- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What does firing Comey have to do with stopping the Russian investigation?
Posted on 6/10/17 at 2:51 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 6/10/17 at 2:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
so now a hypothetical is "obstruction". Despearate.
Maybe Trump didn't tell the Russians the firing relieved pressured, maybe those conversations with his senior intellignece people to see if they would push back on the investigation didn't happen. Maybe Comey did make up the Oval Office conversation and no one will be able to help corroborate his version of events. Maybe Trump has a really good answer to all these things.
So let him and the people in or around those situations when they occurred testify under oath to clarify it. Like the president said he would personally do.
2
Posted on 6/10/17 at 2:55 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Maybe.
Maybe Trump didn't tell the Russians the firing relieved pressured, maybe those conversations with his senior intellignece people to see if they would push back on the investigation didn't happen. Maybe Comey did make up the Oval Office conversation and no one will be able to help corroborate his version of events. Maybe Trump has a really good answer to all these things.
quote:Let the witch hunt continue.
So let him and the people in or around those situations when they occurred testify under oath to clarify it. Like the president said he would personally do.
Stick to Muh Russians.
Posted on 6/10/17 at 2:55 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
So let him and the people in or around those situations when they occurred testify under oath to clarify it.
you expect the President of the United States to defend himself from things people make up? This is sillier than being a birther.
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:00 pm to WaveHog
quote:
Gives the president the ability to hire a yes man.
Obama administration, Comey, we want you to collude with the Clinton campaign, so you will call your investigation a "matter"!
Comey, "Yes ma'am!"
Obama administration, Comey, you will collude with the Clinton campaign so say, "there was no intent and no reasonable prosecutor would take this case with overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing."
Comey, "Yes sir!"
Trump fired a yes-man!
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:03 pm to Taxing Authority
voluntarily in court? Probably not.
If he's subpoenaed, do you think he'd refuse to appear?
If he's subpoenaed, do you think he'd refuse to appear?
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:11 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
What matters is that Trump believed it to be true if the issue is obstruction. If he believed firing Comey would hamper the investigation and that was a motivating factor.
Comey said it wasn't obstruction in the very same testimony. A number of liberal legal scholars have said it wasn't obstruction. Other top spooks, including McCabe said there was no obstruction.
Now you've been reduced to trying to divine Trumps "feelings" on a message board to keep yourself convinced that he's evil. fricking pathetic.
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:13 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:James Bonhoeffer doing work with the feels.
Now you've been reduced to trying to divine Trumps "feelings" on a message board to keep yourself convinced that he's evil. fricking pathetic.
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:38 pm to Vacherie Saint
Actually, what he said was that it was Bob Mueller's job to determine whether it was obstruction.
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:41 pm to TigerDoc
quote:Leakers gotta leak.
Actually, what he said was that it was Bob Mueller's job to determine whether it was obstruction.
This post was edited on 6/10/17 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 6/10/17 at 3:49 pm to TigerDoc
Wrong. It's time to pivot. Most of your friends already have.
RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go.
COMEY: Not in his words, no.
RISCH: He did not order you to let it go.
COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.
RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go.
COMEY: Not in his words, no.
RISCH: He did not order you to let it go.
COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.
Posted on 6/10/17 at 7:00 pm to rickyh
quote:Not a thing.
What does firing Comey have to do with stopping the Russian investigation?
Posted on 6/10/17 at 8:09 pm to rickyh
Nothing
Posted on 6/10/17 at 11:57 pm to John McClane
Nothing is correct. The left is spinning a new narrative to hide the real guilty party. Deflect, deflect, deflect. They are keeping Trump on the defensive to cover their own guilt and Comey is guilty of treason.
Posted on 6/11/17 at 12:15 am to Vacherie Saint
You stopped your quote of the exchange too soon, Saint. Immediately following the passage you quoted, Risch continues:
Comey understood this as a directive in its context. It wasn't ambiguous to him.
Btw, at least one federal case was has been identified after the hearing based on an "I hope" statement.
quote:
James Risch - Idaho: He said "I hope". Now, like me you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases charging people with criminal offenses, and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there that -- where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or for that matter any other criminal offense where this -- they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?
James Comey: I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying "his words" is I took it as a direction. It is the president of the United States, with me alone, saying "I hope" this, I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
Comey understood this as a directive in its context. It wasn't ambiguous to him.
Btw, at least one federal case was has been identified after the hearing based on an "I hope" statement.
Posted on 6/11/17 at 1:48 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
requires prosecutors to show that a person acted with "corrupt" intent. It does not matter whether the person succeeds in impeding an investigation."
Which it can be argued he likely did.
Boy, you are retarded.
In order to obstruct you need a fricking crime first, moron.
What's the crime?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News