Reply With Quote
I have a feeling Sessions is not long for the job.
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-tes...s-8fd68f8de50f
Like Trash, Sessions has no respect for the law, exactly the quality America needs in its top cop.
I have a feeling Sessions is not long for the job.
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.Holy . What a loser.
Spends all day logged in while "at work" "drives" home and logs back in to suck on Trump's some more.
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 what I do as I personally had over 20 million in sales last year
I'll continue to work, post on Spurstalk, and now add ting on you to my daily tasks
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 what I do as I personally had over 20 million in sales last year
I'll continue to work, post on Spurstalk, and now add ting on you to my daily tasksso easily baited.
But I'm ignoring you.
getting chippy in here
It's ok I'm making millions posting on ST.
It's child's play ting on you.
But I'm ignoring you.
does ignoring someone=replying to them in your world?It's child's play ting on you.
Wear that dunce hat proudly
I'll continue to work, post on Spurstalk, and now add ting on you to my daily tasks
What part of I'm done ignoring you and will now continue to on you are you failing to comprehend?
I remember that time TSA said Comey wouldn't say much in his testimony. Oh how a day changes things.
The only re here is you ReckReally, the president has the authority to order the head of an FBI to drop a criminal investigation?
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 Cons ution, 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 cons utional 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 cons utional rights.
Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Cons ution 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional authority.
Where you been all day buddy?
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 cons utional 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-polit...lary-was-right
Dershowitz, you mean the equavalent of John McCain.The only re here is you Reck
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 Cons ution, 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 cons utional 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 cons utional rights.
Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Cons ution 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional authority.
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.
But Flynn is the center piece of the investigation.
Did Comey not say Flynn was in legal jeoperdy? He did.
Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and author. He is a prominent scholar on United States cons utional 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
Sure, but under US code 1001, not the in Logan Act.
I am aware of whom he is as he gets on CNN almost on a nighty basis.Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and author. He is a prominent scholar on United States cons utional 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
For every ty 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.
Fact
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
