I read it. Have you? If not, here, read, get ready for the big or not so big hearing tomorrow.
Get ready to hear a dissection of what Comey and Trump meant by their shared silent gazing into each other's eyes, by their coming to rest upon the slippery phrase "honest loyalty," and the mystery of "that thing" in "we had that thing, you know."
७ जून, २०१७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२० टिप्पण्या:
Trump went out and borrowed trouble here. From a lawyer's perspective he is a terrible client because he will undercut his own cause and then blame his lawyer for being ineffective...and then he won't pay. I don't have much use for Comey, but Trump made sure that this issue will be alive in 2018.
Sad.
So. Comey really did tell him 3 times that he was not under investigation.
How do you like that?
Reading Comey's 7 page statement just shows that Trump was right to fire him. What a drama queen.
If he was so offended by Trump's request for loyalty - or his 1-1 meeting to discuss Flynn - he should have simply told Trump so, and explained why it was inappropriate for him to talk to Comey. Trump after all, is a businessman, had been in office for less than a month, and wasn't an expert on FBI-DoJ-POTUS relations.
Nor is there any reason why Comey couldn't have gone public and told the country Trump was NOT under investigation.
Comey acts like he was a judge and Trump was plaintiff, and therefore even the appearance of independence could not be compromised. But he was employee of the DoJ - and Trump has a right to expect him to be an loyal employee -within the law. There is no reason why Trump couldn't talk to Comey directly or have that cause an "independence" issue, except Comey imagined it.
I also wonder if Comey ever did anything to investigate the leaks that Trump was so upset about.
Someone should ask it at the hearing.
I look forward to reading his thoughts about The Meeting on the Tarmac.
Also, his thoughts on meetings with Obama.
Ahitjobsayswhat?
Remember, McCain said this was 'worse then Watergate' - and now we know Trump wasn't under investigation.
@ rcocean
I have always preferred bosses who ask for my disloyalty. You?
/sarc
This seals the deal for me in many ways.
Comey decided to take notes with Trump, but not with Obama or others he met during the Obama administration?
And for weeks we were told that Trump would NEVER be told he wasn't under investigation. And here comes Comey to back Trump up, telling him on 3 different occasions that he wasn't under investigation. Wow, talk about blowing up the MSM/Democrat narrative on that one. Har! I laughed long and hard over that one.
Anyway, there's no smoking gun it seems. Which I've had to deal with for years in the case of Clinton and Obama. So now the liberals have to suck on that egg.
And it makes me very, very happy.
Time to move those goalposts!
Oh, and the icing on the cake? CNN beclowned themselves (I know, not that hard to do) by claiming that Comey was going to testify he never told Trump he wasn't under investigation. Boy do they have egg on their face now. Thanks for solidifying the fake news narrative, CNN!
Comey releases the statement to dominate the news for an extra day. I expect him on MSNBC or CNN next week. Exclusive. What a hot dog.
Comey only met with Obama once! Obama was too busy playing golf and giving Iran millions to do his job.
Meade's favorite, Jeffery Toobin, claims Trump obstructed justice. Not even close. No corrupt intent by Trump. Toobin also thinks this is the next Watergate. Insane.
Comey releases the statement to dominate the news for an extra day.
The statement was released by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Judging by all of the annoyed posts on Twitter I'm going to guess that tomorrow changes absolutely nothing.
On the main issue Comey clears Trump. There is no Russian conspiracy. The testimony is clear on that. That is what people will see. That is all that matters. Time to move on from impeachment talk. But Comey has such a funny way of doing things that he has also created a "grassy knoll" narrative, a statement that is like the Zapruder video - a grainy jerky film that contains shadows which prepared imaginations can construe into lurking conspirators. And he did the same thing to Hillary Clinton. Trump was innocent, Hillary was guilty in my opinion. But when Comey finished talking the same thing was true of both of them - the FBI had "cleared" them and simultaneously created "grassy knoll" narratives on both of them. That seems to be a Comey trademark. It was right to fire Comey and the FBI should get out and stay out of politics.
Mind-boggling. This guy met with Trump a number of times, and each time ran home and wrote it down and discussed it with senior staff at FBI. He told Trump he wasn't under investigation - as Trump said - but wouldn't make the fact public, to the point that multiple news organizations thought he would say just the opposite in his testimony.
Trump didn't fire him fast enough. He has admitted being part of the government that is trying to sabotage their boss's work.
Well, I can see how the private Feb 14th meeting could inspire a few "Hitler Downfall" parodies if it hasn't already.
