READ: Comey Opening Statement To Recount Private Talks With Trump

[Tanngrisnir]

What action has he taken to stop the investigations? Aside from your belief that he fired Comey to stop the investigations into Russia...what actions has he actually taken to stop the investigations? Any what so ever?

The fact that he did fire Comey and he explicitly indicated that it was to stop the investigations, to 'relieve pressure', etc...

You can call what he said a "distraction", but if it is a "distraction" then so is everything else he said. Sorry Tanngrisnir, you don't get to decide whether something is a distraction or not just because it may or may not fit a narrative that you want. It's either all of it, or none of it.

This is my opinion based on the available evidence and the totality of circumstances surrounding that evidence. Trump has contradicted himself and his spokespeople several times on this very issue. He can't keep his story straight, but the one constant are his statements about the Russian investigations, requesting Comey back off on Flynn, etc....

And like I said, I'm ignoring that other article because its based on hearsay. Unless you can provide links to actual documentation outside of "official said". IE: Anonymous sources.

The White House was asked specifically and directly if that is what Trump said, and they did not deny it.

Might not be enough for you, but it is for me based on the statements and behavior I've already cited.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Trump is a sloppy tool of a man. I'm not invested in him. I just smell a coup when there is one.

All evidence that I can see points to the contrary of that, and there's no coup going on. What are you talking about?

What crime has been committed? Tell me. What did Trump do to instruct, aid, direct, or whatever, with the Russians?

Asked and answered countless times here. Stop pretending otherwise and trying to play coy.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Which statute are you referring to exactly?

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1510

 

[JANFU]

Forget obstruction for now. Do you find it acceptable that Trump made the request?

IMHO goes to his mindset from business. Above the law, above this, and that is where he goes sideways, not understanding the roles of the FBI, DIA, CIA and on and on.
Not listening to excellent advice from his advisors and Cabinet.
Last year they, the Int Agencies, all 17 were compared to Nazis.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: The actual Comey opening statement.

Pence just cancelled a scheduled interview today.
Senator Cornyn praised Comey in a discussion with a journalist a few minutes ago.

If you want honest reporting...MSNBC and CNN have it covered. Fox "News"? Not so much.

But I might actually watch Carlson and Hannity tonight. The spin/dodge/deflect should be Olympic quality..

 

[Kal'Stang]

The fact that he did fire Comey and he explicitly indicated that it was to stop the investigations, to 'relieve pressure', etc...

In otherwords you have nothing beyond the firing of Comey and taking what is said out of context. Gotcha.

This is my opinion based on the available evidence and the totality of circumstances surrounding that evidence. Trump has contradicted himself and his spokespeople several times on this very issue. He can't keep his story straight, but the one constant are his statements about the Russian investigations, requesting Comey back off on Flynn, etc....

You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to facts. And so far nothing Comey has said, or what Trump said in that interview has any proof of obstruction of justice. That is not opinion. That is fact.

The White House was asked specifically and directly if that is what Trump said, and they did not deny it.

Did they confirm it? Not denying =/= confirming.

Might not be enough for you, but it is for me based on the statements and behavior I've already cited.

Yeah, I like facts, not suppositions and spin. :shrug:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

In otherwords you have nothing beyond the firing of Comey and taking what is said out of context. Gotcha.

No, not at all, since I've taken nothing out of context and based on his statements nothing else beyond the firing of Comey is required.

You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to facts. And so far nothing Comey has said, or what Trump said in that interview has any proof of obstruction of justice. That is not opinion. That is fact.

Yes, it is indeed a fact that what Trump stated in the interview and to the Russians amounts to proof of OOJ.

Did they confirm it? Not denying =/= confirming.

Oh, please.

Yeah, I like facts, not suppositions and spin. :shrug:

I do too. But I'm also fine with deductive reasoning.

Maybe that's just me.

 

[JANFU]

You have no facts and no truth. Just your wishful SJW conspiracy theories.

Nope- we also have the testimony today where 2 refused to answer about interference from Trump, WH, DOJ and such, but would possibly answer after clarifying that Trump had not invoked Executive privilege. 1 stated the reply they received from the WH counsel was not clear on this.
Now would you not like to be a fly on the wall?
But you can carry on with Libs, SJW, Comey is lying and such. This investigation(s) plural has legs and in the end you will not like what they find. That is if a Bi Partisan Committee is ever formed to answer to the American people.

 

[danarhea]

Did Comey being fired stop the investigation? Did Trump order the investigation to stop after firing Comey? No? Then no, it doesn't mean squat.

It gets fuzzy at this point. Trump throws Rosenstein under the bus, then before Trump knows it, Rosenstein quickly hires Mueller as Special Prosecutor, something which Trump did not want done, and that infuriates Trump.

This story is reading like something out of a Machiavellian novel. Let's give this story a good old Earl Stanley Gardner name..... The Case of the Circular Firing Squad.

 

[Erod]

All evidence that I can see points to the contrary of that, and there's no coup going on. What are you talking about?

Asked and answered countless times here. Stop pretending otherwise and trying to play coy.

I'm genuinely not trying to play anything here.

You folks really, really, really, really, really want to impeach Trump. It's obsessive. You want to believe anything your mind can conjure or your subservient media will give you to chew on.

But it's just not there. Just business as usual in Washington as it's been for hundreds of years. Sorry.

 

[Erod]

Nope- we also have the testimony today where 2 refused to answer about interference from Trump, WH, DOJ and such, but would possibly answer after clarifying that Trump had not invoked Executive privilege. 1 stated the reply they received from the WH counsel was not clear on this.
Now would you not like to be a fly on the wall?
But you can carry on with Libs, SJW, Comey is lying and such. This investigation(s) plural has legs and in the end you will not like what they find. That is if a Bi Partisan Committee is ever formed to answer to the American people.

Gee, that sounds like Washington DC for the past 200 years.

Ya'll gotta do better than this.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1510

Let's go through that piece by piece.

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

No bribery has taken place. Not even been suggested so we can discount this part.

(1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies—
(A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a subpoena for records; or
(B) any other person named in that subpoena;
about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) the term “an officer of a financial institution” means an officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or for a financial institution; and
(B) the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—
(i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344, 1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or
(ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution

Trump is not a financial officer nor is there any judicial proceedings going on at the moment. As such, this part can be discounted.

(c) As used in this section, the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.

Trump is not a criminal investigator so this section is irrelevant.

(d)
(1) Whoever—
(A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, or
(B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business,
with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

This is not about insurance so we can easily discount this.

(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, section 1033 of this title.

Trump has not attempted to stop any grand jury subpoena for records.

The rest is just referencing other parts of law.

So where in all of that are you claiming Trump broke the law?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I'm genuinely not trying to play anything here.

Or course you are.

You folks really, really, really, really, really want to impeach Trump. It's obsessive. You want to believe anything your mind can conjure or your subservient media will give you to chew on.

Newp. I want the investigations to run full course, let the chips fall where they will. It's you who clearly are frightened to death of that prospect and you'll do whatever you can to distract from that fact.

But it's just not there. Just business as usual in Washington as it's been for hundreds of years. Sorry.

Sorry you can't face facts. I just can't help you.

 

[Absentglare]

Unlike Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama.....Trump is the first president ever to expect loyalty. LOL

This means nothing. Did he or did he not obstruct the FBI from conducting an investigation? That is the only thing that matters. Period.

"Expect" is quite a bit different from "demand and then fire if refused"

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Let's go through that piece by piece.



No bribery has taken place. Not even been suggested so we can discount this part.



Trump is not a financial officer nor is there any judicial proceedings going on at the moment. As such, this part can be discounted.



Trump is not a criminal investigator so this section is irrelevant.



This is not about insurance so we can easily discount this.



