jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (27 posts)

What was the most shocking news from the Comey testimony?

  1. jackclee lm profile image72
    jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago

    I was shocked that he admitted that he was leaking information to the New York Times - under oath.
    He also said the reason he did it was to invoke the appointment of a special counsel.
    If that is not "intent", I don't know what is?

  2. jackclee lm profile image72
    jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago

    The explanation for leaking is more troubling and does not even make sense...
    He said the reason he needed to get his information out there is because Trump announced that there may be tapes of their conversation. If I was in his shoes, I would be glad that the incident was recorded and people can make their own judgement. Wouldn't that be the best scenario?

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      I found his comments about leaking the information troubling also. Was it illegal for him to just share it, without leaking it? I assume not, since leaking it isn't. Seems quite a slimy thing to do the way he did it.

      1. ptosis profile image78
        ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Not as slimy as Trump is.

        "Mr Trump also said he hadn’t told Mr Comey that he expected his loyalty, as the former FBI director testified Thursday. “I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, ‘I want you to pledge allegiance’,” Mr Trump said. “It hardly makes sense. "  He added: “James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said, and some of the things that he said just weren’t true.” - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo … 8e451cee22

        Oh this is a tragic comedy. First of all, it says in Trump's book that he is a "loyalty freak". That sounds like the self-avowed loyalty freak would do.

        The what doesn't  makes any sense at all is "confirmed a lot of what I said and some of the things just weren't true."

        Did Trump just call himself a liar? The liar's paradox, who lies all the time then says "I'm lying right now. Except for that, and that,and that. "

        Notice not a single person other than Susan Huckabee is saying Trump is NOT a liar.  Pretty obvious to even a 5 year old, that this boy-man  lies like a 5 year old.

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Yes. You hate Trump. Got it. But, the conversation was about Comey.

        2. jackclee lm profile image72
          jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          I guess we may have to wait for the audio tape to see who is telling the truth about the loyalty stuff. This seems like a simple open and shut case. If the tape shows Trump lied, then so be it. we knew him to be a liar throughout the campaign. If, however, Comey lied, then something big is in play. Why would he go out of his way to make up stuff? And keep this Russian collusion story alive all these months...very disturbing if true.

  3. ptosis profile image78
    ptosisposted 2 weeks ago

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … fter-come/

    Here’s the timeline of events:

    May 9: Comey is fired.

    May 11: The New York Times publishes a story about a January dinner Trump and Comey had, based on interviews with Comey’s associates. Comey had told the associates about the dinner.

    May 12: Trump tweets, "James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!"

    May 15: Comey wakes up realizing the relevance of a potential tape, according to his testimony.

    May 16: The New York Times publishes a story about the existence of Comey’s memos. The New York Times said it had not seen the memos, but included information from one of them about an Oval Office meeting in February, as explained and quoted by a Comey associate.

    Kasowitz seemed to be referring to the New York Times story published May 11 — the day before Trump’s "tapes" tweet — narrating a January dinner between Trump and Comey. However, that story is not attributed to the memos, but to "two people who have heard his account of the dinner."

    The New York Times reporter who authored both the May 11 and May 16 articles, Michael S. Schmidt, told PolitiFact, "the record on this speaks for itself."

    There is no privilege if unlawful actions are discussed. And while Kasowitz might suggest that Comey broke a law, there is no legal penalty, particularly for anything Comey did after he was fired.

    Imwinkelried said that Trump and Comey’s conversations enjoyed some expectation that they wouldn’t be shared without permission, and that Trump was the holder of the privilege. But the protection is not absolute and that Trump might have waived it with his own statements.

    1. jackclee lm profile image72
      jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      That is the problem with leaking stuff...
      Is the timeline showing perhaps Comey leaked first, then Trump revealed their may be tapes and now Comey has to backtrack and leak more so as to cover his initial leaks? We just don't know...

      1. ptosis profile image78
        ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        The timeline clearly shows May 11 NYT  story based on associates - so  how can you say  "we just don't know?"  - when clearly it IS known.  There is no perhaps to it. You are denying  the fact that  May 11 NYT story is based on associates.  How much more clearer than that can the facts get. Perhaps Trump's brick wall has to fall down on you?

        1. jackclee lm profile image72
          jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          So let me get this straight, Comey told an associate about the dinner with Trump. The associate told the info to NYT and wrote a story. Trump read the story and hinted that the conversation may have been taped. Comey hear that and then decided to leak the content of his notes to the professor at Columbia to be passed on to the NYT...
          Does the first story count as a leaked source?
          It seems Comey knew what he is doing and is trying to keep the investigation going by influencing the appointment of a special prosecutor after he was fired.

