Wut? iLOL
I said that would be unlikely.
I took the sentence "You don't just give people information to hold for you to release at their whim after you are fired." to be chastisement of Comey's presumed actions. Upon re-reading the whole post, I misunderstood your comment. Then we agree that it did not happen that way.
In my original post to you I stated the following.
If investigated that will likely be the given excuse but it is not a rational one.
You don't just give people information to hold for you to release at their whim after you are fired.
You would have to assume they took it upon themselves to immediately give information to the news instead of conferring with the person who gave it to them.
That scenario is extremely is unlikely.
Here you say you agree it did not happen that way, yet that is exactly what was reported as happening.
Mr. Comey described details of his refusal to pledge his loyalty to Mr. Trump to several people close to him on the condition that they not discuss it publicly while he was F.B.I. director. But now that Mr. Comey has been fired, they felt free to discuss it on the condition of anonymity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html
Please note the
"several people close to him".
The two people allegedly releasing this info to the reporter of this article are supposedly part of those several people close to him.
Yet he only testified to giving it to one person close to him to release, not someone else and not multiple others.
It would seem? Where did you get this info?
Is this what Comey said?
The information I provided can be found in the NY Times article of May 11th, as well as the background information provided by Comey in his testimony and/or written statement. I don't know which factual specific you object to.
You can believe that. But its actually going to take an investigation to prove.
Two anonymous people in the article of the 11th? No, not buying that at this time, and wont believe it until these people reveal themselves.
As the above printed story is not likely, either these leakers reveal themselves to confirm this or it was Comey in collusion with his friend Daniel Richman, whom Comey already confirmed leaked said memo information.
If he said that, literally, he didn't recall a memo at anytime prior to his slumber then he lied for dramatic effect. I recall he said something about being reminded of the memo(s), and realized the need to get it out to the media ASAP and the public. In any event, it has no bearing on the accusation that he leaked the memos on or before May 11th, and therefore is lying.
No. His comment doesn't make any sense.
That Trump
supposedly asked for loyalty was reported based on said memo information that
supposedly "two people" released to the reporter.
There would then be no reason for Comey to then release said information after Trump's tweet on the 15th. It was already out there so there would be no reason to get it out there
again. It has the appearance of fabrication.
"No therefore here"? Perhaps you would prefer:
"There is no evidence he "leaked" the actual memos to anyone before the date he specified. Therefore your 'seeming' accusation that Comey 'appears' to have lied has no legs."
So you think that saves your point, do you?
Of course it does.
Appearance allows for one to be incorrect, as appearances can be deceiving, whereas an actual accusation does not.
In other words; It looks like it, it may not be, but it does look like it.
Handwaving. Please specify which part of my statement do "experts" disagree.
Of course it is hand-waving.
You added a "Finally, be reminded ..." to your reply as if that had been brought up in what I said, when it hadn't.
You of course may attempt to argue different things to me that I am not arguing, but I do not have to engage them and can simply ignore or hand-wave as I did.
Experts disagree. I need go no further than that hand-wave. :shrug: