It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
FBI Director James Comey Testified Under Oath That Trump Didn't Obstruct Investigations
page: 6share:
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: underwerks
The entire exchange is on the video. He was asked specifically about the administration trying to stop investigations, and plainly said that hasn't happened. Keep spinning.
Nope. Wrong again. And I have to ask myself if you even watched the video or read the transcript. Once again, from the OP:
“So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” asked Sen. Hirono of Comey during the question-and-answer period of his testimony. “In theory, yes,” replied Comey.
Hirono pressed: “Has it happened?”
Comey said, “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”
Now where does it say anything about the president? All he's asked about is the DOJ. You do realize the president is part of the executive branch, and not the judicial branch, right?
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Arnie123
Wanna talk about smoke and mirrors..
I just read the transcript of may 3rd to see what questions preceded the quote and cannot find it there....
This is kinda "to good to be true" for trump..
The guy who says trump obstructed, said the opposite under oath 2 weeks ago?!?!
Here is the transcript:
www.google.com... sian-interference-in-2016-election/
Very long read, but a very good read. Really shows a discrepancy between the narrative being pushed in this thread and what the actual article is about.
But, if it's not from Breitbart, a YouTube video, or a Trump tweet, it's fake news and dismissed, swept under the rug, and ignored.
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Arnie123
Wanna talk about smoke and mirrors..
I just read the transcript of may 3rd to see what questions preceded the quote and cannot find it there....
This is kinda "to good to be true" for trump..
The guy who says trump obstructed, said the opposite under oath 2 weeks ago?!?!
Here is the transcript:
www.google.com... sian-interference-in-2016-election/
This transcript appears to be from an earlier round of testimony, being that it's dated March 20th.
Sadly, Comey won't face any charges either. He's a good man. A really, really good man. The best man ever, trust me.
a reply to: stosh64
You don't seem to understand that there's two different issues at play here.
1) The Russia investigation that the Trump campaign is under.
a) no one has stated that anyone has tried to interfere with this.
b) this is what Comey is testifying about in the video above.
c) no claims by MSM of obstruction or interference.
d) The question is about the DOJ
2) The Flynn investigation
a) This is what the alleged memo is about.
b) This is not what Comey is testifying about in the video above.
c) Allegations by MSM of obstruction or interference.
d) Obstruction would be regarding Trump.
You don't seem to understand that there's two different issues at play here.
1) The Russia investigation that the Trump campaign is under.
a) no one has stated that anyone has tried to interfere with this.
b) this is what Comey is testifying about in the video above.
c) no claims by MSM of obstruction or interference.
d) The question is about the DOJ
2) The Flynn investigation
a) This is what the alleged memo is about.
b) This is not what Comey is testifying about in the video above.
c) Allegations by MSM of obstruction or interference.
d) Obstruction would be regarding Trump.
edit on 5/18/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: stosh64
A word of caution here...it is very easy to dismiss little things that should raise red flags when it appears that a favorable outcome is already in the bag...particularly when it comes to legal speak. Read his words again more carefully and you'll see that he left an opening for himself. He's far from stupid. I bolded the key dialogue.
Instead of focusing on what he said here, look at what he didn't say. He didn't say that Trump himself never asked him personally to let Flynn skate. He very specifically stated that the administration did not pressure his agency to halt an investigation for political purposes. Now where it gets interesting is in the wording of their question.
Notice again what was not asked. They didn't ask if the POTUS could halt it. They asked about senior DOJ or the AG, again very specifically. This is dangerously close to leading a witness, but it's important to be extremely specific, so they went with it.
Again, very specific, repeating his earlier statement and making sure that the distinction here is clear. It almost feels like a warning.
Another very clear distinction from the wording of his testimony under oath. Making sure a line is drawn.
He never testified that he was not approached by Trump. He very carefully and clearly specified that no one from the admin asked his agency to halt an investigation for political reasons. He wanted to drive that home so much that he even clarified it again, mid-reply: '. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.” '
Here's a hypothetical:
Comey knew Trump wanted him gone from the beginning. He was nervous enough about it that he documented and tucked away anything that might be effective leverage rather than address it right when it happened. He even made sure to casually tell a couple of colleagues about it. He knew it would be damaging to Trump if it got out, so he saved it.
He actually had some proof of shady whatnot on Trump. Russian or not, he had proof of something. But he didn't come out with it because he was waiting to see if he was going to be canned first. Things got more hostile and Trump threatened him. He threatened back.
It didn't work, because Trump cannot stand to be challenged...even if his emotional reactivity makes him look bad. So he fired him. Luckily for Trump, he had dragged ass on the Russia thing so much that people lost all faith in whatever credibility he still had left after the Hillary debacle. So he could have produced evidence against Trump, but no one would have taken him seriously by then.
