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.
CORNYN: Let me take you back to the Clinton e-mail investigation. I think you’ve been cast as a hero or a villain depending on the — whose political ox is being gored at many different times during the course of the Clinton e-mail investigation, and even — even now, perhaps.
But you clearly were troubled by the conduct of the sitting attorney general, Loretta Lynch, when it came to the Clinton e-mail investigation. You mentioned the characterization that you’d been asked to accept that this was a “matter” and not a criminal investigation, which you’ve said it — it was.
There was the matter of President Clinton’s meeting on the tarmac with the sitting attorney general, at a time when his wife was subject to a criminal investigation, and you’ve suggested that perhaps there are other matters that you may be able to share with us later on in a classified setting.
But it seems to me that you clearly believe that Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, had a — an appearance of a conflict of interest on the Clinton e-mail investigation. Is that correct?
COMEY: I think that’s fair. I didn’t believe she could credibly decline that investigation — at least, not without grievous damage to the Department of Justice and to the FBI.
CORNYN: And, under Department of Justice and FBI norms, wouldn’t it have been appropriate for the attorney general, or, if she had recused herself — which she did not do — for the deputy attorney general to appoint a special counsel?
That’s essentially what’s happened now with Director Mueller. Would that have been an appropriate step in the Clinton e-mail investigation, in your opinion?
COMEY: Yes, certainly a possible step. Yes, sir.
CORNYN: And were you aware that Ms. Lynch had been requested numerous times to appoint a special counsel, and had refused?COMEY: Yes, from — I think Congress had — members of Congress had repeatedly asked. Yes, sir.
CORNYN: Yours truly...
COMEY: OK.
CORNYN: ... did on multiple occasions. And that heightened your concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest with the Department of Justice, which caused you to make what you have described as an incredibly painful decision to basically take the matter up yourself, and — led to that July press conference.
COMEY: Yes, sir. I can — after the — President Clinton — former President Clinton met on the plane with the attorney general, I considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel, and had decided that that would be an unfair thing to do, because I knew there was no case there.
We had investigated very, very thoroughly. I know this is a subject of passionate disagreement, but I knew there was no case there. And calling for the appointment of special counsel would be brutally unfair because it would send the message, aha (ph), there’s something here.
That was my judgment. Again, lots of people have different views of it. But that’s how I thought about it.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
originally posted by: kurthall
What a freaking LIAR, he makes the American people think there are recordings, to deflect what Comey said...
Nah, I'm gonna fight back on this one...not from the moment he tweeted the original 'tapes' innuendo, did I even once believe that he had any type of recording of the conversation. It flies in the face of every OTHER time he attempted to intimidate someone with alleged recordings, and lost millions in lawsuits to boot because of those failures.
You are just inventing you concept of what you believe. Irrelevant!
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Ther is nothing corrupt, underhanded or improper about telling someone that they should be truthful.
He could have tweeted "I am confident Mr. Comey will tell the truth." Instead, he made a thinly veiled threat because he knew that honest testimony would be incriminating. Don't worry, I'm sure this will all be cleared up when Trump testifies under oath.
Awwww poor wittle defenseless 6'7" FBI Director threatened by the big bad President. If you believe that you are so in the bag that it's a waste of time to discuss it.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Ther is nothing corrupt, underhanded or improper about telling someone that they should be truthful.
He could have tweeted "I am confident Mr. Comey will tell the truth." Instead, he made a thinly veiled threat because he knew that honest testimony would be incriminating. Don't worry, I'm sure this will all be cleared up when Trump testifies under oath.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
He didn't say "tell the truth," he implied Comey was going to lie, and that Trump could prove it. Turns out he can't. Who is the liar now?
people that are great, brilliant business minds, and that's what we need."
originally posted by: whywhynot
You are just inventing you concept of what you believe. Irrelevant!
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Ther is nothing corrupt, underhanded or improper about telling someone that they should be truthful.
He could have tweeted "I am confident Mr. Comey will tell the truth." Instead, he made a thinly veiled threat because he knew that honest testimony would be incriminating. Don't worry, I'm sure this will all be cleared up when Trump testifies under oath.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Awwww poor wittle defenseless 6'7" FBI Director threatened by the big bad President. If you believe that you are so in the bag that it's a waste of time to discuss it.
You mean... the boss who could fire him? I guess you have never had a proper job.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Lol, good luck with that... I can see family members around the country being arrested for telling their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers... "Remember, tell the truth". Haul them in! They are stopping people lying under oath!!!
The funniest thing about liberal crack pot ideas is that they keep them up no matter how ridiculous
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Awwww poor wittle defenseless 6'7" FBI Director threatened by the big bad President. If you believe that you are so in the bag that it's a waste of time to discuss it.
You mean... the boss who could fire him? I guess you have never had a proper job.
Good senior managers don't wet their pants when speaking to a CEO...especially in proper jobs.
President Trump wants to help more than just the poor.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust
All media is banned. The press will now only report what the Whitehouse says.
No questions allowed.
All other sources of information will be labeled as fake.
All non fiction books not approved by the Whitehouse will be banned or moved to the fake non fiction section of the library.
All school programs will teach only Whitehouse approved curriculums.
All dems AKA obstructionist will be locked in detention camps.
There... the world the way you want it.
Just stick with the strategy and Pelosi too. I'm certain it will work out for you in some election somewhere sometime.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: whywhynot
You are just inventing you concept of what you believe. Irrelevant!
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Ther is nothing corrupt, underhanded or improper about telling someone that they should be truthful.
He could have tweeted "I am confident Mr. Comey will tell the truth." Instead, he made a thinly veiled threat because he knew that honest testimony would be incriminating. Don't worry, I'm sure this will all be cleared up when Trump testifies under oath.
A threat is a threat, Orrin.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: whywhynot
Awwww poor wittle defenseless 6'7" FBI Director threatened by the big bad President. If you believe that you are so in the bag that it's a waste of time to discuss it.
You mean... the boss who could fire him? I guess you have never had a proper job.
Good senior managers don't wet their pants when speaking to a CEO...especially in proper jobs.
Good Executives don't rely on fear and threats.
***VERY IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE***