If Comey is such a liar..

[JMR]

I don't know where to start with this nonsense. If he claimed he saw the video then next question would be "how could you be the only person in the government to see it and show us how you ended up seeing it." Since he couldn't give a credible answer to those questions why would make such a statement?

You make an interesting point. One could almost ask how could Trump be the one person to see Muslims celebrating on 9/11? How could Trump say 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary and that is why he lost? How could Trump say we are the highest taxed nation in the world when in fact we are in the bottom half. How could he state that unemployment may be at 42%? These are only four of his estimated 1000 lies. He has not given a credible explanation for any lie yet. Maybe we are just in the age of alternative reality, so Comey can be there too, right?

 

[Vetplus40]

Comey is a decent man who made some mistakes.

tRump is simply a piece of "pond scum" who enjoys the fact that grown men would gladly stroke him at his request.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I think I understand.
You don't like what he says, so you attack him, rather than evaluating the merits of his position.

Typical.

What attack? I watched the show where he was literally foaming at the mouth about Ellison. I heard his words myself.
I haven't liked him since oj...but now he's a great legal scholar to those that hated him back then.
He's a great attorney no attack....great attorneys can and will make a guilty person look innocent that's there job and he does it well.

 

[eohrnberger]

What attack? I watched the show where he was literally foaming at the mouth about Ellison. I heard his words myself.
I haven't liked him since oj...but now he's a great legal scholar to those that hated him back then.
He's a great attorney no attack....great attorneys can and will make a guilty person look innocent that's there job and he does it well.

Ellison represents the extremist left, and has taken positions and stated suspiciously anti-Semitic statements, in additional to cavorting around with vehemently anti-Semitic Rev. Louis Farrakhan, as have many other leaders in the Democratic party.

So little surprise that Dershowitz objects to Ellison.

In the larger view, people like Ellison are supposed to be representing the Democratic party and their leadership, Democratic party values?

Hmm. Okay, if you say so.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Which he isn't.

But, if he were such a big liar.

Why wouldn't he just say that not only does the pee tape exist, but, that he has seen it personally, and was deeply offended by it?

Instead you see a rational man, carefully weighing his words with a prescription to accuracy and the truth.

And I'm no big Comey fan, but, his transgressions were against HRC, not Trump.

Comey lied alright:

1. in his letter exonerating Hillary
2. When taking over the DOJ function of determing whether to prosecute( thats not the function of the FBI ) and the lie was that no prosecutor would prosecute a case wherein an illegal server was set up to circumvent State Department access to her influence peddling, she lied to the State Department about the emails existence and if classified emails passed thru it, the destruction of 33K emials after being subpoenaed
3. He lied about the requirement of intent in the governing statutes of the laws Hillary broke
4. He was an affiant to the over reliance on the use of the dossier that he himself testified and later told the president was salascious and unverified
5. He has lied about the FBI and its massive illegal surviellance of th American people

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/06...breach-larger-than-snowden-a-lawsuit-says-yes

Much of that under oath, so yes, BIG LIES.

 

[eohrnberger]

Comey lied alright:

1. in his letter exonerating Hillary
2. When taking over the DOJ function of determing whether to prosecute( thats not the function of the FBI ) and the lie was that no prosecutor would prosecute a case wherein an illegal server was set up to circumvent State Department access to her influence peddling, she lied to the State Department about the emails existence and if classified emails passed thru it, the destruction of 33K emials after being subpoenaed
3. He lied about the requirement of intent in the governing statutes of the laws Hillary broke
4. He was an affiant to the over reliance on the use of the dossier that he himself testified and later told the president was salascious and unverified
5. He has lied about the FBI and its massive illegal surviellance of th American people

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/06...breach-larger-than-snowden-a-lawsuit-says-yes

Much of that under oath, so yes, BIG LIES.

GOP lawmaker calls for FBI, DOJ officials to face 'treason' charges ...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-treason-paul-gosar-386089
Feb 2, 2018 - "The full-throated adoption of this illegal misconduct and abuse of FISA by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein is not just criminal but constitutes treason," Gosar wrote in a statement. Gosar said he would urge Attorney General Jeff Sessions to seek "criminal prosecution ...

Comey Should Be Indicted - American Thinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/comey_should_be_indicted.html
Dec 16, 2017 - The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General ...

Will James Comey and Andrew McCabe Face Criminal Charges?The ...
https://spectator.org/will-james-comey-and-andrew-mccabe-face-criminal-charges/
Mar 7, 2018 - He may not do this, and if he does, the Justice Department may not pursue former FBI leaders, and if they do, a grand jury may not indict, and if they do, a jury may not find Comey orMcCabe guilty. So, we get ahead of ourselves when we imagine Comey and McCabe's fate as akin to a former famous FBI ...

Hmm. Maybe criminal charges will come to pass. Maybe they won't.

If they do, at least there'd be a possibility of some trust in government and the FBI to be restored, given the McCabe's and Comey's performance while in their top level FBI positions.

 

[calamity]

Which he isn't.

But, if he were such a big liar.

Why wouldn't he just say that not only does the pee tape exist, but, that he has seen it personally, and was deeply offended by it?

Instead you see a rational man, carefully weighing his words with a prescription to accuracy and the truth.

And I'm no big Comey fan, but, his transgressions were against HRC, not Trump.

Comey vs Trump is like a tulip versus a turd pile.

 

[Winston]

Hmm. Maybe criminal charges will come to pass. Maybe they won't.

If they do, at least there'd be a possibility of some trust in government and the FBI to be restored, given the McCabe's and Comey's performance while in their top level FBI positions.

Lying and leaking, that's what you guys are going with? No real substantial corruption?

Embezzlement? Drug trafficking? Something, man.

No one gives a **** that McCabe leaked a story damaging to HRC to the WSJ anymore.

And how many in the Trump WH would stand up to the same examination? How many would be thrown out for the same thing if an equivalent to the OIG investigated them, Trump included? When he himself leaked Israel's sensitive information to the Russian ambassador of all people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Hmm. Maybe criminal charges will come to pass. Maybe they won't.

If they do, at least there'd be a possibility of some trust in government and the FBI to be restored, given the McCabe's and Comey's performance while in their top level FBI positions.

I am pretty confident they will be charged.

I expect the rest of the OIG report to be pretty explosive. I side with the folks calling this treason. They intervened, thumb on the scale, in the election, undermined the president elect and then as president. Many of them actively working, conspiring, to not allow him to win and then, after he won, to oust him.

Being mostly lawyers, the ones we know of so far, and working in federal law enforcement they knew better than anyone the fire the were playing with. They need get burned. They just didnt really pay it much mind because Hillary was scheduled to win, it was set.

Can you imagine that sinking feeling in the pit of their bowels on election night, the desperation since then? I am thinking that we will probably need to create a whole new federal law enforcement department and retire the name FBI, its soon to become synonymous with corruption and treason.

Sad.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Ellison represents the extremist left, and has taken positions and stated suspiciously anti-Semitic statements, in additional to cavorting around with vehemently anti-Semitic Rev. Louis Farrakhan, as have many other leaders in the Democratic party.

So little surprise that Dershowitz objects to Ellison.

In the larger view, people like Ellison are supposed to be representing the Democratic party and their leadership, Democratic party values?

Hmm. Okay, if you say so.

Typical...talk about something completely different to deflect the point. I understand more, more everyday why people like me that actually used to look at the candidates not really care what party they from are going to make sure we try to cleanse every R that is currently in government.

 

[eohrnberger]

Lying and leaking, that's what you guys are going with? No real substantial corruption?

Embezzlement? Drug trafficking? Something, man.

No one gives a **** that McCabe leaked a story damaging to HRC to the WSJ anymore.

And how many in the Trump WH would stand up to the same examination? How many would be thrown out for the same thing if an equivalent to the OIG investigated them, Trump included? When he himself leaked Israel's sensitive information to the Russian ambassador of all people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"And how many in the Trump WH would stand up to the same examination?" What do you call the over reaching Mueller investigation?

I'll just let the wheels of justice continue their churning on, reaching their own inevitable ends.

The leak that you refer to was within the purview of the office, as much, apparently, as the SoS can declassify materials on the fly in order to keep them on her private email server.

Was the leaking from McCabe within the purview of his office? OIG (appointed by Obama) and the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility would disagree.

 

[eohrnberger]

Typical...talk about something completely different to deflect the point.

Hardly. You brought Ellison into the discussion, and I'm pointing out some facts about him. Seems rather on topic, but I understand, anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions need be mocked, belittled and disregarded. Head in the sand about the party you support isn't an particularly intelligent way forward.

I understand more, more everyday why people like me that actually used to look at the candidates not really care what party they from are going to make sure we try to cleanse every R that is currently in government.

Based on your response it's pretty clear that Dershowitz has a point. Never mind that the Democrats are at least equal to, if not worse, than what you attribute to those 'R's.

