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

a reply to: theantediluvian

Again, even if you want to use google images to support your
flawed idea, you are overlooking the fact that he did
not include these meetings in his disclosure to Congress.

Nothing to hide, why not tell the truth?

a reply to: tadaman

So does that mean you're not going to acknowledge that I was correct regarding the "Statement of Record" having nothing to do with Comey's meetings with Obama and therefore, a meeting with Obama, Rice, etc on January 5th would not be something that would be in it?

I mean, when you thought I was wrong, you followed up twice to say so. Including this bit:

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

There was no misreading for *me* to own. I'm curious to see if you're going to own your mistake.

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 investigation.

So you're admitting that in his answer, Comey was referring to two one-on-one meetings with Obama. So it wasn't a lie after all.

Ante: 2
OP et al: 0

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: theantediluvian

Again, even if you want to use google images to support your
flawed idea, you are overlooking the fact that he did
not include these meetings in his disclosure to Congress.

Nothing to hide, why not tell the truth?

Why not tell the truth? Where exactly did he tell a lie?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: tadaman


Ante: 2
OP et al: 0

Hahahahahaha!!!!


Sure!!!

Look, no doubt this email is unusual, asking questions about it is reasonable.

But its small potatoes compared to other issues.

Still waiting on your take on an Obama state dept official admitting he gave steele dirt from Hillarys team from Blumenthal and shearer.

But, hey, i dont want to hurt your "score" so I guess better to leave that untouched.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow you really are competing with people like a teenage terrible person arent you?

Ante: 2 OP et al: 0

More like Grow up and act like an adult. You wanted to shut down discussion by saying that the authors whole point was moot because in the opening remarks Comey clearly stated that he met with Obama. What you quoted was him mentioning Trump meetings. Derp. Whats the problem?

As far as the one on one meetings alone being the only context that is relevant for this type of interaction being discussed: Thats absurd.

Everyone in Congress clearly wants to know who Comey discussed the Russia investigations with, who he leaked to, coordinated with and so on. Alone, on the phone, in texts, snail mail, whatever.

The only reason why Comey said he documented his interactions with Trump was due to the Russia investigations possibly getting involved somehow.

PRESIDENT Obama being part of meetings in ANY capacity where the Russia investigations are being strategized /are being discussed in detail is absolutely a noteworthy interaction that would warrant a similar response from Comey if he truly felt the integrity of the investigations may be threatened by an over extending of the executive branch.

You can play rhetoric hero. I dont care. When its all said and done, the day of, I will have something to say.

Have a good one.

Also, NO. You get 0. Lame/ maybe even -1 for derping out early on.

a reply to: burntheships

What flawed idea would that be? Even Tadaman went back and read it and saw the questions and answers were about one-on-one (or as he said, "private" meetings) and more specifically, why or why not he memorialized those interactions with Bush, Obama and Trump.

It's obvious on its face that's what he was referring to.

Are you going to acknowledge that the other assertion of lying was completely wrong? see you've given up defending it in favor of the more ambiguous though equally fallacious claim. Care to at least own up to that one?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Derp Derps and score keeping now?

I think the spinning is getting to you.

a reply to: Grambler

Lmao. You know that I'm correct as to the assertions of Comey lying! I don't know why our friends here don't just admit that.

Still waiting on your take on an Obama state dept official admitting he gave steele dirt from Hillarys team from Blumenthal and shearer.

Honestly, I haven't given it too much thought beyond how it doesn't apply to the FISA warrant application for Carter Page nor the contents of the dossier that Steele compiled.

I've been busy with other things and what I've been reading is mostly related to Felix Slater & Bayrock, Michael D. Cohen, Trump and the Trump org and a possible link in the Trump Tower Moscow deal to Oleg Deripaska.

Are you familiar with all this at all? There's a lot going on. Felix Sater is quite a character. He went from stockbroker to prisoner after stabbing a banker in the face with a margarita glass's stem (110 stitches). Then he gets out and a couple of years later, he's involved in a pump and dump scam (sound's like a boiler room type thing) which involves not just the Russian mob but the Italian mafia (specifically, the Gambinos). He turns states' witness, gets a slap on the wrist ($25,000 fine) because of his cooperation AND the judge seals the case records. Within like 2 years of that, he's a managing director at Bayrock. Bayrock is a partnership of a guy who was in the Soviet Ministry of Trade (I think it was, this is from memory) for 17 years and the wealthiest Georgian oligarch in the US.

He meets Trump in 2003 and immediately he's lining up deals between Bayrock and Trump (a luxury condo-hotel in Phoenix another in Ft. Lauderdale and the Trump Soho). This is going on over the course of like 4 years. Then before Trump Soho is finished, there's a newspaper expose that reveals Sater's past. Trump pretends like he doesn't know him.

That's a continuing theme. See, they only completed the Trump Soho and there were lawsuits on the other two. One of the suits has some nutso quotes from Felix Sater about having a guy electrocuted and chopped up and what not (he denies making the threat). Trump gets deposed a couple more times and basically says he wouldn't know Sater if he was standing in front of him. (Despite the fact that Bayrock was in the Trump Tower, he'd done all these deals with him, including the Trump Soho which was actually completed and that at some point, Sater had an office in the Trump org and a Trump org business card.

That's not even the best of it. So after all this mess. The bad press, the lawsuits, the depositions, here we go again in 2015 when Trump signs a Letter of Intent on a Trump Tower in Moscow. Who set up the deal? Who literally emailed the LOI for Trump to sign? Felix Sater.

The when the deal stalls, Sater tells Michael Cohen to email Putin's spokesman directly and ask for help. Did I mention all the emails where Sater is talking about how Putin is going to get "their boy Donald" elected? Anyway, Cohen DOES email him (and confirms that he did). This all going on in Dec 2015-Jan 2016 mind you.

That deal falls through for whatever reason, ostensibly I think because they were getting caught up in red tape (hence reaching out to Putin's spox). Why are they dealing with Felix Sater after all this again? So what it looks like is that Deripaska could be ultimately behind "IC Expert" the would be Trump Tower Moscow developers. I'm working on that at the moment. And keep in mind that Manafort joined the campaign within like a month of this deal apparently falling apart.

Then after the election, a Ukranian MP who is connected to Viktor Yanukovych is put into contact with Felix Sater. Sater calls up Michael D. Cohen and the 3 meet. At the meeting, they discuss this Ukranian parliamentarian's "Ukranian Peace Plan" (not really his plan it turns out). The thrust of the plan is that sanctions on Russia would be lifted and Russia would lease Crimea for either 50 or 100 years. One of the big selling points? According to this guy (Artemenko is his name), it's got the endorsement of Putin's aides. He gets Cohen to hand deliver this plan to Mike Flynn. (or he said, his desk — before he said no he didn't do that — before he walked that back) Also, it wasn't just a "peace plan" it reportedly contained Russian-sourced kompromat on the current administration in Ukraine. (who would need to be removed from power in order for this plan to work)

This is like a few days before Flynn is forced to resign in February of 2017. That meeting gets exposed and the result is that Artemenko is investigated for treason like the next day and in May of 2017, loses his citizenship.

Somewhere in there, I should have mentioned that one of the Bayrock partners was detained in Turkey for suspicion of running an escort ring specializing in Eastern Bloc models (some underage) for the super wealthy, off a multi-million dollar yacht. (he was later acquitted).

But yeah, I'm familiar with the broad strokes of this Shearer dossier thing but not the details beyond the fact that it was passed along to Steele just prior to his debriefing in Rome, that he passed it along with a note that said he couldn't verify any of the sources or the information but that it was interesting in that it had a similar fact pattern from an apparently different set of sources. I've also read that it had 0 to do with the FISA warrant application so at first blush, it seems like a red herring. (and there's been quite a few of them lately)

a reply to: theantediluvian

You need to learn how to add.

In Context

Vice Chairman Mark Warner – Virginia: This was the only president that you felt like in every meeting you need today document because at some point, using your words, he might put out a non-truthful representation of that meeting? 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.

Martin Heinrich – New Mexico:
Mr. Comey, prior to January 27th of this year, have you ever had a one on one meeting or a private dinner with a President of the United States?


James Comey: 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.

time.com...

Its sad you feel the need to weasel around adding
unverified information such as good pics you have
not even bothered to post .

a reply to: tadaman

Wow you really are competing with people like a teenage terrible person arent you?

I don't think I've ever been referred to as acting like a "teenage terrible person" before but I honestly laughed out loud when I read it. I was just putting a button on the fact that both of the claims in the OP had been invalidated.

More like Grow up and act like an adult. You wanted to shut down discussion by saying that the authors whole point was moot because in the opening remarks Comey clearly stated that he met with Obama. What you quoted was him mentioning Trump meetings. Derp. Whats the problem?

No, I think you're confusing me with somebody else? Maybe Introvert? What I pointed to was how the claim that the written statement exposed some lie of omission by Comey was fallacious because the statement was about his meetings with Trump specifically.

Are we back to derp now?

As far as the one on one meetings alone being the only context that is relevant for this type of interaction being discussed: Thats absurd.

I actually didn't say that it was the only context. As you can see from what I was posting to the OP as you're (falsely) accusing me of that.

You can play rhetoric hero. I dont care. When its all said and done, the day of, I will have something to say.

It would be easier if people could just admit that they were wrong. You've got a lot to say to me as you've apparently confused what I've said with another poster, called me wrong repeatedly because of it, claimed the OP had proven me wrong, gotten in a dig to another poster about waiting for me "own it," etc.

How in the hell are you so aggrieved?

Also, NO. You get 0. Lame/ maybe even -1 for derping out early on.

My derps have all been fully vindicated!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow this boy got trigged.

a reply to: burntheships

What part are you not getting? What Comey was referring to when he said, "spoke only twice in three years" was private, one-on-one interactions.

You even excerpted what I already excerpted where it's made perfectly clear:

"No. Dinner, no, I had two one on ones with President Obama"

The meeting that Susan Rice refers to from Jan 5, 2017 was not a one-on-one meeting.

Also, again, you've not gotten around to acknowledging that other assertion about Comey's written statement was completely bogus yet either.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: theantediluvian

Derp Derps and score keeping now?

I think the spinning is getting to you.

Me? I'm having a good time.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No, I think you're confusing me with somebody else? Maybe Introvert? What I pointed to was how the claim that the written statement exposed some lie of omission by Comey was fallacious because the statement was about his meetings with Trump specifically.

No. You should have been more clear if that was the case/

You said the authors point was moot. Now you are contesting it. Thats not the same. MOOT because the issue was already addressed altogether as you alluded to early on. That was incorrect.

You can say mass. I dont care. I know how it happened. You were quick to shoot the author down and posted something you didnt really check. It happens.

Stop denying it.

You thought Comeys opening statements proved hands down that the issue was soundly resolved by him already mentioning meetings with the president.....OBAMA. You quoted Trump meeting mentions.

Why would you say it was a moot point early on if you thought the "lie of omission" was not valid? You went on to justify how its not a lie of omission and not an outright lie.

Thats not contesting that the meetings happened and werent mentioned as the author stated. You are just saying these meetings happened before a relevant date and so wouldnt be mentioned. Thats not the same. You moved the posts. Never with your current argument could the authors point be moot. You validate it and address it in your explanation.

I thought it was a moot point?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Lmao. You know that I'm correct as to the assertions of Comey lying! I don't know why our friends here don't just admit that.

Still waiting on your take on an Obama state dept official admitting he gave steele dirt from Hillarys team from Blumenthal and shearer.

Honestly, I haven't given it too much thought beyond how it doesn't apply to the FISA warrant application for Carter Page nor the contents of the dossier that Steele compiled.

I've been busy with other things and what I've been reading is mostly related to Felix Slater & Bayrock, Michael D. Cohen, Trump and the Trump org and a possible link in the Trump Tower Moscow deal to Oleg Deripaska.

Are you familiar with all this at all? There's a lot going on. Felix Sater is quite a character. He went from stockbroker to prisoner after stabbing a banker in the face with a margarita glass's stem (110 stitches). Then he gets out and a couple of years later, he's involved in a pump and dump scam (sound's like a boiler room type thing) which involves not just the Russian mob but the Italian mafia (specifically, the Gambinos). He turns states' witness, gets a slap on the wrist ($25,000 fine) because of his cooperation AND the judge seals the case records. Within like 2 years of that, he's a managing director at Bayrock. Bayrock is a partnership of a guy who was in the Soviet Ministry of Trade (I think it was, this is from memory) for 17 years and the wealthiest Georgian oligarch in the US.

He meets Trump in 2003 and immediately he's lining up deals between Bayrock and Trump (a luxury condo-hotel in Phoenix another in Ft. Lauderdale and the Trump Soho). This is going on over the course of like 4 years. Then before Trump Soho is finished, there's a newspaper expose that reveals Sater's past. Trump pretends like he doesn't know him.

That's a continuing theme. See, they only completed the Trump Soho and there were lawsuits on the other two. One of the suits has some nutso quotes from Felix Sater about having a guy electrocuted and chopped up and what not (he denies making the threat). Trump gets deposed a couple more times and basically says he wouldn't know Sater if he was standing in front of him. (Despite the fact that Bayrock was in the Trump Tower, he'd done all these deals with him, including the Trump Soho which was actually completed and that at some point, Sater had an office in the Trump org and a Trump org business card.

