• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump accuses Comey of lying to Congress

Trump has never said anything in public to Moscow about the hacking. Not one single solitary word.

Trump even had the stupid audacity to have Russian officials in the Oval Office and entertain them by calling Comey 'crazy' and a 'nut case'.

I'm sorry I keep hearing that repeated about Trump telling the Russians that Comey was 'crazy' and a 'nut case'. Who made that claim? Was it another anonymous source or did they put their name on it for the record?
 
Yesterday when everyone found out that Trump never was the target of the investigation and that Congress had known for weeks yet it never got leaked.

There were Republicans that knew and leaked it to the press but the press refused to print it. Comey refused to come clean even though he was given multiple times to disclose the information but refused to.

I think that pretty well indicts the media and gives validation to Trump's "fake news" claims.

I think Marco Rubio's questioning of Comey put everything in perspective.

He lists the three things Comey claimed Trump said/asked.

He then asked him if he felt they were improper of Trump why didn't he report it.

And then he addressed the only that hasn't been leaked in this investigation was that Trump was not the focus of it.

 
With all due respect, whether the content of the memos was leaked verbally or in written form makes little to no difference. If Comey leaked the information to his "associates" before he leaked them to the general public he still leaked them. It's also remarkable how close to the memos the Times piece is so that should lead one to at least question the veracity of Comey's testimony.

First, lets underscore: Comey did not likely "leak" a memo to unauthorized "associates" before May 16th. If you read the May 11 story, excerpts are clear: "(as) Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump ..."; "As described by the two people,..."; "But now that Mr. Comey has been fired, they felt free to discuss it on the condition of anonymity....";"During the meal, according to the account of the two associates..."

So who might those "associates" be? Most likely they are two of Comey's associates in the FBI, the leadership team that has been the group long aware of the content of those meetings and who would have access to and/or copies of the FBI memorandum to file. There is no dispute that Comey has shared his experience and concerns with close associates.

BUT the most likely folks who had access to the actual memos WERE the leadership team, who advised Comey. And two of them could "track" the memos as closely as they wished.

Second, it does MATTER how the information was conveyed; there is no doubt Comey has shared his experiences and concerns to several persons in and outside of the FBI - but there is nothing illegal about verbally telling others of your experience. And if other persons take notes, and report to others on those oral conversations it is irrelevant. ON the other hand, if an FBI DOCUMENT (copy of a document) is released to others outside of the FBI then that may be a different story.

In any event, there is no evidence Comey was telling an untruth about when he first released a memo to someone outside the FBI.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the saddest defenses of dishonesty I've ever seen. Yeah, he's always been a compulsive liar, and he didn't realize people would try to hold him accountable as a politician. Was Trump lying when he said that his supporters would stick with even if he shot someone in broad daylight? I guess that must be one of the statements that turned out to be true ;)
Please, if would be so kind as to list the politicians that dont lie.

Here, I will even help you start:

1.

Now you are on your own. :lamo
 
Please, if would be so kind as to list the politicians that dont lie.

Here, I will even help you start:

1. ...

Now you are on your own. :lamo

There is no need to leave him without a top 5 starter list...

1. Stalin
2. Hitler
3 Pol Pot
4. Baghdad Bob
5. Donald Trump

Now the question is, who was the most prolific liar...hmmmmmm...close call.
 
There is no need to leave him without a top 5 starter list...

1. Stalin
2. Hitler
3 Pol Pot
4. Baghdad Bob
5. Donald Trump

Now the question is, who was the most prolific liar...hmmmmmm...close call.
I can certainly read and understand English... but am having a bit of difficulty seeing your perspective on non-lying politicians ... I would have to guess that is sarcas

Or you misread my post or...?

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
And? Do you think that is the majority of FBI agents, or just the liberal ones?

I think it's the FBI agents who care about an ***wipe president, who is trashing their leader and their organization. Similar to how he trashes everybody with his tweets and his ALT Right rhetoric - the President of Mexico and Australia, the Mayor of London. The poor Indian Engineers who were shot, after the former Navy man responded to Trump's tweet - "Wake up America", by yelling "Get Out of My Country", and opening fire., etc, etc....
 
I can certainly read and understand English... but am having a bit of difficulty seeing your perspective on non-lying politicians ... I would have to guess that is sarcas

Or you misread my post or...?

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk

You shouldn't have to guess that it was mocking humor (sarcasm), IT IS.

The obvious point is that there are liars, and then there are LIARS. No reasonable person thinks that stealing 100,000,000 from old folks in a scam, is morally equal selling a bad wrist watch.

Trump is a world class liar - he has set the record for it.
 
You shouldn't have to guess that it was mocking humor (sarcasm), IT IS.

The obvious point is that there are liars, and then there are LIARS. No reasonable person thinks that stealing 100,000,000 from old folks in a scam, is morally equal selling a bad wrist watch.

Trump is a world class liar - he has set the record for it.
The current president hasn't done anything near what you allude.

And, since the whole Russian collusion thing has been debunked for certain, though this side has known that for ages and before that we sensed it, if one keeps chasing the same mirage down hole after hole, the whole hole thing becomes a tragic farce.

I mean with the obomb in power we as a country looked, and indeed were, weak.

Now with this Comey Comedy, we look like a laughing stock.

Please stop this madness, it is just too much. Sane folk can only stand for so long just watching idly

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
First, lets underscore: Comey did not likely "leak" a memo to unauthorized "associates" before May 16th. If you read the May 11 story, excerpts are clear: "(as) Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump ..."; "As described by the two people,..."; "But now that Mr. Comey has been fired, they felt free to discuss it on the condition of anonymity....";"During the meal, according to the account of the two associates..."

So who might those "associates" be? Most likely they are two of Comey's associates in the FBI, the leadership team that has been the group long aware of the content of those meetings and who would have access to and/or copies of the FBI memorandum to file. There is no dispute that Comey has shared his experience and concerns with close associates.

BUT the most likely folks who had access to the actual memos WERE the leadership team, who advised Comey. And two of them could "track" the memos as closely as they wished.

Second, it does MATTER how the information was conveyed; there is no doubt Comey has shared his experiences and concerns to several persons in and outside of the FBI - but there is nothing illegal about verbally telling others of your experience. And if other persons take notes, and report to others on those oral conversations it is irrelevant. ON the other hand, if an FBI DOCUMENT (copy of a document) is released to others outside of the FBI then that may be a different story.

In any event, there is no evidence Comey was telling an untruth about when he first released a memo to someone outside the FBI.

OK. If that's the case then why, while testifying before congress, did Comey go into the whole "I woke up in the middle of the night" thing? Why didn't he say "Since a couple of my associates had already brought the basics of the memos to the press I decided to leak them"? His testimony was too cute by half and, when combined with the discrepancy between his written and oral versions of the "loyalty" discussion, becomes HIGHLY suspect.

On top of that, instead of explaining to Trump WHY he felt it unwise to clear the air over whether or not the president was directly under investigation he pigeon holed that information "just in case". Comey's actions are indicative of someone working against the White House rather than for the White House and that's just plain unacceptable unless there is a legitimate crime involved.
 
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:
 
OK. If that's the case then why, while testifying before congress, did Comey go into the whole "I woke up in the middle of the night" thing? Why didn't he say "Since a couple of my associates had already brought the basics of the memos to the press I decided to leak them"?

Because he was answering the question(s) asked. I think, given that folks have incorrectly paraphrased Comey's testimony, it would be helpful to look at the section we are discussing:

Susan Collins - Maine: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice?

James Comey: Yes. I asked, (the) President tweeted on friday after I got fired that I better hope there is not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on monday night, because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation, might be a tape, my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square and so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend of mine to do that.

Susan Collins - Maine: Was that Mr. Wittous?...

The reason he show copies of his memo outside the department was "... it didn't dawn on me originally (a few days before?), that there might be corroboration for our conversation, might be a tape, my judgement was (that) I needed to get that (that meaning corroboration or tape?) out into into the public square and so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter."

I agree, it sounds a bit cute because he no one asked why it not dawn on him originally on Friday. However, I think he meant that he awoke because it did not dawn on him that Trump's tweet MIGHT actually be more than a dig, that an actual tape could exist. We are not clear because Collins (and others) failed to follow-up asking for clarity.

In any case, it has nothing to do with what his associates did, prior to the tweet. IF, as Trump implied, there was a tape, his reaction was that it should be forced out into the open. THAT is when the memo and/or its contents were given out to a non-FBI person.

...when combined with the discrepancy between his written and oral versions of the "loyalty" discussion, becomes HIGHLY suspect.
If true, but its also an indication that unless you memorize a document you write, you can't expect a word for word rendition. Because I am unaware of any major discrepancies between his statement of record and the testimony, I cannot comment on your "highly suspect" assertion.

However here is a copy for your examination: http://documents.latimes.com/read-james-comeys-opening-statement-senate-intelligence-panel/. Please cite those substantive differences.

On top of that, instead of explaining to Trump WHY he felt it unwise to clear the air over whether or not the president was directly under investigation he pigeon holed that information "just in case". Comey's actions are indicative of someone working against the White House rather than for the White House and that's just plain unacceptable unless there is a legitimate crime involved.

I have no idea what you are speaking of. Didn't explain to trump on whether or not he was being investigated? Incorrect, on three occasions Comey told the President he was not under investigation. Your going to have to cite the source of your actual concern.

In any event, it would seem you are grasping for some pretty thin straws to support an "ambush" or plot to undue the President.
 
Last edited:
I think it's the FBI agents who care about an ***wipe president, who is trashing their leader and their organization. Similar to how he trashes everybody with his tweets and his ALT Right rhetoric - the President of Mexico and Australia, the Mayor of London. The poor Indian Engineers who were shot, after the former Navy man responded to Trump's tweet - "Wake up America", by yelling "Get Out of My Country", and opening fire., etc, etc....

I grew up in an FBI family, you don't know **** about what the average FBI agent values. They will respond to leadership being targeted regardless of how they personally feel about them. The FBI is much like the military in that respect. "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity" is emblazoned on the shield, after all. They all do their job to the best of their ability and remain faithful. The leadership, on the other hand, doesn't really follow the same guidelines because the director position is a political appointment, rather than a position you gain through the ranks. The Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity aren't so much a part of the political appointee, and they could never achieve it if they wanted to without going through the academy, and putting your life on the line.

Agents will always express support for their leadership to leadership, and will do as they are ordered, but that doesn't mean they like the leadership.

You will have to wait until Comey's close friend McCabe is no longer acting director before you can hope to get the real feeling of the average agent. The people you see in the hearing room are friends of Comey, I am sure, but don't assume it is representative of the feelings of the agents in the field.
 
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....

To avoid confusion, lets start over:

You said: "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...."

Assume what you like. But I think you keep ignoring that IF the associates were members of the FBI leadership team they would ALREADY KNOW the contents of the meetings and phone calls with Trump BECAUSE Comey said they had meetings IN THE FBI to discuss how to deal with Trump's requests. OF COURSE Comey would ask his team to keep it confidential so long as he worked at the FBI. In regards to them, he did not "give people information to hold" for release, THEY HAD THE INFORMATION by virtue of their job on the leadership team ANYWAY. (Moreover, Comey has verbally conferred with several people during these events, folks who likely took notes).

And what don't you get that once a person leaves employment (quits, retires, or is terminated) of course that person who left could care less what the staff does - but as long as a person is in charge, you tell the staff "don't spread it around."

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."
Again, lets start over: I agree that "he told 'several people' close to him, meaning those who called the NYtimes on or before the 11th, that they were to "not discuss it publicly" while he was at the FBI. When Comey left, "they felt free to discuss it" and called the FBI on condition of anonymity.

