James Comey dodged a bullet...
He should get down on his knee and thank God.
He could have been prosecuted for his miss deeds.
He causes a distraction of our government, 2 years of Russian collusion investigation and 30 million dollars...Actually we netted over 10 million in fines and compensation on Muller's investigation. How much did we net on Hillary's, Jack? And how many people were indicted?
More to come for Comey... I would think the Horowitz report will hold more crimes Comey committed. Hopefully, he is indited for his crimes, and not let off the hook.
We get it, Shar. Comey is a criminal and Trump isn't. Why, because Trump sez so....
No, as I said " I would think the Horowitz report will hold more crimes Comey committed. " Emphasis on I would think. Just an opinion due to media leaks. I mean arent the media leaks what has you thinking Trump committed crimes?
Nope, the Mueller report and the false testimony Hicks and Junior made before Congress re the Moscow Tower deal. Among many other things..
Randy, It is very clear we use a different thought process when defining crime. There are many articles in regard to Hicks testimony to Congres. All use verbiage such as "could have lied", "may have lied"... None make the claim of actual lies. Trump Jr in regards to the Trump Tower deal is covered in the Mueller report. There is no there there... I do not buy into if come or have no appreciation of slandering anyone just because the keyboard allows it. Following facts are the fair thing to do.
I don't believe you could follow a fact if you were chained to it, Shar. You'll find out how wrong you are when Hicks and Jr. appear before Congress again. But you're all in with the lies Trump's cohorts tell on a regular basis, and how could they not with the World Champion Liar as their role model?
Or do you believe they are all telling the truth?"But you're all in with the lies Trump's cohorts tell on a regular basis, and how could they not with the World Champion Liar as their role model"? I guess one could say I believe facts not what anybody tells me, especially when they use words like perhaps, could have or may have... Facts are not followed by doubtful words Randy.
My comment was polite, factual, and I am not willing to get in the mud with you. It's not me that spread untruth. I should reorient you to the fact Hicks and Trump Jr have already answered congresses questions weeks ago and neither has been recalled... not sure why you feel "Shar. You'll find out how wrong you are when Hicks and Jr. appear before Congress again.". Just not factual.I believe both will be subpoenaed to reappear before Congress because of the inconsistencies of their testimony between Congress and Mueller. Hicks was a lot more forthcoming when interviewed by Mueller but refused to answer many questions from Congress first time.
Jr. also refused to answer many questions from Congress, especially about the Moscow Tower Project among other issues.Yes. it is possible Hicks and Trump Jr will be asked to come back and answer questions before Congress. Your first comment certainly did not convey your thoughts as you have in your last comment.
"RANDY GODWIN WROTE:
I don't believe you could follow a fact if you were chained to it, Shar. You'll find out how wrong you are when Hicks and Jr. appear before Congress again. But you're all in with the lies Trump's cohorts tell on a regular basis, and how could they not with the World Champion Liar as their role model?
Or do you believe they are all telling the truth?"
You, for reasons unknown, saw fit to make every attempt to insult me? I can only assume you do not appreciate that I have a different opinion, and you decided to use a keyboard to insult me due to differing opinions.
Hicks testimony is public, and it's as boring as the Mueller report. So not sure what you feel she lied about? She would not even answer most questions under a subpoena? Not sure what you think she lied about as of yet? So far, the congress has not charged her with lying, and not subpoenaed her or Trump Jr to return?
As I said I believe facts not what anybody tells me or if comes, especially when they use words like perhaps, could have or may have... Facts are not followed by doubtful words as a rule. So far Hicks or Trump Jr. Have not been charged with lying. I would guess if Congress has proof of either lying they should report this to AG Barr...I understand Congress wants them back, Shar. Until they start impeachment inquires they're blocked by a POTUS who claims he has nothing to hide...except his taxes. Why is he fighting Congress so much if he has nothing to hide?
Not sure what you mean by being blocked. Congress does have the power to once again subpoena Hicks and Trump Jr. I am sure they probably will. Mueller did not bring charges against either, as we know he did with those that lied, like Fylnn, Popadoplis. gates Manaford, Cohen, Stone, Alex van der Zwaan. I would think if Mueller could prove that Trump Jr and Hicks lied thy would be on the above list?
