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: 7
92
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
There are currently 10 circle jerk threads about Comey on ATS
One doesn't even have to watch Comeys hearing to know that it triggered the cult.

#worstpresidentever
edit on 9-6-2017 by ErrorErrorError because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Your a real partisan man I see


Not really. I don't care for republicans or democrats. I believe both can be full of crap a lot of times. But I am a fan of Trump.




He hated Clinton.if you read between the lines, what you don't get is Alex Jones Internet bs doesn't get people sentenced. A pro scumbag like Clinton cam hide her tracks with all her helpers and it ate comey up.


Yeah. That is why he didn't get a warrant for her server. Because he hates her.




Now trump the idiot broke the camels back.


Billionaire President. Yeah he seems like a real idiot.



By the way my point was not his greatness at fbi director it was at law.


I liked the part where he broke the law. Remember that part.



Which means he knows exactly what he can leak and get away with.


When your in such disarray as he is, your bound to make mistakes.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Grambler

I already told you I will not apologize for you misunderstanding the testimony and attaching your whole argument to one line.


Ok I'm done talking with you.

You are delusional, and I hope you seek help.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError




There are currently 10 circle jerk threads about Comey on ATS


And here you are right in the middle of said circle jerk.



One doesn't even have to warch Comeys hearing to know that it triggered the cult.


Triggered? He helped Trump out more than he thought possible.



#worstpresidentever


Talk about triggered. lol



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Ok I'm done talking with you.


That is probably for the best. Remember how the left cried about how Trump should apologize. lol



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Lmao! That was just one post about one aspect of the testiomy that was lacking from your breakdown. I see that other than saying that some of the things that Comey called Trump out on were Comey's opinions, we can agree that he (Trump) appears to have lied about a number of things.

The fact that you keep excusing these lies as unimportant is a bit bewildering to me. When did our standards get this low? If he will lie about all these things that you feel are minor, why do you persist with the belief that he's credible when it comes to matters you feel are important?

As for the points that you said weren't addressing something from the OP, I disagree. The OP is a breakdown of the testimony correct? Are you telling me that it's only proper to discuss items you felt were relevant from the testimony? That's clearly stacking the deck on your part my friend!

I'm going to try to respond to a few things and then point out something else, and do it rather quickly, so I apologize for any mistakes ahead of time.


1. He admits that Trump’s words were not obstruction.
2. He says he got a feeling that was what Trump was doing, but later admits in testimony that he had a hard time getting a feeling for what Trump was thinking.


Did he? Here's what I heard:


MANCHIN: Do you believe this rises to obstruction of justice?
COMEY: I don't know, that's Bob Mueller's job to sort that out.


That's not "admitting" (you're really loading the language here) that Trump's words weren't obstruction. Maybe you're referring to this other exchange?


RISCH: He said, I hope. Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?
COMEY: I don't know well enough to answer. The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.
RISCH: Right.
COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: He said, I hope.
COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct.
RISCH: You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?
COMEY: I don't as I sit here.


There's some awkward phrasing in Risch's question "You may have... not what he said" to which Comey simply responds "Correct." Is that specifically what you're referring to? That's extremely flimsy if so and I'd hardly say that constitutes Comey admitting to anything. In fact, on the balance, the overriding part of that is that he took it as direction.

Now Risch tries to make a case that saying "I hope" can never be taken as a request, demand, direction whatever — as though saying that words only have strictly literal meanings and context doesn't matter. Let me give you a very simple, very commonplace example that blows that superficial defense out of the water.

I raised a few nieces after my sister-in-law died. If I had said to one of them, "I hope you don't think you're walking out the door with that on." Am I really just expressing an abstract hope floating in the ether? Hell no. It would be perfectly understood by the both of us that what I was really saying was turn the f around, go back to your room and put something else on.

He did not say that he "got a feeling" at all. In fact, he does discuss feelings a few times but not there. What you're trying to do here is discount his interpretation of what was happening with loaded language. It's a good strategy but did he say he felt that he had a difficult time interpreting Trump there? No. Later, in response to Feinstein's question, he relates that he spoke about his interactions with the President with the FBI leadership team. This would have been more or less contemporaneous and from what he relates of their own opinions based on his relaying the details of the interactions, they were apparently disturbed as well. The clear impression that he was giving is that at that time it occurred, he took it as being leaned on. I don't think that's unreasonable.


