Comey's Prepared Statement to Congress

[TSA]

were his memos classified documents?

good question. not sure if they become declassified after he was fired and became a private citizen. either way bitch move.

[RandomGuy]

how about his refusal to sanction russia for attempting to interfere in our democratic elections?

obama sanctioned russia. you all cried foul and said he was playing partisan politics. trump removed the sanctions. we now have proof they attempted to interfere.

what now, patriots?

He hasn't yet.

He has tried to lay the groundwork for just that though.

Fully consistent with someone who owes something to the Russians, or knows he is compromised.

Trump has not criticized Putin, EVER, and has only praised him.

[DarrinS]

good question. not sure if they become declassified after he was fired and became a private citizen. either way bitch move.

He hoped it would prompt the appointment of a special council, i.e. bigger, darker cloud


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZKLrEFWJw

[DarrinS]

He hasn't yet.

He has tried to lay the groundwork for just that though.

Fully consistent with someone who owes something to the Russians, or knows he is compromised.

Trump has not criticized Putin, EVER, and has only praised him.

Never pegged you as a tinfoiler

[Pavlov]

He hasn't yet.

He has tried to lay the groundwork for just that though.

Fully consistent with someone who owes something to the Russians, or knows he is compromised.

Trump has not criticized Putin, EVER, and has only praised him.


Never pegged you as a tinfoilerTrump and DarrinS Putin's biggest critics.

[DMX7]

Lordy, I hope there are tapes. - James Comey

[RandomGuy]

1) Comey is pretty sure Trump inappropriately interfered in the investigation — but he didn't ask the FBI to drop it entirely


The way Comey understood his conversations with the president, Trump asked Comey for three things:
1.His loyalty while appearing to threaten his job security
2.To “lift the cloud” of any perception the president was under investigation
3.To drop the FBI's investigation into Trump's fired national security adviser Michael Flynn. (The FBI is looking into Flynn's undisclosed work with foreign governments as well as his conversations with Russian officials.)

“The ask was to get it out that I, the president, am not personally under investigation,” Comey said.

But, Comey testified, Trump did NOT ask him to drop the FBI's broader investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump's campaign had any part of it.


2) Comey thinks the president is a liar


Comey knocked the Trump administration in an opening statement at the hearing. Comey said the Trump administration "chose to defame" him and the FBI after he was fired. (Reuters)

The way Comey tells it, the first time he met Trump — to brief him on all things Russia shortly before Trump's inauguration — Comey got the heebie-jeebies, for a whole bunch of small reasons but nothing in particular.

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting,” Comey said, as to why he left Trump Tower, hopped in an FBI car, opened a laptop and started writing down every detail he could recall about his first meeting with the president. “It led me to believe that I gotta write it down, and I gotta write it down in a detailed way. … I knew that there might come a day where I might need a record of what happened, not just to defend myself and FBI and the integrity of our situation, and the independence of our function.”

Comey also said the president lied about why he fired him:

“The administration then chose to defame me — and, more importantly — the FBI by saying the organization was in disarray and that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.”


3) The way Trump handled Comey's firing is what prompted Comey to speak out


First, Comey found out he was fired just four years into his 10-year tenure by watching TV.

Second, Comey said he was confused about why he was fired given the president changed his narrative several times about the firing, ultimately settling on “that Russia thing.” Then, Comey read in the press that the president told Russians Comey was a “nut job.”

Then, Trump tweeted this:

Up until then, Comey and senior leaders in the FBI had decided to “keep … in a box” everything they had learned about the president's inappropriate questions about the investigation.

But after Trump's tweet, Comey couldn't stay silent. He decided to act in an extraordinary way: by directing a leak of his conversations with the president: “I woke up in the middle of the night Monday … that there might be corroboration for our conversation, there might be a tape,” Comey testified. “And my judgment was that I needed to get that out in the public square. So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of (my memos) with a reporter.”

“Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” Comey said at another point.

Comey walks at his home in McLean, Va., on May 10, 2017, a day after being fired by President Trump.Former FBI director James Comey: A look at his career
Slideshow by USA Today


4) Democrats are pretty sure Comey's firing is an unanswered key to all this

“
I believe the timing of your firing stinks,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called Comey's firing “ultimately shocking.”

“As director of the FBI, Comey was ultimately responsible for conducting the investigation, which might explain why you're sitting down as a private citizen,” Warner said.

Comey also said he thinks his firing was tied to the president's frustrations with how Comey was handling the Russia investigation — given the president said as much:

“I take the president at his word that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said. “Something about the way I was conducting, it created pressure, and he wanted me to leave.”


5) Republicans aren't really trying to defend the president


As close as they got was trying to show that maybe Trump didn't legally obstruct justice:

“He said: 'I hope' (when he asked you to drop the Flynn investigation)," said Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), a Trump ally. "You don't know of anyone that's ever been charged for hoping something?"

Comey said he didn't.

But Republicans are critical of why Comey didn't speak up sooner.

“The president never should have cleared the room,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) of a key Oval Office private meeting between Comey and Trump. “And he never should have asked you to let (the investigation into Flynn) go.

“But I remain puzzled by your response. Your response was: 'I agree that Michael Flynn was a good guy.' You could have said: 'Mr. President, this meeting is inappropriate, this response could compromise the investigation.'”

Comey testified that he was “stunned” the president was asking him to do something about the investigation and, in retrospect, he probably should have been more firm with Trump. But he just wanted to say something — anything — to end the “awkward” conversations.


6) No side comes off well in Comey's telling of events

To hear Comey tell it, when Republicans are in charge and the FBI was investigating Republicans, he was pressured by Republicans to shape his investigation.

And when Democrats were in charge and he was investigating Democrats, he was pressured by Democrats to shape his investigation. This is new — and significant. It suggests that no side was immune to meddling in the FBI's independent investigations.

Comey testified that when he was investigating Hillary Clinton's emails during the 2016 presidential campaign, then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch (a President Barack Obama appointee) “directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter.”

That, plus Lynch's private tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton ahead of the FBI's impending decision on whether Clinton may have criminally mishandled classified information, raised Comey's ethics radar and persuaded him to announce the FBI's findings ahead of schedule.

“That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude: I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly,” Comey said.

---Amber Phillips

[RandomGuy]

Never pegged you as a tinfoiler

Fuck you.

Seriously, fuck off, you asshatted dumbass.

This is far too serious to play politics with, and you and I both know the only fucking reason you want to play this down is that the dude involved is Republican.

[TSA]

1) Comey is pretty sure Trump inappropriately interfered in the investigation — but he didn't ask the FBI to drop it entirely


The way Comey understood his conversations with the president, Trump asked Comey for three things:
1.His loyalty while appearing to threaten his job security
2.To “lift the cloud” of any perception the president was under investigation
3.To drop the FBI's investigation into Trump's fired national security adviser Michael Flynn. (The FBI is looking into Flynn's undisclosed work with foreign governments as well as his conversations with Russian officials.)

“The ask was to get it out that I, the president, am not personally under investigation,” Comey said.

But, Comey testified, Trump did NOT ask him to drop the FBI's broader investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump's campaign had any part of it.


2) Comey thinks the president is a liar


Comey knocked the Trump administration in an opening statement at the hearing. Comey said the Trump administration "chose to defame" him and the FBI after he was fired. (Reuters)

The way Comey tells it, the first time he met Trump — to brief him on all things Russia shortly before Trump's inauguration — Comey got the heebie-jeebies, for a whole bunch of small reasons but nothing in particular.

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting,” Comey said, as to why he left Trump Tower, hopped in an FBI car, opened a laptop and started writing down every detail he could recall about his first meeting with the president. “It led me to believe that I gotta write it down, and I gotta write it down in a detailed way. … I knew that there might come a day where I might need a record of what happened, not just to defend myself and FBI and the integrity of our situation, and the independence of our function.”

Comey also said the president lied about why he fired him:

“The administration then chose to defame me — and, more importantly — the FBI by saying the organization was in disarray and that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.”


3) The way Trump handled Comey's firing is what prompted Comey to speak out


First, Comey found out he was fired just four years into his 10-year tenure by watching TV.

Second, Comey said he was confused about why he was fired given the president changed his narrative several times about the firing, ultimately settling on “that Russia thing.” Then, Comey read in the press that the president told Russians Comey was a “nut job.”

Then, Trump tweeted this:

Up until then, Comey and senior leaders in the FBI had decided to “keep … in a box” everything they had learned about the president's inappropriate questions about the investigation.

But after Trump's tweet, Comey couldn't stay silent. He decided to act in an extraordinary way: by directing a leak of his conversations with the president: “I woke up in the middle of the night Monday … that there might be corroboration for our conversation, there might be a tape,” Comey testified. “And my judgment was that I needed to get that out in the public square. So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of (my memos) with a reporter.”

“Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” Comey said at another point.

Comey walks at his home in McLean, Va., on May 10, 2017, a day after being fired by President Trump.Former FBI director James Comey: A look at his career
Slideshow by USA Today


4) Democrats are pretty sure Comey's firing is an unanswered key to all this

“
I believe the timing of your firing stinks,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called Comey's firing “ultimately shocking.”

“As director of the FBI, Comey was ultimately responsible for conducting the investigation, which might explain why you're sitting down as a private citizen,” Warner said.

Comey also said he thinks his firing was tied to the president's frustrations with how Comey was handling the Russia investigation — given the president said as much:

“I take the president at his word that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said. “Something about the way I was conducting, it created pressure, and he wanted me to leave.”


5) Republicans aren't really trying to defend the president


As close as they got was trying to show that maybe Trump didn't legally obstruct justice:

“He said: 'I hope' (when he asked you to drop the Flynn investigation)," said Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), a Trump ally. "You don't know of anyone that's ever been charged for hoping something?"

Comey said he didn't.

But Republicans are critical of why Comey didn't speak up sooner.

“The president never should have cleared the room,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) of a key Oval Office private meeting between Comey and Trump. “And he never should have asked you to let (the investigation into Flynn) go.

“But I remain puzzled by your response. Your response was: 'I agree that Michael Flynn was a good guy.' You could have said: 'Mr. President, this meeting is inappropriate, this response could compromise the investigation.'”

Comey testified that he was “stunned” the president was asking him to do something about the investigation and, in retrospect, he probably should have been more firm with Trump. But he just wanted to say something — anything — to end the “awkward” conversations.


6) No side comes off well in Comey's telling of events

To hear Comey tell it, when Republicans are in charge and the FBI was investigating Republicans, he was pressured by Republicans to shape his investigation.

And when Democrats were in charge and he was investigating Democrats, he was pressured by Democrats to shape his investigation. This is new — and significant. It suggests that no side was immune to meddling in the FBI's independent investigations.

Comey testified that when he was investigating Hillary Clinton's emails during the 2016 presidential campaign, then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch (a President Barack Obama appointee) “directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter.”

