Reply With Quote
he should sue for wrongful termination.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...mey-060817.pdfThe President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.
My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.
I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.
A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.
he should sue for wrongful termination.
thread worthy
Like you have any authority on what is thread worthy
From the non dupe thread
Trump hoped Comey would let it go with Flynn since he was already fired
Comey told Trump multiple times he was not under investigation
yeah cuz BEING FIRED was the most serious consequence
It was effectively a threat since he most likely got fired for not letting it go.
This also doesn't mean Mueller is not now investigating him or that the FBI hasn't uncovered new evidence that implicates Trump and he is now included in the probe.
Trumpies are so intellectually challenged. lol
remember when wapo reported this originally and you kept calling it fake news and we dont even know if the memo exists or not
remember when they reported the specifics of trump asking for his loyalty, being ofered honesty, and then asking for honest loyalty, and you laughed it off because "nobody has even seen these memos or even know if they exist" or something along those lines?
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-07-2017 at 03:06 PM.
Like you have any authority on what others find thread worthy...Like you have any authority on what is thread worthy
Pizzaman.
You're a lawyer of sorts right?remember when wapo reported this originally and you kept calling it fake news and we dont even know if the memo exists or not
Comey actually says he "believes" Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation. Isn't that clear cut obstruction of justice?
I dont know what else do you need to call this nothing but. In his testimony he says he believes Trump asked him to and that Comey should let it go. Also went on to talk about lifting the burden of the cloud the Russian investigation was causing.
Legally, where does this put Trump?
Thats gonna be a tough one to prove.
I think the Pres has to actually put it all together, drop it or I will fire you. Think it has to be really blatant. But it still leaves little doubt we have a underhanded quack as president. The Republicans will turn on him eventually. Sessions even has seen the displays of incompetence.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1510
there's nothing in comey's statements that indicated a bribe
Trump was pissed that Comey would tell him, privately, that he wasn't personally under investigation, but wouldn't say that publicly, i.e. "Lift the cloud"
I think that's why Trump fired him.
Keep in mind that Comey is an experienced lawyer who has prosecuted obstruction cases. I think if he really thought that there was obstruction, he would've used stronger language.
or something along those lines lol. Sure I guess. I'm also said I'd wait for the memos until making judgement, or something along those lines.remember when wapo reported this originally and you kept calling it fake news and we dont even know if the memo exists or not
remember when they reported the specifics of trump asking for his loyalty, being ofered honesty, and then asking for honest loyalty, and you laughed it off because "nobody has even seen these memos or even know if they exist" or something along those lines?
There are plenty more statutes that can be used beyond this.
A quick glance at this tells me that its a better fit: 18 USC 1505
"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—"
There's a ton of case law construing each of these statutes. An off-the-cuff legal opinion ain't worth much
Running joke from another thread old man. Relax and enjoy an Ensure.
yes. something along those lines. here.
NYT hasn't seen the memo, had the memo read to them by an "associate", and hasn't had Comey confirm their existence.
evidencegot
Solly Cholly, Comey is no longer an officer of the court.
Just another American with a beef.
how cute you've joined the rest of the Dem phobes on this site.
yeah i didnt go through that full code section, just saw the first one that caught my eye.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