I realize Trump blocked WH counsel Don McGahn from testifying. However, Dems have filed a lawsuit
"The House Judiciary Committee asked a federal court on Wednesday to force one of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s star witnesses to testify on Capitol Hill over objections from the White House, a crucial move as House Democrats consider whether to bring articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ … na-1452257
Once again a waiting game to see what the court decides in regards to Don McGahn testifying.
I have no idea why President Trump has not provided his taxes? He claimes he is under audit and his attorneys have instructed him not to show his taxes. I was to imagine why he won't show his taxes, I would think he is may just being private in regards to who he does business with. And does not want the hysteria of any pay for play conflicts. This man has for many years done business all over the world, and it's pretty clear he has a media that go after him for breathing... I trust the IRS would point out any tax crimes if they come across any. He most likely has been honest with providing the IRS with yearly tax returns.The reason Mueller didn't charge Hicks with lying was she told him the truth. DUH! If she goes back before Congress she'll have to change her former story or be charged with lying to Congress.
And you apparently do not care if the POTUS is in the pocket of another country or is indeed compromised by anyone. If you cared at all, you'd want to know. I do believe many are afraid of what will be found in his tax returns, including himself. What is he so afraid of?
Why do you assume Hope Hick's lied before Congress? She appeared before Congress, they are not satisfied with her testimony and feel they need once again to question her. She stuck with the testimony she provided Mueller. Her attornies stopped her from answering any questions that went beyond the Mueller's questions. Which they will do once again when she comes once again before congress. I fully expect as I said that Trump has done business all over the world. His names are on businesses all over the world. So far I have seen no proof of the president being in the pocket of any country. And I assume if he broke any tax laws he would have been charged prior to his election, and after he became president. Do you think the IRA would not have charged him with breaking tax laws? Not sure why people have such a problem with trusting the IRS to do their job? It well appears the president has broken n tax laws. And it is well known he has done business in many countries throughout his business career. It is also clear he as of yet has not been charged with any form of pay for play in any fashion. Randy, you are speculating, and not recognizing the facts.
Trump's crony is the head of the IRS and is the one not allowing the Ways and Means committee to view Trump's taxes despite a law saying the IRS SHALL give them to the committee.
Once again, do you want to know if Trump is in the pocket of a foreign country? If so, then you should have no problem with us knowing for sure.I believe in seeing a crime before convicting anyone. Not investigating to find a crime. This is ridiculous. Congress is conducting an investigation. If they find the wrongdoing and can factually prove it I certainly would condemn Trump for breaking any law. There has been no indication Trump is in anyone's pocket... I can't even believe you think the IRS would hide any form of Tax crimes for Trump. Randy, that just sounds very out there. Sorry, but it does.
So then, why is the IRS refusing to turn Trump's taxes over, Shar. There's a law telling them to do so, so why aren't they? Why don't you answer the question of why you do not care if Trump is in the pocket of another country? Or if you even want to know if he is?
Are saying you didn't know the IRS head was refusing to turn Donnie's taxes over? If so, you're more "out there" than I am.Tax records are private by-laws and yes the court can order tax record be shown in some cases. July 2, 2019, The House Ways and Means Committee today filed suit in federal court demanding President Trump’s 2013-2019 tax returns.
July 23, 2019, President Trump filed a lawsuit against the House Ways and Means Committee as well as New York state’s attorney general and its tax chief to block the disclosure of years of his tax returns.
Aug 2, 2019, President Trump’s wins effort to shield his New York state tax returns from the House Ways and Means Committee. "Trump got an early win Thursday as a federal judge accepted a state proposal not to hand over Trump’s returns while the court decides whether a lawsuit by the president should be heard by a judge in Washington or New York."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le … edirect=on
I would think the courts will settle this issue, and perhaps Congress will get to view Trump's tax returns. You are incorrect saying the IRS is refusing to hand over Trump's tax returns to the Congress. By law, they need a court order to provide the records.
The IRS is responsible for penalizing anyone for breaking tax laws. And I would venture to say if Trump has broken any tax laws they will be in hot water if they in any respect did not handle the problems accordingly.
Just my opinion, but once again this is a no there there scenario once again.The W&MC doesn't need a court order if the IRS follows the law, Shar. The law reads SHALL turn them over, not if the IRS wants to. The head of the IRS is a Trump appointed crony with this being the only reason the Committee is having to go to court.