Well, I can see how the private Feb 14th meeting could inspire a few "Hitler Downfall" parodies if it hasn't already.
In the fever swamp of D.C. of course, before tomorrow's "Happy Hour."
Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if Hillary Clinton did this? Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if she fired the FBI Director because she did not like the investigation of her campaign?
But with the Althouse Hillbillies Trump could shoot someone in the face on Fifth Avenue and they would not criticize him,but if Hillary crossed the street on a yellow they would demand she be thrown in jail.
"Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if Hillary Clinton did this? Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if she fired the FBI Director because she did not like the investigation of her campaign?"
Uh, dude. The first Clinton scandal was Filegate. Hillary gained illegal access to the FBI files of hundreds of her enemies. The Clintons should have been impeached on that day. We screamed bloody murder - as much as we could, anyway, as there wasn't really an internet yet and the media ignored it - and nothing happened. And it explains why both Clintons have gotten away with everything they have these last two and a half decades.
Seriously, I think Filegate explains everything we have seen. She turned that initial access into permanent access to FBI files, and THOSE files are what she had on her homebrew server. And that's why she's above the law.
Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if Hillary Clinton did this? Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if she fired the FBI Director because she did not like the investigation of her campaign?
I do not think Hillary Clinton could possibly have kept James Comey as FBI Director had she won. Not after how he had treated her.
She did, however, intend to keep Loretta Lynch, even after the tarmac meeting between Loretta and Bill.
But with the Althouse Hillbillies Trump could shoot someone in the face on Fifth Avenue and they would not criticize him,but if Hillary crossed the street on a yellow they would demand she be thrown in jail.
No and no.
You're too dishonest to be a hillbilly, "Once bitten."
Maybe you can start as a meth dealer & work your way up?
Once written, twice... said... [hush][hide comment]
But with the Althouse Hillbillies Trump could shoot someone in the face on Fifth Avenue .....
Too bad Seth Rich didn't draw first and shoot someone in the face before Hitleries gang killed him
"... if I were a president selecting a cabinet in the future, would give me pause about selecting somebody from the opposite party. Loyalty is an under appreciated virtue in Washington these days.
SCHIEFFER: I tell you what I found interesting about it. Much of the criticism that Mr. Gates made, I happen to agree with. But I thought making the criticism at this point while the president is still a sitting president, I was very surprised that Bob Gates did that. Because either you talk about loyalty, I think there's a certain loyalty to the presidency. "
Enjoy getting through-looking-glass interpretations on this site.
I remember when the FBI only ever had one director and that was J. Edgar Hoover and he had the dirt of everyone. Comey's no J. Edgar that's for sure. He likes to play with inferences and innuendo. But I've heard that's how the FBI operates. You don't ever want to be interviewed by the FBI without an attorney because they'll write up what you say in a way that isn't what you actually said.
Quinn, Kenneth Starr exonerated Hillary Clinton in the phony Filegate controversy. But it does not matter, you just go on and invent even more crazy conspiracy theories involving pizza parlors and Seth Rich.
Concerning Seth Rich, why is Attorney General Jeff Sessions covering up for the Clintons?
Uh, Once, you don't think that once someone has FBI files on *everybody*, that any "exoneration" is obviously, absolutely, irrevocably tainted? She had blackmail on *everyone*. Even supposing she didn't have blackmail on Starr directly, she for sure had it on a hundred other high level Washington people who could make him exonerate her.
The idea that YOU would give the benefit of the doubt to any republican who'd gained that kind of info, and would believe ANY "exoneration" in the context of their having obtained infinite blackmail material, is laughable.
Well, this thread turned to crap rather fast. But then it is late at night.
readering: "Enjoy getting through-looking-glass interpretations on this site."
Yes, but what side of the glass are you on?
"At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House." Somehow, Comey never had the opportunity to explain it to O. Anyway, when an underling starts lecturing you in this condescending fashion, it's time to fire him.
The very fact that Comey wrote these memos, in this way, and discussed them eagerly with FBI staff, shows Trump was right. What a god** a***e.
Nice collection of conspiracy weavin' Althouse Hillbillies you have here Ann. You must be so proud.
rcocean: "Well, this thread turned to crap rather fast. But then it is late at night."
To be fair, the fact that its all a nothingburger which the dems will try to spin into "Watergate!!1!eleventy!111!!" will simply make it more interesting.
The lefts clear attempted coup has now just about completely fizzled out and the dems are left with the remnants of a "smokey" "process" issue that they will want to turn into a felony. Collusion isn't even being spoken about by any of the major players any longer.
You can tell this vein is just about played out because the usual suspect dem crazies have gone back to the hilarious emoluments violation ploy.
All in all, pretty boring and the thread reflects that.
Now, when we start getting the documentation on who was requesting the unmasking and it becomes clear the extent of the unmasking, then it could start getting really interesting. Particularly because the reports are that 20,000,000 (not a typo!) American citizens had their private information captured and exposed. Potentially more.
Further, it appears that Comey will wisely avoid any discussion of the ridiculous fake dossier because when it becomes "officially" known that it was the basis of an actual, no kidding, FISA warrant, lots of questions in the "you've got to be kidding me" range will be popping up.
The October congressional review and renewal of these "crown jewel" surveillance capabilities looks quite promising as well given that there are now a number of conservative/libertarian republicans who are already saying that they will not go along with renewal given the massive violations of citizens privacy.
Once written: "Nice collection of conspiracy weavin' Althouse Hillbillies you have here Ann. You must be so proud."
Says the Trump/Russian "collusion" conspiracy monger and fake russian dossier advocate!!
LOL
Drago, please point to where I have posted about any dossier's or collusion. I have no direct knowledge, and neither do you. It is Republicans who control both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Investigations into these issues are being overseen by these Republicans. Clearly they think there are reasons why these allegations should be looked into.
The October congressional review and renewal of these "crown jewel" surveillance capabilities looks quite promising as well given that there are now a number of conservative/libertarian republicans who are already saying that they will not go along with renewal given the massive violations of citizens privacy.
That's a bingo, Drago. Just like Gowdy hinted.
Once written, twice... said...Drago, please point to where I have posted about any dossier's or collusion.
I do recall Inga chortling about "golden showers."
The air in the Russian Conspiracy balloon is deflating rapidly now, and you can tell that from the frustrated and completely fact-free comment from the troll-brigade of Unreadering and Once Bitten.
Comey's written testimony is no surprise to me- he basically confirmed everything that was already known to be fact from all of his previous testimony. The only damaging part to Trump is the meeting with Flynn, but even there common decency explains why Trump asked that Flynn be left alone- Flynn had just been fired by a man who had only asked him only a couple of months before to take a chance at serving in an administration that was going to face unrelenting attacks- a decent human being would feel a great deal of remorse about this and try to clear the way for the firing to be the only penalty suffered for taking such a chance. In the end, it is pretty damned obvious already that Flynn is never going to be charged with anything significant, and certainly not with being an agent of a foreign government.
Anyone that had actually read Comey's prior testimony, and had an IQ over 85 should not be surprised that he stuck to that testimony- I mean, really, how does someone considered intelligent expect Comey to basically admit to perjury if the previous testimony was untrue? With the added fact that he had told Trump he wasn't under investigation really undermines the credibility of certain press writers, doesn't it?
It is going to be sweet listening to the whining of the Left and the Never-Trump Right this weekend. I may overdose on all the winning.
Also, it won't be Democrats that bring Trump down. Instead, it will be Republicans. Pence and Sessions are distancing themselves even further from Trump. How do you think the "Sessions offed to resign" story ended up in the news?
Dems need not feel backed into a corner (I used to be one of you!). Just come forth more truthfully and with less malice towards some.
How do you think the "Sessions offed to resign" story ended up in the news?
Via some anonymous source?
My favorite part is when he told Sessions that he did not want to meet alone with Trump and Sessions said .... nothing. Shows that Sessions loyalty is to the president and not the rule of law.
Chickelit, who do you think was in that room besides Trump and Sessions? Do you think Sessions offered his resignation in front of Democrats or civil servant employees?
If I was to only consider political considerations, it is best that Trump remains in office for Democrats. His administration is accomplishing absolutely nothing legislatively. It is also inevitable that he will turn on Republicans in Congress, especially if they lose control of both houses in 2018.
Once Bitten,
The Sessions resignation story probably came from the same kinds of sources that claimed Comey would deny telling Trump he wasn't under investigation- in other words, probably made up whole cloth.
It is fun watching trolls spin mindlessly tonight- their disappointment is like honey.
Chickelit, who do you think was in that room besides Trump and Sessions?
Keitel?, Jodl?, Krebs? Burgdorf? It's your narrative.
Trump should have fired Comey on January, 20th, but I strongly suspect they waited for an opportune time, most especially after Comey had put himself on the record at his last appearance before Congress as the FBI director- once he made that testimony, he had no further leverage in keeping his job.
One of the forgotten bits about his firing was the tweet Trump sent afterwards, about "recordings" of their meetings- I think this is specifically why Comey decided to not contradict Trump about what Comey had told him.
Nothing really earth-shattering despite having had nearly a month to come up with this statement. If this is the best that can be thrown against Trump on Russia, the continued focus on this story is going to distract from other more substantive criticism that could be made of Trump. For all of Trump's bluster and tweeting, so far if his strategy is to distract the media and the Democrats from anything of substance with shiny tin foil objects, it's worked like a charm.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't put any stock in what the media reports on anything these days about administration figures. We've had the Jared versus Bannon rumors for months now with one or the other winning the day at various points, yet both men remain. Trump was said to be "evolving on Paris" shortly before he deep-sixed it. We've gone from a rumored Lieberman FBI nomination to Wray - someone very different from Lieberman. I wouldn't put any stock in the Sessions rumors until he either gets fired or resigns. A man who's put out 2 major shifts in his department's policies recently (the sentencing guidelines a couple weeks ago and the 3rd party settlements today) doesn't seem like one who is a dead man walking.
"Clearly they think there are reasons why these allegations should be looked into."
Not necessarily good faith reasons. How many friends do you think Trump has in DC, Mister Once Bitten?
DJT should just come clean.
Bite the bullet. Grab the horn.
Stop the coverup and admit that he had to fire Comey cause that giant's ginormous hands were enervating Dongald.
Once Written: "If I was to only consider political considerations, it is best that Trump remains in office for Democrats."
Those grapes were sour anyway.
Re: Rebekah West:
And for weeks we were told that Trump would NEVER be told he wasn't under investigation. And here comes Comey to back Trump up, telling him on 3 different occasions that he wasn't under investigation. Wow, talk about blowing up the MSM/Democrat narrative on that one. Har! I laughed long and hard over that one.
This one is genuinely surprising to me. I was confident it was a witness/subject/target miscommunication -- that Trump was a "subject," but that he asked Comey whether he was a "target" and Comey truthfully replied that he was not, leaving Trump to (understandably) misconstrue that as meaning he wasn't under investigation at all. But no, I guess he wasn't under investigation at all, and he was in fact told precisely that three times.
No wonder he was mad. He's addicted to watching critical news, and it must have rankled every time he saw his critics confidently asserting that he was under investigation for cooperating with Russia.
It also, uh, makes me sort of rethink my impression that Trump is sloppy in his own recollection of events -- there are still discrepancies between his account and Comey's (that's not exactly unusual), but on a critical point, he accurately recounted both the content of the communication he received and the number of times he received it. Normally that would not occasion surprise, but my expectations for Trump are not exactly the expectations I would have had of, say, Mitt Romney. I dunno. Maybe he was recording their conversations with a cellphone or something so he just replayed them to make sure.
Comey is too tall for his own good. The man fails the measure of his 10' stature. And boy, does he love to testify. Especially to a room full of like-minded Trump haters.
But he may become overwhelmed by the kudos of encouragement, and talk himself right into the political hoosegow.
@rcocean said...
Reading Comey's 7 page statement just shows that Trump was right to fire him. What a drama queen.
Disagree. When Trump is in the room, there is only one drama queen present.
The Comey letter clearly points out that Donald is the worst boss in the world. Not only does he want to tell subordinates exactly how to do each aspect of their job, he wants to impose his twisted values as well.
Trump technically broke the law by interfering in the FBI investigation.
Why do I believe the 7-page letter? Because it fits the Trump Way and exactly portrays Donald's overpowering ego trips.
"Trump technically broke the law..."
What law?
They've been chomping at the bit to charge Trump with something, anything, but they keep drowning in their own storm of wind-spits.
Did Comey at any point use the term "cock holster" in his prepared statement?
That was my prediction.
Friggen Blogger just choked and dumped my long post.
What I got for the letter on the Trump side was a rising level of frustration with Comey and the FBI. They were wasting their time and efforts of the fake dossier and the fake Russian conspiracy story, and weren't doing what he had, in his mind, told Comey to do, which was plug the leaks of classified information, and find out who unmasked which Trump people's identities for what reasons. 5 months into the Trump Administration, and the FBI had no scalps. None. The leaking, if anything, was getting worse. Comey seemed to think that it was his job to set priorities for his agency. And, he might have gotten away with that, if he hadn't played politics last summer, by laying out a strong case for prosecuting Crooked Hillary, then recommending no prosecution, by deliberately reading a wrong intent requirement into the Espionage Act. Trump didn't need to be a lawyer to have seen that as a bogus, political move. So, why was Comey willing to do Obama's and Clinton's bidding, but not Trump's? I have little doubt that Trump saw Comey as insubordinate - not directly insubordinate, but rather the passive aggressive insubordination of a bureaucrat. Trump would tell Comey what he wanted done, his priorities, Comey would mostly agree, then do do what he damn well pleased. That might work with Obama, because he would rather play golf than actually try to run his govt. but wasn't going to work with a hands on, experienced, boss like Trump.
Why did Comey write those contemporaneous memos? Sure looks to me like a bureaucrat in CYA mode trying to generate insurance. The questioning is going to be interesting today.
"The Comey letter clearly points out that Donald is the worst boss in the world. Not only does he want to tell subordinates exactly how to do each aspect of their job, he wants to impose his twisted values as well.
Trump technically broke the law by interfering in the FBI investigation."
BS to the latter. Trump told Comey his priorities. Trump was Comey's 3rd level, and ultimate, boss. Giving subordinates priorities is well within a boss's prerogatives. And that you don't realize that is strong indicia that you don't have a clue as to the duties of management. Do you have an MBA? A business degree from Wharton like Trump? Have you successfully run billion dollar companies like he has?
Just as a hypothetical, is it possible that the FBI might use resources for an unwarranted, destructive investigation? Well, yes, it is possible; think of the FBI's excessive surveillance and harassment of Martin Luther King and his movement, for example. If the FBI were to act improperly, say by an unwarranted, politically-charged investigation of the President's friends, what would be the remedy?
(a) Wait for a new FBI director to be elected. Oops...
(b) Wait for the FBI director to die. (That worked for Stalin and Mao, eventually.)
(c) Let some superior executive officer, responsible under the constitution, direct the FBI to stop the investigation, or even fire the FBI director.
Isn't it obvious that (c) is the only right answer? (Think of MLK again.)
But what about Watergate? Wasn't Nixon wrong to interfere with that investigation? Yes, he was wrong, because there was a serious underlying crime, and justice required that it be investigated.
Maybe this is the answer: If an investigation is warranted, the President should allow it to proceed. If it is unwarranted, the President should consider stopping it, and should be free to do so. We elect our Presidents to exercise judgment (heaven help us). The MLK and Watergate examples show that Presidents haven't always gotten it right.
Maybe my calling BS needs a bit of clarification. Trump didn't interfere with the investigations. He never told Comey not to investigate. Comey was very clear about that, and if Trump had, that might have strayed into obstruction territory. But he didn't. And, no doubt, that question will be asked more explicitly today. The Dems, knowing that they are starting to lose the narrative here will try to make your case. But won't be able to, because it didn't happen.
Besides, the obvious - Trump can't break the law by telling a subordinate what to do, if what he is telling him to do is within that person's discretion, because that discretion comes from Trump, and Trump alone, as the elected head of the Executive Branch. That discretion belongs to Trump, as the sitting President, and his subordinates can have only as much discretion as he allots or delegates to them. Legally, the discretion to not investigate or prosecute someone belongs to Trump. The AG, his USAs, their AUSAs, the FBI, etc, only have this investigatory and prosecutorial discretion because their ultimate boss, the President, has delegated that discretion to them.
Sorry - another clarification. Delegation is not the same as assignment. When authority or power is delegated, the deligatee is, essentially acting in the name of the deligator (Trump here). This doesn't mean that the delegator cannot also exercise the delegated power, because he can, but, rather, that the deligatee is also allowed to do so. Contrast this with assignment, where the assignor gives up the assigned power or right to the assignee, and, thereafter cannot exercise the assigned power or right as long as it is assigned to the assignee.
"Enjoy getting through-looking-glass interpretations on this site."
My impression is that Comey is a CYA weasel. Why start documenting meetings with Trump and not Obama and Hillary?
No need to read it for yourself, Mika is reading it word for word on MSNBC.
I swear that show has turned into the current version of the Heaven's Gate cult:
"On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39 members of the group who had participated in a mass suicide in order to reach what they believed was an extraterrestrial spacecraft following Comet Hale–Bopp."
Not so big. Everyone will interpret Comey's words to mean what they want them to mean (ranging from "Trump obstructing justice by trying to influence Comey into laying off Flynn so Flynn won't flip on Trump" to "Trump just making a personal appeal on behalf of his friend out of loyalty to him"). Expect no minds to change here, and tie goes to the POTUS. GOP still controls Congress.
Meantime, this does suck a lot of news away from other matters, including the AHCA which no one wants to pass but also no one wants to be blamed for it not passing.
"Trump technically broke the law."
