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

a reply to: burntheships

You do realize that there were TWO Sessions of Comey testimony?

Burr: I’d like to remind my colleagues, that we will reconvene in closed session at 1:00 P.M. Today. And I ask that you reserve for that venue any questions that might get into classified information.

???

So what is your "Bombshell"?

a reply to: burntheships

should comey not been logged entering entering secure section of white house for meeting potus if found to have met obama in 2017 then he should face perjury charges for lying to congress. further more the mueller investigation of trump for firing comey needs to be stopped because trump was not obstructing justice when he fired comey. comey is an inept obama sycophant who was so smug he thought he could do whatever he wanted.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: burntheships

should comey not been logged entering entering secure section of white house for meeting potus if found to have met obama in 2017 then he should face perjury charges for lying to congress.

Please be specific where you think Comey perjured himself.

From the OP link:

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.

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.

He is clearly discussing ONE-ON-ONE meetings with the President where no others are present.
Thus the discussion around a need to document what was said when only Comey might be present to know the substance of the conversation.

Honestly, it is getting a little sad and desperate around here.

Comey is not going to be investigated for Perjury.
There is no referral and there will be no referral, because even the most Trump supportive GOP in congress know the truth and that the facts would severely embarrass and rebuke them.

a reply to: Eshel

Yes, you did it right.

I even starred you for the efforts.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: burntheships

You do realize that there were TWO Sessions of Comey testimony?

Did you link to your source?

And your point is?

a reply to: tadaman

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.

The author of the article made an argument premised on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the Comey "Statement for the Record." Here's the excerpt again:

If Rice’s email is accurate, Comey may have seriously misled Congress about his meetings with Obama.

Dated June 8, 2017, Comey’s “Statement for the Record” provided to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, notes, “I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the committee.”

Comey clearly did not find the January 5, 2017 meeting to be particularly relevant.

The Statement for the Record explicitly details meetings with Donald Trump. There's no omission because there's no expectation that *any* meeting with Obama would be in that written statement. I guess you're hung up on me using the word "moot?" Let me clarify. The assertion was fallacious making it a moot point for this debate.

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.

How are you still denying that the author of that Law and Crime article was wrong?

Stop denying it.

Stop denying what? I'm 100% right.

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.

No, and this is where I think you're confusing what I said with something somebody else said, because that's not an argument I made. Here's the excerpt AGAIN:

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.

I reemphasized this multiple times in other posts. He was asked to testify about what? his interactions with TRUMP — not OBAMA. What part of that is not getting through? The statement is about MEETINGS WITH TRUMP — not OBAMA. It's the details of 5 meetings WITH TRUMP.

I don't know how you're getting to "him already mentioning meetings with the president.....OBAMA" from that. It has nothing to do with Obama ffs.

The other assertion, the one that the OP stuck with, is that Comey lied in oral testimony when he said that he only spoke to Obama twice.

You yourself know in that oral testimony, Comey was referring to one-on-one meetings. Two one-on-one meetings. Not that he'd only ever spoken to Obama twice. The January 5th meeting was not a private one-on-one interaction between Comey and Obama — other people were in attendance.

So the assertion that Comey lied in oral testimony is also invalid.

In summation:

1. The assertion that Comey was misleading in the written statement is fallacious, based on the faulty premise that the Statement for the Record would have included meetings with Obama. It's specifically about interactions with Trump.

2. The second assertion, that Comey lied in oral testimony, is invalid because he was specifically referring to one-on-one interactions with presidents, not interactions involving 3rd, 4th, etc parties.

Which of those two do you take issue with?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ill be honest, I dont really care man. I didnt care if you misread or were just expecting people to see what you saw from that post.

In any event, It would have been nice if Comey didnt have the inappropriate meetings with Obama. It would have been better if he was clean about it with Congress.

It SHOULD have been mentioned like other things should have.

This doesnt help the case against the argument being made that:

Partisan federal officers within the FBI, DOJ, and other federal institutions were doing whatever the hell they felt like with OUR government's resources and conspired to use the federal government against personal opponents for political gain.

Im right back where I was when this all started, just less patient with lies.

Have a good one.
EDIT TO ADD:
I still dont believe you though. You formed that argument after the post in question.
Whatever. This doesnt feel healthy. Im off to be happy.

originally posted by: burntheships
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.

You keep dodging the fact that he's discussing one-on-one interactions. As for posting pictures? Seriously? You're too lazy to open a tab and go to Google? Okay, here's three:





Do I need to show you more instances of the Obama and Comey speaking? Or will you abandon the desperate intellectual dishonesty?

a reply to: proteus33

He will thing differently once the noose starts snugging up on his neck, right before he swings from the gallows next to Hillary and Barack

a reply to: soberbacchus



It might be earier to state where Comey didn't perjure himself.

a reply to: theantediluvian?



You keep dodging that he made a distinction between the two.

Also, how do we know those pictures are different than
the ones he gave in his testimony? We dont.

So your pictures prove nothing without an actual
report of what date they took place, and whether
or not Comey actually spoke TO Obama.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: theantediluvian?



You keep dodging that he made a distinction between the two.

Also, how do we know those pictures are different than
the ones he gave in his testimony? We dont.

So your pictures prove nothing without an actual
report of what date they took place, and whether
or not Comey actually spoke TO Obama.

Goal posts moved...

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: burntheships

You do realize that there were TWO Sessions of Comey testimony?

Did you link to your source?

It's the link in your OP.

you should read your own material sometime.

originally posted by: introvert

Goal posts moved...

Not really. I asked for a source.

Not asking for EXIF data, gee whiz.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
It's the link in your OP.

you should read your own material sometime.

Quotes should have a link, even it it is the OP.

So ...you quoted from my OP link and? This proves what?
Closed door session, there will be no public transcript.



But in any case now that we have the games out of the way,
again I will ask what is your point?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: soberbacchus
It's the link in your OP.

you should read your own material sometime.

Quotes should have a link, even it it is the OP.

So ...you quoted from my OP link and? This proves what?
Closed door session, there will be no public transcript.



But in any case now that we have the games out of the way,
again I will ask what is your point?

Comey did not perjure himself like you claim and your own OP links demonstrate that.

That's not a political statement, that is a factual statement.

a reply to: soberbacchus

You are entitled to your own opinion.

He was fired for making the FBI the Federal Bureau of Matters.

a reply to: burntheships

The aspect of this news story I find odd is the following:

"The email also appears to reflect Obama's guidance on sharing sensitive information with both the Russians and the incoming administration.

Rice wrote that Obama said "he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia."

She added, "The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would."

This is a clear attempt to control a narrative (as well as information) on the part of the outgoing administration. Why and how does an outgoing administration determine what information is and is not shared with an incoming POTUS? Naturally the objective was for Obama to retain control via Comey once the new POTUS and administration have assumed office. The hopes were that the left behind Obama administration would be able to oust the duly elected POTUS.

Candidly, by it's simplest definition this is collusion on the part of Obama. "Stacking the deck" as they say.

originally posted by: Aces8
The hopes were that the left behind Obama administration would be able to oust the duly elected POTUS.

They certainly did plan in advance to do so.

A coup, or as they called it; an insurance policy.

a reply to: burntheships

He was fired to try to end the Russia probe. He told you that with his own mouth. Of course he could have been !ying...