FBI Director James Comey Testified Under Oath That Trump Didn't Obstruct Investigations

originally posted by: acackohfcc

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: stosh64

So now what is everyone going to scream about next?

What's the next half baked, fabricated leak that will gain traction and dominate the MSFM?

we all scream for ice cream...

Yea.... How many scoops Putin gets...

Wow, another report of no evidence of any wrong doing!
We're at 100% no collusion and counting.

a reply to: olaru12

"So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice..."

Folks who possess moderate-to-advanced reading comprehension skills should realize that the question actually didn't refer to Trump or the Trump administration. So if indeed it was Trump, or Pence, or whomever, asking for the investigation to cease, this answer is quite honest.

Good luck, you guys. There will likely be more straws before it's all said and done.

Enjoy your time here while it lasts.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: olaru12
This just in...

Notice it's not Rawstory...

www.reuters.com...

flynn is going to rat out Trump to save his own skin...believe me.

Muller is going over this BS with a fine tooth comb.

That wouldn't surprise me. Flynn is a Democrat.

Trump knew that and Trump knew of Flynn's ties to the Ruskies. That wasn't very smart was it?

www.politico.com...

You reap what you sow....Corinthians 6;7

BIGGEST WITCH HUNT IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA.

originally posted by: olaru12
This just in...

Notice it's not Rawstory...

www.reuters.com...

flynn is going to rat out Trump to save his own skin...believe me.

Muller is going over this BS with a fine tooth comb.

I know someone else who says "believe me" a lot...

originally posted by: randomthoughts12

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If Trump threatened Comey, that would have been illegal and he would have been impeached.

Under Oath Comey said the POTUS could stop a investigation. It would be a big deal but he could. Not to mention the president can use a pardon after the fact if he wanted to. By law he could but obviously major backlash.

No he did not. Under oath he said that the Department of Justice could order an end to an investigation. The Republicans on the committee had spent a lot of time hammering away at the rumor that Bill Clinton asked the Attorney General to end the investigation into Hillary Clinton. He seemed to want to emphasize that if the DOJ wanted the Clinton investigation ended, it could have, but it clearly did not.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
This just in...

Notice it's not Rawstory...

www.reuters.com...

flynn is going to rat out Trump to save his own skin...believe me.

Muller is going over this BS with a fine tooth comb.

I know someone else who says "believe me" a lot...

I know you do....I'm just mocking this guy!

www.politico.com...

a reply to: stosh64
There is no way he would contradict himself like this. He was the one testifying, he hasn't forgotten he said it or that it was recorded. The question was had the AG or DOJ tried to shut down an investigation NOT whether the POTUS had ever.
It isn't like he would say...no they haven't but the President has on several occasions

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: tigertatzen

The bottom line is if a Senator asks you under oath about interference in your investigations, if the President had tried to interfere and you didn't mention that, even if she didn't specifically ask you about the President that is very misleading. If this memo from Feb is true he would've been obligated to inform Congress long before May 3rd anyway. Unless he thought it didn't amount to obstruction and was therefore not worth telling them.

I'm guessing you've never testified in a criminal trial or evidential hearing. Any legal proceeding under oath, really. It's never acceptable to volunteer information or hinder the proceeding by addressing the officiating body and speaking freely without being granted permission by the Court. I know circuit judges who throw people out of traffic court for pulling stunts like that. I can only imagine how they react to that in federal proceedings.

Like it or not, the bottom line is actually more like this: you swear in, sit down and be silent until you're addressed directly. When a question is asked, you answer only what was asked and then you quietly wait for the next question. You don't volunteer information. Ever. There's a very good reason for that, and it's called due process. There's another one called basic common sense.

If he had made a scene at that hearing, he'd have been finished. As a veteran cop, he knows this. As the former director of the FBI, he's acutely aware of how a rash decision like that could be the worst of his career.

He would have been denying the accused due legal process, and that's not very smart when the accused is the sitting President of the United States...no matter how much people want him removed from office. No...he did it perfectly. Answered precisely what was asked and then kept his mouth shut until he was asked something else.

Volunteering information during a proceeding can do irreparable damage to a case. You could accidentally compromise another key witness testimony by incriminating someone else...or yourself. You could contaminate the testimony of others, cast doubt that would change the outcome...and your witness testimony could be stricken from the record and you dismissed, and if you were a key witness, your testimony will not even make it into the official transcripts. In a scenario involving the POTUS, you could compromise national security by speaking out of turn...especially if it is to level serious accusations at him of compromising it himself.

He knows he's got something that Trump didn't count on. If he didn't, he wouldn't have insisted on a public hearing, nor would he have allowed reporters to engage him. Instead, he is being very deliberate with his words and actions, just like he was during testimony. Taking great care to clearly respond directly to the question as it was worded, specifically and deliberately. Keeping it professional. This isn't over.

I do feel that he should have reported this, but disrespecting the proceeding by openly accusing the POTUS of criminal activity would have been incredibly unwise.

if the President had tried to interfere and you didn't mention that, even if she didn't specifically ask you about the President that is very misleading. 

The law disagrees with you and considers answering a question that no one specifically asked to be misleading, and the reaction the senator would have had if Comey had derailed the session in that manner would have not been pretty. The law doesn't try multiple cases in the same courtroom at the same time, because each individual deserves equal due process, which still means they're innocent until proven guilty. That is not something you want to circumvent if you're trying to build a case against the person who is holding the most lofty title in the nation. You've got to do it right.

I don't understand your last remark...are you referring to a moral obligation or one imposed by law? The federal statute for felonies is five years. So he's got five years from 2/14/17 to bring charges. No obligation there.

Morally speaking....you won't like this but I don't see an obligation to rush in and file charges that may not stick. I'd much rather know it took longer to bring charges and a more solid case and justice was actually served if it needed to be. But I'm a measure-twice- cut once kinda girl, and not everyone thinks that way.

Morally, I think it's important to be right about things before it gets to the public, but something made Comey angry enough to publicly allude to coercion and manipulation directly from the POTUS to spare his good buddy Flynn from facing charges, and because there was an active investigation into some very serious claims, he very well may have obstructed justice.

Comey's anger is genuine, and I get the strong sense that it's not about getting fired. He saw that coming. I suspect Trump promised him something, and then went back on it, and then decided to sh!tcan him, and make an open mockery of him.

None of these people are innocent. They've all got dirt on each other. Ok. And there's a war going on behind the curtain that we are not privy to the details of. But our lives are the ones taking shrapnel over here.

And the one thing that is going to topple this tower of corruption is to prove that everyone in that goddamned place is either involved directly or complicit because they knew something bad was happening and chose to look the other way and people will finally shut the # up and wake the # up and see that their messiah didn't drain the #ing swamp. He just ran all the snakes out of it to make room for the wolves.

And once people get equally pissed and equally outraged by a common enemy, they'll drop the barriers and work together to remove it for good.

Blah...I don't know why I am still trying to tell people all this. I'm not yelling at anybody...just tired of all the endless drama and negativity. We should be better than this.

I understand what you're saying. I just want it to be over with, but not at the expense of justice being avoided by people who deserve it...even if we don't want to believe we misjudged their characters...it's not a mistake or a flaw in our own characters. It's a reminder to be more discerning going forward.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

In case you haven't noticed, Trump expresses himself with what is technically known as word salad. In order to understand what he actually means, you have to connect disjointed words into a coherent thought. Because his mind jumps around, he frequently reveals his unconscious motivations by accident. The proximity of Trump's comment about the Russia investigation to his justification for firing Comey suggests that they are definitely connected. I hope you don't believe he was fired for being mean to Hillary Clinton.

And so the media tosses the salad AND the cookies and you agree they find the truth in it.

If you do not know what Trump is saying......you are the problem.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: DJW001

Please explain how what anything neo said makes him a "fascist", if you can.

He identifies the Chief Executive with the State, and considers democracy to be "mob rule." For more information about Fascism:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Traditionalism," as preached by Julius Evola is coming back into style.

You need to brush up on what Democracy is. A direct democracy is mob rule. Your founding fathers were aware of that and learned the lessons from times such as the fall of Rome. That is why you have an representative democracy, which somewhat (but not entirely) protects from mob rule.

