Bombshell Email Suggests Comey Misled Congress About Meetings With Obama on Russian Hacking

a reply to: tadaman

The Susan Rice email was about a January 5th meeting with Obama and Comey. The statement from Comey was specifically in response to questions about his meetings with Trump (before and after the inauguration) which is why it makes absolutely no sense that a meeting with Obama would be included.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yet it wasnt included. Hence the news.....

So Rice says Obama want's it "done by the book"

And Strzok&Page say Obama want's to know everything

And we know the "Administration" at the time knew about the FISA stuff and how it connected to the Clinton/DNC Campaign

Lots of assbackwardness drama

They're all going down real soon
👈😨👉

a reply to: burntheships

He's specifically referring to one-on-one meetings with Obama. Open up the testimony and search on "Obama":

No. Dinner, no, I had two one on ones with President Obama I laid out in my testimony, one to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement and race, an important topic throughout for me, and for the President, and then once very briefly for him to say good-bye.

If you read further back in the testimony, before what you pasted, you'll see that the line of questioning was about one on one meetings.

James Comey: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances first, I was alone with the president of the United States. Or the President-Elect, soon to be president. The subject matter, I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI’s core responsibility and it related to the President-Elect personally. And then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before but it led me to believe I got towrite it down in a very detailed way.

It's even obvious from the limited context of the excerpted answer ripped from the greater context of the line of inquiry.

James Comey: That’s right, senator. And I — as I said in my written testimony. As FBI director I interacted with President Obama and spoke only twice in three years and didn’t document it. When I was deputy attorney general I had one one-on-one meeting with president Bush about a national security matter. I didn’t document that conversation either. I didn’t feel with President Bush the need to document it in that way. Because of the combination of those factors, just wasn’t present with either President Bush or President Obama.

So, he clearly lied.

No, he's clearly referring to one-on-one interactions throughout.

originally posted by: xuenchen
So Rice says Obama want's it "done by the book"

And Strzok&Page say Obama want's to know everything

And we know there were other meetings, thanks
to Susan's email. As she said it was a "carry on".

Boom!

That is the kind of email someone sends to themselves when they really need to CYA, which is telling to me.

Never forget Susan Rice is an attorney

and not the "good" kind either

⏰🏗🛅

a reply to: theantediluvian

That is your insinuation.

Your just parsing words now trying to frame it the way
you want to see it.

Clearly, he stated he spoke with Obama only twice.

James Comey: That’s right, senator. And I — as I said in my written testimony. As FBI director I interacted with President Obama and spoke only twice in three years and didn’t document it. When I was deputy attorney general I had one one-on-one meeting with president bush about a national security matter. I didn’t document that conversation either. I didn’t feel with President Bush the need to document it in that way. Because of the combination of those factors, just wasn’t present with either President Bush or President Obama.

time.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

So Rice says Obama want's it "done by the book"

Whose book though?

Alinsky's Rules for radicals?

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: theantediluvian

It's almost like the author didn't read the linked "Statement for the Record." I assume you did? You wouldn't have had to read far, the first paragraph makes this author's point moot.

Derp derp?

In your hurry to spin it's almost like you didn't read or failed to understand what you read.

The Derp, Derp is on you. Bigly. Sad.

a reply to: The GUT

I wanted to let it go. He misread it and didnt own it. I was curious to see what would happen.


In the end Burntheships had clarified the matter already. Comey said he met with Obama twice. A lie.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

Your a fast reader to have read both articles, and the letter from Grassley and Graham.

I am a fast reader and it does not take much reading to conclude the title is misleading and the context very subjective.

Not to mention that ATS is not the only place to read up on this issue.

And how would you know, were you at the meeting? Do you have access to the classified information in the email that is redacted?

How do I know what?

I'm just going off of what your source provided. The email does not seem to suggest such a thing. Your source does. And whether or not the meeting was relevant remains to be seen and it nothing more than opinion at this point without more info.

That's all ya got?

What else do I need to bring? I've raised relevant points that appear to be completely true based on what you posted.

If I am wrong, can you please quote the email in which it suggests Comey misled congress?

So , you didnt read them by your own words....
When speaking of "opinions" look in a mirror . There are "uninformed" opinions vs. "informed" opinions.
Although the OP brought forward information , nowhere did your posts reflect any other than opinion . Thus your usage of the words "seemed" "appear" ...

Is my assessment incorrect?

I'll ask again. Where is the "bombshell"?

The OP's source is also nothing more than opinion, because there is no bombshell.

For people that claim to be enlightened about MSM tactics and propaganda, you sure do fall for it pretty easily when it fits your confirmation bias.

Well at least she used a secure server to send classified material to herself !! 😄

"classified at the time" 😀

Leaving the questions about rather or not comey lied about this meeting aside, it is a very strange email by rice that raises many questions.

Ben shapiro sums up most of my thoughts on it.

There are several portions of this email that should be disturbing.

First, why was Rice sending a memo to herself, except to create a paper trail designed to paste a friendly gloss on a rather suspicious meeting? Second, how exactly would Obama have planned to prevent the intelligence community from handing over information to the incoming commander-in-chief? Trump has full constitutional power over the executive branch, including the intelligence community. Yet Obama presumably said that he might want to prevent the full sharing of information regarding Russia. Third, Obama said he didn’t want to interfere with anything from a law enforcement perspective. But how about from an intelligence-gathering perspective?

Furthermore, the double emphasis on Obama stating that he wanted to proceed “by the book” smacks of a bit too much protest. Did Obama really want to proceed by the book? Or did he say that for effect?

Grassley and Graham ask a series of questions that deserve answers:

Why did Rice send the email?
When was she aware of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation?
Was she aware of the FISA warrant on Carter Page?
Did Comey or Yates mention any media coverage of the Steele dossier?
Was she aware of the Steele dossier?
Were there any more meetings of this sort?

The email is certainly odd. It will be fascinating to see if Rice bothers to answer the questions.

www.dailywire.com...

a reply to: burntheships

That is your insinuation.

Your just parsing words now trying to frame it the way
you want to see it.

Clearly, he stated he spoke with Obama only twice.

No, you're not only ignoring the context but common sense to misconstrue what Comey said in an arbitrarily literal way. Do you really believe that in 3 years, the FBI Director and the President of the United States only spoke on 2 occasions? Does that even make sense?

Hop over to Google Images and search "Obama Comey" and you'll see images of the two of them speaking numerous times — with other people present.

He was talking about one-on-one encounters. Clearly.

Also, I didn't see you acknowledge the fail about Comey's written statement either.

a reply to: The GUT

In my hurry to spin what? Please. Explain to me how that statement isn't specifically about meetings *with Trump* and how the failed assertion from the author was that Comey left out a meeting *with Obama* from a list of meetings *with Trump*.

Now you've unnecessarily added your derps to the OP's derps and the author of that piece's derps.

DERP.
DERP.
DERP.

a reply to: tadaman

What did I misread? This is the beginning two sentences of the statement:

Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you.

"my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump"

Where in there does the word "Obama" appear? The statement is him recounting meetings with Trump, not Obama.

The Susan Rice email details a January 5th meeting with Obama, Comey, Rice, etc. Why would that meeting be included in a list of meetings with Trump?

In the end Burntheships had clarified the matter already. Comey said he met with Obama twice. A lie.

No. Comey was talking about one-on-one interactions in his testimony. He didn't clarify anything.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I am sure Comey talked with Obama more than once.


Obama and Comey worked in unison always. Thats a major accomplishment considering the abuses carried out by the Obama administration:

-Ran a program to spy on adversarial reporters

-Used the IRS to hassle political opponents in Tea Party nonprofits

-Oversaw a wildcard program where violent criminals were armed along the border

-Orchestrated a cover-up through the state department and beyond to blame a YouTube video for the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya

With that last one came many scandals involved with skirting the law or outright breaking it. They helped Clinton all the way to the tarmac concerning the server, emails and smartphones of the former Secretary and her cohorts.

All of these scandals were managed without the selection of a special prosecutor and without anyone being charged or even questioned. In all that, Obama was doing well with his buddy that he installed into the FBI.

“This had not been my practice in the past,” Comey said. “I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person, and never on the phone. Once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions.”

Comey said he met in private with Obama twice yes, but THE CONTEXT is that he didnt record those meetings like he did with Trump because of the ongoing investigation. He said that he only did it with Trump BECAUSE of the concerns that he had with the investigations being affected somehow in the future.

The CONTEXT has nothing to do with one on one meetings alone.

Talks with Obama about the investigations or its related material definitely constitute a "noteworthy" occurrence. Why didnt Comey hop in an SUV and write a few notes after those meetings?

EDIT TO ADD:
Also, You were quick to say that in the opening of Comeys statements that he CLEARLY mentioned his dealings with Obama. What you quoted and underlined were meetings with Trump mentioned. It was epic DERP.

You misread that while insulting people for not reading. You tried to be slick later. Everyone saw it. Big deal. I dont think anyone even cares really. Just dont lie.

The authors point is not moot like you said. Not by a long shot. Its definitely not shut down based off misread words, like you alluded to it being.

a reply to: theantediluvian

a real mule-kicker eh 💨 🗯

a reply to: Grambler

First, why was Rice sending a memo to herself, except to create a paper trail designed to paste a friendly gloss on a rather suspicious meeting?

Why is Shaprio calling it a suspicious meeting?

Second, how exactly would Obama have planned to prevent the intelligence community from handing over information to the incoming commander-in-chief?

Obama, the commander-in-chief on January 5th, wasn't under any obligation to share anything with the incoming administration of Trump, who still had 15 days to go before inauguration.

Trump has full constitutional power over the executive branch, including the intelligence community.

Not on January 5th he didn't.

Third, Obama said he didn’t want to interfere with anything from a law enforcement perspective. But how about from an intelligence-gathering perspective?

Rice doesn't say Obama mentioned anything about not riding unicorns, therefore he could have been implying that riding unicorns was a must?

Here Shapiro is trying to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he's alleging that it's an unreliable account of the meeting designed to "gloss over" a "suspicious meeting" but on the other hand, he's dissecting the lines like he's looking for a loophole and implying that the absence of a statement about "intelligence-gathering" indicates that he must have expressed that interference from an "intelligence-gathering perspective" was allowed.