Ranks right up there with "Trump theoretically broke the law".
What drivel.
If Trump obstructed justice with Comey, Comey had a legal duty to bring forth these allegations at that time. He did not. That's breaking the law. Comey's a worm.
Why did Comey write those contemporaneous memos? Sure looks to me like a bureaucrat in CYA mode …
Yep. But here’s my twist:
How do we know that Comey didn’t write those memos last week? How do we know that everything in them isn’t a lie? Why should we ever trust Comey to tell the truth?
Here’s a link to a video of Michael Scheuer, who is an ex-CIA Intelligence Officer and who currently teaches at Georgetown University. …
The BBC had to cut him off – the poor guy was spouting too much truth! And that truth ran counter to the phony narrative.
I think Comey better be very, very careful.
And for weeks we were told that Trump would NEVER be told he wasn't under investigation.
Not only wouldn't, but didn't.
"Former FBI Director James Comey is reportedly set to testify he never told President Donald Trump that he was not under investigation in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to CNN and ABC News."
Finally - Proof! that Russia, Poot and Trump stole the election from poor honest wonderful Hillary.
Sessions should resign.
We need a ass-fanged pitbull in there. Start with the Clintons, her server, and their family foundation. Forget the sill war on drugs. We need a war on corruption. Democrats hardest hit.
(an)
9:57 R. West
And for weeks we were told that Trump would NEVER be told he wasn't under investigation. And here comes Comey to back Trump up, telling him on 3 different occasions that he wasn't under investigation. Wow, talk about blowing up the MSM/Democrat narrative on that one. Har! I laughed long and hard over that one.
[...]
Time to move those goalposts!
Oh, and the icing on the cake? CNN beclowned themselves (I know, not that hard to do) by claiming that Comey was going to testify he never told Trump he wasn't under investigation. Boy do they have egg on their face now. Thanks for solidifying the fake news narrative, CNN!
worth a repeat.
The hack pro-D hack press will find something to lie about.
Comey should just say "Trump asked me to be his house [n-word]".
We are CNN
Once again, the liar hack press is the larger story.
Here's hoping some R pit bull (see above) makes Comey's look like the sniveling bureaucrat he is.
Welp... Looks to me like that swamp was drained a bit. I'm betting that if justice prevailed Comey'd be behind bars with Hillary and her rapist husband... But money and power are what they are. In the long run Comey is just another turd for the media and stupid people to polish as they see fit. I gave up caring about anything they say long, long ago. Keep up the good work, Mr. Trump!
The President is the boss. He can ask that an investigation, that is wallowing from lack of facts to cease. The President can ask to be brought up too speed, and be the final arbiter of the govts interest in continuing or halting the investigation. It is his constitutional power.
No one has offered any evidence of corruption surrounding President Trumps actions.
It's all very confusing. The Media assured me that there's no way Comey--or anyone in Comey's position--would ever "assure" the President of the United States that the President wasn't under investigation. That just couldn't happen; it wouldn't happen and a guy like Comey would never let it happen. He'd certainly never do it himself.
I remember the proof--solid proof!--given, when a longtime friend of Comey's served as a character witness and stated unequivocally that Comey would never do such a thing. Certainly he'd never do such a thing 3 times.
But now Comey's statement confirms that what the President wrote in the letter explaining Comey's firing was accurate on that point. The President says one thing, Comey says the same thing, but the Media has loudly insisted that something else must be true.
I mean, who should I believe here?! Confusing.
rocean said:
If he was so offended by Trump's request for loyalty - or his 1-1 meeting to discuss Flynn - he should have simply told Trump so, and explained why it was inappropriate for him to talk to Comey.
I think that if Comey had told Trump that, he would still be the FBI Director.
But he had to play games, and Trump fired him.
Comey's contempt for Trump is barely-veiled at first but only grows throughout his written testimony, climaxing with "that thing" he's not sure they shared.
Trump should pardon Coney during his testimony, for any misstatements that might lead to a perjury trap.
Jim Geraghty said...
Inappropriate? Yes. Obstruction? Hardly. What you’re seeing is behavior that is ugly and unpresidential, but not criminal.
ARM: Let us know when you'll be willing to acknowledge Geraghty's pointing out Obama's not just ugly, not just unpresidential, but wildly illegal actions over the years.
Dan McClaughlin said...
The narrative the Democrats desperately want is that Trump is under FBI investigation for criminal activity that invalidates the 2016 election, and has committed impeachable offenses. The facts they actually have are a lot less sexy: a president who wouldn’t respect the FBI’s independence and couldn’t understand why the FBI Director couldn’t publicly exonerate him when he wasn’t under investigation. But those facts are ugly enough in what they say about Trump’s ability to run a government that inspires confidence in the impartial administration of justice.
