It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Comeys interview on Fox news; not good for him

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:54 PM
Comey’s narcissism is actually quite compelling...

I rarely argue the sky’s color with a sober or sane person...
So to hear him argue “republicans” originated the Steele dossier was stunning...

It’s not often a mans personality venn diagram is solely composed of hypocrisy and narcissism....or he could simply be a liar...probably that

But it’s still dang fine tv to watch a smarmy know-it-all who is caught continue to plead the sky’s color is green...


posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:01 AM
The more he talks the worse it sounds.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:09 AM
Continuing (man this is taking longer than I thought)

Bret reads comeys statement about how great of a guy mcacabe is, and asked in light of him being investigated for lying, does he still feel that way.

Comey says yes, he thinks mcabe is a good guy.

This again shows Comeys double standard, when he thinks trump is a liar, he wants him brought down, but with Hillary or mccabe, they are good people. This shows Comeys bias and helps explains his double standards in how he treated the trump case vs the Hillary case.

Bret asks if he told lawmakers that agents told him they thought Flynn was telling the truth?

Comey says no.

Now trey gowdy in a video I will link responding to this says comey is lying. Reports also indicate that Comey did tell lawmakers this. Again, it’s a case of someone blatantly lying, and although I am bias, my money is on comey.

Bret asks What would comey have done if he knew of the strzok page texts.

He says he would have removed them from all of these cases.
Bret tells comey that strzok was intregal in both cases, including interviewing Hillary, investigating the bleach bit, interviewing Flynn and so much more, and if he shouldn’t have been there, shouldn’t people question the conclusions of the fbi?

Comey basically says that there were way more people involved so no.

But that is a poor answer. We know strzok was involved in all of the things mentioned above, in addition to renmoving the term gross negligence. We know he says he and page talked with McCabe about an insurance policy. We know mCCabe had reason to favor Hillary, eventually at the last minute recusing himself from her investigation.

So lets look at who we had at the top; Strzok involved in all of this, had anough bias that comey feels he should have been involved. McCabve second in command, recused self from Hillary investigation at last minute but still did trump one, had meeting about insurance policy if trump got elected, and not a fan of trump in general. Then we have the head of the department comey, who as this thread and many others have shown clearly disliked trump and favored Hillary.

How many people at the top must be biased bfroe we say it’s a problem? And the proof is evident; look at the difference in the fbis handling of the trump and Hillary investigations.

Bret asks what was the insurance policy mCcabe strzok and page were discussing.

Comey says he doesn’t have enough context to know.

Well this is basically an admission that comey had no idea what his second in command and other high up is both of these investigations were doing. He admits it sounds bad. But again, we are suppose to trust him ho obviously hates trump that nothing shady was going on.

Last two things.

Comey says that it is possible that the fact that he wanted to keep his job may have influenced his decision to not push back when trump asked him to let the Flynn matter go. That’s disgusting.

And lastly he says he would have still been working with trump had he not been fired. Bret asks why he would still work with someone who he thinks is a mob boss., when comey himself has criticized congress for doing that.

Comey says he would have tried to help the country.

Garbage, if that’s what is was about, he would have told Trump about page being a possible spy, and would have not wrote this ridiculous book. Its evident comey is looking out for one person, himself.

edit on 27-4-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:12 AM
a reply to: Vector99

Bret Baier sure did his homework. He's done some great interviews.

I was amazed how readily Comey admitted incompetence as FBI Director.

"Had I known Strzok and Page"
"Still don't who funded Steele Dossier"
"Doesn't see a problem with having Strzok, run Clinton Email Investigation, Interview Hillary, Strzok interviews Huma Abedin, Strzok interviews Cheryl Mills. Strzok suggests that Comey remove the legally-loaded term “grossly negligent” to describe Clinton’s email use and replace it with the term “extremely careless.”
And on top of all that....
Strzok is handpicked to supervise a newly-opened FBI counterintelligence probe into Russian interference, including Trump campaign collusion.

But Strzok was a small piece of all this?

The things Comey wasn't aware of are astounding.

Great job Bret. He should be on a Meet the Press type show.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:15 AM
a reply to: Grambler

One of the theories I heard once . Was that Hillary was using those servers for her own personal intelligence group to communicate outside of government channels. Can't really use Government provided servers for her own secret intelligence birdies throughout the US government or world for that matter.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:16 AM
So a copy of that not work related info that he gave to Richman is stored in a safe at home. Let's see it! It's not classified as he says so there is no big deal in releasing it to the public. Why won't James do everyone a favor and release it to prove his innocence to everyone and so we can all just move on.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:19 AM
So questions I would have liked to have had him answer.

First, why was mills and abedin not charged for lying to the fbi when the fbi knows they did.

(Oh an look strzok, who comey admits shouldnt have been on the case because of his bias did the interviews of both of them)

Second, why has the fbi stonewalled congress on so many documents?

Third, what leaks did comey investigate, and before he left did he have any leads on who was leaking from his department to hurt trump?

