by Coded Logic 134 Replies latest social current
I understand that there are a lot of emotions on both sides of this issue. But perhaps we can leave personal insults and digs out of the remarks. Please remember the following general rules:
Rule 2: When debating - don't take things personally.
Rule 3: When debating - don't make things personal
. . .
Rule 1: Be aware you will almost always break rules 2 and 3.
Coded Logic, I can debate with you, and others, but some I really don't feel like its a debate, so I don't care about debate rules if someone is an idiot, I'd like to let them know lol. Like BOHM and Spoletta
But I digress, the person at biggest risk of getting screwed here is Comey, and I actually think an impeachment could cause more problems in this country at this moment than Trump currently is causing in all honesty.
FreemindFade -
I think you may be taking the answer out of context. Comey was referencing if the Department of Justice could stop an investigation. He was NOT saying that Trump had never asked him to stop an investigation. Here's the transcript:
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.
I'll also add that Comey's answer is 100% correct. The State Department has never stopped an FBI investigation. Outside of Nixon, I don't think they've even tried to.
I don't think so, he could have just stopped there, at not in my experience, but he elaborated.
Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.
IF the Memo exists, and IF Comey really did think it was a big deal, he has boxed himself in for not doing anything about it.
Do you think this part is confined to the DOJ?
But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.
There are only two outcomes, 1. it doesn't exist, or 2. it does, and Comey lied and didn't do anything about until after he got fired. Just think about it.
It will be interesting to hear him testify and to see the memo. I feel the actual tone of the supposed leak still doesn't amount to "intent", but the damage may be done either way and Trump may be in hot water.
I could see Comey testifying, saying it happened, but he did not take it as Trump trying to interfere. then we are back at square one and all this hype was for nothing.
FMF: between calling me a spaz and an idiot, I will simply invite you to read what Comey said. Comey was not asked if POTUS asked him to stop the investigation, AND Comey never says that POTUS did not ask him to stop the investigation. Notice "they" in the sentence refers back to the original question where "they = AG+DOJ".
Please don't get your news from Jack Posobiecs twitter feed. That is a bit embarrassing and you can expect yourself to be continually misinformed.
FMF-
Are you sure those are the only 2 options? I can think of at least a few more:
3: Comey was building a case about Trump interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation.
4: Comey was seeking to preserve the Russia Investigation and did not want to bias his agents.
5: Comey felt his words alone were not sufficient to bring charges against the President of the United States.
6: Comey was considering rolling a Obstruction of Justice charge in with the Russian Investigation.
. . .
I'm not really sure why people are trying to make an issue out of this. It's very common for law enforcement officials to hold off on pursuing smaller charges so as to not compromise larger investigations.
You don't pull over a drug trafficker for speeding when he's on his way to pick up a cocaine shipment. And the criminal saying, "well the officer knew I was speeding and didn't stop me" in no way gets him out of trouble for either speeding or drug trafficking.
But I do agree with you. It will be interesting to see what Comey has to say. I can't wait until he testifies!
Comey was building a case about Trump interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation.
Then it wouldn't be leaked, it would have been more serious
Comey was seeking to preserve the Russia Investigation and did not want to bias his agents.
Same, doesn't matter, if it was an obstruction of justice, he would have had to have done something more serious about it, not wrote himself a memo that got leaked 3 months later
Comey felt his words alone were not sufficient to bring charges against the President of the United States.
Agreed
Comey was considering rolling a Obstruction of Justice charge in with the Russian Investigation.
Same as the above two answers, it would have been handled much differently. Also wouldn't leaking case material in an obstruction case put the leaker in a very dangerous position??
BOHM I have no idea who you are talking about, the expert from the Comey testimony is all over the internet, chose whatever maniac you want to try and associate me with, I have no idea who you are talking about. If he tweeted about I am sure he is not the only one... idiot
FMF: BOHM I have no idea who you are talking about, the expert from the Comey testimony is all over the internet, chose whatever maniac you want to try and associate me with, I have no idea who you are talking about. If he tweeted about I am sure he is not the only one... idiot
Yah well. You wrote this:
FMF: Comey said under oath that Trump did not ask him to halt any investigation - 5/8/17
Minutes after known pedler of conspiracies Jack Posobiec wrote this on twitter:
Jack Posobiec: Comey said under oath that Trump did not ask him to halt any investigation - 5/8/17
Notice the similarities? Like, somone took the tweet and copy pasted it onto JWN lol. You are really trying to convince me that you just happened to come upon this testimony, moments after Jack did, and happened to write exactly the same as he did ;-).
BTW. is it all cool that we call each other idiots now on this forum? When did that happen?
Update: Just wanted to add: This is definitely not the only example of how this forum has become a dumping ground of opinions and views from a few select right-wing sites (certain twitter feeds, the_donald, /pol/ on 4chan, etc.). I am also having a suspicion we may be dealing with some sock-puppeteering.
bohm: you are the one focusing on the person and not the subject. How about you stick to the topic? All that matters is whether the information is true or not. Just because someone you don't like may have posted it doesn't automagically make it false. Bad news and inconvenient facts usually come from the opposition side don't they.