Why do you believe there's no there, there, Shar? Why would he go to such lengths to avoid them being seen? There are also concerns the IRS isn't scrutinizing Trump's taxes well as it is."Why do you believe there's no<thing> there, there, Shar?"
Bigger question is why YOU believe there IS something there, and does it pass the test of "reasonable cause" to investigate. Bear in mind that hatred, distrust and a desire to find something is not "reasonable cause". Any more than your "concerns" that the IRS is not doing it's job is reason to assume they are not.It easily passes the "reasonable clause" to investigate for several obvious reasons:
1. He is violating Presidential candidate protocol that went into practice more than 40 years ago after the Nixon scandal.
2. He has close financial ties to Russia, all of which has been posted on here and ignored / evaded by his supporters.
3. Mueller found sufficient evidence to try him for obstruction if he weren't POTUS. If Trump is so innocent, he should have no reason to obstruct anything.
The bigger question is why YOU fight so hard to ignore such obvious evidence.
It is very much a court decision now. Trump's attorneys presented an argument to stop congress from seeing the records. many legal minds seem to feel this will end up before the supreme court. I have no idea why Trump will not show his tax returns. I am not willing to speculate on the subject. If the IRS is not doing their job, hopefully, they will be outed. My judgment tells me the IRS would have looked Trump's taxes over very carefully, and not let anything out of the normal not be documented.
Wow. Kind of mimics Mueller's testimony before congress. However, I don't believe he even knew the answers to the questions pertaining to a report that he "supposedly" wrote.
And your reason for this claim? Do you have some "inside" info we're not privy too? Or are you simply another misguided Trump supporter?
They all dodge bullets. All of them. Pretty much every day. There is no accountability in Washington.
We'll see. Trump is still in the target area.
Comments such as this one are why I see little hope. They break laws, there is no accountability, because of people who make comments like yours.
It's all ok, as long as you are with your party. If you are not, then shame.
Whatever happened to our collective sense of fair play? Whatever happened to our belief of all equal under the law?
This partisan bs that has infiltrated society even to its lowest levels is troubling.
I've always said if Trump is proven to have committed a crime he should be held accountable. I'd like to see equal treatment for all politicians and people we pay to do a government job.Instead you make excuses for the cretin in the Oval Office. No matter what he does, your side ignores it as something quite acceptable.
Until the Right comes to their senses, you can expect nothing but partisanship from both sides.Yeh. Ok. Bias partisan bs. You're all in.
Gotcha.And you're completely immune from partisan BS, I suppose?
You can't see it because you are so blatantly partisan.
Right. You are the arbiter of all things political...
Never said that. You spend more time putting words into my mouth than you do listening to me words.
I'd say we should just agree to disagree but you seem bent on disagreeing with everything so I doubt we could even do that.
Perhaps not. The IG report will be out in Sept. I suspect more people in the DOJ and the FBI will be exposed as committing crimes. Whether they will be indicted is up the attorney general Barr.
Comey is not out of the woods.Might not dodge this one:
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/the-la … eep-state/Thanks for propaganda from an anonymous website called Forbidden Knowledge, most likely owned by Russians.
It's what we've grown to expect from it...
It doesn't seem to matter if a website is anonymous or owned by Russians as long as it tells them what they want to hear.
Owned by Russians? Yeah, that’s why the owner promoted and voted for Hiliary and was a never Trumper until the fake media turned her with all their lies.
Is that all you have, attack the messenger? Really, that’s your fall back on everything you can’t factually deny.I "attack" extremists who spew out fake news from anonymous websites.
It's hypocritical and irresponsible to use anonymous websites to spread pro-Trump propaganda and then attack real media people who don't hide their identities.
BTW, I'm curious how you know anything about the owner when there is zero information about the owner on the website. Likewise, the owner has a secret domain name registration.
http://whois.domaintools.com/forbiddenknowledgetv.net
Perhaps you would respect this resource, in regards to the ongoing investigation into "investigating the investigators"?
As of late Judicial watch thas obtained he 302's in regards to Bruse Ohr. The new information.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fitto … -fbi-302s.I respect any non-partisan source. Judicial Watch isn't non partisan.