If Obama had done something illegal, in the real world, the Republicans had all the resources they needed to address that. Yet they didn't.
Wow. Guy hasn't even testified yet and the goal posts are already moving.
From "illegal" to "ugly" and "not presidential".
Sad!
Two big take aways:
* All those leaks that said Comey never told Trump he wasn't being investigated? Liars. If you are a reporter and reported what those anonymous sources told you -- you were burned. We should seriously doubt the anonymous sources close to Comey from here on out, especially from journalists who already were burned once.
* Comey's taking of memos started with Trump. This is INCREDIBLY suspicious, as anyone who is in charge of retention of materials/notes would know.
Comey is lying. Exactly what fear was he operating under? He had already committed a long list of public screw ups that warrant his firing. The Flynn affair was less than a gnat in a picnic
potato salad.
I have spent the last 8 years working for a big company with a hands on CEO, he would e mail a regional manager, if he found a facility lacking in proper signage or equipment not arrayed in a pleasing manner. I several occasions I went nose to nose with him, in points of disagreement, everyone thought I was nuts, but, I do not pick fights, I defend my actions, always in the best interests of the shareholders, customers. He would disagree, explain his position, not give any ground. My point is, if I'm doing the right things for the right reasons, I sleep at night, and I have always have job opportunities in front of me.
From by perspective, Comey doubted his purity in all of this, otherwise he had no need for all the deflection, misdirection, and lies.
Comey May Have Confirmed Trump Is Not Under Investigation But Trump Was Caught Telling Two Big Lies
@ ARM
Your "Yes, but..." is duly noted.
"Comey only met with Obama once! Obama was too busy playing golf and giving Iran millions to do his job."
-- Congress should subpoena/request/whatever Obama's schedules. Because, I do not believe he only met with Comey once or twice.
ARM, with all the lies Comey has told, it's tough to put much weight in his version of a narrative that he has spent weeks crafting, in order to make him look good.
"Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if she fired the FBI Director because she did not like the investigation of her campaign?"
-- Well, when Obama fired IGs investigating him and spread rumors that one of them was senile, Republicans didn't do much about it because no one in the media cared.
Today's MSM pivot is to the Hitler like demand for a pledge of personal loyalty to Leader.
But that Trump is Hitler meme died two months ago. And anyone with a brain knows what DJT asked the crook was whether he would now shift loyalty from the Clintons to the Trump. His pretense to be a blind goddess of Justice unable to do that was Trump's answer. Comey is the longtime clean-up man for all investigations of Clinto crimes, and a well paid one.
But the new CIA created attack line is that since all DC business has been frozen until Trump is cleared, the only answer is his a resignation for the good of the country.
That is the CIA Coup, 2.0, in full glory.
@ ARM
It is interesting that you choose to believe NeverTrump RedState in their determination that Comey is more trustworthy than Trump. You do understand that moves the needle not even a tiny bit, right?
That RedState would call it a lie when Comey says one thing and Trump says another says much more about RedState than either Comey or Trump. That you would pretend to believe RedState - as opposed to using them for purposes of confirmation bias - is good fun for all involved.
Grab your carry on.
"How do you think the "Sessions offed to resign" story ended up in the news?"
-- Did we ever actually CONFIRM that was a true story? The same way the Rosenstein threatened to resign stories ended up in the news. Journalists printed lies knowingly or unknowingly.
@ Matthew Sablan
Remember when everybody in the State Department resigned all at once? Each of those stories is an attempt to de-normalize a president. Fake news.
CNN correcting their lies already.
The winning. My God, the winning.
ARM: "If Obama had done something illegal, in the real world, the Republicans had all the resources they needed to address that. Yet they didn't"
ARM inadvertantly explains precisely how Trump won the republican nomination (and partially how Trump won the Presidency)
It's like ARM is dancing up to the idea that there might be some sort of group in DC, lets call them "the establishment", comprised of members of both parties along with an entrenched bureaucracy, lets get colorful and call them "the swamp", that is aligned so that no matter who wins elections nothing changes.
Gee, a candidate for either parties nomination could run on that or something.
"MayBee said...
So. Comey really did tell him 3 times that he was not under investigation.
How do you like that?"
Way, way back at the top of this thread -- the explosive revelation that dwarfs everything else... and that the MSM will be doing it's darnedest to ignore.