That, plus Lynch's private tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton ahead of the FBI's impending decision on whether Clinton may have criminally mishandled classified information, raised Comey's ethics radar and persuaded him to announce the FBI's findings ahead of schedule.

“That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude: I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly,” Comey said.

---Amber Phillips

so basically, Comey's feelz

[pgardn]

good question. not sure if they become declassified after he was fired and became a private citizen. either way bitch move.

When you are alone in an office with a pathological liar that has asked the rest of the room to leave.

Genius.
Boom!

Where are those Trump tapes... What a joke.

[DarrinS]

So, was that everything you'd hoped it would be? Or, are you disappointed?

I still can't get over the bizarre rambling of McCain.

[DarrinS]

Fuck you.

Seriously, fuck off, you asshatted dumbass.

This is far too serious to play politics with, and you and I both know the only fucking reason you want to play this down is that the dude involved is Republican.


So, do you think Putin will release the golden shower tapes?

[spurraider21]

i havent had the time to watch the full thing yet, will check out a transcript when i find one later, but did they ask him about the alleged funding requests?

[RandomGuy]

so basically, Comey's feelz

The director of the FBI, fired because he wouldn't pledge personal fealty to Kind Donald the Unready in order make an investigation go way.

His opinions and recollection are vastly more credible than that of Donald "Fraud University" Trump, and form the basis of reasonable cause for a special investigator to see what other specific actions may have been undertaken to obstruct justice.

Regardless of what you think about potential collusion, it is the corrupt cover up that will doom the administration.

[Reck]

He hoped it would prompt the appointment of a special council, i.e. bigger, darker cloud


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZKLrEFWJw

Pretty badass, imo.

Comey played Trump. Even knowing his job would be lost.

The intergrity of the investigation is not lost with Mueller.

[pgardn]

So, was that everything you'd hoped it would be? Or, are you disappointed?

I still can't get over the bizarre rambling of McCain.

McCain needs to quit.

This is a political show to illustrate a wanna-be dictator failed.

[DarrinS]

i havent had the time to watch the full thing yet, will check out a transcript when i find one later, but did they ask him about the alleged funding requests?


I didn't hear any questions about that. But, some of the senators were so boring, that I might have missed it.

[RandomGuy]

So, do you think Putin will release the golden shower tapes?

(shrugs)

Which statement do you think more likely:

Donald "Fraud University" Trump has never utilized prostitutes in his entire life.

Donald "Fraud University" Trump has utilized prostitutes.

Simple question. I await your lame attempt to evade it.

Pick one or the other.

[pgardn]

Pretty badass, imo.

Comey played Trump. Even knowing his job would be lost.

The intergrity of the investigation is not lost with Mueller.

Bingo.

Brilliant move.
Trump's lawyer is full of shit. Comey pulled a very smart move.

"Leak of privileged info...." Bull. Comey protected himself.

[Reck]

i havent had the time to watch the full thing yet, will check out a transcript when i find one later, but did they ask him about the alleged funding requests?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

And nope, they didn't.

Democrats were too busy trying to get Comey to say Trump committed Obstruction and Republicans decided to spend their time on little old Hillary and her emails.

Mccain might have had a stroke or hit with onset dementia on the spot.

[Trainwreck2100]

good question. not sure if they become declassified after he was fired and became a private citizen. either way bitch move.

How was it a bit check move? He said he did it after trump said he had tapes of their convos, it makes sense he would want to be out in front of that

[Reck]

How was it a bit check move? He said he did it after trump said he had tapes of their convos, it makes sense he would want to be out in front of that

Nah, what he means is that by Comey doing this and triggering a special counsel investigator this hampers Trump down the road.

Is all about licking Trump's balls for TSA.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck you.

Seriously, fuck off, you asshatted dumbass.

This is far too serious to play politics with, and you and I both know the only fucking reason you want to play this down is that the dude involved is Republican.


This was a step too far.

DarrinS, you have my apologies for this. It was too harsh, and really uncalled for.

I did find your comment deeply insulting, but this was not the response that should have been offered.
I think you have some deeply flawed thinking, but I think you are a decent person. I do believe that, and your words here, even when you disagree with me, do show that.

Sorry.

[Adam Lambert]

if i defied the illegal orders of a president this morally corrupt id definitely leave some collateral with a friend in case i got offed.

[clambake]

"what this thing needs is more cow bell"

[DarrinS]

This was a step too far.

DarrinS, you have my apologies for this. It was too harsh, and really uncalled for.

I did find your comment deeply insulting, but this was not the response that should have been offered.
I think you have some deeply flawed thinking, but I think you are a decent person. I do believe that, and your words here, even when you disagree with me, do show that.

Sorry.


That's what this place is for. No offense taken. :tu

[TSA]

How was it a bit check move? He said he did it after trump said he had tapes of their convos, it makes sense he would want to be out in front of that

The head of the FBI leakedPERIOD. Bitch move.

[TSA]

How was it a bit check move? He said he did it after trump said he had tapes of their convos, it makes sense he would want to be out in front of that

He also leaked the memos a day before the Trump tweet about having tapes so his excuse is bullshit

[Reck]

CuckSA already fully on board with the Comey leaked talking point. :lmao

Jesus Christ..

[Trainwreck2100]

The head of the FBI leakedPERIOD. Bitch move.

He wasn't the head of the first when he did it. He was a private citizen threatened by Potus. So he decided to call him on it.

[Trainwreck2100]

The head of the FBI leakedPERIOD. Bitch move.

And are you seriously saying a private citizen doing whatever he wants is a Bitch move?

[TSA]

http://i.imgur.com/UoNaDwy.jpg

Spurstalk Dems :rollin

_ezvfDzFMII

[TSA]

And are you seriously saying a private citizen doing whatever he wants is a Bitch move?

Yes already answered.

[Pavlov]

This angry about leak is new thing, yes?

[ducks]

Dow Hits New Record High as Comey Testimony Yields No Surprise

[RandomGuy]

Never pegged you as a tinfoiler


1) Sleazy, lying real estate developer billionaire guy with a sense of entitlement a mile wide and 30 year history of adultery and objectifying women used prostitutes and was dumb enough to get filmed doing it by people that do this kind of shit for a living.

Is not nearly as far of a stretch as:


2) Secret cabal of unknown size and origin made several airliners full of people disappear, then faked the collapse of skyscrapers using physically impossible methods with no one ever finding out the truth.

3) Moon landing was faked by a secret conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people, none of whom have ever come forward to give up their secret part in faking mountains of evidence.

These are not equivalently crazy things.

The number of assumptions needed to believe the first are:


Donald Trump used the services of prostitutes in Russia.
Donald Trump was filmed doing this by people who do this all the time.


Is Donald Trump the kind of person who does this shit?
Is Donald Trump dumb enough to not realize he might be filmed doing it?

t7PM9kwFwnc

[Reck]

Dow Hits New Record High as Comey Testimony Yields No Surprise

LOL linking everything that happens to emperor Trump.

If I take a smooth shit, I'll make sure to light a candle to Trump.

[pgardn]

He also leaked the memos a day before the Trump tweet about having tapes so his excuse is bullshit

No it isn't.

Its brilliant.
This is how one defends against pathological liars.

Crocodile tears on leaks. I'm just breakn up.

You wanna bitch move? Trump removing relevant people for an unsavory request, not an order.

[Adam Lambert]

This angry about leak is new thing, yes?

no, in his defense tsa has consistently opposed any leaks that do not expressly help trump get elected

[TSA]

No it isn't.

Its brilliant.
This is how one defends against pathological liars.

Crocodile tears on leaks. I'm just breakn up.

You wanna bitch move? Trump removing relevant people for an unsavory request, not an order.

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.

[Reck]

Now he's perjuring himself. Add that to the growing list of things Comey has done. :lmao

[DarrinS]

* Comey hates Trump
* One of Comey's closest friends is Bob Meuller
* Mueller appointed special counsel
* Trump fucked

Not fucked because there will ever be any Russian collusion. Just a dark cloud that will hang over his admin for a LONG time.

[Reck]

* Comey hates Trump
* One of Comey's closest friends is Bob Meuller
* Mueller appointed special counsel
* Trump fucked

Not fucked because there will ever be any Russian collusion. Just a dark cloud that will hang over his admin for a LONG time.

But who's idea was that the special counsel be Mueller? That was Rosenstein's idea, not Comey's.

[monosylab1k]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.

First leak of Comey memo was May 16, Trump tweet May 12.

[Trill Clinton]

Trump's lawyer is struuuugggling. He got the timeline wrong between Cheetos tweet about tapes and comeys friend leaking to the press. Cheetos tweet was 4 days before the leak lmao

[Pavlov]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.Please help with line of time.

Asking for friend.

[Trill Clinton]

872888357201825792


Comey got em shook

[TSA]

First leak of Comey memo was May 16, Trump tweet May 12.

NYT May 11th

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0

[TSA]

Please help with line of time.

Asking for friend.

Ask and you shall receive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0

[TSA]

Trump's lawyer is struuuugggling. He got the timeline wrong between Cheetos tweet about tapes and comeys friend leaking to the press. Cheetos tweet was 4 days before the leak lmao

:rollin

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0

[DarrinS]

But who's idea was that the special counsel be Mueller? That was Rosenstein's idea, not Comey's.

He was the most obvious choice, tbh.

[monosylab1k]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

The May 11 NYT article explicitly says "Comey told associates". There's no mention of memos anywhere. Comey may have leaked this story, but not his memos until May 16.

Per usual, Trump camp putting out fake news. Sad!

[monosylab1k]

NYT May 11th

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0

Already addressed. No a fucking word about memos. Says right away that the source is "Comey told associates".

TSA falling for more bullshit. Sad!

[Pavlov]

Ask and you shall receive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0Ah, story that not say memo is about memo?

Please help to understand.

[TSA]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

The May 11 NYT article explicitly says "Comey told associates". There's no mention of memos anywhere. Comey may have leaked this story, but not his memos until May 16.

Per usual, Trump camp putting out fake news. Sad!

:rollin

[monosylab1k]

:rollin

Find me where the word "memo" is used in the May 11 article. I'll wait.

[monosylab1k]

Find me where the word "memo" is used in the May 11 article. I'll wait.

TSA unable to locate the word memo in this article. Sad!

[monosylab1k]

TSA unable to locate the word memo in this article. Sad!

When will cuckservatives like TSA stop falling for fake news? Sad!

[TSA]

Find me where the word "memo" is used in the May 11 article. I'll wait.

The January dinner in the May 11th story was also one of his memos. Doesn't really matter that the story doesn't say memos, it proves Comey was leaking before the Trump tweet.

[monosylab1k]

The January dinner in the May 11th story was also one of his memos. Doesn't really matter that the story doesn't say memos, it proves Comey was leaking before the Trump tweet.

Thank you for confirming, on three separate occasions, that the word memo never appears in that article.

Cuckservatives admitting the truth but remaining in denial! Sad!

[Pavlov]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.So this statement wrong?

No?

[TSA]

Thank you for confirming, on three separate occasions, that the word memo never appears in that article.

Cuckservatives admitting the truth but remaining in denial! Sad!

:tu

thank you for not denying Comey was leaking before the Trump tweet

[monosylab1k]

The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet.

We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

[monosylab1k]

:tu

thank you for not denying Comey was leaking before the Trump tweet

Moving the goalposts. Sad!

[RandomGuy]

* Comey hates Trump
* One of Comey's closest friends is Bob Meuller
* Mueller appointed special counsel
* Trump fucked

Not fucked because there will ever be any Russian collusion. Just a dark cloud that will hang over his admin for a LONG time.


Never pegged you as a tinfoiler


1) Sleazy, lying real estate developer billionaire guy with a sense of entitlement a mile wide and 30 year history of adultery and objectifying women used prostitutes and was dumb enough to get filmed doing it by people that do this kind of shit for a living.

Is not nearly as far of a stretch as:


2) Secret cabal of unknown size and origin made several airliners full of people disappear, then faked the collapse of skyscrapers using physically impossible methods with no one ever finding out the truth.

3) Moon landing was faked by a secret conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people, none of whom have ever come forward to give up their secret part in faking mountains of evidence.

These are not equivalently crazy things.

The number of assumptions needed to believe the first are:


Donald Trump used the services of prostitutes in Russia.
Donald Trump was filmed doing this by people who do this all the time.


Is Donald Trump the kind of person who does this shit?
Is Donald Trump dumb enough to not realize he might be filmed doing it?

t7PM9kwFwnc

[Adam Lambert]

republicans basically claiming victory because comey said he cant comment on trump/russia collusion as it is part of an ongoing investigation

[TSA]

Moving the goalposts. Sad!

keep clinging to what is, is

[TSA]

1) Sleazy, lying real estate developer billionaire guy with a sense of entitlement a mile wide and 30 year history of adultery and objectifying women used prostitutes and was dumb enough to get filmed doing it by people that do this kind of shit for a living.

Is not nearly as far of a stretch as:


2) Secret cabal of unknown size and origin made several airliners full of people disappear, then faked the collapse of skyscrapers using physically impossible methods with no one ever finding out the truth.

3) Moon landing was faked by a secret conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people, none of whom have ever come forward to give up their secret part in faking mountains of evidence.

These are not equivalently crazy things.

The number of assumptions needed to believe the first are:


Donald Trump used the services of prostitutes in Russia.
Donald Trump was filmed doing this by people who do this all the time.


Is Donald Trump the kind of person who does this shit?
Is Donald Trump dumb enough to not realize he might be filmed doing it?

t7PM9kwFwnc

:rollin still running with the golden shower story

[RandomGuy]

Comey Opens Door to Investigate Trump Dossier

It's not clear the special counsel had authority to investigate the president personally. He does now.

Hiding in plain sight in former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee is a potentially major new avenue for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia-related crimes: the possibility that President Donald Trump committed a federal crime by lying to Comey about his connections to Russia and activities on his 2013 visit there.

It’s a crime to lie to a representative of the federal government. Thus, Mueller can now investigate the possibility of a criminal charge against Trump if he had any connection to Russia.

And Trump’s denial, as reported by Comey, will also enable Mueller to do what the Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently has not done: investigate the questionable dossier claims that Trump was compromised by Russian intelligence on the basis of sexual escapades in Moscow.

The key to this analysis is one completely new piece of information in Comey’s testimony. According to Comey, Trump told him on March 30 that Trump said “he had nothing to do with Russia” and “had not been involved with hookers in Russia.” These were responses to claims raised in a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele at the behest of Trump political opponents -- claims that have not been substantiated.

This insistence by Trump is noteworthy, especially because Comey had already told Trump more than three months previously that the FBI had not opened a counterintelligence investigation of him on the basis of the dossier.

Trump may simply have wanted to make sure that Comey didn’t believe the allegations. Or he may have wanted to emphasize his repeated request that Comey somehow announce that Trump wasn’t under FBI investigation.

Regardless, Trump potentially put himself in legal jeopardy by making the statement unbidden by Comey. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 1001, it’s a federal crime to make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” regarding “any matter within the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government.

(rest of article here:)

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-08/comey-opens-door-to-investigate-trump-dossier

[RandomGuy]

What’s more, the denials to Comey are also now connected to Trump’s efforts to convince Comey to drop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn -- another topic that belongs within the ambit of Mueller’s inquiry.

Good, sound investigative practice would now quite reasonably focus on whether Trump’s statements were false. That’s because false statements to Comey in this context would count as a crime.

In contrast, Trump’s public statements denying any connection to Russia and disparaging the sexual allegations aren’t criminal even if they are untrue. It’s perfectly legal to lie to the public. Indeed, a president or presidential candidate’s false statements to the electorate are probably protected by the First Amendment. (God help us.)

In contrast, a statement that amounts to a denial of potentially wrongful conduct made to the nation’s chief law enforcement official, who was overseeing an investigation of related matters, would certainly count as a Section 1001 violation.

[RandomGuy]

:rollin still running with the golden shower story

Is Donald Trump the kind of person who utilizes the services of prostitutes?
Is Donald Trump dumb enough to not realize he might be filmed doing it?

[DarrinS]

1) Sleazy, lying real estate developer billionaire guy with a sense of entitlement a mile wide and 30 year history of adultery and objectifying women used prostitutes and was dumb enough to get filmed doing it by people that do this kind of shit for a living.

Is not nearly as far of a stretch as:


2) Secret cabal of unknown size and origin made several airliners full of people disappear, then faked the collapse of skyscrapers using physically impossible methods with no one ever finding out the truth.

3) Moon landing was faked by a secret conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people, none of whom have ever come forward to give up their secret part in faking mountains of evidence.

These are not equivalently crazy things.

The number of assumptions needed to believe the first are:


Donald Trump used the services of prostitutes in Russia.
Donald Trump was filmed doing this by people who do this all the time.


Is Donald Trump the kind of person who does this shit?
Is Donald Trump dumb enough to not realize he might be filmed doing it?

t7PM9kwFwnc



Ok. I'll play along.


So, Trump beat out a field of 16 in the GOP primary and then pretty much campaigned non-stop in the general, all so he could stop some weird Russian prostitute video from coming out?

[DarrinS]

Now, onto the collusion thing. How do you think that went down? It was a phishing email that requires the recipient to be a complete dumbass, i.e. there's no guarantee it will work. Did Trump tell the Russians to target Pedesta, because he's a moron?

[spurraider21]

Is Donald Trump the kind of person who utilizes the services of prostitutes?
whats a kind of person who doesn't utilize services of prostitutes?

serious question. who would be exempt from this sort of characterization?

[RandomGuy]

Ok. I'll play along.


So, Trump beat out a field of 16 in the GOP primary and then pretty much campaigned non-stop in the general, all so he could stop some weird Russian prostitute video from coming out?

Nope.

Characteristic of Russian long-game is they get their hooks into whoever they can, however they can in hopes that something pans out. The pattern of involvement with various people close to Trump fits that known modus operendi rather closely.

They got lucky, as did Trump.

[RandomGuy]

whats a kind of person who doesn't utilize services of prostitutes?

serious question. who would be exempt from this sort of characterization?

Generally:

Happily married people, or people with deeply held religious beliefs.

Neither of which apply to Trump, who has a record of adultery, as well as a self-professed weakness for beautiful women documented through various comments over a 4 decade period.

[DarrinS]

Nope.

Characteristic of Russian long-game is they get their hooks into whoever they can, however they can in hopes that something pans out. The pattern of involvement with various people close to Trump fits that known modus operendi rather closely.

They got lucky, as did Trump.

Mkay

[boutons_deux]

Mueller will get Trash's tax and financial history, and find that Pootin's mafiya bailed Trash out with $100Ms when he was going down for the 6th or 7th time and US banks wouldn't touch him anymore because he's perfectly SHITTY businessman.

Why THE FUCK were so many people close to Trash talking to the Russians?

Were any other Repug Pres candidates making repeated contacts with the Russians?

That's some really thick, stinky smoke hiding ...

C O V E R U P !

Repugs and TSA still obsessed with Hillary? :lol

emails! :lol

Benghazi! :lol

eating baby parts on pizza! :lol

[DarrinS]

Mueller will get Trash's tax and financial history, and find that Pootin's mafiya bailed Trash out with $100Ms when he was going down for the 6th or 7th time and US banks wouldn't touch him anymore because he's perfectly SHITTY businessman.

Why THE FUCK were so many people close to Trash talking to the Russians?

Were any other Repug Pres candidates making repeated contacts with the Russians?

That's some really thick, stinky smoke hiding ...

C O V E R U P !

Repugs and TSA still obsessed with Hillary? :lol

emails! :lol

Benghazi! :lol

eating baby parts on pizza! :lol




Solid, reasoned take. Makes sense, tbh.

[TSA]

Comey Opens Door to Investigate Trump Dossier

It's not clear the special counsel had authority to investigate the president personally. He does now.

Hiding in plain sight in former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee is a potentially major new avenue for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia-related crimes: the possibility that President Donald Trump committed a federal crime by lying to Comey about his connections to Russia and activities on his 2013 visit there.

It’s a crime to lie to a representative of the federal government. Thus, Mueller can now investigate the possibility of a criminal charge against Trump if he had any connection to Russia.

And Trump’s denial, as reported by Comey, will also enable Mueller to do what the Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently has not done: investigate the questionable dossier claims that Trump was compromised by Russian intelligence on the basis of sexual escapades in Moscow.

The key to this analysis is one completely new piece of information in Comey’s testimony. According to Comey, Trump told him on March 30 that Trump said “he had nothing to do with Russia” and “had not been involved with hookers in Russia.” These were responses to claims raised in a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele at the behest of Trump political opponents -- claims that have not been substantiated.

This insistence by Trump is noteworthy, especially because Comey had already told Trump more than three months previously that the FBI had not opened a counterintelligence investigation of him on the basis of the dossier.

Trump may simply have wanted to make sure that Comey didn’t believe the allegations. Or he may have wanted to emphasize his repeated request that Comey somehow announce that Trump wasn’t under FBI investigation.

Regardless, Trump potentially put himself in legal jeopardy by making the statement unbidden by Comey. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 1001, it’s a federal crime to make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” regarding “any matter within the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government.

(rest of article here:)

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-08/comey-opens-door-to-investigate-trump-dossier

Trump already told Comey to investigate the dossier he obviously isn't worried about it :lol

[monosylab1k]

keep clinging to what is, is

Refusing to admit the truth. Sad!

[monosylab1k]

We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

[RandomGuy]

Now, onto the collusion thing. How do you think that went down? It was a phishing email that requires the recipient to be a complete dumbass, i.e. there's no guarantee it will work. Did Trump tell the Russians to target Pedesta, because he's a moron?

The dossier's overall implications concerning Trump's group is actually pretty mild. It does paint a very active effort on the part of Russian cyberwarfare elements, both official and unofficial (Putin "patriotic elements" i.e. plausible deniability for people who are, for all practical purposes part of that official element), that is where the emails came from.

The Russians fed them what they thought they could, and used various interlocutors to channel information back and forth, mostly the kinds of things that any good opposition research would do. In return Putin seems to want information on various wealthy Russian oligarchs in the US, which he got.

Page, Flynn, and Manafort figure prominently in this ongoing effort.

As does, Cohen, and that is where the dossier's credibility takes its biggest hit, because it makes some vary specific claims about his activities that have not, thus far, panned out.

My gut says that the author/source possibly got some of the details, such as the name wrong.

Some of the other things, such as discussions between Putin and the ex-Ukranian president concerning the kick-back to Manafort have provided some small reinforcing information to previous reports.

There is a fair amount to unpack, but that is the sum of it.

Some of the things in there, such as Page's visit to Moscow, proved out, some like Cohen's trip to Prague didn't.

It offers a good roadmap to an investigation though. It points out what rocks to look under.

[monosylab1k]

The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet.

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

A Nation Bursts Into Laughter As White House Responds To Comey By Declaring Trump Isn’t A Liar

The country burst out laughing as the White House Deputy Press Secretary hid off camera for the press briefing while announcing that she can say "definitively" that Trump "is not a liar.

http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/huckabee-sanders-1.jpg


While testifying before the Senate, former FBI Director James Comey called President Trump a liar (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/08/james-comey-calls-trump-liar-oath-senate-testimony.html) while discussing the reasons the White House gave for his firing.The White House’s claim that Trump isn’t a liar is itself a lie.

Trump is the biggest liar in presidential history.

PolitiFact found that only 17% of Trump’s statements are true. (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)

There has never been a president with a more extensively proven track record of lying than Donald Trump.

For the White House to stand in front of the country and defend Trump’s honesty, it demonstrates that

no one working at the White House has a single shred of credibility.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/08/white-house-trump-liar.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

And the Repugs defend Trash and his WH.

American oligarchy has fucked America into unfuckability.

[spurraider21]

Generally:

Happily married people, or people with deeply held religious beliefs.

Neither of which apply to Trump, who has a record of adultery, as well as a self-professed weakness for beautiful women documented through various comments over a 4 decade period.
religious people dont get hookers? :lol oh, ok

happily married people don't get hookers? by all accounts eliot spitzer was happily married too

this is such a dumb test that is beyond subjective

[clambake]

no trump tweets?


he must be sedated.

[RandomGuy]

Trump already told Comey to investigate the dossier he obviously isn't worried about it :lol

So not worried he had to repeat denials to the head of the FBI.

Forgive me if I don't take Donald "Fraud University" Trump at anything he says.

As I said, the dossier provides some good falsifiable leads and that is about it.

Ultimately, the FBI would be very limited in what it can do to run down the existence of recordings of Donald "grab 'em by the pussy" Trump having sex with prostitutes held by the FSB, which presumably would give the FBI some rather pointed directions about what to do with any request for materials.

Not exactly a big deal there.

The thing that should happen though is some careful screening of Trump interlocuters.

The pattern of people close to Trump lying about their contacts with Russia is a huge red flag.

[TSA]

Is Donald Trump the kind of person who utilizes the services of prostitutes?
Is Donald Trump dumb enough to not realize he might be filmed doing it?

Just lolfuckingl to your first question.
To the second he's already assumed he was being recorded in Russia so I think it's safe to say he'd also think he was being filmed.


I hope you keep pushing the golden showers story as it makes me crack up everytime

[Pavlov]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.Is right or wrong?

Hear different things.

[TSA]

So not worried he had to repeat denials to the head of the FBI.

Forgive me if I don't take Donald "Fraud University" Trump at anything he says.

As I said, the dossier provides some good falsifiable leads and that is about it.

Ultimately, the FBI would be very limited in what it can do to run down the existence of recordings of Donald "grab 'em by the pussy" Trump having sex with prostitutes held by the FSB, which presumably would give the FBI some rather pointed directions about what to do with any request for materials.

Not exactly a big deal there.

The thing that should happen though is some careful screening of Trump interlocuters.

The pattern of people close to Trump lying about their contacts with Russia is a huge red flag.

I'm sure you would repeatedly deny being part of a golden shower orgy that was all over the news too if you did not partake in one.

[RandomGuy]

no trump tweets?

he must be sedated.

His lawyer has probably briefed him on the consequences of shooting his mouth off, and may have actually physically taken his phone from him.

Interesting reports of his search for potential law firms to defend himself, in that they got turned down by people who didn't want their client going behind their backs.

[TSA]

religious people dont get hookers? :lol oh, ok

happily married people don't get hookers? by all accounts eliot spitzer was happily married too

this is such a dumb test that is beyond subjective

RandomGuy has stated numerous times he is far from a person with deeply held religious beliefs, in fact he has stated the exact opposite. I think it is safe to assume RandomGuy is the type of person to utilize prostitutes.

[TSA]

:lmao

Was the January dinner story in the memos yes or no?

[TSA]

Nope.

Characteristic of Russian long-game is they get their hooks into whoever they can, however they can in hopes that something pans out. The pattern of involvement with various people close to Trump fits that known modus operendi rather closely.

They got lucky, as did Trump.
You must be thankful Hillary didn't win as she was neck deep in money from Russia

[RandomGuy]

I'm sure you would repeatedly deny being part of a golden shower orgy that was all over the news too if you did not partake in one.

Whether that was what happened is something I would not care to guess at. Russians will fake things if they think they can get away with it.

My sense is that DT was that dumb, and did do something with prostitutes, even if the golden shower thing was made up. It isn't much of a leap (more like a step) to find that plausible.

RUMINT so often has a grain of truth to it.

I would find this far less believable if Trump has not had his nose up Putins trousers.

Find me one critical thing Trump has said about Putin.

[RandomGuy]

You must be thankful Hillary didn't win as she was neck deep in money from Russia

The Clinton foundation that spent all of that money on actual charity?

I think the Russian's opinion of her was more than clear from their state run media, even if I assign any kind of tentative credibility to your theory for the sake of argument.

The Russians hate Hillary with a passion, and that undermines any such argument you might make along those lines. I can provide some interesting reading if you want.

[Pavlov]

Hillary*ding*

[florige]

no trump tweets?


he must be sedated.



I read somewhere that his associates were telling him to keep busy and not focus on it. Also wouldn't be surprised if someone took his phone for extra precaution.

[benefactor]

no trump tweets?


he must be sedated.
Water is on the burner. Will reach boil around 3am

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy has stated numerous times he is far from a person with deeply held religious beliefs, in fact he has stated the exact opposite. I think it is safe to assume RandomGuy is the type of person to utilize prostitutes.

(shrugs)

I am not going to assert or assume anything definitively. Merely factor in what is known, and how that affects tendencies.

What information would you consider if you had to make the call as to how probable it would be that any given man uses prostitutes?

[RandomGuy]

I read somewhere that his associates were telling him to keep busy and not focus on it. Also wouldn't be surprised if someone took his phone for extra precaution.

My gut says that will be temporary. He simply can't help himself. It is obvious to even ducks, that Donald "Fraud University" Trump cannot control himself when it comes to spouting off.

[TSA]

The Clinton foundation that spent all of that money on actual charity?

I think the Russian's opinion of her was more than clear from their state run media, even if I assign any kind of tentative credibility to your theory for the sake of argument.

The Russians hate Hillary with a passion, and that undermines any such argument you might make along those lines. I can provide some interesting reading if you want.
I'm heading home shortly so no need for the reading material as I most likely won't remember to look back in this thread for it tomorrow. Thank you though.

[TSA]

(shrugs)

I am not going to assert or assume anything definitively. Merely factor in what is known, and how that affects tendencies.

What information would you consider if you had to make the call as to how probable it would be that any given man uses prostitutes?I would need to know the person fairly well before being able to judge them as a prostitute user.

[TSA]

872857525028139011

was fun chatting today fellas. sorry it didn't work out how most of you had hoped. there is always the next manufactured scandal!

[Pavlov]

TSA no see my posts anymore?

Maybe hacked I am.

[florige]

My gut says that will be temporary. He simply can't help himself. It is obvious to even ducks, that Donald "Fraud University" Trump cannot control himself when it comes to spouting off.


Oh I am almost certain it will be temporary. For whatever reason they seemed to be more concerned with him not live tweeting during the testimony.

[Reck]

Oh now people cant make mistakes or misquote people now. It clearly must be the bias.

[monosylab1k]

Was the January dinner story in the memos yes or no?

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder777/65557777.jpg
Sad!


Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.

From "Comey lied under oath! He leaked the memos before Trump's tweet!" to "A story leaked that ended up being in the memos, same difference!"

Sad!

[Thread]

Oh I am almost certain it will be temporary. For whatever reason they seemed to be more concerned with him not live tweeting during the testimony.

Psychological warfare. Trump ain't no country preacher.

[Reck]

Psychological warfare. Trump ain't no country preacher.

From your girl that's supposed to mop the floor with Ossoff.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPkY-dhuI7w

:lmao

[Pavlov]

I'm heading home shortly so no need for the reading material as I most likely won't remember to look back in this thread for it tomorrow. Thank you though.TSA talk like never coming back for some reason.

Hope is not disappeared tonight.

[monosylab1k]

The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet.

We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

[clambake]

Water is on the burner. Will reach boil around 3am

lol

[Trill Clinton]

I'm heading home shortly so no need for the reading material as I most likely won't remember to look back in this thread for it tomorrow. Thank you though.

please don't read ST and drive fam. get some rest, see ya tomorrow.

[DarrinS]

I'm sure you would repeatedly deny being part of a golden shower orgy that was all over the news too if you did not partake in one.

RG may be right. Check this out


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJI-UeF6HDc

[DarrinS]

And another. The buckets are full of Russian prostitute piss.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxDAyUiXphg

[Reck]

Darrins, legit question....

When did you become such a Trump slubber? I'm fairly new to the political forum but I dont recall you been this all in for the orange man? Why the change?

Did you get laid off and are just bored?

[hater]

So when is the impeachment broadcast niggas?

:lmao

[TSA]

please don't read ST and drive fam. get some rest, see ya tomorrow.

I work 5 mins from my office Spurstalk can wait :lol

[TSA]

So when is the impeachment broadcast niggas?

:lmao

Dead on arrival


LANKFORD: Past the February 14th meeting, which is an important meeting as we discuss the conversations here about Michael Flynn, when the president asked you about he hopes that you would let this go, and the conversation back and forth about being a good guy, after that time, did the president ever bring up anything about Michael Flynn again to you? Had multiple other conversations you had documents with the president.

COMEY: I don't remember him bringing it up again.

