You are with a small minority that think we shouldn't complete the Russian investigation. It has only started and it will run it course to completion. Just sit back and relax and stop deflecting CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON. Looks like a partisan hack that doesn't care about America and it's independence from major outside interference. Trump was not under investigation until he took the actions to get himself to be investigated. That's his very special own doing. Not anyone else.
Hmm... could Trump's threatened legal action against Comey may in itself be against the law... There’s no indication Comey violated the law. Trump may be about to. And re: Predisent Trump's lawyer threat to file a complain about Comey's testimony? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trump-may-be-about-to/?utm_term=.b3f65dbf15e1
Obtuse imply a caring to understand. That's not Trump. It's 2nd nature to him to say anything without any regard for accuracy or truth. This is why he's such a prolific liar. Why he can say things like I never met that guy. Then later, I know that guy very well. Then yet again later, I never met that guy.
So this is still just a circle jerk thread with no actual substance? Have fun kids, don't eat the cookie when you're done.
Substance meaning actual proof of something that matters and not just a "he said she said" between the president and a disgruntled former employee.
One saying something under oath, and another saying something on Twitter isn't a he-said/he-said - it is overwhelming evidence that one of them is backing up their statements with action. Trump can end all of this debate easily by testifying under oath about how Comey was lying. He won't do that of course, because he's the liar of the two.
Seems like McCain was attempting to say that if Russia was interfering in the election, both Trump and Clinton must necessarily be under suspicion. That kinda 40% makes sense to me. He's trying to say "How do you know Clinton was not implicated too?" But Comey was looking from a prosecutor's perspective and saying (without saying directly): we are following the evidence, and right now it's only pointing in one direction. How can you investigate things for which there is no evidence? You'd have to investigate everything.
A disgruntled employee saying things under oath with no proof isn't exactly what I'd consider substance though. It's a he said she said situation where neither person has any credibility.....unless of course you want to believe what one of them is saying and you'll pretend that they are credible.
He wouldn't be convicted by public opinion so much if he didn't look so damn guilty all the time. 1. Obstruction: looks to me like he was trying to influence the FBI investigation and, when he couldn't, opted to obstruct it by firing Comey. 2. Logan Act: looks to me like, before he was president, he was communicating with Russian leadership to undermine the policies of the sitting president. Yeah, yeah, no one's ever been prosecuted on it before. And, yeah, it's just a short temporal shift since he would be president in the next 1-2 months. This still looks like the sort of thing the Logan Act is written for. 3. Collusion to undermine the election: Has not been proven at all. Unfortunately still looks like a possibility. 4. Pro-Russia foreign policy: Not a crime. But, I'd consider it some kind of national security malpractice. We should be threatening to beat their asses right now, but Trump bizarrely wants to let bygones be bygones. It speaks a lot to the possibility of collusion, that he has a quid pro quo to normalize relations in return for making him president, and explains the Logan Act communications and the need to obstruct the investigation. No, I don't think they are 'leaks' at all unless there is some classification or privilege that prevents someone from talking about it. I doubt there are tapes. It sounds like a dumb bluff to me.
If you call Comey disgruntled, then you can go to one of the five or six other people he mentioned who were told about the events about which Comey was testifying. Of course, if you don't bother to check that and weigh sworn testimony on the same reliability scale as Trump's Tweets, then your aren't really trying to be critical in discerning the truth.
This is a ridiculous statement. Trump has threatened that there may be tapes of the conversations, do you really think Comey would volunteer to go before the senate committee if he was going to lie? If he had been forced to appear all he would have had to do is plead the 5th and be done with it. The fact that he testified, is proof that he wasn't lying. This is a man who was the head of the FBI, not some MLB player being questioned about steroids. He was fully aware of the ramifications of testifying... you're being delusional.
Liberal logic. No evidence but we should be concerned. I thought you guys were the ones who think nobody should "be alarmed". And who is to say he isnt concerned? Because no tweets stating that? I am sure many concerned conversations have occurred. Just because they dont notify Rachel Maddow doesnt mean they arent happening.
The right in this thread have absolutely no moral standing. Absolutely none. It's sad they have twisted their minds to this extent.
I would agree with you if we were just talking about public statements. Putting someone under oath is a big deal. He could face jail time if he was shown to be lying. It's hard to imagine anyone lying under oath unless they are trying to avoid admitting anything that could incriminate them legally. Putting someone under oath is typically how you get passed the bullshit.
The issue is that the things he said for the most part cannot be proven one way or the other so there's not really a threat of prosecution even if he was lying about it. I'll put it this way, if it were Trump on the stand under oath, do you think those who are taking Comey's word for it would take Trump at his word? Of course not. They wouldn't think that him being under oath meant that he would automatically tell the truth about what happened especially when we're talking about things that largely cannot be proven one way or the other or speculation as to the intent of others.
Above all the buffoonery and inflammatory rhetoric, history will judge Trump as the president who looked the other way while American democracy and elections were under hostile attack from a foreign power. This is the defining moment for a president who won't even publicly acknowledge the attack even after widespread agreement among the intelligence community, ranking members of Congress, and now testimony from former FBI director. Instead, Trump continues to deny the attack as fake news because it makes him look bad for having benefitted from said attack. That is not leadership worthy of the highest office in the land and is unbecoming of president.