Fourth, why was a yahoonews article soruced by steele used in the fisa application to lend legitimacy to the dosssier?

Fifth, why were immunity deals handed out and agreements made to destroy hillarys teams devices?

Sixth, why was the fbi giving details of the russia investigation to a foreign spy who they knew was being paid by trumps opponents?

Those are just a few off of the top of my head.
edit on 27-4-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:25 AM
Here is gowdys interview with tucker about the comey interview.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:34 AM
Intent normally means very little in the eyes of the law. You either break a law or you don't, intent is to the severity of that crime. I don't think that Comey understands that he acted as Judge and jury of Hillary's crimes. Somehow he is better than the judicial system in determining guilt... The guy is a nut bag... I just hope the liberals can see that too even if they want to protect Hillary, and that is OK...he is a true nut bag...

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:38 AM
Gramblers thoughts in his head

(Hey great job Grambler! You took all of this time to go through a 25 minute interview and went through it step by step. I am sure the people of ATS really appreciate this, and value your input. What a cool, intelligent guy you are!)

Gramblers wifes thoughts she is loudly voicing

"hey Grambler get of ATS is 1:30 in the morning! If I hear you typing any more I will break your fingers! No one cares what a dork you are watching politics videos and commenting on them! Now stop making so much noise and go to bed!"

Well good night all!

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 01:06 AM
In a general legal sense, being liable for negligence implies the harm derived was "foreseeable".

Placing classified docs on an unsecured server caused foreseeable harm, unlike an innocent mistake such as loosing a Blackberry.....lacking intent.

That's the best way I can explain the "intent" angle of this case. She also happened to violate the letter of the law.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:24 AM
You're just upset cause ya didn't get a Comey Apology Tour T-Shirt..

edit on 27-4-2018 by Infoshill because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:34 AM
Are we even watching the same interview?

Comey killed it and made Trump and Fox look like idiots.

He had a perfect answer and reason for every question.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 04:02 AM

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler

Thank-you for starting this thread with such a well-written, comprehensive post Grambler!

Is the saying, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking laws", really a legal principle? If so, Hillary should be punished, regardless of her ignorance, or lack of intent.

Want an answer to that question?

Try using that defense on your next speeding ticket.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 04:05 AM
a reply to: Grambler

Do Grambler's wife and incoserv's wife talk?

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 04:31 AM

originally posted by: Grambler

I will give a summary when I am done, but here is my line by line on it as I am doing it.

First starting around 50 seconds

Discussing memo that said Hillary was innocent before he interviewed her.

Comey says that the reason for this was that he and his investigators were fairly certain after going through much of the evidence that Hillary did not commit a crime.

This is astonishing for two reasons.

First as comey will later admit in the video, he would have not let people like strzok or page, who handled key parts of this investigation, have been anywhere near the investigation if he knew of the bias shown in their texts messages. This means seeing as how he trusted their judgement but now is admitting had he known their bias he wouldn’t have let them on the case, he is basically admitting he took the word of people he should have not had on the case to determine Hillary was probably innocent.

Second, and the far more important point, comey admits that Hillary did enough that she would have committed a crime, however he justification for saying she didn’t was ultimately that she didn’t have “intent”. How could he months before Hillary was interviewed establish the fact that she had no intent? Surely asking her why she did what she did would be a necessary step before deciding what intent was.

This shows comey is lying here. Think about it, if you were him and months before you interview Hillary you are thinking “Man she did some really careless things here. Well if she intended to do them that’s it it’s a crime, if she didn’t then shes off the hook” wouldn’t you at that point wait until you question her on her motivations before you make bold claims you are pretty sure she is innocent? He says that had she lied about something in her interview, or admitted something about intent in it it could have changed his mind, but that is backwards.
What documents did he read that spoke to hillarys intent that made him sure she didn’t intend to remove classified info?

2:00 in the video

Baier asks about the fact that comey already knew Hillary has told lies or mistruths.

He doesn’t deny she lied, but says that he had an good idea she was innocent, and unless she lied to them he wouldn’t be a crime.

Ok that’s true. But if you know someone is lying publicly about this, why would you assume that they had no intent and were innocent until you at least interviewed them. It seems as if despite knowing Hillary did enough to commit the crime, and that she was lying about in in public, he assumed she was innocent months before interviewing her, which is ridiculous.

Also keep in mind by this point comey would have known that Hillarys team had destroyed subpoenaed evidence. So he knows she is lying about this in public, he knows she has destroyed evidence; yet he is going out of his way to know she has no intent despite this?

Now keep in mind, comey will later say in this interview that Trumps supposed lies mean he deserves worse being impeached, and made him want to keep notes and give them out. But with other liars like Hillary, he seemingly has not problem with, further showing his own bias against trump and for hillarys and others.

Baier brings up the legal standard for grossly negligent says nothing about intent.

Comey says grossly negligent is a kind of intent.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

Clearly Hillary disregarded the the need for reasonable care; that is not in dispute. Now did she know there was foreseeable harm?

Well first all people with security clearances I believe must sign documents and be told about the dangers of keeping things on a state servers and dveices, so clearly she would be aware of forseeable harm. In addition, emails show her own team was warning her in 2011 the dangers of using her private server.

Justin Cooper, an aide to former President Bill Clinton, warned in 2011 about "overseas" use and other security issues concerning her emails and her personal BlackBerrys.

"All of your older messages will remain on the server. There is a way for me to move everything on to the new device, but the security whizzes have convinced me that this is a horrible thing to do because you also transfer any viruses, spyware and junk overseas providers hide on there," he told Hillary Clinton in an email dated June 6, 2011.

So comey is clearly full of it. She was grossly negligent; as his original memo originally stated until strzok (who comey admits shouldn’t have been anywhere near the case) changed the wording.

Bret asks why comey allowed mills to sit in on hillarys interview.

Comey perhaps has a slip, because he says the FBI had already “scrubbed” her conduct and she was no longer a subject.

Boy didn’t they; they gave her immunity and smashed her devices with hammers!

His answer in nonsense! Why would investigators ever let someone who was such an important person in an investigation that they had to be given immunity set in with another subject? What was she given immunity from? There is no justification for this whatsoever.

Bret asks why no grand jury

Comey says it was run out of hq because he didn’t want leaks, well that is garbage. Look at the leaks against trump.

He says Hillary was not interviewed in front of a grand jury because he didn’t feel they needed one.

But keep in mind at this point comey already knew Hillary and company had destroyed subpoenaed evidence. So why all of this benefit of the doubt about assuming she was innocent, and no grand jury. The destruction of this evidence alone is a crime that should have been charged.

What is the crime that lead to investigation of Russia starting.

Comey says you open an investigation to see if americans are in cahoots with a foreign nation.

Well that didn’t answer the question at all. Which americans were accused, what was the first piece of evidnce that led to that investigation? Comey answers none of this.

Excellent post. People always say "if Hillary is a criminal why hasn't she ever been charged?", this video is Exhibit A for answering that question.

Corruption right at the top. And they are all lawyers, Hillary included. Is society so stupid that they dont realize that nobody knows how to break the law without "breaking the law" like a lawyer?

Lawyers make the laws, then we elect lawyers and wonder why no one ever gets charged. They build in grey areas that they then exploit, add to that the extreme corruption and you get this mess. What a joke.

I'll go way out on a limb and say this thread is going to be an absolute ghost town. None of the usual suspects will show for more than a brief appearance, if at all.

This....this here is indefensible. And totally blows their narrative apart.

Comey should be in jail. What a scumbag.
edit on 27-4-2018 by Carcharadon because: Spelling

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 04:45 AM

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

"conscious and voluntary disregard...which is likely to cause" is essentially intent. You have to prove that the person was intentionally doing something that they knew would likely cause "grave injury or harm" for it to be gross negligence.

I dont think so..

need to use reasonable care she needed to use reasonable care to ensure classified information didn't leave secure systems and wasn't disclosed to outside parties.

She knew the requirements, she knew that classified intel must remain on classified systems.

She knowingly, voluntarily and deliberately moved those classified information/s to insecure systems

She didn't expect it to be found out and she didn't expect it to be hacked.

If it does cause damage to people or institutions isn't the concern, its if she did it potentially resulting in that.

She's guilty and got off purely because she offered Loretta Lynch a position in her Administration

Loretta Lynch took the word of the ''team'' when they said dont prosecute.

The ''team'' was run by Mccabe and Comey

When it was realized Clinton wasnt going to win, Mccabe, Comey, Lynch and Obama colluded to get Trump impeached based on fake intelligence.

Comey used his contacts to leak the fake information, Mccabe and Lynch utilized Strzok to get the FISA warrant.

Obama looked the other way


Excellent summation. One quibble though is that I don't believe Obama looked away. I think Obama is the one behind all of it. Everything originates with him IMO.

The thought of Trump becoming president sent him right over the edge. The night that changed America and Trumps future showed how petty, vindictive and narcissistic Obama is. Of course I'm talking about the night Obama endlessly mocked Trump at some dinner event.

Knowing that Trump was about to shove that mockery right back down his throat and dismantle his legacy (thin as it) unhinged him.

In fact an argument could be made that the Mocha Messiah was the first victim of TDS.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 04:55 AM

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Are we even watching the same interview?

Comey killed it and made Trump and Fox look like idiots.

He had a perfect answer and reason for every question.

Exhibit A folks right there. The sheer lack of observational skills and logical thinking is astounding.

You folks are dedicated that's for sure. Maybe you should actually read Gramblers post to gain some perspective.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 06:34 AM
a reply to: Grambler

Excellent!!! Excellent summation of the video -- and thank you for that! -- and excellent observations.

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 06:47 AM
Seems like Comey is falling onto the sword .... a dollar short and a day to late


top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in