Reminder:
Comey is likely in the pockets of the Clintons/Deep State

The Deep state gave 'Evidence' to Colin Powell in the past about WMD's in Iraq, and it was entirely wrong.

Even if whatever Comey says and believes based on evidence he has been given, it very likely could be fake. Pretty much anything could be created from anything to fool anyone nowadays, as seen in 2003.

Comey has hated the Clintons for a long time, and it's very clear his letter at the end of the election was enough to sway the 1% of the votes in Michigan to Trump.

The Deep state's evidence was from the office of special plan. It doesn't relate to the FBI. You are a long time T_D poster spreading FUD because you assume in advance that anything comey could have to say would be negative.

lol "no charges should be brought against her, no".

Meanwhile, we simply share our emails with another country. No hacking needed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

Rather than having a sticky for the Republican spin site, THIS should be stickied -- especially since it is already down voted to zero.

CAN WE GET A STICKY PLEASE???

Why would this be down voted? Because the Trumpsters know it will be damaging. They would rather hide it and block the "free speech" they claim to love then have to discuss it.

We need votes to sticky. Here's my vote for a sticky. Let's do it.

Seriously. Been here a long time, and I never thought I'd see an open comment thread of this magnitude downvoted to oblivion because the admins either don't approve or are asleep at the wheel.

We already know /conspiracy has been infested with /T_D and their bot and paid foreign troll friends for at least a year-and-a-half.

The problem I have with the T_D is that most of the user base is not even old enough to vote. What kind of adult calls the president "The god emperor" and spam the shit out of each thread with memes.

Agreed, though I do believe there are plenty of misinformed and immature adults pervading it.

I say God emperor sometimes because I'm a warhammer fan and I think it's a funny name for trump. I use it sarcastically though. Some people on T_D might actually believe that.

Comey is not going to say anything that will result in anything happening to Trump

True, but I bet he will same some damaging things. It appears he already has by saying he felt the president was deceitful and untrustworthy.

Comey has also been called deceitful and untrustworthy

Leaking to the press in order to get a special hearing is pretty manipulative

I think he said a special prosecutor, but yes

It's not leaking when someone shares his own memos with the media though.

He "leaked" his own personal notes.

In order to manipulate the justice system

If you say so. You're putting an awfully evil sounding tone towards Comey's personal property which he can give to whomever he wishes.

Maybe the President of the United States shouldn't have tried to manipulate the justice system and we would never have been here to begin with?

Okay, neverTrumper, whatever you say

Was snowdens leak manipulative to?

At least it had substance?

Yeah, why didn't he just go to his boss, AG Jeff Sessions? Oh, right...

I mean, everyone knows that though. That's not a revelation or an impeachable offense.

They tried to impeach Clinton for a blowjob

Looks like you were wrong :)

At least not in an open session.

Trumpets are already yelling "Wheres the evidence? I need certified time stamped documents with 5 witnesses and notarized."

If only they cared about facts when obama was being charged with being muslim and Kenyan

His BC is fake is still probably fake and he was likely born in Kenya IMO but his mom was a US citizen so idk why any of it would matter other than PR protection when he ran for senate/pres

He was born in Hawaii and went to school in Kenya. Info-wars is full of shit.

Yup, info wars is full of shit. They wanted to say he wasn't a legit pres, but he was. Not where I got that info. Look into the stamps on his BC.

Lol they are just asking for regular evidence. Speculation is not evidence. No one is saying the evidence they have isn't good enough as there isn't any so I don't know why you are trying to make it seem like there is and we just won't accept it.

Its a double standard.

Where is all of this necessary evidence when Trump says SA did 9/11? When he claimed Obama was born in Kenya? When he said he had a plan to defeat ISIS?

Come on they move the goalposts and grasp at straws.

Hypocrisy everywhere. Trumpers and Trump haters alike are very often hypocrites. It's unfortunate but it isn't a select trait on one side of the isle.

No but one side of the aisle is in control of congress, the senate and the presidency.

Doesnt make sense not to address the people in power.

Oh I thought you were talking about the general population not specifically politicians.

The Saudi Arabia did 9/11 thing has alot more evidence than trump Russia collusion. Some of the attackers where part of the Saudi government. This knowledge came before trump was president so he was just repeating what people already knew.

The Saudi Arabia did 9/11 thing has alot more evidence than trump Russia collusion. Some of the attackers where part of the Saudi government. This knowledge came before trump was president so he was just repeating what people already knew.

And then he sold them weapons...

The Obama's is from Kenya thing is bullshit though. And even if he was I don't think it's wrong if he's still an American citizen. That argument was just ridiculous.

My point being there is definitely something fishy going on and Trump, for whatever reason doesn't want it investigated

Well if he went after SA the left and the right would go after him. They fund alot of campaigns here and have alot of support around the world. The way our government is run makes it easy for foreign governments to get off if they fund the right things. Tbf Obama also sold them weapons although not as much as trump has.

You're entire false narrative BTFO. all hail the God Emperor

Kek, you just got bitched the fuck out, Comey just admitted everything Trump said was true.

Damn, I didn't know literally calling things Trump said "lies, plain and simple" means admitting everything Trump said was true.

I shit in the upstairs toilet, which has never happened before in the history of America. Your point means literally nothing.
Trump didn't tell him to back off. Trump never was told he was under investigation, Trump was not obstructing justice.
I'm not a Trump supporter, and say that often, but trying to keep making it an "us vs them" thing. It's about the facts of the matter and the shitty spin you're trying to put on it.

Trump didn't tell him to back off.

He just asked everybody to leave the room, and told Comey "he hoped" the investigation would be dropped. You know Obama only spoke to Comey a couple times? Because he went through Comey's boss, the Attorney General. Why didn't Trump do that, ad instead asked Sessions to leave the room?

We've got a thread here man!

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6g0s9w/comey_testimoney_imminent_is_rconspiracy_watching

This is going to be such a let done for the libs. Again.

Should be a letdown for you, too. Supporting a globalist.

I'll check back here in a few hours

He will still be a globalist. No need to check back.

Lmao you made an account just for Comey huh?

Second? El oh el.

HI FOLKS! I am the FBI director and I am just here to let you all know that the FBI is honest©®™

Good old honest Comey just being honest, no playing politics with the FBI here, nope! Just good 'ole Comey.

Comey would never EVER allow a conflict of interest to develop in an ongoing investigation. It's why Andrew McCabe was allowed to run the Clinton investi...oh wait, Andrew McCabe has deep ties with Clinton. But Comey "trusts" him so it's okay. Forget about Comey's own personal ties with the Deep State and Clinton =] he's just such an honest guy so it doesn't matter.

Comey would never EVER allow his superiors to interfere in an investigation, that's why he was totally okay with Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac.

Comey would never EVER let his own personal opinions influence his actions, that's why good ole Honest Comey made sure to wait until AFTER he was fired to strike back at Trump, because he was just being honest and doing the right thing and then mean old Trump came down and fired him. Totally unjustified!! Remember Comey is HONEST!!!

Yeah, good old Comey; just making a huge fucking stink over his boss trying to meet with him to discuss matters directly related to his boss' ability to govern. The "OH MY GOD THE RUSSIANS ARE TRYING TO STEAL OUR ELECTION" narrative is totally organic and not a politically motivated witch hunt in any way shape or form. Trump isn't allowed to ask questions of his subordinates. Especially not Comey. Nope, that sweet, honest man was just trying to do his job.

BAHAHAHAHA take this upvote

that's why he was totally okay with Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac

Actually he said he was distinctly NOT okay with this. You also are making almost entirely emotional and baseless claims.

I'm glad The_Donald is sticking to their guns though, can't ever admit that Russia interfered in the election!

Admit it? What was the evidence again that was so damning? That debunked CrowdStrike memo, right? AFAIK, nobody in the FBI or any US intelligence agency has actually looked at the DNC servers themselves. So, we're left with...what exactly? Flynn wasn't truthful to Pence?

Seriously, I'm not close minded. If I saw something convincing, I'd change my mind on "Russian interference." But, actually, it seems like there isn't shit there when you start looking.