Not sure why you have a problem with Judicial Watch, they lay out the documents, up to you to read them and make your own decision. The Ohr documents are very damming. I do prefer to wait for the Horowitz report, before condemning anyone.
"Judicial Watch is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_WatchSo I am to believe you find any organization that is conservative one that should not be respected or believed? The link I provide gave the 302's on Bruce Ohr and held very interesting information. So, you feel these records have no value in getting to the bottom of the investigation into the 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign? As I said I will not discuss the investigation. I prefer to see what comes out of the Horowitz report on the matter.
Please read my comments. I said, "I respect any non-partisan source."
I don't read anything from a partisan source like Judicial Watch because they have zero credibility.
The silly Horowitz report is a good example. Sean Hannity screamed to the world 3 months ago that the "devastating" report is done. Still waiting.
https://welovetrump.com/2019/05/17/hann … vastating/I asked what you thought of the documents? Guess it just easier to bad mouth the source? The documents are interesting and show factual information as well as timeline. Does it appear you consider anything that you just don't want to accept as untrue? Interesting...
Why should I read anything from a well-known fake news source?
You still aren't reading my comments. For the third time, I said, "I respect any non-partisan source."
If you want to believe propaganda sites, you go right ahead.
Here is a link to the definition of "non-partisan". Perhaps you don't understand the correct meaning of the word.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonpartisanAm I to believe you do not believe the information in the 302's that are records documented by the FBI related to Bruse Ohr's firing?
"Bruce Ohr was removed from his post of associate deputy attorney general on December 6, 2017, when it was discovered that he was actively conspiring against President Trump with others (including his wife Nellie Ohr) in and out of the Justice Department.
Ohr was corruptly used by the FBI as a conduit to Clinton spy Christopher Steele and the Clinton-DNC spy ring at Fusion GPS, and we now have received 34 pages of “302” report material from the FBI interviews of Ohr – documents that Congress has been seeking but have been unable to get for over a year. (FBI agents use a Form 302 to summarize interviews and record notes taken during an interview.)
We obtained these documents in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an August 6, 2018, FOIA request seeking Form 302s for a number of interviews with Ohr concerning his interactions with former British spy Christopher Steele (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02107))."
Do you feel Judicial Watch has falsified these documents in some respect or do you just not believe the FBI findings that resulted in the firing of Ohr?
https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fitto … -fbi-302s/You can make up any belief you want.
What you fail to realize is that your right-wing Judicial Watch is writing ABOUT some alleged 302s. Propagandists love to cherry pick.
For the fourth time, "I respect any non-partisan source."You respect nothing from the opposing side...even when it is the truth.
For an ideologue, that is the only position you can take.
If your narrative is all conservatives are evil and all progressives are good...
You cannot phantom how the DOJ and the FBI and the NSA can all be corrupted by your leader Barack Obama...
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil... of the DNC and the progressive agenda.You are a far right propagandist who posts links in these forums to Russian websites.
I am a right-of-center independent. In your Rush Limbaugh mind, that makes me and anyone who doesn't lap up right-wing propaganda a liberal Democrat.
For the fifth time, "I respect any non-partisan source."What does that mean? Is the NYT a non partisan source? How about CNN? Gimme a break.
I have news for you. There is no non partisan sources any more...
That is the problem ever since the media died in 2008...Yeah, all 40% -- the worst performance of any President since the beginning of polls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … val_ratingGetting a bit nervous about your stock portfolio, eh Jack?
I invest for the long haul. I have no problem with periodic corrections.
In fact, these down turns are buying opportunities...Good for you, Jack! Buy some stock in Trump's companies.
The302's are FBI records that JW went to court to obtain. It's all that simple. I guess it is very clear you are not comprehending the importance of a group that gets their hands on records that even congress can not get. I myself like the fact that this organization has obtained so many records in regards to the Ohr firing, and why he was fired.
So how did JW obtain records Congress couldn't access?
Freedom of information act... Via filing a lawsuit. This is how JW obtains government records.
Again, Randy said: "So how did JW obtain records Congress couldn't access?"
Your reply means that Congress can't even file an FOI request but JW can.How do you go from "didn't" to "can't"? Are our vaunted leaders to stupid to make such filings?
More than likely they wanted the info without Barr's redactions. Or does that make too much sense?
And because they wanted info without Barr's redactions they didn't file an FOI? I'm not following the reasoning here.
