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: 13
92
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
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 just think that "presidential authority" does not rule out an obstruction case, not in the United States, where the government is not "personal" but rather based on a legal framework. Maybe in Peron's Argentina a president would have the authority to set aside law where he thought necessary on a spontaneous, ad hoc basis. That kind of government is a constant danger.

There were signs of it where witnesses before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence refused to answer questions on the grounds that they were "not appropriate". Strictly speaking, my understanding is that charges could have been preferred against those people, but that's the kind of thing I am talking about. There are no questions that are inappropriate to be put, by the US Senate.


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 difficult to prove but they'll make the charge regardless


You could be right. There are people on line citing examples of "enhancements" to sentences, where there were guilty verdicts on other charges, based on "I hope" style phraseology heard during surveillance by law enforcement agencies.
edit on 11-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2017 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't happen to agree with your analysis, except that Trump's base, or the hard core of it anyway, is solid. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

People understand sentences holistically. You cannot say because a sentence contains a particular word it must be that type of sentence. You cannot say because a sentence contains the word hope it must mean this way or that way. You have to look at the whole sentence holistically. What Trump say to Comey was I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go. There does not appear to be anything suggesting of request or order or threat. It would be a stretch to call that obstruction of justice.
edit on 11-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

There are a lot of limber people in the legal fraternity, willing to try that stretch.

Personally, I don't think the Comey conversation is enough. It is a "he said, he said" situation as to interpretation, but then Trump told the Russians that pressure on him had been relieved when he fired Comey.

Context can be stretched. In the end, jurors, or senators will make a judgment, if it comes to that.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Congress is not without recourse for a president that decides to shut down investigations that threaten to expose their complicity in something wrong or illegal but there needs to be evidence. Not only because obstruction requires clear evidence but also because of all the fake/overblown news we hear, there was no case here. Pretty clear this was all part of an ongoing attempt to slow Trumps agenda, right or wrong, from succeeding.

Pretty sure we haven't seen the end and this type of strategy will persist.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Mueller took over Comey in the investigation. Comey was appointed by Obama so he was not impartial. With Comey out, Mueller in, I would feel pressure gone too if I were Trump. Nothing surprising or unethical about that.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: ipsedixit

Mueller took over Comey in the investigation. Comey was appointed by Obama so he was not impartial. With Comey out, Mueller in, I would feel pressure gone too if I were Trump. Nothing surprising or unethical about that.


Except that Comey and Mueller have been close friends for more than 15 years. Mueller has a conflict of interest and in no way can he investigate and remain impartial. The other edge to that sword is Sessions cannot fire Mueller as it may appear he is favoring Trump.

Interesting dilemma.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13
Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation, it would have to be Rosenstein doing the firing.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Outlier13
Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation, it would have to be Rosenstein doing the firing.


Sessions' recusal of himself does not negate his official powers as AG. Sessions is the AG and Rosenstein is the Deputy AG. Sessions can fire both Rosenstein and Mueller. Trump can order Sessions to fire them all and be well within his presidential authority to do so and there wouldn't be a damn thing the hyperventilating left could do about it.

What I find very interesting is the very specific wording with respects to the Justice Department’s recusal regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, states that “no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with … [a]ny person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.”

This clause right here gives Trump every single right to order Sessions to fire Mueller right now because Mueller has had a 15+ year personal relationship with Comey. That is a HUGE conflict of interest considering the fact that the whole purpose of Mueller is to investigate whether Trump pressured Comey to drop the Russia investigation as well as investigate if this was why Trump fired Comey.

But guess what? We don't hear jack sh**t from the MSM about this massive conflict of interest nor do you hear anyone on the left screaming for Mueller to recuse himself. F**king pack of hypocrites.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

Interesting.
You don't think it matters that Sessions has recused himself from the Russian investigation? This puts a new spin on how I perceive the situation. If Sessions does the firing, it might not come across so badly.... I don't trust Rosenstein, ha, that would be something if Sessions gets rid of both of them.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Outlier13

Interesting.
You don't think it matters that Sessions has recused himself from the Russian investigation? This puts a new spin on how I perceive the situation. If Sessions does the firing, it might not come across so badly.... I don't trust Rosenstein, ha, that would be something if Sessions gets rid of both of them.


It matters but at the same time if Trump wants a legitimately fair and impartial investigator then Mueller needs to be fired along with Rosenstein. The WH can easily point to the impropriety of the relationship between Mueller and Comey as justification. And since Rosenstein appointed Mueller (without consulting the WH) Trump has justification to have him fired as well.

It really doesn't matter what Trump does. The hyperventilating left will never let go of the butt hurt from their crushing defeat.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

That could easily be a card the Trump administration is holding for a trump card (pun sorta intended, not really, but kinda?). All they have to do to explain the delay is say something like, "We originally hoped Mueller would be able to overlook his relationship with Comey, and wanted to give the benefit of the doubt as an olive branch to the Democratic Party. But, in light of A, B, and C, we have no choice but to conclude our hopes were in vain and follow the regulations without political consideration."

Pawn to Queen's Rook 3.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well said. I like it.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Here's the catch. Comey testified that FBI never examined the DNC servers for hack, instead relying on a private organization called CrowdStrike. I don't get how Comey can have no doubt Russia hacked DNC when FBI never did any examination. You think that was kinda weird? Yeah so do I.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The one thing that most jumped out at me, was at the very end of Comey's opening statement in which he quoted part of that favorite Methodist line that Hillary Clinton trotted out time and again during the Democratic National Convention

“Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

It was the very last thing that he said, in this context, directed at his old FBI colleagues.

I thought to myself - that's no coincidence. That's a type of code, directed to none other than Hillary Clinton, the implication of which is that Comey has been politicized, and did he not at one time serve with the Clinton Foundation?

I thought it was strange and unusual.

Wonder if anyone else noticed it..?

youtu.be...

Now I'm aware of the context in which he was using it, but for him to choose that precise phrasing from that famous Methodist line, I don't know, but to me it seemed like a type of code and a wink and a nod to Clinton, maybe as if in atonement for his re-opening of the investigation just prior to the election, in which he exonerated her, ultimately and protected her from any prosecution for wrongdoing or anything of a criminal nature.

Is Comey's religious affiliation from his upbringing also Methodist? Just curious.. that might explain it.

edit on 15-6-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: typo




top topics



 
92
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join