What piece of evidence convinced you about the Russian thing? Serious question.

That debunked CrowdStrike memo, right?

It wasn't debunked, DNI endorsed it.

Regardless of whether or not it is endorsed by the DNI, the fact remains that no government agency ever even subpoena'd the DNC's server for investigation. They didn't even subpoena the hardware they now say was hacked. Does that not strike you as odd?

the fact remains that no government agency ever even subpoena'd the DNC's server for investigation.

This is not unusual at all, when NYT was hacked, the same protocol was followed because these organizations don't want to hand over all their data where it can be leaked and we know FBI is leaky

That debunked CrowdStrike memo

I'm glad that you have debunked CrowdStike's investigation, too bad the FBI thinks otherwise!

What was the evidence again that was so damning?

So damning? The fact that he came under oath and affirmed with NO DOUBT that Russia interfered int he election and hacked the DNC.

How is that not damning? Witness testimony is actually pretty strong evidence (ESPECIALLY when the witness is this highly regarded) in a court of law.

Even ignoring what Comey said, the leak to the intercept provided further evidence or Russian hacking, not to mention that the entire committee seems to understand that Russia interferred in the election, a collection of Republicans and Democrats (and whatever the hell John McCain is).

So, we're left with...what exactly? Flynn wasn't truthful to Pence?

Yes, lying about contacts with Russia and accepting payments from foreign powers (Turkey for instance) to influence American policy is a crime. I know, it's pretty shocking.

What piece of evidence convinced you about the Russian thing?

I'm not 100% convinced, but maybe 99%? I find it hard to believe that EVERYONE in those intelligence agencies is lying under oath, and that CrowdStrike is lying (despite seemingly having the trust of the FBI), and that Republicans would support a "false narrative" that Russia helped elect a Republican candidate. Have I seen the actual evidence?

No, but I never saw HRC's E-mail server either, I never saw the classified documents she supposedly mishandled, but I still believe it happened.

Andrew McCabe has deep ties with Clinton.

No he doesn't, his wife does because she is a Democrat and Comey is/was a Republican for a long time.

No he doesn't, his wife does

Oh I see, BIG difference there. My mistake.

It is a big difference because the OP statement was a lie. Also you cut out my statement, Comey is a Republican and yet he got to investigate Dems, why was that OK but not this?

Comey exposed Trump as a sleazebag under oath. Nice.

In what way?

He said, UNDER OATH, that he never felt the need to document his meetings with Obama and Bush because he felt Trump was more dishonest

Bush wasn't a sleazebag to him? Saying he only singled out Trump says a lot about Comey as well.

I don't think the point was that Trump was a sleazebag, but that he is a chronic and habitual liar.

Who isn't?

That's my point. Why does he single out one liar over the others? Did he really not think bush or obama were liars? If so he is incompetent. If he knew they were also liars then the question remains, why did he supposedly single out one of them as a liar when he knows they all are?

EVERYONE lies, all the time. When you smile when you don't feel like it, when you thank grandma for the ugly sweater, everyone lies.

This trail of comments might actually be the stupidest defense of Trump I've ever heard in my life. The man lies constantly about things that actually matter and then tells grandma that the sweater she gave him was shit.

CNN is rotting your brain

Keeps getting stupider.

http://politicaldig.com/trump-lied-to-lawyers/

Trump's former attorneys testified that they had to meet with him in pairs, because he'd misrepresent what was said in meetings. Comey didn't have that luxury.

So he kept talking to the president privately on the phone, even after he was fired. Makes total sense.

I'm sure all that money laundering for the Mexican mafia at HSBC while he was on the board was just an innocent coincidence, too.

You think bank board members make those kinds of decisions?

You're right, let's overlook the fact he's link to corrupt organizations and he covers for criminals. Nothing to see here, move along.

Lying about matters of national security is the same thing as smiling when you're not happy

Jesus christ. Is this the level of denial that is needed to support Trump? I guess it is.