LANKFORD: Did a member of the white house staff come up to you asking you to drop the Michael Flynn case, anything referring to that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: Did the Director of National Intelligence talk to you about that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: Did anyone from the attorney general's office, the department of justice ask about that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: Did the head of NSA talk to you about that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: The key aspect here is if this seems to be something the president is trying to get you to drop it, it seems like a light touch to drop it, to bring it up at that point, the day after he had just fired Flynn, to come back here and say, I hope we can let this go, then it never reappears again. Did it slow down your investigation or any investigation that may or may not be occurring with Michael Flynn?

COMEY: No. Although I don't know there are any manifestations between February 14th and when I was fired. I don't know that the president had any way of knowing whether it was effective or not.

LANKFORD: Okay. Fair enough. If the president wanted to stop an investigation, how would he do that? Knowing it is an ongoing criminal investigation or counterintelligence investigation, would that be a matter of going to you, you perceive, and say, you make it stop because he doesn't have the authority to stop it? How would the president make an ongoing investigation stop?

COMEY: I'm not a legal scholar, but as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and could direct, in theory, we have important norms against this, but could anyone be investigative or not. I think he has the legal authority. All of us ultimately report in the executive branch to the president.

[TSA]

Dead on arrival


LANKFORD: Past the February 14th meeting, which is an important meeting as we discuss the conversations here about Michael Flynn, when the president asked you about he hopes that you would let this go, and the conversation back and forth about being a good guy, after that time, did the president ever bring up anything about Michael Flynn again to you? Had multiple other conversations you had documents with the president.

COMEY: I don't remember him bringing it up again.

LANKFORD: Did a member of the white house staff come up to you asking you to drop the Michael Flynn case, anything referring to that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: Did the Director of National Intelligence talk to you about that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: Did anyone from the attorney general's office, the department of justice ask about that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: Did the head of NSA talk to you about that?

COMEY: No.

LANKFORD: The key aspect here is if this seems to be something the president is trying to get you to drop it, it seems like a light touch to drop it, to bring it up at that point, the day after he had just fired Flynn, to come back here and say, I hope we can let this go, then it never reappears again. Did it slow down your investigation or any investigation that may or may not be occurring with Michael Flynn?

COMEY: No. Although I don't know there are any manifestations between February 14th and when I was fired. I don't know that the president had any way of knowing whether it was effective or not.

LANKFORD: Okay. Fair enough. If the president wanted to stop an investigation, how would he do that? Knowing it is an ongoing criminal investigation or counterintelligence investigation, would that be a matter of going to you, you perceive, and say, you make it stop because he doesn't have the authority to stop it? How would the president make an ongoing investigation stop?

COMEY: I'm not a legal scholar, but as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and could direct, in theory, we have important norms against this, but could anyone be investigative or not. I think he has the legal authority. All of us ultimately report in the executive branch to the president.

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

:rollin

[Reck]

I work 5 mins from my office Spurstalk can wait :lol

Holy shit. What a loser.

Spends all day logged in while "at work" "drives" home and logs back in to suck on Trump's cock some more. :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Kamala Harris uses her seven minutes with Comey to go after Jefferson Sessions (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/8/1670014/-Kamala-Harris-uses-her-seven-minutes-with-Comey-to-go-after-Jefferson-Sessions)

https://images.dailykos.com/images/410772/story_image/GettyImages-693473054.jpg?1496946390 they were questions that Comey was clearly not expected to answer.

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, working in brisk prosecutorial style, spent her seven minutes asking Comey question after question, one after another.

Many were questions that she obviously knew the former FBI director would not, or could not, answer in an open forum.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California pressed James Comey on Thursday to reveal

whether Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions played any inappropriate role in the Russia investigation.

Harris asked if Sessions had reviewed additional documents on the Russian investigation before he recused himself. Obviously, Comey didn’t know.

Harris asked about documents Sessions read after he recused himself. Who had he talked to? What did he read? What did he know?

Among the most interesting series of questions asked during the whole lengthy Senate Intelligence Committee hearing were

questions that had little to do with Trump, or his meetings with James Comey.

In fact, they were questions that Comey was clearly not expected to answer.

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, working in brisk prosecutorial style, spent her seven minutes asking Comey question after question, one after another. Many were questions that she obviously knew the former FBI director would not, or could not, answer in an open forum. The theme to these questions: (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-watch-live-former-fbi-director-james-1496926879-htmlstory.html)

Sen. Kamala Harris of California pressed James Comey on Thursday to reveal

whether Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions played any inappropriate role in the Russia investigation.

Harris asked if Sessions had reviewed additional documents on the Russian investigation before he recused himself. Obviously, Comey didn’t know. Harris asked about documents Sessions read after he recused himself. Who had he talked to? What did he read? What did he know?

Occasionally Harris darted to a question that addressed the Trump regime more broadly.

"Are you aware of any meetings between the Trump administration officials and Russian officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the White House?” she asked.


But the failure to secure an answer on these questions in the public hearing was clearly not a concern to Harris. Which suggests that

1) she was getting these questions in front of the public as part of a plan, and

2) there’s a good chance some of these same questions were fired at Comey in the closed session.

what is she getting at here?

First she’s getting Comey to issue a complete set of “can’t answer in public” on the idea that anyone in the Trump organization met with, talked with, or worked with the Russians.

She then does the same on questions of evidence. Results?

No one can claim there was a definitive “no” on any of these questions. They’re all kept open-ended.

Second, Harris gets to Sessions. Did he handle recusing himself correctly? Did he look at documents before that he refused to act on? Did he look at documents afterward that he shouldn’t have seen? Did he involve himself in the investigation when he should have been looking away?

Again, what Harris is after isn’t a definitive answer. She’s after demonstrating that every one of these questions is still open.

At a minimum, Kamala Harris gets all these questions out there and none of them get a definitive “no.”

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/8/1670014/-Kamala-Harris-uses-her-seven-minutes-with-Comey-to-go-after-Jefferson-Sessions?detail=emaildksc

I'm sure Mueller and his people noted, if not already working on, Harris' questions.

[monosylab1k]

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

:rollin

Holy shit, that gif is actualy amazing :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Comey’s testimony was very bad news for Jeff Sessions

Comey indicated the FBI was aware of classified information that led bureau leadership to conclude Attorney General Jeff

Sessions shouldn’t have been involved in Russia-related investigations even before his recusal.

With regard to the meeting with Trump, Comey writes that he and the FBI leadership team “concluded

it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions,

who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.)”

In response to Wyden’s question, Comey said, “Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons.

We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.”

Sessions violated his recusal two months later by recommending the firing of the top investigator probing the Trump campaign for possible collusion with Russia two months later.

Wyden asked Comey if he thought that was appropriate.

“That’s a question I can’t answer,” Comey replied. “I think it’s a reasonable question.

If the president has said I was fired because of the Russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in that chain? I don’t know.”

https://thinkprogress.org/comeys-testimony-was-very-bad-news-for-jeff-sessions-8fd68f8de50f

Like Trash, Sessions has no respect for the law, exactly the quality America needs in its top cop.

[Reck]

I have a feeling Sessions is not long for the job.

[TSA]

Holy shit. What a loser.

Spends all day logged in while "at work" "drives" home and logs back in to suck on Trump's cock some more. :lmao

No matter how many months I ignored you, you continued to follow me around quoting me daily hoping for a response. I thought you'd get off my nuts after being ignored but I was wrong. Today's your lucky day.

You either don't have a job or you've been doing the same thing I've been doing all day on Spurstalk.

I can multi task while at work and am currently having to do it with one only one arm. My boss doesn't give a shit what I do as I personally had over 20 million in sales last year :lol

I'll continue to work, post on Spurstalk, and now add shitting on you to my daily tasks :bobo

[Reck]

No matter how many months I ignored you, you continued to follow me around quoting me daily hoping for a response. I thought you'd get off my nuts after being ignored but I was wrong. Today's your lucky day.

You either don't have a job or you've been doing the same thing I've been doing all day on Spurstalk.

I can multi task while at work and am currently having to do it with one only one arm. My boss doesn't give a shit what I do as I personally had over 20 million in sales last year :lol

I'll continue to work, post on Spurstalk, and now add shitting on you to my daily tasks :bobo

:lmao so easily baited.

But I'm ignoring you. :cry

[clambake]

getting chippy in here

[Reck]

getting chippy in here

It's ok I'm making millions posting on ST. :hat

[TSA]

:lmao so easily baited.

But I'm ignoring you. :cry

It's child's play shitting on you.

:lol easily baited
:lol 3+ months of trying to bait

[Reck]

It's child's play shitting on you.

:lol easily baited
:lol 3+ months of trying to bait

does ignoring someone=replying to them in your world?

[hater]

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

:rollin

:lmao

[TSA]

does ignoring someone=replying to them in your world?

Wear that dunce hat proudly


No matter how many months I ignored you, you continued to follow me around quoting me daily hoping for a response. I thought you'd get off my nuts after being ignored but I was wrong. Today's your lucky day.


I'll continue to work, post on Spurstalk, and now add shitting on you to my daily tasks :bobo


What part of I'm done ignoring you and will now continue to shit on you are you failing to comprehend?

[djohn2oo8]

I remember that time TSA said Comey wouldn't say much in his testimony. Oh how a day changes things.

[TSA]

Really, the president has the authority to order the head of an FBI to drop a criminal investigation? :lol retard.

The only retard here is you Reck :lol


Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I'm right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong

By Alan Dershowitz Published June 08, 2017 Fox News
In his testimony former FBI director James Comey echoed a view that I alone have been expressing for several weeks, and that has been attacked by nearly every Democratic pundit.

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.

Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.

Director Comey’s testimony was thoughtful, coherent and balanced. He is obviously angry with President Trump, and his anger has influenced his assessment of the president and his actions. But even putting that aside, Comey has provided useful insights into the ongoing investigations.

I was disappointed to learn that Comey used a Columbia law professor as a go-between to provide information to the media. He should have has the courage to do it himself. Senators must insist that he disclose the name of his go-between so that they can subpoena his memos and perhaps subpoena the professor-friend to provide further information.

I write this short op-ed as Comey finishes his testimony. I think it is important to put to rest the notion that there was anything criminal about the president exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to request – “hope” – that he let go the investigation of General Flynn. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn.

So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

[TSA]

I remember that time TSA said Comey wouldn't say much in his testimony. Oh how a day changes things.

Where you been all day buddy?

[djohn2oo8]

872952616879370241
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[boutons_deux]

James Comey’s testimony shows Hillary Clinton was right all along

It’s so much worse than “careless” email server management.

His testimony painted a picture of a president who

neither understands nor respects the norms and values that underlie the constitutional order,

lacks the information necessary to do his job properly, and

doesn’t have the humility to seek or accept appropriate advice about how to get better.

Comey knew it from his very first meeting with Trump.

“I explained,” Comey separately recounted, “why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House.”

But Trump didn’t know and didn’t care — ultimately what he wanted was for the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn to go away and for the FBI director to vouch for his innocence in all matters Russia-related.