So he alluded to possible shadiness by announcing that he would speak, but only in an open session. The implication was that he didn't feel safe talking behind closed doors; the hook was the possibility of a juicy scandal being revealed. He was sending Trump another warning.
Trump of course started talking smack on Twitter, and publicly threatened Comey with retaliation via leaked info...I believe it was tapes. He played right into the trap by doing so, however.
Comey has evidence that Trump made a very inappropriate request that does not sit well with the American people, particularly after he didn't come through with his promise to go after Hillary, who was the poster child for impropriety throughout the whole election. For him to suddenly launch a juvenile Twitter attack publicly threatening someone with retaliation did two important things.
First, it's as good as an admission of his own wrongdoing. If he didn't do it, why get so defensive? People don't make public threats against other people unless they're worried. Why would Trump have incriminating/damaging evidence and just sit on it? Well, the easiest answer is that it's insurance. That should sound familiar to America.
Second, he only strengthened the claim that he used his status and position to manipulate the investigation...because if he were innocent, he'd have no reason to seek retaliation. Now, not only does he not look innocent, he looks untrustworthy and utterly duplicitous.
And right now, it looks very much like Comey was expecting that reaction and was prepared for it in multiple different ways, one of which was the absolute specificity of his wording under oath. He cleared the administration and the AG but left wiggle room in case his testimony gets called into question, which is precisely what just happened.
This man puts people away for a living. He is a cop. He is not an idiot. He knows how the system works and he knows how to circumvent legal sand traps. He knows how cases are made against people and he knows what can lose a case.
Most troubling of all, those questions he was asked under oath were specifically worded to elicit the very specific responses. It is common for a witness to be prepped before testimony, but this was more than that. This was like a rehearsed scene in a play...too pat, too tidy. So that would imply that the questions were not candid in the least, and that Comey has friends helping him navigate this.
Of course, it could end up as an open and shut case and Comey is just screwed. Anything is possible. But this whole thing is not adding up...something very odd is going on. It may be nothing at all, but I think it would be a mistake to underestimate these people.
While Trump is preening and posturing for his adoring fans, 140 characters at a time, the shadow government is still there, quietly waiting for an opportunity to sink their teeth back in. I think it would probably be a very good time to start reining Trump in a little tighter before he gets so caught up that he does something stupid and gets himself impeached for real. His fan club needs to put away childish things as well and stop encouraging more foolish, rash behavior from the person who is supposed to be leading a nation into greatness...not more division and discord.
If America were to come under direct attack and war actually made it onto this soil, our country would be far less vulnerable if we simply stood together as one nation instead of divided by pettiness and hatred. If the opposite happens, we're done as a nation. Our President should be leading by example, and he isn't. We need to remind him, whether we voted for him or not.
A word of caution here...it is very easy to dismiss little things that should raise red flags when it appears that a favorable outcome is already in the bag...particularly when it comes to legal speak. Read his words again more carefully and you'll see that he left an opening for himself. He's far from stupid. I bolded the key dialogue.
Former FBI Director James Comey testified under Senate oath May 3rd that the Trump administration had not pressured his agency to halt any investigation for political purposes
Instead of focusing on what he said here, look at what he didn't say. He didn't say that Trump himself never asked him personally to let Flynn skate. He very specifically stated that the administration did not pressure his agency to halt an investigation for political purposes. Now where it gets interesting is in the wording of their question.
“So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” asked
Notice again what was not asked. They didn't ask if the POTUS could halt it. They asked about senior DOJ or the AG, again very specifically. This is dangerously close to leading a witness, but it's important to be extremely specific, so they went with it.
Comey said, “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”
Again, very specific, repeating his earlier statement and making sure that the distinction here is clear. It almost feels like a warning.
The conversation on February 14 was "more Flynn focused," not about the overall Russia investigation or the other associates under scrutiny.
Another very clear distinction from the wording of his testimony under oath. Making sure a line is drawn.
He never testified that he was not approached by Trump. He very carefully and clearly specified that no one from the admin asked his agency to halt an investigation for political reasons. He wanted to drive that home so much that he even clarified it again, mid-reply: '. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.” '
Here's a hypothetical:
Comey knew Trump wanted him gone from the beginning. He was nervous enough about it that he documented and tucked away anything that might be effective leverage rather than address it right when it happened. He even made sure to casually tell a couple of colleagues about it. He knew it would be damaging to Trump if it got out, so he saved it.
He actually had some proof of shady whatnot on Trump. Russian or not, he had proof of something. But he didn't come out with it because he was waiting to see if he was going to be canned first. Things got more hostile and Trump threatened him. He threatened back.
It didn't work, because Trump cannot stand to be challenged...even if his emotional reactivity makes him look bad. So he fired him. Luckily for Trump, he had dragged ass on the Russia thing so much that people lost all faith in whatever credibility he still had left after the Hillary debacle. So he could have produced evidence against Trump, but no one would have taken him seriously by then.
So he alluded to possible shadiness by announcing that he would speak, but only in an open session. The implication was that he didn't feel safe talking behind closed doors; the hook was the possibility of a juicy scandal being revealed. He was sending Trump another warning.
Trump of course started talking smack on Twitter, and publicly threatened Comey with retaliation via leaked info...I believe it was tapes. He played right into the trap by doing so, however.
Comey has evidence that Trump made a very inappropriate request that does not sit well with the American people, particularly after he didn't come through with his promise to go after Hillary, who was the poster child for impropriety throughout the whole election. For him to suddenly launch a juvenile Twitter attack publicly threatening someone with retaliation did two important things.
First, it's as good as an admission of his own wrongdoing. If he didn't do it, why get so defensive? People don't make public threats against other people unless they're worried. Why would Trump have incriminating/damaging evidence and just sit on it? Well, the easiest answer is that it's insurance. That should sound familiar to America.
Second, he only strengthened the claim that he used his status and position to manipulate the investigation...because if he were innocent, he'd have no reason to seek retaliation. Now, not only does he not look innocent, he looks untrustworthy and utterly duplicitous.
And right now, it looks very much like Comey was expecting that reaction and was prepared for it in multiple different ways, one of which was the absolute specificity of his wording under oath. He cleared the administration and the AG but left wiggle room in case his testimony gets called into question, which is precisely what just happened.
This man puts people away for a living. He is a cop. He is not an idiot. He knows how the system works and he knows how to circumvent legal sand traps. He knows how cases are made against people and he knows what can lose a case.
Most troubling of all, those questions he was asked under oath were specifically worded to elicit the very specific responses. It is common for a witness to be prepped before testimony, but this was more than that. This was like a rehearsed scene in a play...too pat, too tidy. So that would imply that the questions were not candid in the least, and that Comey has friends helping him navigate this.
Of course, it could end up as an open and shut case and Comey is just screwed. Anything is possible. But this whole thing is not adding up...something very odd is going on. It may be nothing at all, but I think it would be a mistake to underestimate these people.
While Trump is preening and posturing for his adoring fans, 140 characters at a time, the shadow government is still there, quietly waiting for an opportunity to sink their teeth back in. I think it would probably be a very good time to start reining Trump in a little tighter before he gets so caught up that he does something stupid and gets himself impeached for real. His fan club needs to put away childish things as well and stop encouraging more foolish, rash behavior from the person who is supposed to be leading a nation into greatness...not more division and discord.
If America were to come under direct attack and war actually made it onto this soil, our country would be far less vulnerable if we simply stood together as one nation instead of divided by pettiness and hatred. If the opposite happens, we're done as a nation. Our President should be leading by example, and he isn't. We need to remind him, whether we voted for him or not.
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Arnie123
Wanna talk about smoke and mirrors..
I just read the transcript of may 3rd to see what questions preceded the quote and cannot find it there....
This is kinda "to good to be true" for trump..
The guy who says trump obstructed, said the opposite under oath 2 weeks ago?!?!
Here is the transcript:
www.google.com... sian-interference-in-2016-election/
The transcript you were linked to and reading were the WRONG one.
Here is the quote and WaPo source for the MAY 3RD transcript.
TeHIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.xt
Washingtonpost
Read the full testimony of FBI Director James Comey in which he discusses Clinton email investigation
Maybe if you took a little more time to research you wouldn't fall for all the propaganda you do.
So now we are declaring people on this site as Fascist/Nazi... has the entire ever living world gone nuts... seriously..
so just from what people type on the interwebs people can now tell you are a nazi/fascist... GTFO..
We have apparently dove from Deny Ignorance... to fully embracing idiocracy..
FFS... people stop embracing your team and start following the evidence.
so just from what people type on the interwebs people can now tell you are a nazi/fascist... GTFO..
We have apparently dove from Deny Ignorance... to fully embracing idiocracy..
FFS... people stop embracing your team and start following the evidence.
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.
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.
originally posted by: RomeByFire
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Arnie123
Wanna talk about smoke and mirrors..
I just read the transcript of may 3rd to see what questions preceded the quote and cannot find it there....
This is kinda "to good to be true" for trump..
The guy who says trump obstructed, said the opposite under oath 2 weeks ago?!?!
Here is the transcript:
www.google.com... sian-interference-in-2016-election/
Very long read, but a very good read. Really shows a discrepancy between the narrative being pushed in this thread and what the actual article is about.