Trump has not attempted to stop any grand jury subpoena for records.

The rest is just referencing other parts of law.

So where in all of that are you claiming Trump broke the law?

Sorry, my mistake, I had several tabs open reply to different things and clicked on the wrong one.

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

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, not at all, since I've taken nothing out of context and based on his statements nothing else beyond the firing of Comey is required.

I already have shown that you have. You even attempted to play it off as a "distraction". Which you do not get to decide just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Yes, it is indeed a fact that what Trump stated in the interview and to the Russians amounts to proof of OOJ.

What Trump stated in his interview is fact yes. Parts of which you wish to ignore. As for what he said to Russians, that is not fact. That is hearsay. Unless, again, you can provide links to actual documentation? Not "official said" anonymous sources.

Oh, please.

:shrug: Truth is truth.

I do too. But I'm also fine with deductive reasoning.

Maybe that's just me.

Facts supersede deductive reasoning. Sorry. I can deduce that tomorrow is going to be a rainy day. But when tomorrow arrives and its sunny, fact is, its sunny and my deductive reasoning was flawed.

 

[Absentglare]

Then bring charges? Alan Dershowitz says there were no laws broken, not even obstruction of justice, and I believe him before a CNN or MSNBC or Fox talking head.

I don't know enough about the law to say one way or the other. It looks extremely bad. Politically it was just nuts what he did. But, legally? If it's such a cut and dried case, why no charges?

And to that point, I haven't seen anything in that statement which indicates that he did.

I guess we wait until tomorrow...

Clearly President Trump made Comey extremely uncomfortable, as Comey immediately felt it necessary to memorialize his conversations with President Trump.

I like also how Comey noted that providing any statement regarding whether President Trump himself is the subject of the collusion investigation would create a duty to correct if that were to change- clearly Comey hadn't ruled out the possibility that President Trump, himself, would be suspected of colluding with the Russians.

 

[JANFU]

Gee, that sounds like Washington DC for the past 200 years.

Ya'll gotta do better than this.

Did you read what he will testify to?
Pls keep yourself informed.
Then post what you believe with quotes from the link.
That should be rather easy.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

 

[Kal'Stang]

Sorry, my mistake, I had several tabs open reply to different things and clicked on the wrong one.

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

Ok, in order to save time and space which part specifically? It's obvious that the first two parts do not apply. So which part are you talking about specifically?

 

[Erod]

Or course you are.

Newp. I want the investigations to run full course, let the chips fall where they will. It's you who clearly are frightened to death of that prospect and you'll do whatever you can to distract from that fact.

Sorry you can't face facts. I just can't help you.

Nothing will come from this other than endless meltdowns within the media and the far left.

Watch.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Ok, in order to save time and space which part specifically? It's obvious that the first two parts do not apply. So which part are you talking about specifically?

Subsection C(2): “corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

But, frankly, I don't see the point of continuing since you seem unwilling to look at the totality of his actions and statements and I do.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Nothing will come from this other than endless meltdowns within the media and the far left.

Watch.

The only meltdowns here have come from you and yours. "WITCH HUNT!"

I'll watch.

 

[Erod]

Did you read what he will testify to?
Pls keep yourself informed.
Then post what you believe with quotes from the link.
That should be rather easy.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

He will say that Trump told him he expects "honest loyalty." So what? All presidents say that, it just isn't repeated in a testimony from a disgruntled ex.

That's fodder for you to drool over. But it's not a crime. It's not like he threatened to "Seth Rich" him on a tarmac.

 

[Erod]

The only meltdowns here have come from you and yours. "WITCH HUNT!"

I'll watch.

The rest of us are just watching. I do like to venture in here to see the meltdown for myself. You folks are truly a sight to behold. LOL

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: The actual Comey opening statement.

It was the opening statement.

Yes. I know that. That why the thread title and the OP article say "opening statement." However, the OP's author said "Experts on TV have said that this is a definitive case for obstruction of justice." That was what I was responding to.