A person trying to help you understand this is not grounds for calling them a fascist.

Where the poster was incorrect is that Trump is not the state - he heads up the state, elected and representative of the people. Still not grounds for calling him a fascist.

Obstruction of justice is subjective.

It could still have happened without Comey lying under oath.

Comey's interpretation can be different from everyone else's.

Trump asked Comey to pull off of Flynn.. Comey didnt.. therefore Trump didnt obstruct justice. He tried to obstruct justice, but he didnt.

the obstruction didnt occur until Trump fired Comey.

THAT is obstruction

a reply to: stosh64

Well, according to CNN, the conversation took place Feb 14th.

So it is HIGHLY relevant.

Highly relevant to people with limited reading comprehension skills.

Your thread title is wrong, it should say "FBI Director James Comey Testified Under Oath That DOJ Didn't Obstruct Investigations"

Seems a bit dishonest, or maybe you just ain't that good at reading.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Obstruction of justice is subjective.

It could still have happened without Comey lying under oath.

Comey's interpretation can be different from everyone else's.

Trump asked Comey to pull off of Flynn.. Comey didnt.. therefore Trump didnt obstruct justice. He tried to obstruct justice, but he didnt.

the obstruction didnt occur until Trump fired Comey.

THAT is obstruction

But Trump said he would hire Flynn back, so everythings ok now.

www.rawstory.com...

You just can't make this sh*t up!!

It must really suck being Comey. Having so much on others? Then "them", knowing your address. I kind of hate him, for his "get along attitude". But then? I kinda feel for the guy. Then I don't! You can't do wrong, right, while you ride "the fence" all day long, without getting your "manhood in a bind". Then try being, "politically" correct in front of "The people's Court". Comey needs to spill it! "Lock and load" and "Damn the torpedoes"!.. He didn't "swear an oath" to the "government" he swore an oath to "The C.O.T.U.S."! Trump hasn't anything to do with, this.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Thanks for the explanation, I'm sure it was enlightening for all who read it. It was for me.

That being said, I wasn't implying that Trump hosting Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office and divulging classified intel was illegal.

I was implying that it was incredibly stupid!

Especially seeing how he had just fired the head of the agency investigating his campaign for Russian ties.

And.....The Russian ties being investigated led specifically to conversations between Flynn and who??? Let me guess, yeah that's right, Sergei Kislyak. Conversations that Flynn lied about and supposedly got fired over.

As far as I'm concerned, Trump committed obstruction of justice when he fired Comey and then went on national tv and said that he did so because he felt that the Russian investigation was a charade and that Comey & the FBI shouldn't be wasting their time and money on it.

The Comey memos only stand to make the whole scandal even juicer.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Obstruction of justice is subjective.

It could still have happened without Comey lying under oath.

Comey's interpretation can be different from everyone else's.

Trump asked Comey to pull off of Flynn.. Comey didnt.. therefore Trump didnt obstruct justice. He tried to obstruct justice, but he didnt.

the obstruction didnt occur until Trump fired Comey.

THAT is obstruction

But Trump said he would hire Flynn back, so everythings ok now.

www.rawstory.com...

You just can't make this sh*t up!!

If Flynn is cleared he should be hired back - that would be great.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Obstruction of justice is subjective.

It could still have happened without Comey lying under oath.

Comey's interpretation can be different from everyone else's.

Trump asked Comey to pull off of Flynn.. Comey didnt.. therefore Trump didnt obstruct justice. He tried to obstruct justice, but he didnt.

the obstruction didnt occur until Trump fired Comey.

THAT is obstruction

But Trump said he would hire Flynn back, so everythings ok now.

www.rawstory.com...

You just can't make this sh*t up!!

If Flynn is cleared he should be hired back - that would be great.

...for Russia.

a reply to: DJW001
Got anything to actually contribute to this thread???
You and your buddies on ATS have been screaming "obstructing of justice" for weeks now. Here we have clear evidence there was no obstruction. Yet rather than admit you were wrong(AGAIN) you stroll in here like you actually still have credibility and proceed to...

...for Russia.

Hahahaha!