But, if it's not from Breitbart, a YouTube video, or a Trump tweet, it's fake news and dismissed, swept under the rug, and ignored.
You and Joshua are reading the wrong transcript.....
I posted the correct transcript from WAPO above.
Makes your above statement ironic
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: underwerks
The entire exchange is on the video. He was asked specifically about the administration trying to stop investigations, and plainly said that hasn't happened. Keep spinning.
Nope. Wrong again. And I have to ask myself if you even watched the video or read the transcript. Once again, from the OP:
“So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” asked Sen. Hirono of Comey during the question-and-answer period of his testimony. “In theory, yes,” replied Comey.
Hirono pressed: “Has it happened?”
Comey said, “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose.I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”
Now where does it say anything about the president? All he's asked about is the DOJ. You do realize the president is part of the executive branch, and not the judicial branch, right?
I bolded the part that I believe was in reference to the Trump conversation. Or, if not in direct reference to the conversation he had with Trump I believe that is what Trump was doing. Giving his opinion, not obstructing.
ETA this: not sure what happened but the part I am referencing is below:
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.xt
edit on 18-5-2017 by Gargamel because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: DJW001
Lol thanks for exposing that you secretly still believe Trump supporters are Nazis.
Not all Trump supporters are Nazis, but Nazis love Mr. Trump:
Open your eyes, please.
a reply to: tigertatzen
Thanks for the well thought out and mannered response!
I agree there is legalese involved that can and will be used to cover everyones ass.
Do I think this information will change anything in the end? No.
Do I think it should have been reported and discussed? Absolutely!
Journalism fail.....
Thanks for the well thought out and mannered response!
I agree there is legalese involved that can and will be used to cover everyones ass.
Do I think this information will change anything in the end? No.
Do I think it should have been reported and discussed? Absolutely!
Journalism fail.....
a reply to: Gargamel
And in that entire exchange they are talking about the DOJ, not the president.
While the part you bolded might seem to apply to what everyone has heard about the Comey memo, he wasn't asked about or talking about the president when responding.
Context is everything.
The questions Comey was asked are very specific, and so are his answers.
And in that entire exchange they are talking about the DOJ, not the president.
While the part you bolded might seem to apply to what everyone has heard about the Comey memo, he wasn't asked about or talking about the president when responding.
Context is everything.
The questions Comey was asked are very specific, and so are his answers.
new topics
-
Elizando: I was notified yesterday… threat against myself and several other whistleblowers
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 4 hours ago -
Gallant Opposes Israeli Governance of Gaza
Middle East Issues: 6 hours ago -
Biden plans executive order to shut down border once crossings reach 4,000 per day
US Political Madness: 8 hours ago -
Mebendazole Video
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Biden accepts Trumps debate challenge
2024 Elections: 13 hours ago, 12 flags -
Biden plans executive order to shut down border once crossings reach 4,000 per day
US Political Madness: 8 hours ago, 12 flags -
10 Year Old Indiana Boy Victim of Bullying Commits Suicide
Education and Media: 16 hours ago, 10 flags -
Slovakian prime minister shot in 'brutal' attack while meeting supporters
Mainstream News: 16 hours ago, 9 flags -
Mebendazole Video
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 7 flags -
Canada wants to kill off the brown people
Mainstream News: 13 hours ago, 6 flags -
ETA Found Thanks - I need help finding the ATS GOLD content contributor Image
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 3 flags -
WATCH 1740 Russian Soldiers Destroyed By Ukrainian Forces While Advancing In Kharkiv
World War Three: 17 hours ago, 3 flags -
Want Some Secret Knowledge?
Paranormal Studies: 16 hours ago, 3 flags -
Elizando: I was notified yesterday… threat against myself and several other whistleblowers
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 4 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Gaza Genocide Real or Propaganda
Middle East Issues • 437 • : EyeoftheHurricane -
Biden accepts Trumps debate challenge
2024 Elections • 112 • : Hakaiju -
10 Year Old Indiana Boy Victim of Bullying Commits Suicide
Education and Media • 29 • : SprocketUK -
Want Some Secret Knowledge?
Paranormal Studies • 12 • : SecretKnowledge2 -
WATCH 1740 Russian Soldiers Destroyed By Ukrainian Forces While Advancing In Kharkiv
World War Three • 109 • : Opossum19 -
Ohio finds over 100 non-citizens on votrer roles
US Political Madness • 23 • : Opossum19 -
Don Trump-Quixote
Political Issues • 36 • : Asher47 -
Slovakian prime minister shot in 'brutal' attack while meeting supporters
Mainstream News • 21 • : angelchemuel -
Elizando: I was notified yesterday… threat against myself and several other whistleblowers
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents • 11 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Lemon-aid and lime-aid
General Chit Chat • 12 • : Flyingclaydisk