How does someone not understand that Congress has more power than Judicial Watch?
In this case, they don't.
"The FOIA applies to Executive Branch departments, agencies, and offices; federal regulatory agencies; and federal corporations. Congress, the federal courts, and parts of the Executive Office of the President that function solely to advise and assist the President are NOT subject to the FOIA."
https://www.govexec.com/management/2016 … ss/126982/
"The FOIA applies to Executive Branch departments, agencies, and offices; federal regulatory agencies; and federal corporations. Congress, the federal courts, and parts of the Executive Office of the President that function solely to advise and assist the President are NOT subject to the FOIA."
https://www.govexec.com/management/2016 … ss/126982/
The judicial watch obtained the302's through the freedom of information act by filing in court for them under FOIA. In March of 2019, Congress made a request to DOJ to see the 302's, and had been stonewalled by Barr..
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conten … -02107.pdfSo why didn't Congress do the same and go to court? And if there's info in the documents which aided Trump's claims, then why would Barr block Congress from accessing them? Unless the redacted parts are harmful to Trump, I don't see it.
LOL. Did you actually look at the alleged 302 file that JW posted?
It is not only filled with massive blank spaces, which means its credibility is useless. It also has a long article at the end from Think Progress that investigates the NRA's cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin associates.
You and Jack Lee really need to read what you post before you post it.Yep, those on the left seldom check the veracity of the site they link. It just sounds good to them and they use it...
Not sure you read the actual 302 documents? These are FBI documents, and yes there are redactions. However, the information is clear and Ohr's testimony to the FBI. It is tedious reading but very condemning.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents … 02s-02107/
Your guess is as good as mine? Barr most likely was keeping the records private due to the other two investigations going on. Horowitz and Durham. I suggest you read the 34 pages of 302's, and see what you think. I have an opinion on the findings, but I prefer to wait for the Horwitz and Durham reports. These reports should give good legal opinions on the mess. I am not going to speculate, because it well seems anyone working in our Government on both sides of the aisle rarely answers for breaking the law.
.https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ex-top-cia-official-perturbed-by-john-durhams-review-of-intelligence-analystsSo what did the redactions show? If you cannot read it all then you have to cherry pick to get any sort of opinion from the 302s
One can guess what under a redaction. I would not presume to do so/ There is still plenty of there there. Like I said you would need to read it and see what you think. One other reason I think it's just smart to wait to see what the two investigations share. Both Horowitz and Durham have the unredacted versions.
Related Discussions
- 32
James Comey just admitted he was a "leaker" to the media - should he be arrested
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
James Comey just admitted he was a "leaker" to the media - should he be arrested?James Comey has been testifying today and in the course of his testimony has exonerated President Trump, made it clear that the President was never under investigation, and in a surprising revelation admitted...
- 23
Does Anyone Know Why President Trump Fired FBI Director James Comey?
by John Coviello 6 years ago
Does Anyone Know Why President Trump Fired FBI Director James Comey?
- 38
James Comey speaks
by PrettyPanther 4 years ago
I believe Comey's pre-election statement about Clinton's emails, whether warranted or not, was a factor that helped propel Yrump to a narrow victory. That said, I believe this former FBI Director's assessment of Trump's character and crimjnality is validated by known evidence. I hope voters...
- 9
James Comey - Under Fire Once Again
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
Reports are circulating that former FBI Director James Comey had begun drafting a letter exonerating Hillary Clinton from any crime related to her e-mail scandal, BEFORE, ever interviewing her or a dozen other key witnesses and offering immunity to many people. We can't forget the fact that...
- 20
Why did James Comey SEND the letter REF: Hillary to the entire Congress instead
by Shyron E Shenko 6 years ago
Why did James Comey SEND the letter REF: Hillary to the entire Congress instead of Republicans only?FBI James Comey sent a letter to the Republican Congress (Only) that He was re-opening the investigation into Hillary's e-mail, withholding the letter from the Democratic Congress Why?
- 63
Trump fires Comey, the man responsible for investigating Trump
by promisem 6 years ago
It was allegedly because of the Clinton email investigation, which Trump had previously let go. We'll see if it ends the FBI investigation into Flynn and other Trump campaign connections with Russia.http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/ … index.htmlFrom CNN:CNN's Senior Legal Analyst...