• 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!

Comey: Told Trump not personally under investigation; no attempt to interfere

Tanngrisnir said:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

Specifically section C(2)
Click to expand...

Cannot possibly be C(2) as C(2) pertains to physical force and/or the threat of physical force, and Trump apparently didn't threaten physical or use physical force in relation to Comey.

But perhaps you meant (c)2, however, this is also inapplicable as (c)2 is in regards to an "official proceeding." An "official proceeding" is not the equivalent of a criminal investigation. Trump is accused of attempting to influence a criminal investigation. So, (c)2 isn't applicable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Redress said:
And yet I provided that very information. Your excuse is painfully stupid.
Click to expand...

No, your post was designed to mislead the reader into thinking those remarks occurred on the same date, thereby exacerbating the appearance of impropriety.

You were perfectly capable of quoting directly from the document and chose not to include the corresponding dates. The failure to also include the corresponding dates was no accident. Your post created a misleading impression those remarks occurred during the same transacting event, again exacerbating the appearance of impropriety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
Cannot possibly be C(2) as C(2) pertains to physical force and/or the threat of physical force, and Trump apparently didn't threaten physical or use physical force in relation to Comey.

But perhaps you meant (c)2, however, this is also inapplicable as (c)2 is in regards to an "official proceeding." An "official proceeding" is not the equivalent of a criminal investigation. Trump is accused of attempting to influence a criminal investigation. So, (c)2 isn't applicable.
Click to expand...

My, bad. Yes, I did mean that and, yes, it applies. It reads, "any official proceeding" and that includes an FBI investigation.

There's simply no way around that very basic fact.
 
NotreDame said:
No, your post was designed to mislead the reader into thinking those remarks occurred on the same date, thereby exacerbating the appearance of impropriety.

You were perfectly capable of quoting directly from the document and chose not to include the corresponding dates. The failure to also include the corresponding dates was no accident. Your post created a misleading impression those remarks occurred during the same transacting event, again exacerbating the appearance of impropriety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I mislead them by giving the full statement? You sure you want to go with that argument?
 
katzgar said:
time to investigate the cover up
Click to expand...

And then an investigation into the investigation into the investigation, right? Gotta make sure it goes all the way into the 2018 elections and 2020 elections because, let's be honest, it's about elections, not integrity.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
My, bad. Yes, I did mean that and, yes, it applies. It reads, "any official proceeding" and that includes an FBI investigation.

There's simply no way around that very basic fact.
Click to expand...

I am almost certain, based on the definition section, the phrase "official proceeding" would not include a criminal investigation. I will once again read the definition section. Or perhaps it was case law I read that defined "official proceeding" in such a way as to not include a criminal investigation.

Either way, at this time I am not inclined to agree with your statement an official proceeding would include a criminal investigation. It doesn't.
 
Redress said:
I mislead them by giving the full statement? You sure you want to go with that argument?
Click to expand...

"You" did not give anyone a "full statement." "You" provided very carefully selected portions from Comey's prepared statement in a single post and presented those remarks in such a manner as if they occurred during the same transaction and this was accomplished by leaving out the dates. This most certainly was misleading as your post created the impression those remarks occurred during the same transaction, on the same date, thereby compounding the appearance of impropriety.

This only reinforced the efficacy of the advice given that people should read from the original source, as anyone reading from your post would most certainly have been misled into thinking those remarks occurred during the same transaction, on the same date.

"You" also provided a link to the original source.

I commend you for providing a link to the original source, so people could so easily dispense with the misleading prose in your post by following the advice people should read the original source.
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
I am almost certain, based on the definition section, the phrase "official proceeding" would not include a criminal investigation. I will once again read the definition section. Or perhaps it was case law I read that defined "official proceeding" in such a way as to not include a criminal investigation.

Either way, at this time I am not inclined to agree with your statement an official proceeding would include a criminal investigation. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:
My, bad. Yes, I did mean that and, yes, it applies. It reads, "any official proceeding" and that includes an FBI investigation.

There's simply no way around that very basic fact.
Click to expand...

Okay, "official proceeding" is defined as:
(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—
(1) the term “official proceeding” means—
(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;​

None of those apply to a criminal investigation or any investigation by the FBI and this includes (C). (C) is contemplating and referencing agency proceedings such as a Social, Disability, etcetera, which is essentially a hearing.
 
NotreDame said:
"You" did not give anyone a "full statement." "You" provided very carefully selected portions from Comey's prepared statement in a single post and presented those remarks in such a manner as if they occurred during the same transaction and this was accomplished by leaving out the dates. This most certainly was misleading as your post created the impression those remarks occurred during the same transaction, on the same date, thereby compounding the appearance of impropriety.