Trump is very fishy on the Russia issue

one thing that’s excruciatingly clear is that

at no point did Trump express or exhibit any kind of concern about Russian government involvement in cybercrimes aimed at manipulating American political events.

The conversation around Trump and Russia has grown so advanced

— ranging from obstruction of justice to hazy allegations of a kompromattape —

that it’s easy to lose sight of how shocking this is.

But Russian information operations are a big deal.

Clinton’s campaign was making an argument that struck most of us in the press as outlandish and borderline absurd — the emails were stolen by the Russian government and given to WikiLeaks, which itself was now little more than a cut-out from the GRU, in order to help Donald Trump win the election.

That story — heavy-handed intervention into US electoral politics by a foreign government that had a somewhat mysterious interest in helping

a candidate who, in turn, had a somewhat mysterious affection for Putin

— was the big deal story of the leaks.

Basically nobody in the press wrote it that way.

The spin was just too aggressive, self-serving, and a little far-fetched.

Yet here we are months later and the self-serving spin was clearly correct.

The hacks really were done by Russia, and

Russia really was trying to intervene in the election.

Something that we now know was part of a broad pattern of Russian conduct that extended to House Democrats,

continued with the pilfering of John Podesta’s emails, and

extended into the French election campaign.

Intra-office gossip from the DNC staff is a total nothingburger of a story compared to the nexus of investigations and obstruction of justice that have ensnared the Trump administration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/8/15724502/hillary-was-right

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySxJiUp8qd8

[Reck]

The only retard here is you Reck :lol


Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I'm right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong

By Alan Dershowitz Published June 08, 2017 Fox News
In his testimony former FBI director James Comey echoed a view that I alone have been expressing for several weeks, and that has been attacked by nearly every Democratic pundit.

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.

Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.

Director Comey’s testimony was thoughtful, coherent and balanced. He is obviously angry with President Trump, and his anger has influenced his assessment of the president and his actions. But even putting that aside, Comey has provided useful insights into the ongoing investigations.

I was disappointed to learn that Comey used a Columbia law professor as a go-between to provide information to the media. He should have has the courage to do it himself. Senators must insist that he disclose the name of his go-between so that they can subpoena his memos and perhaps subpoena the professor-friend to provide further information.

I write this short op-ed as Comey finishes his testimony. I think it is important to put to rest the notion that there was anything criminal about the president exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to request – “hope” – that he let go the investigation of General Flynn. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn.

So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

Dershowitz, you mean the equavalent of John McCain.

Find someone who isn't completely biased.

Who starts an article saying I am right, everyone else is wrong? That's a surefire way to laugh it off.

[DarrinS]

Dershowitz, you mean the equavalent of John McCain.

Find someone who isn't completely biased.

Who starts an article saying I am right, everyone else is wrong? That's a surefire way to laugh it off.

:lol

[Reck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySxJiUp8qd8

But Flynn is the center piece of the investigation.

Did Comey not say Flynn was in legal jeoperdy? He did.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_OTsBAQYrI

[TSA]

Dershowitz, you mean the equavalent of John McCain.

Find someone who isn't completely biased.

Who starts an article saying I am right, everyone else is wrong? That's a surefire way to laugh it off.

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and author. He is a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law,[1][2] and a leading defender of civil liberties.[1][3] He spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there from 1993[4] until his retirement in December 2013.[5] He is now a regular CNN contributor and political analyst.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz


:lol go sit in the corner and put your dunce cap on Reck

[DarrinS]

But Flynn is the center piece of the investigation.

Did Comey not say Flynn was in legal jeoperdy? He did.

Sure, but under US code 1001, not the fuckin Logan Act. :lol

[Pavlov]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.

[Reck]

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and author. He is a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law,[1][2] and a leading defender of civil liberties.[1][3] He spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there from 1993[4] until his retirement in December 2013.[5] He is now a regular CNN contributor and political analyst.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz


:lol go sit in the corner and put your dunce cap on Reck

I am aware of whom he is as he gets shit on CNN almost on a nighty basis.

For every shitty argument you make about whether Trump didn't commit obstruction of justice or that the president can just terminate ongoing investigations, I can find you dozens of articles with actual experts who said the president cant. Or if he does, he would just be charged with obstructing justice which leads to the same fate of Nixon.

Fact.

[TSA]

I am aware of whom he is as he gets shit on CNN almost on a nighty basis.

For every shitty argument you make about whether Trump didn't commit obstruction of justice or that the president can just terminate ongoing investigations, I can find you dozens of articles with actual experts who said the president cant. Or if he does, he would just be charged with obstructing justice which leads to the same fate of Nixon.

Fact.

:lol you can not and will not find a constitutional expert correctly refuting Dershowitz

Fact

[Pavlov]

TSA ignore me. Or maybe is me disappeared.

[Reck]

:lol you can not and will not find a constitutional expert correctly refuting Dershowitz

Fact

Just watch CNN and you will.

BTW, Dershowitz is the same guy who went on television and said Trump's travel ban was constitutional.

How did the judges react to that and continue to view it as again?

[monosylab1k]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.

We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

[TSA]

I can find you dozens of articles with actual experts who said the president cant.


:lol you can not and will not find a constitutional expert correctly refuting Dershowitz

Fact


Just watch CNN and you will.



:lmao just watch CNN

You make this too easy dunce. For once in your life try and back a retarded claim you throw out

:lmao just watch CNN

[TSA]

We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

I'll retract when you answer the question you dodged.

Was the January dinner story in the memos yes or no?

[Reck]

:lmao just watch CNN

You make this too easy dunce. For once in your life try and back a retarded claim you throw out

:lmao just watch CNN


What a weak ass response. You have to do better than that, cuck.

Answer my question next time.

Here are some videos if you care to watch or have the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv1Nnwy8ibk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXGwXNUv0ZM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_vtV3K14YQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVfS5NvXmNw

There is more but I believe I have made my point.

:lol Unreliable source
:lol Trump supporter bias detected.
:lol But it's all legal :cry

[monosylab1k]

I'll retract when you answer the question you dodged.

Was the January dinner story in the memos yes or no?

Were the memos ever discussed in the article yes or no?

[DarrinS]

I pretty much ignore Jeffrey Toobin. :lol

[Reck]

I pretty much ignore Jeffrey Toobin. :lol

No shit. He's way out of your safe space.

[DarrinS]

No shit. He's way out of your safe space.

What was the gist of your three videos?

[spurraider21]

dershowitz is one of the more respected legal minds in the country. that doesn't mean he's immune from criticism or mistake. supreme court justices are typically among the most respected legal minds... until they start having opinions that have political ramifications.

nobody will doubt that scalia was a titan on the bench, but people disagree with his interpretations all the time.

erwin chemerinsky is one of the more notable constitutional law scholars around, too. he's the author of the most frequently used con-law casebook used in law schools, but he called trump's travel ban illegal, something i'm sure many of you have argued against

its pretty foolish to hold up on respected scholar as a definitive source. people have been arguing constitutional issues for centuries

i dont think obstruction of justice and the constitutional authority to fire the FBI director are mutually exclusive. richard nixon had the authority to fire his attorney general, but look at what happened with the saturday night massacre... (also :lol bork... fucker had no integrity)

[Reck]

What was the gist of your three videos?

TSA said I couldn't find a constitutional expert who could refute Dershowitz correctly. I just did.

Just because he's respected and has accolades doesn't mean he's not wrong at times. You're specially vulnerable when you take a political stance that leans heavily on one direction. And he does shw some heavy Trump bias.

[DarrinS]

I would think the president's power to shut down an investigation would not apply, if POTUS was the subject of the investigation. Clearly, that wasn't the case.

[spurraider21]

dershowitz is a liberal, reck... except for views relating to israel

[DarrinS]

TSA said I couldn't find a constitutional expert who could refute Dershowitz correctly. I just did.

Just because he's respected and has accolades doesn't mean he's not wrong at times. You're specially vulnerable when you take a political stance that leans heavily on one direction. And he does shw some heavy Trump bias.


What does that mean -- he shows some heavy "Trump bias"? Does that mean he's not saying what you want him to?

[Reck]

dershowitz is a liberal, reck... except for views relating to israel

I thought so too. He may as well be. But in the case of Trump he's all in.

[Reck]

What does that mean -- he shows some heavy "Trump bias"? Does that mean he's not saying what you want him to?

No it means, in order to defend him, he's going against his own interest which is interpret the law as it should be without the bias.

[spurraider21]

I thought so too. He may as well be. But in the case of Trump he's all in.
no, it just means he disagrees on this point and isn't a partisan shill that agrees or disagrees with a constitutional view because of the sitting president's party

[DarrinS]

I thought so too. He may as well be. But in the case of Trump he's all in.

He's "all in"? Really? :rolleyes

[DarrinS]

No it means, in order to defend him, he's going against his own interest which is interpret the law as it should be without the bias.

??? You're going down a weird rabbit hole.

[Reck]

no, it just means he disagrees on this point and isn't a partisan shill that agrees or disagrees with a constitutional view because of the sitting president's party

Yet he's shilling for Trump.

He said Trump travel ban wasn't uncostitutional. Has defended him with the Flynn issue, and now he's all over Comey.

That forms a trend despite whether he's right or wrong. He's not particularly leaning right. Just defending Trump on all these issues.

[TSA]

What a weak ass response. You have to do better than that, cuck.

Answer my question next time.

Here are some videos if you care to watch or have the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv1Nnwy8ibk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXGwXNUv0ZM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_vtV3K14YQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVfS5NvXmNw

There is more but I believe I have made my point.

:lol Unreliable source
:lol Trump supporter bias detected.
:lol But it's all legal :cry

Your point was you would post a dozen articles yet you ended up posting 3 CNN YouTube videos :rollin

[TSA]

Were the memos ever discussed in the article yes or no?

I said I'd retract if answered my question. Go.

[DarrinS]

Yet he's shilling for Trump.

He said Trump travel ban wasn't uncostitutional. Has defended him with the Flynn issue, and now he's all over Comey.

That forms a trend despite whether he's right or wrong. He's not particularly leaning right. Just defending Trump on all these issues.


I get it now. Shilling for Trump means having legal opinions that don't negatively affect Trump.

[Pavlov]

I said I'd retract if answered my question. Go.I ask again but nervous about character broken.

[TSA]

dershowitz is one of the more respected legal minds in the country. that doesn't mean he's immune from criticism or mistake. supreme court justices are typically among the most respected legal minds... until they start having opinions that have political ramifications.

nobody will doubt that scalia was a titan on the bench, but people disagree with his interpretations all the time.

erwin chemerinsky is one of the more notable constitutional law scholars around, too. he's the author of the most frequently used con-law casebook used in law schools, but he called trump's travel ban illegal, something i'm sure many of you have argued against

its pretty foolish to hold up on respected scholar as a definitive source. people have been arguing constitutional issues for centuries

i dont think obstruction of justice and the constitutional authority to fire the FBI director are mutually exclusive. richard nixon had the authority to fire his attorney general, but look at what happened with the saturday night massacre... (also :lol bork... fucker had no integrity)

Setting aside the constitutional arguments that have gone on for centuries, Comey himself said he doesn't know of a single case being brought on "hope". Obstruction of justice is DOA

[TSA]

I thought so too. He may as well be. But in the case of Trump he's all in.

