy, should need arise, can lie very convincingly.

Chapter and verse on this is in one of John Hankey's videos. Comey appears about half way through the video, but the whole video is worth watching.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes I should (and do).

If the mid terms are a disaster for the GOP, Trump's agenda will be impossible to achieve. In one way, this might actually prioritize, for Republicans, Trump's removal at the earliest possible moment. From their point of view, the sooner Pence is president, the better. Pence in the Oval Office might rally support for the Republicans leading into the mid terms.


Not likely - for all the talk of Trumps terrible approval ratings, his base has not been dented. There is still that 40-45% of voters staying totally loyal to him, not far off what he got percentage wise in the general election in fact. Think about that - all the manufactured drama and constant news cycle STILL can't break his base.

That group crumbles under Pence. Pence actually is an extremist and is far more dangerous to anyone left of hard right.
edit on 11/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

So by your logic, the obstruction investigation is still a possibility? Let's see. I'm not a lawyer so I won't argue but I posted the video of a law professor saying there is no case.

I'll sit back and watch but my sense is we won't here much talk of obstruction except from delusional talking heads trying to save face. Obstruction is very ifficult to prove but they'll make the charge regardless



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join