          1. ptosis profile image78
            ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Yes.  Comey knew what he is doing but there is no investigation on Trump up to the day Comey was fired. Noticed that according to Comey's testimony that Trump was ready to throw anybody under the bus, as long as it wasn't him? World class weasel of character that Donnie is. Comey knew what type of person he was dealing with and was just covering his own ass.

  4. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    Comey should be indicted  and will more than likely skate like all political criminals !

    1. ptosis profile image78
      ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      There is no privilege if unlawful actions are discussed. And while Kasowitz might suggest that Comey broke a law, there is no legal penalty, particularly for anything Comey did after he was fired.

      Imwinkelried said that Trump and Comey’s conversations enjoyed some expectation that they wouldn’t be shared without permission, and that Trump was the holder of the privilege. But the protection is not absolute and that Trump might have waived it with his own statements.

  5. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    If asked ;  a top level  employee of the government who cannot pledge  to be loyal  to his boss ; doesn't belong there anyway ,  True leaders in any situation , either Trump or Comey can discern instantly whether they can  be or have loyalty to each  other .  Comey's sense of distrust was more than likely telegraphed instantly when they met.

    TRump picked up on that  in whatever case , Boom , You are Fired !

    Damned good ridence.

    1. ptosis profile image78
      ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      From the time they had the Trump Tower first meeting up until Comey was fired in the most worst way by being completely blindsided due to the fact that Trump had said that Comey was going a great job twice in 2017.

      Since Trump is a chronic liar, that meant the exact reverse because we now know that before Christmas, Comey was to be fired anyway.

      So no boom.

      1. ahorseback profile image44
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Sorry , BOOM lives , you know why ?  Comey is entirely indictable too , He doesn't have that power that his mentor J.Edgar Hoover had. . The liberals favorite " Comey Island "could  very well be on his way to court .

        1. ptosis profile image78
          ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          What? Comey is a Republican. He stated he didn't want a 'Hoover' situation. So  - no boom boom, sorry.

          From ABC news:
          "Graham, McCain and Romney all agreed, first and foremost, that the president needs to take a tougher stand on Russia and acknowledge the severity of Vladimir Putin's attempt to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election."

          “No one is suggesting it affected the outcome, but [Russians] tried to affect the outcome. This is outrageous,” he said, suggesting Trump tell the country, “I hope the FBI carries out a thorough investigation of who has anything to do with this and let’s move on.”

          “Instead, when you attack and say it is fake news, you just bring more and more attention and more and more people say, ‘what’s going on here?'... The more you stir a turd, the more it stinks,” he continued.

          http://sev.h-cdn.co/assets/16/46/980x490/landscape-1479482555-trump-protest-tattoo.jpg

          1. jackclee lm profile image72
            jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Best take down of Comey by Justice with Judge Janine in Sat. Evening show. If you have not seen it, you need to. She called out Comey as a political operative  both in Obama and Trump afministrations. How did Comey ever been appointed?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              I can agree that Comey has, more than once, inserted himself into politics when he shouldn't have. That said,  all this talk about him lying under oath without any evidence to back it up is just political BS.

              1. jackclee lm profile image72
                jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                My personal opinion is that he was just not up to the task of Director. He might be a decent guy but given the toxic political atmosphere of Washington DC, he was a fish out of water. It really started with the way he handled the Hillary email "matter". I have a brother-in-law who is retired from the FBI. He said pretty much the same. Many retired agents does not agree with the way he handled it. He took the decision away from the DOJ where it was not his place to make that call. I don't think Loretta Lynch would decide to indict Hillary in either case. He took the fall for her so that she would not look partisan.
                The thinking in Washinton was the FBI director is a stand up guy, not partisan, and if he decided there was no crime and no indictment, most people will swallow that. Whereas, if Loretta Lynch made the same decision, it would be seen as a political cover up especially in light of the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton...

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Okay, even if one believes everything you said here, accusing him of lying under oath without any evidence to back up the accusation is still political BS.

              2. jackclee lm profile image72
                jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Fair enough. Let's wait for the audio tape, if they exist. It would resolve this issue for good. Who is lying and who is exaggerating and who is too sensitive?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I agree. If the tapes don't exist, why did Trump imply that they do?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image72
                    jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I answered it in another forum...

  6. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

    Liberals don't like admitting it but Comey is simply one more appointed political "activist " of Obama's in an office that SHOULD have been lead by more  neutral of picks.   Sure , appoint democrats  who like you and agree with your ideology BUT the integrity of  the particular office was most important .   Hoover was a little dictator addicted to the unending power of intimidation .

    The larger problem for Comey was his  bumbling  and incompetence in leadership but  MORE than that   he emoted his way through his testimony ......"I was confused ", ........"I felt...." ....".it made me nauseous ........"   .....I felt very uncomfortable....." ......." I think could be wrong but ...."

 
working