This only reinforced the efficacy of the advice given that people should read from the original source, as anyone reading from your post would most certainly have been misled into thinking those remarks occurred during the same transaction, on the same date.

"You" also provided a link to the original source.

I commend you for providing a link to the original source, so people could so easily dispense with the misleading prose in your post by following the advice people should read the original source.
Click to expand...

OK, I guess this is pretty complex for you, so I will slow it down a bit. Providing the full statement is in fact giving the full statement. I did not quote it in my post, both because there was no reason to, and because it would not fit the character limit. As I linked to the statement, I stated that he should read the whole thing. Trying to suggest I hid or tried to take out of context when I provided the whole thing, and recommended reading the whole thing is hilariously stupid.

Speaking of context, my post should be taken in context. The post you objected to was in reply to the OP, who was trying to paint the document as being favorable to Trump. My response was to show selections that where not favorable, not to make it out as the whole thing being unfavorable to Trump, but to counter the idea that it helped Trump. It did not help Trump, Comey's testimony today did not help Trump. Now, based on what appears to be your style, you may try and suggest that I am trying to say more than what I am. I am not saying that any of it proves obstruction of justice or any criminal acts. I am not saying the document nor the testimony today was a smoking gun. But it would be almost impossible to spin it as a good day for Trump.
 
volsrock said:
The official statement (pdf.) from James Comey, to be read during the hearing tomorrow, has bombshells — but they are helpful to Donald Trump. The statement is embedded in full at the bottom of this post.

Comey confirms — contrary to media reports — that he told Trump that Trump was not personally under investigation.

Comey also paints a picture of Trump trying to put in a good word for Michael Flynn, but there is no suggestion that anything rising to the level of obstruction of justice was said. Also, Comey made clear that those comments did not relate to the general investigation of Russian interference in the election.

We will have additional analysis shortly.

Here are some key excerpts (mostly) in the order in which they appear, and how they relate to prior media reporting.

Comey confirmed — three times in the statement — that he told Trump he was not under investigation:

Comey: Told Trump not personally under investigation, no attempt to interfere in Russia probe
:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Once again we see the kooker left falling victim to fake news reports regarding DJT and his evil doin's. LOL
 
Redress said:
OK, I guess this is pretty complex for you, so I will slow it down a bit. Providing the full statement is in fact giving the full statement. I did not quote it in my post, both because there was no reason to, and because it would not fit the character limit. As I linked to the statement, I stated that he should read the whole thing. Trying to suggest I hid or tried to take out of context when I provided the whole thing, and recommended reading the whole thing is hilariously stupid.

Speaking of context, my post should be taken in context. The post you objected to was in reply to the OP, who was trying to paint the document as being favorable to Trump. My response was to show selections that where not favorable, not to make it out as the whole thing being unfavorable to Trump, but to counter the idea that it helped Trump. It did not help Trump, Comey's testimony today did not help Trump. Now, based on what appears to be your style, you may try and suggest that I am trying to say more than what I am. I am not saying that any of it proves obstruction of justice or any criminal acts. I am not saying the document nor the testimony today was a smoking gun. But it would be almost impossible to spin it as a good day for Trump.
Click to expand...

But it would be almost impossible to spin it as a good day for Trump
Click to expand...

Let me begin by saying I concur. Even if no crime was committed, I'm not convinced Trump obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice based on my reading and research of the statute, what Comey said was very harmful.

However, in regards to "your" prose, this isn't "complex." It is real simple. Perhaps it's too complex for you. For instance, you can obsess over this "full statement" line of reasoning in perpetuity, but I never demanded or insisted upon you cutting and pasting the full statement. My position is something different.

And the fact you linked to the full statement doesn't detract from my point or argument. What is "hilariously stupid" is your delusion that since you linked to the full statement, then "your" prose couldn't be misleading. That is "hilariously stupid" as logically what "you" wrote can be misleading and inaccurate in relation to the statement you linked.

And thanks for reinforcing my view, as you conceded "My response was to show selections that where not favorable..." Yes, indeed, this was a point I made. You surely achieved this task by selecting some of the more damaging parts of the statement and making them appear to have occurred on the same date, during the same transaction, compounding the "not favorable" component. That achieved your goal but was misleading as the absence of the dates made the severity more pronounced, which was no accident as you surely wanted to convey the point Comey's statement was harmful.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom