Didn't comey already testify in front of Congress? If his hand written note contradicts his testimony he committed perjury, if it compliments it then how is this news?
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 10:55 PM by solohawks.)
LOL, just read the article. It's not even about Flynn, it was about "urging" comey to say publicly what he told President Trump privately.
Also, not a crime.
Quote:According to former FBI Director James Comey’s prepared testimony, he will confirm what Democrats and the media have been denying for weeks: That Comey did in fact tell the president three times that he was not under investigation,” said RNC rapid response director Michael Ahrens.
Rubio to comey: The only thing that hasn't leaked is that Trump wasn't under investigation
1:57 --
Quote:Rubio: Just to be clear, for you to make a public statement that he was not under investigation would not have been illegal, but you felt it made no sense because it could potentially create a duty to correct if circumstances changed.
comey: Yes sir.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 11:11 PM by Kronke.)
Quote:Not only does Comey’s statement corroborate Trump’s claim that the former FBI director told him three times that the president was not being investigated by the FBI, it also reveals the Beltway game Comey was playing with the investigation.
In his statement, as my colleague Mollie Hemingway noted earlier today, Comey acknowledges the accuracy of Trump’s claim — included in the letter announcing Comey’s firing — that Comey had on three separate occasions informed Trump that he was not being investigated by the FBI. The corroboration of the claim by Comey himself is by far the most newsworthy nugget from the lengthy statement. But several other claims from Comey also do far more to indict Comey than they do to implicate Trump.
The most damning aspect of Comey’s prepared testimony is his admission that he deliberately refused to inform the public that Trump was not being personally investigated by the FBI. Comey’s justification for this refusal to publicly disclose material facts — that those facts might change — is laughable, especially in light of Comey’s 2016 two-step regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton.
“I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change,” Comey claims.
Recall that in 2016, Comey had no problem 1) publicly exonerating Hillary Clinton despite the fact that the authority to charge (or not charge) someone with a crime lies with federal prosecutors, not the FBI; 2) using the same press conference to excoriate Clinton’s behavior; 3) telling Congress that the investigation of Clinton was closed; and then 4) announcing days before a presidential election that the FBI had reopened the case and was once again investigating Hillary Clinton. Yet we’re supposed to believe that James Comey had grave moral concerns about disclosing facts that may be subject to change? Please.
If anything, Comey’s latest statement only highlights why Trump was justified in firing Comey in the first place. Comey, according to his own testimony, repeatedly told Trump that the president was not being investigated by the FBI. Not only that, Comey also told Congress that Trump was not being personally investigated. How on earth is it inappropriate, in light of those facts, for the president to ask for those facts to be made public by the very individual asserting them?
Trump’s exasperation looks far more justifiable given the behavior to which Comey admits in his own testimony, largely because Comey’s tortured explanation for refusing to publicly explain those facts, even after disclosing them to Congress, holds so little water.
(01-05-2018 04:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: His notes confirmed Comey’s allegation that Trump pressured him for loyalty. Quid pro quo.
Nope, that's not what it said.
Quote:The special counsel has received handwritten notes from Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, showing that Mr. Trump talked to Mr. Priebus about how he had called Mr. Comey to urge him to say publicly that he was not under investigation.
(01-04-2018 10:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: ALSO from @nytimes story: Hand written notes by Priebus CONFIRM what Comey said about Trump pressuring him (MEANING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE).
You mean they confirm that Trump said someone was a "good guy" and hoped that Coneywould be able to handle the matter quickly? Thats pressure? Sounds like an opinion coupled with a request for efficiency. And thats from Comey---which you now say is verified by Priebus.
Another swing and miss.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 07:05 PM by Attackcoog.)
(01-04-2018 10:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: ALSO from @nytimes story: Hand written notes by Priebus CONFIRM what Comey said about Trump pressuring him (MEANING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE).
You mean they confirm that Trump said someone was a "good guy" and hoped that Coneywould be able to handle the matter quickly? Thats pressure? Sounds like an opinion coupled with a request for efficiency. And thats from Comey---which you now say is verified by Priebus.
Mach, like most solid liberals, is now running away from the dossier.....Trump colluded with the Ruskis.......and are trying to find another means to derail his successes.
Quote:What we have here is the miniaturization of the scandal as originally presented. The conspiracy-mongers are receding and retracting from their original accusations and smears in a fit of anxiety over what Congress will uncover about the Obama Justice Department’s reliance on this Democrat-underwritten dossier.
Its shameless Democratic promoters got everyone lathered up over a false conspiracy theory, and now they’re realizing they overreached and are running for the exits, revising history, recasting narratives, covering their keisters.