Tiberius Posted May 19, 2017 Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 @nytimes What President Trump told Russian officials about firing James Comey http://nyti.ms/2pTMns7 @davidfrum Poetic justice will be if Ex-president Trump must fly home commercial, just like ex-Director Comey Drip!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 The White House has essentially confirmed the NYT reporting. They're not going to bother trying to deny it. I'm not sure if this is really any worse than the other stuff that's come out but add it to the pile anyways. The White House has confirmed what, exactly? Please, I would honestly like to know what is being reported as an actual, bona fide fact, and who in the White House has actually confirmed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 The White House has confirmed what, exactly? Please, I would honestly like to know what is being reported as an actual, bona fide fact, and who in the White House has actually confirmed it. Sean Spicer didn't deny or confirm the NYT article and Trump's "nut job" quote in a statement. Also, I've heard from three anonymous sources that the media has gone from mentally unstable to absolutely bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 So Comey is going to testify in public at a Senate Intel hearing after Memorial Day. Can't wait to hear what he has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 So Comey is going to testify in public at a Senate Intel hearing after Memorial Day. Can't wait to hear what he has to say. He better hope it's not different from what he said last time he testified publicly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=o-dW59Fu1hg Of course, I guess it doesn't matter since we don't actually prosecute perjurers: In fact, we take the word of known perjurers to be fact... when it serves our political preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 He better hope it's not different from what he said last time he testified publicly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=o-dW59Fu1hg Could easily parse his words to say he wasn't "directly told" to halt the FBI probe. We'll see soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 Could easily parse his words to say he wasn't "directly told" to halt the FBI probe. We'll see soon enough. But that's the whole point, isn't it? The memo is only a big deal if he felt Trump was warning him off the case and not, as he explained often happens in that clip, telling him it's a waste of resources because he thinks there's nothing there. He was definitive in that statement that no such pressure has been exerted (by DOJ at least) and he's seasoned enough to know he can't veer too far off that path without exposing himself to prosecution. I just wouldn't hold your breath about anything new coming to light because he's still bound by classification restrictions. And if he does say something different than last time, then it'll become a political nightmare on all sides. ...Which means that's probably what he'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 But that's the whole point, isn't it? The memo is only a big deal if he felt Trump was warning him off the case and not, as he explained often happens in that clip, telling him it's a waste of resources because he thinks there's nothing there. He was definitive in that statement that no such pressure has been exerted (by DOJ at least) and he's seasoned enough to know he can't veer too far off that path without exposing himself to prosecution. I just wouldn't hold your breath about anything new coming to light because he's still bound by classification restrictions. And if he does say something different than last time, then it'll become a political nightmare on all sides. ...Which means that's probably what he'll do. He's too much of a seasoned lawyer to put himself in any jeopardy and will certainly have to decline to answer quite a few questions I'm sure due to classified information restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 He's too much of a seasoned lawyer to put himself in any jeopardy and will certainly have to decline to answer quite a few questions I'm sure due to classified information restrictions. So then, this is a big deal because........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 But that's the whole point, isn't it? The memo is only a big deal if he felt Trump was warning him off the case and not, as he explained often happens in that clip, telling him it's a waste of resources because he thinks there's nothing there. He was definitive in that statement that no such pressure has been exerted (by DOJ at least) and he's seasoned enough to know he can't veer too far off that path without exposing himself to prosecution. I just wouldn't hold your breath about anything new coming to light because he's still bound by classification restrictions. And if he does say something different than last time, then it'll become a political nightmare on all sides. ...Which means that's probably what he'll do. And watch the White House would forbid any of his testimony on the grounds of executive privilege. Ample precedent for it. And wouldn't that be a **** show? So then, this is a big deal because........? Because "Russian connections." Which I'm still trying to figure out is a big deal how...? I mean, nobody ever investigates Nancy Pelosi for her Assad connections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 Because "Russian connections." Which I'm still trying to figure out is a big deal how...? I mean, nobody ever investigates Nancy Pelosi for her Assad connections... Well, at least you're trying to provide an answer of sorts, which is more than I can say for the new wave of innuendo whores posting here lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 He's too much of a seasoned lawyer to put himself in any jeopardy and will certainly have to decline to answer quite a few questions I'm sure due to classified information restrictions. Oh sure. If the former FBI Director has to plead the 5th, that will certainly put an end to Trump's claim that he never tried to influence Jimmy Comedy to end the Flynn investigation. Comedy is a jerk. He's a bonafide jerk like most of the Dem "leadership" and Jeff Beejob who owns the WaPo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 Well, at least you're trying to provide an answer of sorts, which is more than I can say for the new wave of innuendo whores posting here lately. I know a guy who knows a guy who said ____________________________about Trump. It's true because of Mark Felt. Winning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 And watch the White House would forbid any of his testimony on the grounds of executive privilege. Ample precedent for it. And wouldn't that be a **** show? Because "Russian connections." Which I'm still trying to figure out is a big deal how...? I mean, nobody ever investigates Nancy Pelosi for her Assad connections... And why are people surprised that a major investor and one who deals mostly in RE has had connections with Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 He better hope it's not different from what he said last time he testified publicly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=o-dW59Fu1hgOf course, I guess it doesn't matter since we don't actually prosecute perjurers: In fact, we take the word of known perjurers to be fact... when it serves our political preferences. Which makes the fact that Trump literally had the attorney general leave the room before asking him to drop the investigation loom so much larger. And I guess Sessions objected to that. So no one at the Department of Justice asked him to drop the investigation, the president allegedly did. Big deal Oh sure. If the former FBI Director has to plead the 5th, that will certainly put an end to Trump's claim that he never tried to influence Jimmy Comedy to end the Flynn investigation. Comedy is a jerk. He's a bonafide jerk like most of the Dem "leadership" and Jeff Beejob who owns the WaPo. Oh, everyone hates Comey! Left right and center! Take a number and stand by in line to hate him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 Which makes the fact that Trump literally had the attorney general leave the room before asking him to drop the investigation loom so much larger. And I guess Sessions objected to that. So no one at the Department of Justice asked him to drop the investigation, the president allegedly did. Big deal Oh, everyone hates Comey! Left right and center! Take a number and stand by in line to hate him Azalin had it right. You're one of those Innuendo Whores. Any rumor that fits your narrative has to be correct, even if you have to make it up yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 So then, this is a big deal because........?that all of 6'8" comey was held accountable for his mistakes. Whilst morons like 26cb wear a link hat and cry foul. It'll really really the troops come 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 Well, at least you're trying to provide an answer of sorts, which is more than I can say for the new wave of innuendo whores posting here lately. Just try putting all these fragments together into a coherent narrative: The Russians hacked the election by hacking the DNC servers, while Comey, who was working for Trump, threw the election for Trump by reporting on Hillary to Congress before the election, while Trump's connections to the Russian hacking are proved by his administration officials talking to the Russians after the election, including the one that got paid by RT before the election, which was such a serious issue that Trump fired the guy investigating Trump's hacking of the election who was also the guy who threw the election for Trump, which is evidence of Russian collusion in...something. This has all the hallmarks of a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I keep waiting for someone to explain how chemtrails and nanothermite are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 The Russians hacked the election by hacking the DNC servers, while Comey, who was working for Trump, threw the election for Trump by reporting on Hillary to Congress before the election, while Trump's connections to the Russian hacking are proved by his administration officials talking to the Russians after the election, including the one that got paid by RT before the election, which was such a serious issue that Trump fired the guy investigating Trump's hacking of the election who was also the guy who threw the election for Trump, which is evidence of Russian collusion in...something. Say that out loud and see what your mouth tastes like after you've said it. On a bit of a separate note, if it's illegal for a foreign power to attempt to influence our election, how does it square with the Obama administration actively engaged in aiding the campaign against Netantahu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Say that out loud and see what your mouth tastes like after you've said it. On a bit of a separate note, if it's illegal for a foreign power to attempt to influence our election, how does it square with the Obama administration actively engaged in aiding the campaign against Netantahu? The previous three presidents had a shaky relationship with Netanyahu. I remember Bill Clinton famously saying after meeting him after his first election win, "Who's the f##kin Superpower here." The Trump Netanyahu relationship will be interesting to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts