Comey Hearing

[n david]

Libs will be sad. Comey isn't going to make their claim that he was obstructed by Trump.

"""There will be much in former FBI Director James Comey’s upcoming congressional testimony that will make the White House uncomfortable, but he will stop short of saying the president interfered with the agency's probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a source familiar with Comey's thinking told ABC News."""

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclu...ry?id=47865739

[Aquila]

We'll have to see what Comey's testimony states. We'll also have to see what questions are posed to him, especially seeing that Comey's testimony is going to be after the testimony of NSA Director Mark Rogers on Wednesday.

As for Trump not firing Comey over the Russian investigation... well... I'll let Trump's own words explain it...

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said, according to the Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

The comments represented an extraordinary moment in the investigation, which centers in part on the administration’s contacts with Russian officials: A day after firing the man leading that inquiry, Mr. Trump disparaged him — to Russian officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/u...omey.html?_r=0

Trump is a traitor to our interests and a compromiser before our enemies. Everyone knows it. Even if he is never prosecuted, it's painful obvious to anyone who is paying attention. After all, at present, the idea of impeachment is more popular than Trump is.

But part of me doesn't want him impeached. I think it might be better if he sticks around for at least a little while longer.

But Wednesday will certainly set the tone for Comey's testimony on Thursday.

[n david]

LoL Already hedging your bets, eh?

Regardless of investigation, POTUS had legal right to fire Comey for any reason. POTUS firing Comey does not equal obstruction.

Of course liberals like you don't really want Trump impeached. Libs secretly love Trump. They want him in office the full term. If he gets impeached now, they'll not only lose their ability to lie and get the media to push their lies against Trump to handcuff him from getting things done, but it's a long time yet til the midterms -- they'd lose ability to frame the election around Trump.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

LoL Already hedging your bets, eh?

Regardless of investigation, POTUS had legal right to fire Comey for any reason. POTUS firing Comey does not equal obstruction.

Of course liberals like you don't really want Trump impeached. Libs secretly love Trump. They want him in office the full term. If he gets impeached now, they'll not only lose their ability to lie and get the media to push their lies against Trump to handcuff him from getting things done, but it's a long time yet til the midterms -- they'd lose ability to frame the election around Trump.

I think any idiot can see that Trump fired Comey after Mark Rogers and Dan Coats refused to discredit Comey's investigation.

The impartial observer might think that Trump fired Comey because he feared what the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the president’s contacts with Russia might reveal—as the commander in chief has essentially admitted. Moreover, Trump’s inappropriate efforts to secure Comey’s personal “loyalty” had fallen flat—the FBI director rightly assured the president of his honesty but abjured any fealty to Trump personally—after which the president is reported to have developed a palpable fear of the incorruptible Bureau boss. To protect Team Trump, Comey had to go.

But cashiering Comey was insufficient. True to form, Trump seemingly took the offensive against the FBI. According to multiple reports, the president approached top intelligence bosses to coax them into joining Trump’s personal war with Comey. In particular, Trump is reported to have asked Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence (DNI), and Admiral Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, to go public in denying that Team Trump had any ties to Russia during the 2016 election campaign

The president’s take on the FBI investigation is well known, thanks to his frequent tweets castigating it as “fake news,” a “hoax” and even a “witch hunt.” However, asking top intelligence officials to publicly attack the FBI and its director isn’t just unusual—it’s unprecedented. Even President Nixon, in the depths of the Watergate scandal, which ultimately unraveled his administration, never went quite so far as to drag NSA into his public mess.

Admiral Rogers anecdotally flatly denied Trump’s request, which—if true—was inappropriate, unethical and dubiously legal, while Coats, a Trump appointee who’s only been in the DNI job since mid-March, likewise refused to back the president against the FBI. This was a stunning setback for Trump, who seems to view our nation’s top security officials as his personal employees who ought to follow his presidential whim rather than the law and the Constitution, which all of them take an oath to defend.

http://observer.com/2017/05/mike-rog...d-with-russia/

You're defending the indefensible. And hopefully, Admiral Rogers will set the appropriate tone on Wednesday. This will no doubt influence the questions and examination of Comey and his testimony. They might very well push Comey further than he is intending to go.