:lmao

[Reck]

Your point was you would post a dozen articles yet you ended up posting 3 CNN YouTube videos :rollin

Did you actually think I was going to spend hours looking for individual links? LMAO

They're there. I'm just not going to waste my time proving a positive.

But yet again you dodge my questions. They're piling up now. lol

[Reck]

I said I'd retract if answered my question. Go.

Like you're answering mine. :lmao

[spurraider21]

Yet he's shilling for Trump.

He said Trump travel ban wasn't uncostitutional. Has defended him with the Flynn issue, and now he's all over Comey.

That forms a trend despite whether he's right or wrong. He's not particularly leaning right. Just defending Trump on all these issues.
nah reck... dershowitz was a hillary supporting liberal, and only bends right when it comes to jewy issues

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-rigged-election/2016/10/21/id/754762/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/alan-dershowitz-debate-clinton-trump-227242

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/264589-dershowitz-ban-on-refugees-unconstitutional

[spurraider21]

Setting aside the constitutional arguments that have gone on for centuries, Comey himself said he doesn't know of a single case being brought on "hope". Obstruction of justice is DOA
https://i.gyazo.com/1c1d43f8d63aeec3ad4c0b19828ba268.png

[spurraider21]

one of the better analogies i had heard came from the daily show (which i admittedly have rarely watched since stewart stepped down)...

if vito corleone was talking to you and said "i really hope you're going to pay me by next week"

i think there's a different implication when somebody in a position of power is talking to you that way. earlier in the conversation trump was asking comey if he wanted to stay on as FBI director... and then pushes him to halt an investigation. fires him not too long after.

i'm not sayin it amounts to obstruction necessarily, but i dont think it's DOA based on his use of the word "hope"

[TSA]

https://i.gyazo.com/1c1d43f8d63aeec3ad4c0b19828ba268.png

You left some of the interaction off. On purpose?

[TSA]

one of the better analogies i had heard came from the daily show (which i admittedly have rarely watched since stewart stepped down)...

if vito corleone was talking to you and said "i really hope you're going to pay me by next week"

i think there's a different implication when somebody in a position of power is talking to you that way. earlier in the conversation trump was asking comey if he wanted to stay on as FBI director... and then pushes him to halt an investigation. fires him not too long after.

i'm not sayin it amounts to obstruction necessarily, but i dont think it's DOA based on his use of the word "hope"

It'd be DOA even if Trump told him to shut it down AND shut it down. Terrible terrible optics if he'd done that, but still no obstruction of justice.

Comey testified Trump "hoped" one time. omg

[spurraider21]

You left some of the interaction off. On purpose?
referring to this? i didnt think they were impactful

https://i.gyazo.com/4c16bc176a2c93e261ee680ad2759208.png

[spurraider21]

It'd be DOA even if Trump told him to shut it down AND shut it down. Terrible terrible optics if he'd done that, but still no obstruction of justice.

Comey testified Trump "hoped" one time. omg
i dont think we're necessarily disagreeing here. i dont think the use of the word "hope" is dispositive of the issue

i'm not sayin it amounts to obstruction necessarily, but i dont think it's DOA based on his use of the word "hope"

[TSA]

Did you actually think I was going to spend hours looking for individual links? LMAO

They're there. I'm just not going to waste my time proving a positive.

But yet again you dodge my questions. They're piling up now. lol

Silly me thinking a confirmed Welcher would actually do what he said he'd do and provide a dozen articles backing his retarded claim. My bad Reck.

[monosylab1k]

I said I'd retract if answered my question. Go.

Your question is irrelevant to the discussion, so I'm not bothering with it.


The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet.

We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

[Pavlov]

Comey said he leaked them because Trump said he had tapes---the tweet. The NYT was quoting Comey's memos the day before the Trump tweet. Not sure how or why you consider Comey lying during testimony brilliant.Anyone see post, yes?

Please to tell TSA. Have question.

[Reck]

Silly me thinking a confirmed Welcher would actually do what he said he'd do and provide a dozen articles backing his retarded claim. My bad Reck.

Back to welching? You did as well so it appears we're on the same boat.

And why do you continue to dodge my questions? Just say you have no answer to the questions and we move on.

[TSA]

referring to this? i didnt think they were impactful

https://i.gyazo.com/4c16bc176a2c93e261ee680ad2759208.png

Yes that.

We will just agree to disagree on the impact of hope. Seems like we are somewhat on the same page past that point.

[TSA]

Your question is irrelevant to the discussion, so I'm not bothering with it.



We'll accept your retraction and apology for promoting fake news whenever you're ready.

It's completely relevant and that is why you won't answer.

Let's just skip the bullshit. The exact quotes and story from the May 11th article were from the Comey memos reported on days later. I retract the statement that the May 11th story said memos.

Comey leakedPERIOD.

[Reck]

one of the better analogies i had heard came from the daily show (which i admittedly have rarely watched since stewart stepped down)...

if vito corleone was talking to you and said "i really hope you're going to pay me by next week"

Kamala Harris made a great one too, I thought.

“In my experience of prosecuting cases,” Harris said, "when a robber held a gun to somebody’s head and said 'I hope you will give me your wallet,' the word hope was not the most operative word.”

[TSA]

Back to welching? You did as well so it appears we're on the same boat.

And why do you continue to dodge my questions? Just say you have no answer to the questions and we move on.

"on the same boat"

You're a FOB for sure :lol

[TSA]

Kamala Harris made a great one too, I thought.

“In my experience of prosecuting cases,” Harris said, "when a robber held a gun to somebody’s head and said 'I hope you will give me your wallet,' the word hope was not the most operative word.”

:rolling of course you would think that's a great analogy

[Adam Lambert]

even though he made sure to clear the room first, and had brought up loyalty while threatening comeys job, if trump said hope then he must have literally meant hope. who are we to not give the potus the benefit of the doubt hes earned so well?

lol at what the chickenshits will say to convince themselves were not under the rule of a piece of shit

[Reck]

"on the same boat"

You're a FOB for sure :lol

More dodgy posts. lol Living up to your nickname cuck.


:rolling of course you would think that's a great analogy

Because...wait for it.....it is.

You live on cloud 9 and reality is not your strong suit.

You're better off answering those pesky question or continue looking like a hapless fool.

[TSA]

More dodgy posts. lol Living up to your nickname cuck.



Because...wait for it.....it is.

You live on cloud 9 and reality is not your strong suit.

You're better off answering those pesky question or continue looking like a hapless fool.

What fucking pesky questions are you talking about? This is the only question I can find you asked me.


Who starts an article saying I am right, everyone else is wrong?

Alan Morton Dershowitz starts an article like that. Any other pesky questions? :rollin

Are you going to post the dozen articles you promised or just pull bitch made and welch again?

[TSA]

you are one stupid motherfucker Reck I almost feel bad for taking advantage, but I did take time off so I don't

[clambake]

I ask again but nervous about character broken.

i don't know what this is, but its funny.

[clambake]

you are one stupid motherfucker Reck I almost feel bad for taking advantage, but I did take time off so I don't

hey hey you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[spurraider21]

Yes that.

We will just agree to disagree on the impact of hope. Seems like we are somewhat on the same page past that point.i didnt think it was relevant because it was never under dispute whether or not trump used the word "hope" which that exchange just repeats twice

[Reck]

What fucking pesky questions are you talking about? This is the only question I can find you asked me.

Never go full retard bro.


BTW, Dershowitz is the same guy who went on television and said Trump's travel ban was constitutional.

How did the judges react to that and continue to view it as again?

And you call me the dumbest poster here. LMAO

I hope you answer the question, TSA. Oh, so very hope you do.

[Thread]

From your girl that's supposed to mop the floor with Ossoff.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPkY-dhuI7w

:lmao

It don't matter to me, Recky. I just want to not lose.

[vy65]

Yes that.

We will just agree to disagree on the impact of hope. Seems like we are somewhat on the same page past that point.

Context is important though. You can't cherry-pick a word and hang the entirety of a case on that one word.

In cases where intent is important (like fraud for example), you rarely-if-ever have direct evidence of the bad/fraudulent intent. People don't admit to shit like "I did X because I wanted to defraud this person." Instead, you have to look at the surrounding facts and circumstances to deduce what is really going on.

The same is true here. Taken as a whole, there is some indication that Trump may have interfered with an on-going investigation. You might disagree with that, and that's fine. But to hinge the entire assessment on whether something improper occured on a single word is beyond stupid.

[TSA]

Never go full retard bro.



And you call me the dumbest poster here. LMAO

I hope you answer the question, TSA. Oh, so very hope you do.

I think the revised travel ban will hold up in the Supreme Court, as do many others who didn't think the first one would.

Are you now going to post the dozen articles you promised or welch again?

[vy65]

The whole obstruction of justice issue is a side-show anyway.

If the congress were actually looking to impeach, which they're not, there are other avenues to go other than claiming that Trump committed a felony. Article II, Section 4 indicates that articles of impeachment may issue if the President commits treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

High crimes and misdemeanors is a term of art that, based on a quick internet search, doesn't have much associated case law. But the history surrounding the phrase is pretty instructive:


The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Whether or not Trump obstructed the administration of the law is one thing. A much easier case to prove would be to show that Trump's interactions with Comey -- regardless of whether they show beyond a reasonable doubt that he obstructed justice -- nevertheless show such poor judgment that he is unfit to serve.

[pgardn]

It don't matter to me, Recky. I just want to not lose.

You will never lose as long as you get to define whether you have won or lost.
No worries.

Life is good for you. Keep it simple.

[SnakeBoy]

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

:rollin

:lol

[Reck]

I think the revised travel ban will hold up in the Supreme Court, as do many others who didn't think the first one would.

Are you now going to post the dozen articles you promised or welch again?

Google it.

I dont need to hand hold you through every little thing. Or maybe I do.

The latter probably.

[TSA]

Context is important though. You can't cherry-pick a word and hang the entirety of a case on that one word.

In cases where intent is important (like fraud for example), you rarely-if-ever have direct evidence of the bad/fraudulent intent. People don't admit to shit like "I did X because I wanted to defraud this person." Instead, you have to look at the surrounding facts and circumstances to deduce what is really going on.

The same is true here. Taken as a whole, there is some indication that Trump may have interfered with an on-going investigation. You might disagree with that, and that's fine. But to hinge the entire assessment on whether something improper occured on a single word is beyond stupid.

It's not just the word it's the events following. Trump said it one time, the day after he fired Flynn. Comey testified to that. Comey also testified not a single head of any other agency nor anyone from the WH or DOJ asked him to do the same. It was never pushed on Comey to drop it.

