Comey Hearing

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

"In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the national security agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

"I have never been pressured. I have never felt pressured to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relation to an ongoing investigation.”

Read the statements. They didn't just state what they "felt," they outright stated it did not happen. "I have NEVER been directed ..." "I have NEVER been pressured."

I'm not saying that they felt pressured or that they were asked to do anything they believed was illegal or immoral. I'm saying that they refused to publically answer specific questions relating to non-classified conversations with Trump. Trump may very well have asked them to discredit or intervene in Comey's investigation, they simply might not have felt pressured to do so or felt that it would have been illegal or immoral to do so. Until they disclose the details that they refused to answer... we simply don't know what was said to them by Trump regarding Comey's investigation.

You're acting like the media now, putting your opinion as fact. We somewhat agreed the other day that there may have been good reason not to confirm/deny in open hearing. This is your opinion based on nothing.

On some issues. However, there were questions that left the panel and many of us watching wondering why they wouldn't just answer the question. It wasn't classified, and if they didn't feel pressured or that anything asked of them or said to them was illegal or immoral in any way, why not just give the details? What if Trump asked them about the possible ramifications of ordering them to intervene in Comey's investigation? They wouldn't feel pressure or feel they were being asked to do anything immoral. However, they might know that if they were honest and open about the conversation it would definitely reveal Trump's consideration of that option.

Since they refused to really provide any answers, we don't know what was said or the context it was said in.

It was pretty evident, Aquila. It's too bad no one asked him if he was angry for Trump firing him. (Someone may have, I wasn't able to view the whole hearing.) He said he felt the POTUS defamed him. He called the POTUS a liar. He stated more than once that his was a 10-year position and he had six years left before Trump fired him. The man is angry. Anyone could see that.

I can see Comey being angry over being fired. Really, who wouldn't be? But Trump did defame him and even the bureau indicating that it was a mess etc. But Trump had no real complaints until he realized Comey wasn't going to drop the investigation into Flynn. And calling Trump a liar is not something that is opinion. Comey was rather pointed on those things that Trump specifically lied about. Something is either a lie or it isn't.

Remains to be seen? Comey intentionally leaked a conversation between himself and Trump to damage Trump and force a SC. He called the POTUS a liar. He did all but actually say Trump committed obstruction, and likely did not use the word because it would put himself in legal jeopardy.

Was the conversation Classified or Secret? If not, it can't be called a "leak". In addition, it's free to be retold and even shared in a speech at a banquet if desired.

Read the opening statement. Trump wasn't under investigation period. Not in the Flynn investigation. Not in the broader Russian investigation. Comey claims what you claim here ... that perhaps in the future if something is found which requires Trump to be under investigation, the FBI would look bad. Nonsense. Comey could have easily stated, "At this present time, President Trump is not personally under investigation. This investigation is ongoing and as a result, President Trump may in the future be a subject of the investigation, but at this present time he is not under investigation."

Trump is not "personally under investigation". Remember, we're dealing with the FBI and a lot of legalese.

The guy bent over backward for Lynch and Hillary, to make sure the FBI didn't say she was under investigation.

I'd have to know exactly when that was said in relation to the inquiries and the investigation. Timing is everything and there is a lot of legalese involved in these things.

Comey and the POTUS were speaking in the Oval Office. This was a private conversation in the Oval Office between he and the POTUS alone. Regardless of there not being any classified information discussed, any conversation in the Oval Office with the POTUS is privileged and should not be leaked to the press in a blatant attempt to damage the POTUS.

Not so. If I met privately with the President, I could freely discuss it at a banquet, in an interview, under oath, in a book, or even on my Facebook... unless it was specifically noted to be classified, secret, or if I was specifically asked to keep it confidential. And even if I were only asked to keep it confidential, there would be no legal requirement for me to do so. I could be sued in civil court if my retelling of the conversation defamed the President or resulted in "damages" of some kind. But it wouldn't be criminal and it wouldn't be a "leak". It would most likely just keep me from being invited back to the White House. lol

He worded it such to keep himself out of prison. It's why he didn't come right out and claim Trump obstructed justice. He gave red meat to libs and the press by talking about his feelings and guessing as to what Trump was thinking at the time.

It isn't his place while in testimony to determine of something was or was not obstruction of justice. That's for those investigating the issue to determine.

However, I agree, Comey did share what he felt the President meant during the conversation. To Comey, he felt like Trump was acting like a mob boss who was discretely giving him an offer he couldn't refuse. lol

Again, you can hope, but I don't believe there will be. Libs, the media and now Comey have a lot riding on their hopes that Trump will be charged with obstruction. The amount of time they've spent trying to damage Trump over nothing is ridiculous.

If all they have is the possibility of obstruction, I'd be surprised if they charged Trump with anything. Obstruction is generally an additional charge related to a more serious charge. But the pettiness of party politics on both sides leaves me feeling like I wouldn't be surprised if some felt they should.

Enter... Robert Mueller. Have you seen the team of prosecutors he's assembling? The prosecution team has experience prosecuting multiple crime families, bribery/international bribery, international money laundering, corporate fraud (the executives of Enron), and Watergate. .

James L Quarles III
Andrew Weissmann
Aaron Zebley
Jeannie Rhee
Peter Carr

Obstruction isn't what will be at the center of the prosecution's case.

I believe that Comey's testimony is only the beginning.