Of course, I thought this stuff would come to light much sooner. Remember when I was telling people to just wait. It's taken longer than expected. There are additional elements to this. We'll see if they come to light before Comey's testimony or if they come to light in the wake of it. Either way, trust me, the plot gets thicker. And the rabbit hole goes far deeper.

[n david]

I'm not defending the indefensible...it is fact with past precedence: POTUS can fire the Director of the FBI at any time and for any reason.

Reagan did it. Clinton did it. It's settled fact that POTUS had the legal and constitutional authority to fire Comey.

I wouldn't have recommended it. The timing was clearly terrible and gave fuel to the fire from liberals that it was a form of obstruction.

But it was 100% completely legal and cannot be viewed as obstruction.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not defending the indefensible...it is fact with past precedence: POTUS can fire the Director of the FBI at any time and for any reason.

Reagan did it. Clinton did it. It's settled fact that POTUS had the legal and constitutional authority to fire Comey.

I wouldn't have recommended it. The timing was clearly terrible and gave fuel to the fire from liberals that it was a form of obstruction.

But it was 100% completely legal and cannot be viewed as obstruction.

You honestly think this, even though the FBI Director was fired after Trump had approached Coats and Rogers to discredit Comey's investigation and they refused? LOL

Hey, if you're interested, I have a bridge in Brooklyn if you're interesting in buying. I'll send you paypal information if you'd like.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You honestly think this, even though the FBI Director was fired after Trump had approached Coats and Rogers to discredit Comey's investigation and they refused? LOL

Hey, if you're interested, I have a bridge in Brooklyn if you're interesting in buying. I'll send you paypal information if you'd like.

Do I honestly think POTUS has legal authority and there is past precedent in previous POTUS' firing FBI Directors?

Uhm, yes. It's fact.

Facts don't care about liberal conspiracy theories.

[n david]

Reading and watching talking heads on Twitter...all have much the same talking point: Comey cannot claim obstruction, because to do so would be to admit he committed a crime himself by not reporting it.

Media desperate to continue the obstruction theme...

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We'll have to see what Comey's testimony states. We'll also have to see what questions are posed to him, especially seeing that Comey's testimony is going to be after the testimony of NSA Director Mark Rogers on Wednesday.

As for Trump not firing Comey over the Russian investigation... well... I'll let Trump's own words explain it...

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said, according to the Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

The comments represented an extraordinary moment in the investigation, which centers in part on the administration’s contacts with Russian officials: A day after firing the man leading that inquiry, Mr. Trump disparaged him — to Russian officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/u...omey.html?_r=0

Trump is a traitor to our interests and a compromiser before our enemies. Everyone knows it. Even if he is never prosecuted, it's painful obvious to anyone who is paying attention. After all, at present, the idea of impeachment is more popular than Trump is.

But part of me doesn't want him impeached. I think it might be better if he sticks around for at least a little while longer.

But Wednesday will certainly set the tone for Comey's testimony on Thursday.

When an FBI director tells staff members that he is sticking around because (referring to Trump) "these are not honorable people", he has let ideology cloud his vision and becomes the traitor you accuse Trump of being. Any FBI director that says such a thing is being disloyal to the President he serves and the office he holds and should resign. How would you feel if a GOP appointed FBI director stated he wanted to keep his job to protect the agency from "these people who are not honorable" in reference to a new Democrat President? You'd be screaming for his head. Instead you call Trump a traitor for firing this clown who admits he stayed in office to undermine the new administration.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Reading and watching talking heads on Twitter...all have much the same talking point: Comey cannot claim obstruction, because to do so would be to admit he committed a crime himself by not reporting it.

Media desperate to continue the obstruction theme...

If Comey were to accuse Trump of obstruction, he wouldn't incriminate himself.