 

[Mr Person]

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you tell him that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents?

COMEY: No. I didn’t...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did he have a right to know that?

COMEY: That it had been financed by his political opponents? I don't know the answer to that.

Does this make him a "liar"? no

Does it make him either a fool or an idiot? 100% yes

Whaddabout Iran-Contra?




Anyway,

Give a coherent answer, not rambling nonsense.

You like coherent answers? Direct ones?

There was this question:

Are you guys saying Christopher Steele wrote a pack of lies, first on behalf of a conservative group and when that deal fell through sold the fiction to the Democrats? Or are you saying the Democrats wrote the pack of lies and Steele just allowed his name to be attached to it?

But you only responded to this part:

I'm not sure. I'll say this, though- you can't say that none of it can be verified. For all you know, all of it can be verified, and all of it will.

How about the answer to this question, since coherent, direct answers are good?

Are you guys saying Christopher Steele wrote a pack of lies, first on behalf of a conservative group and when that deal fell through sold the fiction to the Democrats? Or are you saying the Democrats wrote the pack of lies and Steele just allowed his name to be attached to it?

 

[eohrnberger]

I am pretty confident they will be charged.

I expect the rest of the OIG report to be pretty explosive. I side with the folks calling this treason. They intervened, thumb on the scale, in the election, undermined the president elect and then as president. Many of them actively working, conspiring, to not allow him to win and then, after he won, to oust him.

If that's what the OIG report shows, then that's what needs to be charged, and above all, successfully convicted. This type of behavior by powerful government agencies should never be repeated. All I'll note is that it flourished under Obama's leadership, or lack there of.

Being mostly lawyers, the ones we know of so far, and working in federal law enforcement they knew better than anyone the fire the were playing with. They need get burned. They just didnt really pay it much mind because Hillary was scheduled to win, it was set.

Can you imagine that sinking feeling in the pit of their bowels on election night, the desperation since then? I am thinking that we will probably need to create a whole new federal law enforcement department and retire the name FBI, its soon to become synonymous with corruption and treason.

"the desperation since then?" Not sure any of that was visible to the public. I think they thought that they'd get away with it, leading only to the question of what all else did they get away with?

Sad.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Hardly. You brought Ellison into the discussion, and I'm pointing out some facts about him. Seems rather on topic, but I understand, anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions need be mocked, belittled and disregarded. Head in the sand about the party you support isn't an particularly intelligent way forward.

Trump, his lawyer and half a dozen people in his administration are not being investigated for their political beliefs, it's for the crimes they committed. Aren't you guys supposed to be the "law and order" hawks? Why suspend the law just for the politicians you like?

 

[Moot]

Comey lied alright:

1. in his letter exonerating Hillary
2. When taking over the DOJ function of determing whether to prosecute( thats not the function of the FBI ) and the lie was that no prosecutor would prosecute a case wherein an illegal server was set up to circumvent State Department access to her influence peddling, she lied to the State Department about the emails existence and if classified emails passed thru it, the destruction of 33K emials after being subpoenaed
3. He lied about the requirement of intent in the governing statutes of the laws Hillary broke
4. He was an affiant to the over reliance on the use of the dossier that he himself testified and later told the president was salascious and unverified
5. He has lied about the FBI and its massive illegal surviellance of th American people

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/06...breach-larger-than-snowden-a-lawsuit-says-yes

Much of that under oath, so yes, BIG LIES.

That looks more like a right wing wish list than it does a list of Comey lies.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

That looks more like a right wing wish list than it does a list of Comey lies.

Are you credibly going to try to persuade that

1. Comey didnt write the letter exonerating Hillary by change the verbiage from statute language to synonyms in order to make it appear it didnt meet the standard?
2. That is wasnt written in advance of her FBI interview?
3. That Hillary didnt break national security and freedom of information act laws?
4. That intent is not a requirement as proposed by Comey under oath?
5. That he didnt sign off on using the, his terms after the fact, salacious and unverified dossier in order to get a warrant on Page?
6. That the US Government is not illegally spying on us?

Or are we just to take your obviously under informed word for it? Excuse me if I so decline.

 

[code1211]

Which are?

YOU say he has transgressed.

YOU are a Trump supporter.

Trump never tells the truth.

Trump's supporters echo everything he says, ergo you are lying.

Comey was fired as punishment for being a Republican and NOT jailing Hilary. This is what Washington watchers have been saying since the beginning and its the only one that fits the temperment of childish Donald Trump. He has even boasted that that's the reason, he has told reporters, bragged that he could wipe out the guy's career with his pen.