That's not even the best of it. So after all this mess. The bad press, the lawsuits, the depositions, here we go again in 2015 when Trump signs a Letter of Intent on a Trump Tower in Moscow. Who set up the deal? Who literally emailed the LOI for Trump to sign? Felix Sater.

The when the deal stalls, Sater tells Michael Cohen to email Putin's spokesman directly and ask for help. Did I mention all the emails where Sater is talking about how Putin is going to get "their boy Donald" elected? Anyway, Cohen DOES email him (and confirms that he did). This all going on in Dec 2015-Jan 2016 mind you.

That deal falls through for whatever reason, ostensibly I think because they were getting caught up in red tape (hence reaching out to Putin's spox). Why are they dealing with Felix Sater after all this again? So what it looks like is that Deripaska could be ultimately behind "IC Expert" the would be Trump Tower Moscow developers. I'm working on that at the moment. And keep in mind that Manafort joined the campaign within like a month of this deal apparently falling apart.

Then after the election, a Ukranian MP who is connected to Viktor Yanukovych is put into contact with Felix Sater. Sater calls up Michael D. Cohen and the 3 meet. At the meeting, they discuss this Ukranian parliamentarian's "Ukranian Peace Plan" (not really his plan it turns out). The thrust of the plan is that sanctions on Russia would be lifted and Russia would lease Crimea for either 50 or 100 years. One of the big selling points? According to this guy (Artemenko is his name), it's got the endorsement of Putin's aides. He gets Cohen to hand deliver this plan to Mike Flynn. (or he said, his desk — before he said no he didn't do that — before he walked that back) Also, it wasn't just a "peace plan" it reportedly contained Russian-sourced kompromat on the current administration in Ukraine. (who would need to be removed from power in order for this plan to work)

This is like a few days before Flynn is forced to resign in February of 2017. That meeting gets exposed and the result is that Artemenko is investigated for treason like the next day and in May of 2017, loses his citizenship.

Somewhere in there, I should have mentioned that one of the Bayrock partners was detained in Turkey for suspicion of running an escort ring specializing in Eastern Bloc models (some underage) for the super wealthy, off a multi-million dollar yacht. (he was later acquitted).

But yeah, I'm familiar with the broad strokes of this Shearer dossier thing but not the details beyond the fact that it was passed along to Steele just prior to his debriefing in Rome, that he passed it along with a note that said he couldn't verify any of the sources or the information but that it was interesting in that it had a similar fact pattern from an apparently different set of sources. I've also read that it had 0 to do with the FISA warrant application so at first blush, it seems like a red herring. (and there's been quite a few of them lately)

Doesn't matter!

Obama is in up to his neck.

It's HIS admin that was involved and corrupt.

F'n Trump hasn't mentioned Porters wives?!

That's a scandal coz he didn't say anything about them?!

Seriously? Obama didn't say anything about spying on an opponent!

Anyone see them portraits? lol.

Michelle in black and white. Fitting.

I hope NoKo nukes the USA. Starting with Cali and DC.

Pepper the west coast and Hawaii.

Some will be missed but we as a country, will be stronger for it.

A nuclear wall. lol.

Sorry, Cali is closed.

Enter at your own risk.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Reread the quote I posted. Comey is clear to distinguish
in the same answer he met with Obama twice,
and once one on one with Bush.

Also either post pics of Comey and Obnama together,
or abandon that argument.

Please use a source in your posts, otherwise
it is just your biased opinion.

a reply to: elementalgrove


I'm thankful that S.I.C. members Grassley and Graham are dropping breadcrumbs to let us know where their investigation is taking them.

Didn't Susan Rice appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee around November 2017?

Can't wait to see what questions the S.I.C. poses to the heads of the FBI-CIA-NSA tomorrow morning. Should be a barn burner! (Even if they don't get everything answered in the open-session)

Gosh... I wonder who Bill Priestap is?

I wonder why we've heard very little mention of him?

Isn't that odd, given he was Peter Strozk and Lisa Pages boss, and head of FBI CounterIntel?

I wonder which songbird he most sounds like... a mockingbird, a cardinal, or a McCain?

LOL!

"These people are stupid."

WMAL Interview - Joe Digenova

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

So where is the bombshell?

Seems this is more of a matter of opinion on whether or not the meeting was relevant.

Not much of a bombshell if your own source has to say it "suggests", which is also a matter of opinion. Not to mention the actual email does not appear to actually suggest such a thing.

The OP's source is suggesting that.

Isn't the bombshell the fact that Comey did not mention the meeting at all?
Why was the meeting not disclosed?

a reply to: burntheships

one source familiar with the meeting

The source said

Fake news !!!

(did I do that right?)