BUT IF you are asserting that Comey must have set it up so that "his close associates" had to contact him AFTER HE LEFT before discussing it publically, I then disagree. We don't know that. And whether they did contact him, or not, after he was fired is unknown and irrelevant. In other words, be they two members of the FBI leadership team or others, there is NO evidence they had to phone him for approval.

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.

You seem confused. We are discussing TWO particular contacts. The first was by two "close associates" who, on or before May 11th, now "felt free" to contact the times with information they already had. WE have no certain idea WHO they are. He made no statement regarding these two individuals. No one knows where they got their information, or how they obtained it. However, the NY Times did not write the May 11th article based on any memo provided to the times. They wrote it based on "conversations" the two said they had with Comey.

The second contact with the times was the one Comey spoke about. In his testimony he said that in response to the tweet, he decided to provide the memo to a friend, to release to the press. That is the basis of the May 16th article.

There is NO EVIDENCE that he gave the two associates of May 11th a memo FOR THE PURPOSE OF release, and they if they had the memo, they did not release the Comey memo. How they obtained the information is unknown, BUT ONE LIKELY possibility is that these two are members of the FBI leadership team who ALREADY HAD the same information from their job and access to FBI files, and were part of the group that knew all about Trumps requests and attempts to get Comey to "let it go". Either that, or they were two others who had conversations with Comey sometime since January and took detailed notes.

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.

At this point you are speaking gibberish. The writers of the May 11th article say Trumps lawyer is wrong about them having the memo, that they based it on conversations, with sources that are known to them, but not us. And as I said, I suspect it was members of the leadership team who, by the way, would naturally have the memo as a part of their job.

Should you wish to discuss this on an evidentiary basis, feel free to. Till then your "just cause I don't want to believe" squatting will not convince.
 
Last edited:
So now Comey said he deleted his original memos, and the professor he gave them to is in hiding.

Perfectly normal.
 
Let's deal with this nonsense first in hope we get it out of the way and then can continue our forthcoming interactions without it. But of course that is up to you.

You seem confused.
It always amuses me when a person starts in like you just did. You have to know that it is bait for an in-kind return which just continues throughout the following interaction.
That said.
Not at all. Apparently that would be your failure to follow.


At this point you are speaking gibberish.
You are showing you do not know the difference between clear and concise (which I was), versus that of gibberish.


The writers of the May 11th article say Trumps lawyer is wrong about them having the memo, ...
And? You are again arguing things to me I did not argue.


Should you wish to discuss this on an evidentiary basis, feel free to.
iLOL
Already have. It is you who appears not to want to actually discuss it and instead deflect from doing so with your unlikely and made up bs about a leadership team.


Till then your "just cause I don't want to believe" squatting will not convince.
iLOL That is what you are doing with your nonsense about a leadership team. :shrug:





But you keep ignoring that IF the associates were members of the FBI leadership team ...
I have not ignored your "If". I clearly addressed it as I said it is not likely.

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

That does not sound like an FBI leadership team, nor would you have to tell your leadership team to keep something quite.
The report does not make it sound like it was any Official.
That is not something you would likely tell your Leadership team who would then take it upon themselves to release said info unless you have a bunch of leakers that work for you.
What you suggest doesn't make a lick of sense, and if what you suggest were true, we then have a serious problem with supposed professionals leaking for political purposes.


BUT IF you are asserting that Comey must have set it up so that "his close associates" had to contact him AFTER HE LEFT before discussing it publically, I then disagree.
If? Clearly you are not following.
At no point did I assert such.

It isn't likely they would just take it upon themselves to release said info, regardless of who they are, without first conferring with Comey, especially if they were FBI as they would then be leaking info.

Again.
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.

That just isn't a likely scenario.



Continued below.
 
Continued from above.


We are discussing TWO particular contacts. The first was by two "close associates" who, on or before May 11th, now "felt free" to contact the times with information they already had. WE have no certain idea WHO they are. He made no statement regarding these two individuals. No one knows where they got their information, or how they obtained it.
The article said the information the anonymous sources supplied came from Comey. I already quoted that for you.

Here it is again.

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.

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.

Comey described.
With condition.
... on the condition that they not discuss it publicly ...


And with the supposed request to keep it to themselves? That is not something that a Leader is likely to say to other Officials in the FBI. It also speaks to prior planning to leak said info.

Both releases have the appearance of planned leaking of information given to others by Comey.
In toto, it gives the appearance that Comey is lying and involved in political shenanigans.


How they obtained the information is unknown, ...
No. The article states from who they obtained it. Comey gave it to them.

Now if you are arguing that we do not know if that is actually true? Fine. Then we do not know if what Comey has said is actually true, or if the memo is real or not, or actually exists but was written after Trump's tweet, etc ... and all that other nonsense.

Until actually confirmed we know absolutely nothing and should stop discussing this immediately. Right?
Or... We go with what we have and discuss that. :shrug:


BUT ONE LIKELY possibility is that these two are members of the FBI leadership team ...
No that is not likely.
You are suggesting that supposed high-up professionals are shunning their duty in favor of personal loyalty to become leakers for political purposes. That is unlikely in general. It would only becomes likely if they were not professionals.


Either that, or they were two others who had conversations with Comey sometime since January and took detailed notes.
We are talking about folks who would purposely leak information on Comey's behalf. It isn't likely they are professionals willing to release such info, so that leaves you with either friends alone, or Comey in conjunction with a friend such as his "close associate" Daniel Richman, both of whom we know are willing to leak info to Comey's supposed benefit.
What is more plausible?
Known leakers?
Or your supposed leadership team of professionals willing to jeopardize their jobs to leak something for political purposes?
I know what I am going with at this time and will stick with it unless more credible information become available changing what is or can be likely.
 
I care quite a bit. Gave several decades of my life to the service of our Republic. There's nothing to argue about; the election outcome was unaffected.

According to whom?


Don't tell me with one breath that you carer and the next it didn't matter. I am certain the founding fathers you all respect so much would have gone to war if anyone tried to mess with an American election.

Now, you're the butt end of Putin's joke
 
Let's deal with this nonsense first in hope we get it out of the way and then can continue our forthcoming interactions without it. But of course that is up to you.

It always amuses me when a person starts in like you just did. You have to know that it is bait for an in-kind return which just continues throughout the following interaction. Not at all. Apparently that would be your failure to follow. Already have. It is you who appears not to want to actually discuss it and instead deflect from doing so with your unlikely and made up bs about a leadership team. (yada...yada...yada)...

I have restated my positions, and proposed that IF you believe certain things, then I may disagree. You were provided an opportunity to restate yours. However, I am not interested in your introductory cascade of micro-carping indignation, hand waving, and snippy offense over a few word choices.

In short, should you continue to be tedious, there won't be a point in continuing dialog.



I distilled your two posts of repeated denial and disbelief to the small number of your statements that contain (or at least imply) an actual argument or evidence.

"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"

Okay, so you stated:

That does not sound like an FBI leadership team, nor would you have to tell your leadership team to keep something quite.
The report does not make it sound like it was any Official. That is not something you would likely tell your Leadership team who would then take it upon themselves to release said info unless you have a bunch of leakers that work for you. What you suggest doesn't make a lick of sense, and if what you suggest were true, we then have a serious problem with supposed professionals leaking for political purposes.

I am interested in explanatory insight or evidence, not what things "sound like" to you. The article said that the information was provided by two close associates. Close associates can be persons from either the FBI, the legal community, journalists, or his private life. The article journalists are hiding the identities of their source(s), no doubt at their source's request. And you then expect the "report" to indicate if the sources were officials? Really?

And you don't think a boss would tell close associates at his work to keep some shared information confidential, but give them permission to handle as they see fit after the boss leaves? WHY THE HECK NOT? WHO GIVES A HOOT about what their employees do after they leave work? Comey knew the information would generate controversy and didn't want it spread around WHILE he worked for the FBI.

Finally, if two members of the leadership team conveyed unclassified information about what they know about conversations between Comey and the President, information that is itself legal in the public, they are not "leakers" of any FBI document. They may have violated some press contact rule, but if they felt strongly enough about the injustice to Comey of course they might have provided the information.

The article said the information the anonymous sources supplied came from Comey. .

"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."

Correct. However, while the Times could verify that the two individuals were "close associates", and most likely were able ascertain that the information originated from Comey, no one knows HOW IT came from Comey, other than the sources claim of being told. It could also have been memorandums, or notes of notes. My bet, however, is it came from the knowledge of two members of the leadership team. i am not excluding other possible sources, I'm just making an educated guess.

Both releases have the appearance of planned leaking of information given to others by Comey.
In toto, it gives the appearance that Comey is lying and involved in political shenanigans.
Your subjective idea of "appearance" is irrelevant. Both releases are from information originating from Comey or Comey's workplace. Such information may have been provided through months of oral conversations, sharing of notes, or access to memos. However, there is no evidence that first story was generated at Comey's direction, nor is there evidence that a memo was provided to the NYTimes.

Cont.
 
Last edited:
Cont.

I suggest you do more reading on the various folks that have obtained information from Comey without holding a copy of the memos, in different circumstances. For example:


https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-james-comey-told-me-about-donald-trump


You are suggesting that supposed high-up professionals are shunning their duty in favor of personal loyalty to become leakers for political purposes. That is unlikely in general. It would only becomes likely if they were not professionals.
Anyone who has not spent six months comatose should have noticed a score of leaks every week from those Washington "professionals".


The remainder of your two posts are many repeats of your denials and assertions already made above. At this point, your original assertion several posts ago, that "The fact remains that currently it appears as though Comey lied." is unsupported, and little more than you seeing apparitions, i.e. a ghost.


Case closed.
 
Last edited:
According to whom?


Don't tell me with one breath that you carer and the next it didn't matter. I am certain the founding fathers you all respect so much would have gone to war if anyone tried to mess with an American election.

Now, you're the butt end of Putin's joke

Not at all. The grandeur of the American electoral process is unaffected by such petty plotting.

"A fly, Sir, may sting a stately horse and make him wince; but one is but an insect, and the other is a horse still." --Samuel Johnson
 
I have restated my positions, and proposed that IF you believe certain things, then I may disagree.
1. That's great.
Yet it does not have a damn thing to do with what you quoted.
2. I don't have to agree? Really? Way to state to obvious.

You were provided an opportunity to restate yours.
I have no need to as they were clear and concise.
Your replying to them now just confirms that.


However, I am not interested in your introductory cascade of micro-carping indignation, hand waving, and snippy offense over a few word choices.
1. Spare me your faux indignation. You had your chance, you chose not to take it.
2. And again, as for the hand-waving. I will continue to hand-wave that which I am not discussing as it is irrelevant. If you do not understand that, too bad.


In short, should you continue to be tedious, there won't be a point in continuing dialog.
iLOL
tedious? Hilarious. Don't continue. it matters not to me since you decided to take the route you are on.

Like I said, you were given your chance. You chose not to take it.


I distilled your two posts of repeated denial ...
More hilarity. The denial is all yours. Your argument was already addressed and is unlikely for the reasons provided.

Unlikely means just that, unlikely, not impossible.
If you can establish that these folks on his leadership team are actually unprofessional political hacks then you may just elevate your "if" to the same level of likeliness as mine, until then, no.

The actions were deliberate and it isn't likely Comey has more than one person he trusts to do such leaking.
So again, is more likely the leakers were Comey and his friend.

And with Trump's tweet about not leaking info directed at Comey, it suggests Trump knew he was a leaker.

You have your "ifs" and I have mine.
My "if" is more likely than yours.

Case closed.
 
Back
Top Bottom