Comey was also schlepping Trump's daughter

I don't know what Schlepping in this context means.

Comey said on the ABC interview tape that he presented the news of the dossier to Trump and intentionally withheld the fact that it was written and financed by Trump's political opponents. That by itself is a lack of candor and grounds for dismissal.

What possible reason could there have been for Comey to have withheld this information? Why would he withhold ANY salient information?

He was a deeply flawed administrator choosing sides and winners who viewed himself as some kind of a half assed King Maker.

Trump has done or tried to do everything he has promised to do. YOU don't happen to like him. Your problem with him is not that he's dishonest. If anything, he's too honest. Too transparent.

You premise is flawed. Your logic is based on a flawed premise. Ergo, you're conclusion is flawed.

 

[jnug]

More laughable tweets from trump this morning. Comey was not looking to land a job with HRC when he blundered into making public pronouncements about the HRC email affair. He already had the job dumbdumb. He was in all likelihood trying to protect the agency from criticism. In any event trump actually congratulated Comey for his actions in the HRC email affair. The ultimate transactional president strikes again.

If anything Comey's actions suggest a political blockhead which is what most FBI agents are when it comes to politics. They view or should view politics through the lens of their jobs as investigators. Beyond that, they are about as clueless politically as it gets. That Comey fancied himself capable of understanding the polls, what they meant, who might win and why and his motivations for his actions are really the most revealing elements of his book other than trump's compete lack of interest in discussing how the country could protect itself from future Russian meddling. So in point of fact, the comments and revelations about his actions around the HRC email affair are the most interesting comments in the book, comments the author willingly makes about himself.

 

[eohrnberger]

Trump, his lawyer and half a dozen people in his administration are not being investigated for their political beliefs, it's for the crimes they committed. Aren't you guys supposed to be the "law and order" hawks? Why suspend the law just for the politicians you like?

As posted.

"And how many in the Trump WH would stand up to the same examination?" What do you call the over reaching Mueller investigation?

I'll just let the wheels of justice continue their churning on, reaching their own inevitable ends.

The leak that you refer to was within the purview of the office, as much, apparently, as the SoS can declassify materials on the fly in order to keep them on her private email server.

Was the leaking from McCabe within the purview of his office? OIG (appointed by Obama) and the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility would disagree.

From my view this applies to everyone equally, regardless of position in life.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Hardly. You brought Ellison into the discussion, and I'm pointing out some facts about him. Seems rather on topic, but I understand, anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions need be mocked, belittled and disregarded. Head in the sand about the party you support isn't an particularly intelligent way forward.

Based on your response it's pretty clear that Dershowitz has a point. Never mind that the Democrats are at least equal to, if not worse, than what you attribute to those 'R's.

I explained to you my opinion on Dershowitz and why I had it. I explained why Dershowitz is doing what he's doing..mhe saud he would.
I have nothing against the man but I disagree with his opinion and that's all it is. An opinion artfully argued.
You know we used to be able to disagree without attacking I'll stick with that.

 

[Mr Person]

"Billy, look, you just tell them and they believe it. That's it: you just tell them and they believe. They just do."

 

[Fletch]

Whaddabout Iran-Contra?




Anyway,



You like coherent answers? Direct ones?

There was this question:



But you only responded to this part:




How about the answer to this question, since coherent, direct answers are good?

Ill give you a direct answer: we have no way of knowing since most of what he wrote cannot be verified. Comey, himself, says he doesnt know if the Golden Shower story is true or not. If its not true, we dont know who lied about it--Steele or his source. Further, Steele wasnt hired until after the conservative group dropped the funding for the oppo research. Now how about you answer a direct question?

How is the Clinton camp hiring a foreign agent to collect data on her political opponent from current and former Russian intelligence sources (or, let me phrase it in a way liberals can understand--people close to Putin) not colluding with a foreign power to influence our elections?

 

[eohrnberger]

I explained to you my opinion on Dershowitz and why I had it. I explained why Dershowitz is doing what he's doing..mhe saud he would.
I have nothing against the man but I disagree with his opinion and that's all it is. An opinion artfully argued.
You know we used to be able to disagree without attacking I'll stick with that.

What of my posts have you perceived as an attack?

 

[Middle_Ground]

What of my posts have you perceived as an attack?

None you said I was attacking someone simply because I have a differing opinion. Differing opinions do not equate attack. It's funny I was always more right leaning than left not anymore.