Curious to hear your thoughts on Trump's ability under the constitution to shut down the investigation into Flynn had he so wished.

[TSA]

Google it.

I dont need to hand hold you through every little thing. Or maybe I do.

The latter probably.

Please hold my hand and fulfill your promise of a dozen articles correctly refuting Dershowitz, or welch, again.

[Pavlov]

Don't know how to make the polls but who more mad at Trump lawyer tonight?

Trump or TSA?

[TSA]

:lol

:rollin it gets me every time I see it

[Reck]

Please hold my hand and fulfill your promise of a dozen articles correctly refuting Dershowitz, or welch, again.

Fulfill mono's request and perhaps I will.

You talk about welching but your refusal to do what he's asking is telling. You lost, so the decent thing is to own up and apologize for using fake news.

[vy65]

It's not just the word it's the events following. Trump said it one time, the day after he fired Flynn. Comey testified to that. Comey also testified not a single head of any other agency nor anyone from the WH or DOJ asked him to do the same. It was never pushed on Comey to drop it.

He also testified to several statements about loyalty coming from Trump, to having a 1-on-1 meeting with Comey to the exclusion of Comey's boss (Sessions), to having 6 or so interactions with Trump in a 4 month span (he had 2 with Obama in a 3 year span).

Do you think any of these interactions were proper?


Curious to hear your thoughts on Trump's ability under the constitution to shut down the investigation into Flynn had he so wished.

Short answer is, I don't know. At first blush, I'd guess he has the power, but shouldn't exercise it. I'd imagine the President has the power for really extreme situations -- and this doesn't seem like that.

Independance amongst federal agencies is pretty important in the overall government scheme. That's why people like Comey are appointed for 10 year terms -- so they don't have to satisfy the whims of a politician. Interference with that independance strikes me as highly improper.

But again, I don't know for sure. I haven't done the research. What are your thoughts?

[TSA]

Uh oh.....more meetings with Comey/Lynch coming out

[Pavlov]

Lynch*ding*

[Reck]

TSA Watch your claim go bye bye.

872835418194157568

Wonder how ST lawyers spurraider21 vy65 see this as.

[TSA]

He also testified to several statements about loyalty coming from Trump, to having a 1-on-1 meeting with Comey to the exclusion of Comey's boss (Sessions), to having 6 or so interactions with Trump in a 4 month span (he had 2 with Obama in a 3 year span).

Do you think any of these interactions were proper?


Trump's not a seasoned politician so I doubt he saw them as improper. He's still in "business" mode. I wasn't there so can't really comment.

Comey seemed to contradict his written statement today about times with Obama but that's a non-story.



Short answer is, I don't know. At first blush, I'd guess he has the power, but shouldn't exercise it. I'd imagine the President has the power for really extreme situations -- and this doesn't seem like that.

Independance amongst federal agencies is pretty important in the overall government scheme. That's why people like Comey are appointed for 10 year terms -- so they don't have to satisfy the whims of a politician. Interference with that independance strikes me as highly improper.

But again, I don't know for sure. I haven't done the research. What are your thoughts?

Sounds like we are on the same page. Would have been terrible optics and probably why he didn't do it.

[vy65]

It's not just the word it's the events following. Trump said it one time, the day after he fired Flynn. Comey testified to that. Comey also testified not a single head of any other agency nor anyone from the WH or DOJ asked him to do the same. It was never pushed on Comey to drop it.

Curious to hear your thoughts on Trump's ability under the constitution to shut down the investigation into Flynn had he so wished.

1. I expect loyalty
2. Drop Flynn investigation
3. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation; but some of my satellite associates may be
4. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation, "because I have been very loyal to you" and "because we had that thing you know.

[Reck]

And another example:

872852857132916736

[TSA]

*ding*

you take advice well :tu

stick with it and your slip ups will be forgotten

[Pavlov]

Trump's not a seasoned politician so I doubt he saw them as improper. He's still in "business" mode. I wasn't there so can't really comment. You just make comment then say can't comment.

This odd.

[vy65]

Trump's not a seasoned politician so I doubt he saw them as improper. He's still in "business" mode. I wasn't there so can't really comment.

Comey seemed to contradict his written statement today about times with Obama but that's a non-story.

That's besides the point. He's the president now. He has obligations that he didn't have as a businessman. He took an oath. His inexperience got him the job -- and the responsibility. He can't hide behind the inexperience.

I didn't ask whether Trump sees it as improper. I'm sure he didn't. But that's besides the point. In any event, do you consider it improper?


Sounds like we are on the same page. Would have been terrible optics and probably why he didn't do it.

Yeah I mean I don't know what to say other than the optics look like that's why he did it.

[TSA]

1. I expect loyalty
2. Drop Flynn investigation
3. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation; but some of my satellite associates may be
4. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation, "because I have been very loyal to you" and "because we had that thing you know.
1. Disputed already. He said/he said
2. Hope you let it go
3. Continue to investigate if satellites did
4. ???

[DMX7]

Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest? BOOM! :toast

[TSA]

That's besides the point. He's the president now. He has obligations that he didn't have as a businessman. He took an oath. His inexperience got him the job -- and the responsibility. He can't hide behind the inexperience.

I didn't ask whether Trump sees it as improper. I'm sure he didn't. But that's besides the point. In any event, do you consider it improper?



Yeah I mean I don't know what to say other than the optics look like that's why he did it.
At this point we've only heard Comey's side of their 1 on 1 talks. I wasn't there and would at least like to hear the other side before deeming improper.

[vy65]

TSA Watch your claim go bye bye.

872835418194157568

Wonder how ST lawyers spurraider21 vy65 see this as.

Without having read these decisions, I'm willing to bet none of them turn on the phrase "I hope." It's a question of whether that statement, along with other evidence, is sufficient to show whether a crime was committed (the quoted portion in the second tweet makes the same point I made re: circumstantial evidence). I don't think saying "I hope" is dispositive one way or another.

Also, spurraider aint no fucking lawyer yet. This is still my house.

[TSA]

1. I expect loyalty
2. Drop Flynn investigation
3. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation; but some of my satellite associates may be
4. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation, "because I have been very loyal to you" and "because we had that thing you know.

Do you not think that 3 and 4 would not piss a guy like Trumo off to the point of firing Comey?

[TSA]

Also, spurraider aint no fucking lawyer yet. This is still my house.
:lol

[TSA]

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

night ya'll.

Take it easy on Reck I'd like to see my dozen articles tomorrow

[Pavlov]

TSA answer questions tomorrow? Leave like Trump lawyer today.

[Reck]

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

night ya'll.

Take it easy on Reck I'd like to see my dozen articles tomorrow

Night, bro.

[ducks]

IBD/TIPP Poll: 57 Percent Think Media to Blame for Russia Hoopla

[Pavlov]

Media*ding*

[pgardn]

Trump's not a seasoned politician so I doubt he saw them as improper. He's still in "business" mode.

Ya think.

He is not seasoned in how a democracy works, he's fine at politics.

One interesting side effect of this circus. It has the general public much more interested in how our democracy works.

[vy65]

Do you not think that 3 and 4 would not piss a guy like Trumo off to the point of firing Comey?

Huh? Do I think Nos 3, 4 would piss Trump off to the point he fired Comey? Why only 3,4? What about 1,2?

I think that Nos 1-4 give a picture of why Trump fired Comey.

[monosylab1k]

You just make comment then say can't comment.

This odd.

:lmao

[pgardn]

https://i.redd.it/lyr5quphfcdy.gif

night ya'll.

Take it easy on Reck I'd like to see my dozen articles tomorrow

This is great.

Definitely Thread masturbating material.

[spurraider21]

Without having read these decisions, I'm willing to bet none of them turn on the phrase "I hope." It's a question of whether that statement, along with other evidence, is sufficient to show whether a crime was committed (the quoted portion in the second tweet makes the same point I made re: circumstantial evidence). I don't think saying "I hope" is dispositive one way or another.

Also, spurraider aint no fucking lawyer yet. This is still my house.
i have a J.D. motherfucker

[spurraider21]

TSA (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7640) Watch your claim go bye bye.

872835418194157568

Wonder how ST lawyers spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905) vy65 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11399) see this as.
i get that he used the word hope here, but i don't think it's on point. they're very different scenarios.

there were 2 important events in this person's conviction for obstruction (there were multiple offenses here, but just talking about obstruction)

1) while in prison, he held a note that just said "Don't tell them about the knife."
2) separately, he sent a letter saying "i hope and pray to god you did not say anything about a weapon..."

i think they were considered together... and the 2nd letter was after the fact that basically just confirms the intent (imo). there's no telling if just 1 of those would have been sufficient for a conviction, and it's not really discussed much here.

[spurraider21]

And another example:

872852857132916736
this was an obstruction charge, but for witness tampering before a grand jury proceeding. but it does talk about what vy was mentioning, that specific intent is usually drawn from circumstantial evidence. i read the case and they dont really talk about the word "hoping" being a deciding factor at all. but in combination with other quotes, they found it to be enough. they use statements from the next day to show intent. here's the continuation of that pic you took.

https://i.gyazo.com/f9ae100a9281c59ac1b83a08b5301079.png

[SnakeBoy]

this was an obstruction charge, but for witness tampering before a grand jury proceeding. but it does talk about what vy was mentioning, that specific intent is usually drawn from circumstantial evidence. i read the case and they dont really talk about the word "hoping" being a deciding factor at all. but in combination with other quotes, they found it to be enough. they use statements from the next day to show intent. here's the continuation of that pic you took.

https://i.gyazo.com/f9ae100a9281c59ac1b83a08b5301079.png

Very polite and lawyerly way of telling Reck he's grasping at straws

[spurraider21]

Very polite and lawyerly way of telling Reck he's grasping at straws
i think vy said it best. the word "hope" isn't dispositive one way or the other.

[Thread]

You will never lose as long as you get to define whether you have won or lost.
No worries.

Life is good for you. Keep it simple.

He mopped the fuckin' floor with her fuckin ass.

Trump President. Not Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

NY Daily News leaves little to the imagination in their post-Comey hearing cover


http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/LIAR.jpg

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/ny-daily-news-leaves-little-to-the-imagination-in-their-post-comey-hearing-cover/

[boutons_deux]

Regug assholes defense is "hope"less, since their entire defense is attacking "hope" :lol

[RandomGuy]

I hope you give me your wallet.


https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/3/005/086/169/1dd9a70.jpg


Republican: Well, in that case because "hope" isn't really a compelling specific request, no thanks, I will be on my way...

BANG!!

:rollin

[RandomGuy]

i think vy said it best. the word "hope" isn't dispositive one way or the other.

Context matters.

In the context of the President of the United States ordering everybody else out of the room, and firing the FBI director after his "hopes" weren't realized, saying explicitly that he was fired because of the investigation, it is more than enough.

Trump stupid, not Clinton. :)