3. He admits that if an FBI agent thinks a crime occurred, they should report it to the appropriate people (the AG). He did not do this. In fact, he offered to resign in the past when he felt he was asked to do something unethical, but did nothing here.

4. He says he didn’t let others in the FBI know this because he felt it would have affected the investigation. Yet Trump publicly said almost the same thing to the media the next day (that he felt Flynn was a good man and hoped he would be cleared).


It's a fair question but it's one he answered. Let's look at his answer again:


COMEY: I think they were as shocked and troubled by it as I was. Some said things that led me to believe that. I don't remember exactly. But the reaction was similar to mine. They're all experienced people who never experienced such a thing, so they were very concerned. Then the conversation turned to about, so what should we do with this information? That was a struggle for us. Because we are the leaders of the FBI, so it's been reported to us, and I heard it and now shared it with the leaders of the FBI, our conversation was, should we share this with any senior officials at the justice department? Our primary concern was, we can't infect the investigative team. We don't want the agents and analysts working on this to know the president of the united States has asked, and when it comes from the president, I took it as a direction, to get rid of this investigation because we're not going to follow that request. So we decided, we have to keep it away from our troops.

Is there anyone else we ought to tell at the justice department? We considered whether to tell -- the attorney general said we believe rightly he was shortly going to recuse. There was no other senate confirmed leaders in the justice department at that point. The deputy attorney general was Mr. Boente, acting shortly in the seat. We decided the best move would be to hold it, keep it in a box, document it, as we'd already done, and this investigation is going to do on. Figure out what to do with it down the road. Is there a way to corroborate it? It was our word against the president's. No way to corroborate this. My view of this changed when the prospect of tapes was raised. That's how we thought about it then.


That's actually a two-part answer and your point #4 ignores the second and more important part completely. Notice also that he is claiming a consensus among FBI leadership. Do you really believe that an accurate characterization of his response is:

"because he felt it would have affected the investigation?"

What about the part I just bolded? AG Sessions was — can we just say it? — potentially compromised. Session's deputy was a a short timer (possibly loyal to Sessions). The fact that it was his word against Trump's and therefore no independent corroboration? Sounds more than reasonable to me. I'm sorry to say, that what doesn't sound reasonable is your characterization.

edit on 2017-6-9 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
I'm not arguing with you regarding GWB, but definitely not Obama. Again, I'm no democrat also. For the most part, Obama objectively ran a fairly clean shop as compared to GWB and this white trash, Trump.


originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
They didn't obstruct justice like Trump did last month.



You mean as in imaginarily, in your head as Trump did last month? That's actually correct... Bush and Obama both had their moments of bonafide, real world obstruction of justice.


White trash?

You're lucky it's late and I'm tired. Otherwise I'd burn this account.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


5. Comey admits Trump never mentioned Flynn again, and that the investigation was unimpeded.


Fair point. I actually made this in another thread. FTR, as I've stated before and have stated already today, even though I do believe fully that what Trump was trying to do could reasonably construed as obstruction, I think that there are problems and this is one of them. In fact, I would say that it seems that Trump's biggest frustration was actually that Comey wouldn't publically announce that he wasn't under investigation.


6. Comey told sessions to not let him in a room alone again with Trump. This was because he was so afraid that Trump would ask him something inappropriate. Despite this, he spoke several more times in private on the phone with Trump, and Trump never brought up anything about stopping investigations.


1. Was he supposed to stop taking calls from the President? He asked Sessions to act as a buffer not insure that the President never called him again.

2. Actually, there was the "lifting the cloud" conversation. While he didn't say anything about stopping the investigations, once again he's whining about the investigations, this time about how they're impacting him politcally. Obstruction? No. But let's not pretend that there's no pressure there. Are you married? Has your wife ever bitched at you about something without point blank stating that she wanted you to do something or stop doing something?

Human communication happens on many levels simultaneously. There are many layers in spoken language alone from intonation, tone and pitch to phrasing and word choice, innuendo, emphasis, etc and that's all before getting into non-verbal cues.


7. Comey admits that Trump told him that he hoped they would investigate any “satellite people” in his administration that worked inappropriately with Russia, and get to the bottom of it.

This hardly sounds like the words of a man trying to stop an investigation.


Are we going to ignore the implications here? Trump runs around saying that it's all a hoax (and he's not alone) but behind close doors, a tacit admission that well hell, maybe there are people in his orbit that could have been up to no good after all.

Why gloss over this? It contradicts everything Trump has said publically. It also goes to potentional motive for killing he investigation ironically enough and something I have said repeatedly regarding why Trump might want to kill investigations even if he knew he himself had been involved in nothing untoward.

He doesn't sound remotely convinced that there's no "there, there" from what I'm reading.


All of these facts seem to overwhelm Comey's feeling that there was something serious going on. This alone was a huge blow to the ant trump people. The best they can get out of this is that Trump is a jerk or an idiot, hardly the bombshell they wanted.


That's your opinion and it's not one that I share nor is it one that many folks of my political leanings share. I wasn't expecting a "bombshell" from Comey and I got what I was primarily expecting — confirmation of the memos. There's some other things that "we got out of this" that you're ignoring.

I'm going to switch over and point a few portions out in the next post.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok long post so I will break it down in sections.

First point on downplaying Trumps lying.

I agree Trump has lied about things. But most of them are stupid petty things. However, lying about crowd size, who invited who to dinner, etc. is small. Is it good to do this, no. But its not as bad as the big lies to smear him everyday.

Remember, you fell for the NYT lie about his team being on surveillance in collusion with Russia. And yet you have expressed no outrage at the media for lying to you. Why is that?

As for what to respond to, you can pick anything. I would assume your first criticisms would have been on more important things than who invited who to dinner, or making a big point about how Comey destroyed conservative narratives by saying Trump lied about the FBI doing poorly. How can you make such a grandiose claim off of a purely subjective claim.

On my point about Trumps words not being obstruction.

Look at my response to Pyle. Comey literally admitted that Trumps words were not a direction. He read into the circumstances behind them. That is not me using loaded language, those are Comeys EXACT words. I can't believe you and others are denying this.

You question my comment saying Comey admitted he couldn't read Trump well.


FEINSTEIN: Talk for a moment about his request that you pledge loyalty and your response to that and what impact you believe that had.

COMEY: I don't know for sure because I don't know the president well enough to read him well.

www.politico.com...

So you admit he says he couldn't read Trump well at some times, but he was able to read Trump in knowing he was directing him to drop the investigation.

As far as the quote you post.

Come on, really? He thought the Pres was trying to get him to drop the investigation, but he told no one of importance? Had he felt Sessions was compromised, what would it have hurt to tell him. That would have been more proof of Sessions did something wrong that Trump was inappropriate.

In the past when Comey felt pressured, he offered to resign, but not this time.

Do you really don't think its possible that Comey sat on this , and then was mad when he got fired, so he is now attacking Trump?

But even if Comey honestly felt that he was being pressured, who cares?

We know all of the following.

-He admitted Trumps WORDS did not direct him to end the investigation.
-He admitted that the Flynn investigation wasn't crucial to the Russia investigation anyways.
-He admitted that Trump never brought up the Flynn thing again, and the that investigation and the Russia investigation went on unaffected.
-He admitted Trump said he wanted the Russia investigation to continue and that he hoped they caught any satellite people that were acting illegally.
-He admitted that legally the Pres can order any investigation to begin or end legally.

His feelings are IRRELEVANT. All of this shows there was no obstruction.

Did Trump act in a dumb way. Yep. Was it obstruction? Nope.

And thats just point one of what this testimony proved.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


Fair point. I actually made this in another thread. FTR, as I've stated before and have stated already today, even though I do believe fully that what Trump was trying to do could reasonably construed as obstruction, I think that there are problems and this is one of them. In fact, I would say that it seems that Trump's biggest frustration was actually that Comey wouldn't publically announce that he wasn't under investigation.


Bingo. That is exactly what Trump was angry about. He wanted Comey to announce what he was telling Trump publicly, that he personally wasn't under investigation.

Can you blame him? The mainstream media was spreading lies (as comey admitted today) making Trump look like Putins puppet.

But yeah I think he made poor choices. But its not obstruction.


1. Was he supposed to stop taking calls from the President? He asked Sessions to act as a buffer not insure that the President never called him again.

2. Actually, there was the "lifting the cloud" conversation. While he didn't say anything about stopping the investigations, once again he's whining about the investigations, this time about how they're impacting him politcally. Obstruction? No. But let's not pretend that there's no pressure there. Are you married? Has your wife ever bitched at you about something without point blank stating that she wanted you to do something or stop doing something?