Since the Comey firing, we've been hearing that this was Nixonesque -- how could President Trump fire the official in charge of investigating HIM? President Trump said that he'd been told he was not a target of investigation -- and we were told this was an obvious lie. That would never happen. His staunchest defenders assumed he'd misunderstood the legalese. And as recently as a few hours before the written statement came out, CNN was confidently reporting that Comey would expose Trump's lies on this. The unspoken subtext was -- and prove that Trump fired the guy who was investigating him, in order to shut down the investigation.
That entire narrative -- the dominant anti-Trump narrative for a full month -- has now collapsed into so much nonsense.
Let's take a beat to appreciate that before we run off and start another month-long frenzy over the meaning of "loyalty" or whether Trump's hopes for Flynn are some kind of crime or in some way inappropriate.
Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I think: Why would the Dems have WANTED to have Comey testify when they should have known what he would say?
How do we reconcile Comey's sudden change in record keeping? I know when I was writing news articles/magazine articles, I was told to keep all my notes for all stories in the same way. It didn't matter how, just so long as it was consistent.
Doing something different is a red flag that you either thought it was suspicious and should have raised a concern earlier than you did, or that your record is NOT a true and honest record. Either way, it is suspicious.
"Comey May Have Confirmed Trump Is Not Under Investigation but Trump Was Caught Telling Two Big Lies"
The two big lies were that Trump obstructed justice and he's going to be impeached for "collusion" with Russia. Anything Trump lied about pales in comparison in scope and damage to the country
Oh, CNN admitting -- sort of -- that their confident prediction that Comey would deny ever having told the President that he was personally under investigation was, er, a bit off? That, I'd wager, surprised exactly no one but CNN.
Er, "deny ever having told the President that he was NOT personally under investigation." So many negatives!
"Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I think: Why would the Dems have WANTED to have Comey testify when they should have known what he would say?"
Just thinking out loud, so you and I could hear it?
Right. But they had to know that his testimony:
A) Wouldn't change from his previous testimony (There was no obstruction/never any attempt to obstruct from the White House).
And
B) Possibly could reveal the truth about whether or not Trump was told.
It was ALL downsides to having him testify, and they literally walked in and let him blow up their narrative.
@ Matthew Sablan
Before you even got done typing "...blow up their narrative" the goal posts were moved wayyyy over there. If you look hard enough you'll see them off in the distance.
History starts today. The MSM has never been wrong.
At least the Chicago Tribune (MSNBC Midwest) cleaned up their anti Trump rhetoric by 0845 to day. Their only mention of Comey in the first headlines is a puff piece memorializing his time at the U of Chicago as adding to his sense of "Intense morality". Pathetic..
Matthew Sablan wrote:
"Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I think: Why would the Dems have WANTED to have Comey testify when they should have known what he would say?"
The decision really isn't theirs, is it? I think it entirely plausible that they didn't want Comey to testify, but couldn't stop it because they don't control the Senate committee. It is also completely plausible that they expected the Trump Administration to assert executive privilege much like the Obama one did in similar instances. What the Democrats could never do, however, was publicly say they didn't want Comey to testify, if that were the case.
I think what really has gone wrong for the Democratic Party in this regard is that it isn't the party's Congressional members setting the priorities right now, it is the media whose members aren't not really all that intelligent or rational doing it. If you pay attention, you can actually see some of the Democrats in Congress trying to push back on the insanity, but failing miserably.
Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I think: Why would the Dems have WANTED to have Comey testify when they should have known what he would say?
บาคาร่า online
goldenslot
gclub online
Comey has a great career ahead of him as a politician. He wrote a piece of art, and every reader is going to know that his (the reader's) view is exactly correct, whether the belief that Trump is the embodiment of evil or the belief that Trump is the savior or America.
Comey is a Clinton Fixer.
He has always been a Clinton fixer.
He's Sheryl Mills in a suit and tie.
Hey!
It turns out Comey really is a weaselly kind of guy.
Bruce Hayden said...
Friggen Blogger just choked and dumped my long post.
I've taken to typing my longer posts in Word and posting them in all at once. Helps with the damn captcha, too.
Blogger Browndog said...
Comey is a Clinton Fixer.
He has always been a Clinton fixer.
He's Sheryl Mills in a suit and tie.
6/8/17, 2:39 PM
Blogger Rusty said...
Hey!
It turns out Comey really is a weaselly kind of guy.
6/8/17, 5:42 PM
Apologies for forgetting which of the Althouse commentariat posted the Pournelle summary of Comey's career in an earlier thread. Her it is again.
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा