Comey: "I Was Wrong"

[trixare4kids]

What does Trump Campaign knowing or not, have to do with whether it was proper to investigate the campaign? You're moving far afield.

Regardless, Trump hires criminals and surrounds himself with them. He should clean-up his act, if he doesn't want to draw law enforcement scrutiny or end-up in the pokey.

IF he didn't KNOW they were criminals why do you continue to blame Trump and his campaign for the criminal actions of others? Remember, Trump and his campaign had NO knowledge that Manafort was under investigation.

Sorry but your explanation defies logic.

 

[Cardinal]

Comey, even after getting caught lying, lied his ass off in the interview...lol

Interesting. So Comey was lying when he said, "He (Howowitz) was right and I was wrong"?

 

[apdst]

Interesting. So Comey was lying when he said, "He (Howowitz) was right and I was wrong"?

Watch the video and see the lies pouring out of Comey's pie hole.

 

[Cardinal]

IF he didn't KNOW they were criminals why do you continue to blame Trump and his campaign for the criminal actions of others? Remember, Trump and his campaign had NO knowledge that Manafort was under investigation.

Sorry but your explanation defies logic.

It was not known if Manafort was a criminal, but it was well known that he was a scumbag who would almost certainly rain trouble on the campaign. And sure enough, that's exactly what ended up happening.

If you hired somebody with, say, severe drug and gambling addictions, you might not know if he was currently under investigation, but you'd have a pretty good idea that you were inviting trouble into your business.

But this is a pattern of judgment for trump in which he chooses bad people, as evidenced by the nine trump associates who were ultimately convicted of crimes.

 

[Cardinal]

Watch the video and see the lies pouring out of Comey's pie hole.

Was Comey lying when he said, "He (Howowitz) was right and I was wrong"?

 

[Chomsky]

IF he didn't KNOW they were criminals why do you continue to blame Trump and his campaign for the criminal actions of others? Remember, Trump and his campaign had NO knowledge that Manafort was under investigation.

Sorry but your explanation defies logic.

Why does Trump praise him until today? Does he still not know? You tell me. I have my theories .

But again, what has this got to do with Comey?

 

[trixare4kids]

Why does Trump praise him until today? Does he still not know? You tell me. I have my theories .

But again, what has this got to do with Comey?

Trump praises Manafort today?
I don't think so... Right after he was convicted, he mentioned that Manafort refused to lie just to get a deal like Cohen. But praise him today? Um, no.

To your last statement. Nothing but...
You're the poster who said the president chose to surround himself with criminals.

 

[Cardinal]

Trump praises Manafort?
I don't think so...

To your last statement. Nothing but...
You're the poster who said the president chose to surround himself with criminals.

Paul Manafort - Trump Campaign chairman
Conspiracy against the U.S.
Conspiracy to commit witness tampering
Bank fraud
Failure to report foreign bank accounts
False tax returns

Rick Gates - Trump Deputy campaign chairman
Conspiracy against the U.S.
Making false statements

Michael Flynn - Trump National security adviser
Making false statements to the FBI

George Papadopoulos - Trump Campaign adviser
Making false statements to the FBI

Roger Stone - Trump Campaign Adviser
Obstruction of proceeding
Making false statements
Witness tampering

Michael Cohen - Trump's personal attorney
Making false statements
Making false statements
Tax evasion
Campaign finance violations

Konstantin Kilimnik - Business partner of Manafort and Gates
Conspiracy to obstruct

Alex van der Zwaan - Attorney who worked with Manafort and Gates
Making false statements

Richard Pinedo - Facilitated transactions related to Russian efforts
Identity fraud

 

[trixare4kids]

Watch the video and see the lies pouring out of Comey's pie hole.

He's a delusional disgrace and no, he has not been vindicated by Michael Horowitz's findings.

 

[haymarket]

At this late date, anyone still enabling or excusing Trumps criminal activities and his destruction of basic decency in government is beyond redemption. Either that or they are outright Russian traitors.

 

[Cardinal]

He's a delusional disgrace and no, he has not been vindicated by Michael Horowitz's findings.

If you watched the video you'd know that he was vindicated on the biggest right wing conspiracy theories, but not on the sloppiness over the FISA application for Carter Page, and Comey admits to this point blank.

But...we come back to an old question: so what? I mean, obviously FISA applications shouldn't be sloppy. Nobody would seriously think that they should be or that it's okay.

What I mean is, what does the Carter Page issue have to do with...well, with anything?

 

[JustHanging]

Ok, so they focused on Page because he was connected to Trump.

And the Lizard people. You're already most of the way there...go all in!

 

[Trump]

Thanks for this, I was going to look for it later today.

Comey seems to be saying the same thing as the I.G. report is saying:

"There was some sloppiness, but nothing partisan or done intentionally or through animus"

sloppiness....lol

guessing Durham will have more thorough explanation when his report drops

 

[Cardinal]

sloppiness....lol

guessing Durham will have more thorough explanation when his report drops

Nobody but trump supporters give any credence to Barr.

 

[Trump]

Nobody but trump supporters give any credence to Barr.

did I mention Barr?

 

[Cardinal]

did I mention Barr?

Yes you did, when you said "Durham."

 

[justabubba]

I watched the interview with Wallace. Comey admits to very little and lays the blame for everything at the feet of Trump who said mean things about him and his agency...even though it turns out that they really did **** a lot of stuff up.

i watched that wallace interview, too ... and the one you heard must have been in another, mistranslated language
Comey admitted that the FISA errors were troubling and that the current FBI Director was fixing that problem in the same manner Comey would have were he still the Director

 

[Chomsky]

sloppiness....lol

guessing Durham will have more thorough explanation when his report drops

I can't speak to Durham (T.B .D.), but I can speak to the I.G., his report, and the video in your O.P.