Human communication happens on many levels simultaneously. There are many layers in spoken language alone from intonation, tone and pitch to phrasing and word choice, innuendo, emphasis, etc and that's all before getting into non-verbal cues.


Ok but again, the fact that Comey was worried about having one on one conversations with Trump, and then nothing bad happened in them belies his feeling that Trump was trying to get him to drop the investigation.

The lifting the cloud conversation is not problematic at all. Trump is having difficulty getting anything done because the constant lies in the media (that Comey admitted). Lies by the way that you have fell for and made threads about how bad Trump was for it. So to charcterize him as whining when he is jsut wanting Comey to tell the truth in public seems harsh to me.

There was pressure, but the pressure here was to tell the world that he ewasn't under investigation. Why is this bad at all?



Are we going to ignore the implications here? Trump runs around saying that it's all a hoax (and he's not alone) but behind close doors, a tacit admission that well hell, maybe there are people in his orbit that could have been up to no good after all.

Why gloss over this? It contradicts everything Trump has said publically. It also goes to potentional motive for killing he investigation ironically enough and something I have said repeatedly regarding why Trump might want to kill investigations even if he knew he himself had been involved in nothing untoward.

He doesn't sound remotely convinced that there's no "there, there" from what I'm reading.


This has nothing to do with what he said. You may feel that Trump doesn't believe the Russia story but its irrelevant. First he has publicly said he thinks it was serious what Russia did. But more importantly, even if he doesn't think Russia did it, he was telling Comey he hoped that if there was wrong doing, he wanted him to get to the bottom of it. Comey seems to have thought he was sincere with this, so I don't see what the problem is.





That's your opinion and it's not one that I share nor is it one that many folks of my political leanings share. I wasn't expecting a "bombshell" from Comey and I got what I was primarily expecting — confirmation of the memos. There's some other things that "we got out of this" that you're ignoring.

I'm going to switch over and point a few portions out in the next post.


I fully expect us to disagree on our opinions, thats fine. And I do think that Trump acted poorly in many ways.

But are we in agreement that Trump didn't obstruct justice, and this isn't impeachable.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Lmao! That was just one post about one aspect of the testiomy that was lacking from your breakdown. I see that other than saying that some of the things that Comey called Trump out on were Comey's opinions, we can agree that he (Trump) appears to have lied about a number of things.


Please use sources for your statement about Trump "appears" to have lied.



The fact that you keep excusing these lies as unimportant is a bit bewildering to me. When did our standards get this low? If he will lie about all these things that you feel are minor, why do you persist with the belief that he's credible when it comes to matters you feel are important?


So it goes from appears to have lied to full blown lies. Sources please.



Did he? Here's what I heard: MANCHIN: Do you believe this rises to obstruction of justice? COMEY: I don't know, that's Bob Mueller's job to sort that out.


Yeah. I heard him say he didn't know if it was obstruction, which would mean he had a hard time figuring out what Trump was thinking. Just like Gambler said. But I can understand how he could not think straight, with the FBI being in disarray and all.



We decided the best move would be to hold it, keep it in a box, document it, as we'd already done, and this investigation is going to do on. Figure out what to do with it down the road. Is there a way to corroborate it? It was our word against the president's. No way to corroborate this. My view of this changed when the prospect of tapes was raised. That's how we thought about it then.




That's actually a two-part answer and your point #4 ignores the second and more important part completely. Notice also that he is claiming a consensus among FBI leadership. Do you really believe that an accurate characterization of his response is:


Yes, but did it affect the investigation when Trump said it publicly? Not so much.



What about the part I just bolded? AG Sessions was — can we just say it? — potentially compromised. Session's deputy was a a short timer (possibly loyal to Sessions). The fact that it was his word against Trump's and therefore no independent corroboration? Sounds more than reasonable to me. I'm sorry to say, that what doesn't sound reasonable is your characterization.


Or we can just say that Comey is someone who was not cut out to run the FBI. He was "potentially" compromised by the DNC. I mean he did leak government documents. I wonder what else he would be willing to do to save his back side.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 3daysgone

What you saw was the news. You saw absolutely nothing of the actual investigations.

Comey has been a stellar presecutor for decades. His bosses at AG whether under Obama/Clinton or Trump now that is another story.. pros can hide their tracks and make the job pretty hard.




Yeah, he went gangbusters on Martha Stewart, didn't he.

She is more his speed.

That's why lynch could control him with a look.




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Grambler,

That was an excellent summary of the testimony. These points are exactly what was revealed, and there is no doubt since the questions were asked multiple times in slightly different ways. It looks like you've been taking a lot of flak, but that's what happens when people have a narrative that needs to be protected.

I believe the biggest revelation, other than the Lynch and MSM lies which you've mentioned, is that Comey's loyalty is with the democrats. I agree, it's very suspicious that he would only keep notes when it came to Trump. What we're going to be hearing calls for is the release of the Trump tapes, I think Comey challenged for the release of those tapes under the impression those tapes do not exist.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Get back to me in a few days when your proven dead wrong.

Comey did nothing illegal. He leaked no classified info.

Your literally parroting trumps lawyer and only his lawyer. Nobody else thinks coney is in any danger.

He never got a warrant for her server?

I think you missed the part where his boss and all her buddies (including judges) helped her conceal the truth on a regular basis.

Being a billionaire in the political world of commercial real estate doesn't make one intelligent, usually just immoral, or heavily specialized.

It's obvious when he tweets he is a moron, he is undermining his own work and ability to govern and legislate.


edit on 9-6-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Coney did nothing illegal. He leaked no classified info.

It is not illegal to leak information from an ongoing investigation to the press to manipulate people within that investigation?

Comey stated that he leaked info to get a special prosecutor for the investigation. That is not his CALL. If he wanted to suggest that there are proper channels to do such. Playing outside the rules is EXACTLY why comey had "memos" on his meetings with the president. If those "memos" were to document obstruction why did he not share them with his boss? Comey was able to manipulate the hillary investigation, we were shown that yesterday, and comey was attempting to manipulate this investigation but he got caught.
We had an fbi director that kept private files on people; we DO NOT need that again. Comey needs to be investigated independently and should be held accountable for his actions.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is all you need to know about Comey and Trump.

Trump asked for allegiance, and Comey promised allegiance to the truth.

Whether Trump asked for Comey to drop the case against Flynn or just asking him to go easy on Flynn is immaterial.

It didn't matter whether Comey had an investigation on Trump or Flynn.....There was an investigation of at least the Russia's involvement in our election. That we know.

Comey continued to investigate Russia, he was fired for it, then Trump sends out libelous and false statements about Comey after the firing.

This is clear obstruction of justice. Plane and simple. You know what they say, the cover up is always worse than the crime itself. Trump should be impeached immediately. It's just a matter of time.


Is that the name of your band - Plane and simple - let me guess, you're "Simple".



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier




Coney did nothing illegal. He leaked no classified info.

It is not illegal to leak information from an ongoing investigation to the press to manipulate people within that investigation?

Comey stated that he leaked info to get a special prosecutor for the investigation. That is not his CALL. If he wanted to suggest that there are proper channels to do such. Playing outside the rules is EXACTLY why comey had "memos" on his meetings with the president. If those "memos" were to document obstruction why did he not share them with his boss? Comey was able to manipulate the hillary investigation, we were shown that yesterday, and comey was attempting to manipulate this investigation but he got caught.
We had an fbi director that kept private files on people; we DO NOT need that again. Comey needs to be investigated independently and should be held accountable for his actions.

Exactly.

His excuse makes ZERO sense.
If you are the FBI director and you have info that is pertinent to an investigation.... you approach someone above you.... if you can't handle it or need to recuse yourself.
If the person above you(the AG) is a person being investigated, then you go to the Congress... behind closed doors. You don't leak to the press...... AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN FIRED..... Long after the information should have been pushed ahead!

This is the guy that repeatedly told Congress that he couldn't comment on an ongoing investigation when it was Hillary that was being investigated.... leaking to the press when it is Trump?

He worked for the Clintons.... and still does.
edit on b000000302017-06-09T08:21:36-05:0008America/ChicagoFri, 09 Jun 2017 08:21:36 -0500800000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

There is nothing to see. Besides the fact that Comey admitted that he was one of the leakers and perjured himself. Comey also admitted that Trump has the right to end investigation if he wanted to because the FBI is under the jurisdiction of the Executive. There was no investigation into Trump. End of Story. Nothing to see.
edit on 9-6-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: stosh64

yeah, great breakdown.
but we need 6 more threads on this.
..........
now the sihtshow is about who said what, and not about Flynn's dealings or kushner dark channel request with Russia.
....
please leave. Thank you.




top topics



 
92
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join