Not quite, here is his testimony from may 3rd, note that he is talking about superiors in the dept of justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-email-investigation/?utm_term=.c941c3d0a017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-email-investigation/?utm_term=.c941c3d0a017
The word "anyone" shows up nine times in the transcript, Hirono does not use the word in his question on this topic and Comey uses it twice in answers on other topics.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
Comey will soon testify before Congress about this and other matters. His memo will likely be produced pursuant to a subpoena. The words and the context will matter.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.
- Greg Jarrett
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
Comey will soon testify before Congress about this and other matters. His memo will likely be produced pursuant to a subpoena. The words and the context will matter.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.
- Greg Jarrett
Thank you
As for
We would not know who Comey sent his memo to, but assuming that he broke protocol would be a reach.
Once again....same answer for everything.
Dismiss, discredit, insult.
As if I am some crazy person with magical evidence floating around my head that I’m banging against the wall.
They let me out of the straightjacket for a couple mins every hour so I can post my responses to you and then they zip me back up into the padded room.
Your feigned attempts to insult and discredit still don’t answer any of those questions I proposed you answer...because you certainly act like these are things you should be familiar with being so incredibly smart and cultured and patriotic as yourself?
Mr. Patriot - How long and what branch of the military or the peace corp did you serve your country in?
Mr. Assumption - How much have you explored the world outside of the United States and where?
Mr. Genius - What degrees do you have, or training, and how have you utilized it?
Are you working on secret projects as we type?!
(And lastly is it a burrito supreme? *fingers crossed*)
Last edited:
One of the ways you can Immediately tell fake news especially when it comes to Trump is when not every liberal biased media outlet doesn't report on it at the same time.
Plus...it’s an active investigation.
Possibly into that person - Trump.
Also the head of the Justice Dept. recused himself from the investigation for his own Russian ties...they would have been reported to Rosenstein who he did report to and records show that Comey was requesting more investigators and resources in the leading up to his firing.
Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel at that point...partially because Trump had once again, fucked up the official WH narrative that would have help keep him out of hot water...but those early morning tweets are just digging his grave for him.
But also because he knows that there is more than enough evidence there to warrant one...they don’t just assign you Special Counsel for parking tickets.
One of the ways you can tell “fake news” is you look for links and other stories and evidence (facts even!) to back up your claims.
Being under active investigation by almost every institution in the US is pretty damning in itself.
Last edited:
You made a comment about me specifically. Don't think for a second I won't set you straight on items like that. And in this regard I am absolutely discrediting you for not having a clue what you are talking about.
Hmm. Circular arguments do not behoove you. =:/ Perhaps less "you" and more "we" can dispell a person from feeling attacked as opposed to the polite sharing of your opinion??
I concede in these damn threads @Eventhorizon , not because you've won an argument but you end up sounding like a little bitch and leave me questioning your due diligence over a matter. It is tough to stay kind sometimes and respect that you view life and it's intricities quite differently. However, I shouldn't have to censure my comments within any of the threads, I'll check in with management and see if that truth is sound.
Have a pleasant evening.
A little bitch? I had no idea. Sorry I really have no clue how you came to that conclusion. I will admit to a good amount of irritation to such a comment but will not devolve to that level in order to label you. Regardless of your colorful impression of me I still think you have a good mind, even if it leaves you on occasion.
Have a pleasant evening.
And this the reasoning for my remaining kind and respectful....perhaps it is a sign of an absent mind so quoted Einstein. Tis a shame really, block.
Calling someone a little bitch is your idea of kind and respectful? Yes I think it's safe to say we have vastly different views of the world.
Unfortunately I believe understanding will allude you through a good portion of your life if not all of it.
Best of luck.
It's like talking to a wall. What is the point? You can't reason with delusion. So just ignore it and engage with open minded people like me instead. Simple.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
You know guys, regarding #1 Trump Fan here, "show me the evidence" is a pretty unreasonable request of anyone just trying to discuss something. This isn't a court room or tribunal, you wouldn't demand evidence of a claim at the dinner table, no, instead you talk around and discuss the possibilities...
"I think Trump should be impeached."
"Why do you say that?"
"He's giving away state secrets to Russia."
"Those are just claims made by Trump's opponents."
"But he's being investigated..."
"Any claim this large is going to be investigated, remember Hilary's emails."
And so on.
But what The Trumpeteer is doing here is beyond unreasonable, he cries "Fake News" until Stu finally provides (and sometimes has to explain, let's be honest) the thing that CheetoFan can accept it, and still it changes nothing in his eyes, nothing in yours, nothing interesting has been said or thought over, this has been completely useless. What's the fucking point?
Anyway, here's something that could maybe be talked over without requiring links to X, Y, or Z. Trump probably won't be impeached regardless of any grounds to do so because the GOP have the majority, however the midterm elections could very well change things in that regard.
"I think Trump should be impeached."
"Why do you say that?"
"He's giving away state secrets to Russia."
"Those are just claims made by Trump's opponents."
"But he's being investigated..."
"Any claim this large is going to be investigated, remember Hilary's emails."
And so on.
But what The Trumpeteer is doing here is beyond unreasonable, he cries "Fake News" until Stu finally provides (and sometimes has to explain, let's be honest) the thing that CheetoFan can accept it, and still it changes nothing in his eyes, nothing in yours, nothing interesting has been said or thought over, this has been completely useless. What's the fucking point?
Anyway, here's something that could maybe be talked over without requiring links to X, Y, or Z. Trump probably won't be impeached regardless of any grounds to do so because the GOP have the majority, however the midterm elections could very well change things in that regard.