That being said - with the much higher bar of proof of evidence in a criminal investigation, in relation to the lower bar of an internal I.G. investigation, why why you believe the much higher criminal bar would be met if the lower bar couldn't?

 

[RenoCon]

I am sorry if I am treading on your post but I attempted to post a similar thread in Breaking News that was lost in the weeds here in General Political Discussion after getting moved by the moderators. It is probably best to keep it all in one place anyway.

Comey admits ‘I was wrong’ on FISA conduct, remains defiant on dossier in tense interview | Fox News

Chris Wallace did a fairly hard hitting interview with Comey on Fox News Sunday. Comey describes 17 errors in the FISA report as "mischaracterizations." It notes a "number of tricky things" about the Steele Report that all of us mortals will never understand. Regarding the Russian contact of Steele debunking the whole Steele Dossier: "As Director...I am not kept informed...[of the many thousands of investigations going on at the FBI]...can't run investigations seven layers below you." The FBI lawyer's altering the relationship between Page as "a source" for the CIA to "not a source" was attributed to a "mistake." Comey poo poos these mistakes noting that the FBI under his tutelage has made "mistakes more consequential than this."

So Comey was involved enough to staunchly defend the Steele Dossier while this witch hunt was going on but now the mistakes were "seven" levels below his pay grade. An investigation involving the POTUS was not important enough for him to be directly involved with? Comey continues to deny bias though as Wallace points out there were "Three teams that made significant errors in four FISA reports." Horowitz stated in the Senate hearing that the motivation for the "errors" was unclear but that it was either "gross negligence or intended." Comey reluctantly admits that "Carter Page was treated unfairly."

Comey is slime, but he may actually be a Republican asset. On the eave of the Congressional impeachment vote we now have confirmation that the first portion of the Mueller Report showed no evidence of collusion. The whole collusion narrative was based on the Steele Dossier and the nefarious FISA applications. Mueller left open the question of obstruction in the second portion of his report according to many liberals. It is now clear that Comey and McCabe were incompetent and needed to be fired. Trump had good reason to ask the AG and others to end this charade. That is not obstruction, that is just good sense.

I can't wait to see the Democrats attempt to make their case regarding "abuse of power" and "obstruction." It will be laughable.

 

[Cardinal]

I can't speak to Durham (T.B .D.), but I can speak to the I.G., his report, and the video in your O.P.

That being said - with the much higher bar of proof of evidence in a criminal investigation, in relation to the lower bar of an internal I.G. investigation, why why you believe the much higher criminal bar would be met if the lower bar couldn't?

I think the state of mind at play here is that if there's an investigation then at the end of that road lies an indictable crime. Looked at in this way, the right wing response to the Mueller investigation while it was ongoing wasn't completely crazy. Or rather, it was crazy, just not crazy in the way it appeared to be crazy.

What I don't understand though is how they reconcile the expectation of an indictment every time there's an investigation with the reality that investigations often end up with no indictments at all. How do they square that circle?

 

[Hypothetical]

Thanks for this, I was going to look for it later today.

Comey seems to be saying the same thing as the I.G. report is saying:

"There was some sloppiness, but nothing partisan or done intentionally or through animus"

sloppiness? the impetus for investigation in one part was based on an INTELLIGENCE ASSET who was talking to russians as an intelligence asset, which was conveniently changed to NOT being an asset by an FBI lawyer before being presented to the court, due to what? a TYPO? no this is not over, someone needs to explain this kind of SLOPPINESS. we are talking 3 stooges type stuff here.

 

[Hypothetical]

Maybe Comey should try trump's approach and say it was a perfect FISA application, and the IG is a witch hunt, and claim the IG completely exonerated the FBI of any mistakes.

yeah lets see how that goes for him. unlike the accusations about Trump , we have real evidence of this.

 

[Chomsky]

From his report:

We concluded that Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. We similarly found that, while the formal documentation opening each of the four individual investigations was approved by Strzok (as required by the DIOG), the Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation decisions to do so were reached by a consensus among the Crossfire Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had recently traveled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia. Priestap was involved in these decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.

"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page. "

Here is the thing:

The evidentiary burden of proof in an I.G. adminstrative internal investigation is very low. However, the burden of proof in a criminal instigation is very high. So I'm at a loss to understand what could cause optimism to believe the higher criminal burden can be met, when the lower administrative burden couldn't?

It makes no sense.

 

[Hypothetical]

I can't speak to Durham (T.B .D.), but I can speak to the I.G., his report, and the video in your O.P.

That being said - with the much higher bar of proof of evidence in a criminal investigation, in relation to the lower bar of an internal I.G. investigation, why why you believe the much higher criminal bar would be met if the lower bar couldn't?

because Durham has the power of a grand jury

 

[Lutherf]

From his report:

We concluded that Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. We similarly found that, while the formal documentation opening each of the four individual investigations was approved by Strzok (as required by the DIOG), the Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation decisions to do so were reached by a consensus among the Crossfire Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had recently traveled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia. Priestap was involved in these decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.

"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page. "

Right. That's what I said. OPENING the investigation was unbiased. That DOES NOT mean that there was no bias involved in CONTINUING the investigation and both his report and his verbal testimony suggest that bias may have played a significant role in the continuation of the investigation.