Well Comey was only deputy FBI under Bush but neither Bush nor Obama were improperly asking things of Trump, I think that's why Comey decided to document the conversations. If you look at what Trump was asking of Comey, it's something that a President shouldn't be asking. Trump was in the wrong here, not Comey. Attacking Comey for covering his own ass is ridiculous. Trump asked Comey to pledge loyalty and you people are pissed Comey made a record of that?

How would this cover his own ass? It doesn't serve that purpose at all. And now it's being used for an entirely different purpose.

I just think it's pretty clear that there is something else going on here. For all the reasons this hearing supposedly happened it was pointless. So why did it actually happen? Why are we here? It's really strange.

Who gives a shit? Not his supporters. Everyone lies every fucking day. I've led at least ten times today saying I was "doing well" (I have a cold) to strangers asking me how my day is. What the Fuck?

You aint the president

All presidents have lied. How old are you?

-whoosh-

Of course. Every human has lied. Trump just lies so much, and so blatantly, that he is a special case.

Yeah but there are "lies" (as in 'doing well') and LIES (as in "I didn't ask him to stop the investigation")

Former attorneys for Trump have said that they would always meet him in pairs, so Trump couldn't misrepresent what was said in the meeting.

They said this in a court filing. Link to the specific excerpt :

http://politicaldig.com/trump-lied-to-lawyers/

Meaningless.

How so? His own bankruptcy attorneys said in court testimony, that he had a habit of misrepresenting what was said in meetings. Comey was worried about that exact problem.

Because I wasn't arguing whether trump is a liar or not. Obviously he lies. That wasn't the point I was making at all.

Comey also isn't in the same situation as trump's attorneys. He was never in a position where he would require an account of what was said in terms of being the head of the FBI. That is extremely strange. Writing down his thoughts after a discussion wouldn't help him in his capacity as FBI director. The only way that would matter is if he's trying to prove something to trump himself but trump doesn't give a fuck if you catch him in a lie anyway, he'll just keep lying.

But again, my original point stands that every president lies. If he is afraid of them misremembering or lying he would do that for everyone he talks to. His personal notes are not helping him in his capacity as FBI director either and even now that he has testified they didn't accomplish anything of the sort he would have claimed he was taking notes for.

His personal notes

Those memos aren't exactly personal notes. They're meant to be a record of what was said, which is why they are filed on the record. He literally sent them to others right after he wrote them, which was right after the meetings.

He wanted to make sure there was a record of his side of the story, well before he was asked for it.

If I show you my diary that doesn't mean they aren't personal notes I took and it doesn't mean that what I wrote was accurate.

His side of the story for what? Again this whole thing makes no sense. Why would he need a record of what his side of any story was? Who would he have to prove that to and for what purpose? Obviously it wasn't to keep his job because his notes certainly couldn't save him with proving his side of the story to the one who has the power to fire him for any reason.

Because it was wildly inappropriate for Trump to discuss the Flynn investigation with Comey.

That doesn't answer the question.

He thought it was wildly inappropriate so he wrote down his thoughts and memory of the conversation after. Why? Apparently trump wasn't under investigation. Comey apparently didn't do anything with the record that trump asked inappropriate questions. Him writing down these things wouldn't even be admissible to prove trump did something wrong. He just wrote it down because...reasons, I guess?

He thought it was wildly inappropriate so he wrote down his thoughts and memory of the conversation after. Why?

So nobody could go back and say that Comey was just making these things up because he was fired.

Him writing down these things wouldn't even be admissible to prove trump did something wrong.

Actually, memos written and filed by FBI agents are routinely used in court. Comey filed these and sent them to other FBI agents right after his meetings with Trump.

So nobody could go back and say that Comey was just making these things up because he was fired.

He's the one who brought all this up himself. There was no public account of their conversations before this or even any indication of what they were about.

He said himself he wanted to get it into the public space to get ahead of any potential tapes trump had (which also makes no sense--how would his notes at all refute a recording of their conversations that didn't support what comey said). But even then what point is there in doing that as ex-FBI director? Why would people need to see his memos or hear his testimony that didn't lead to anything?

This also provides zero proof that what he is saying is true. So, no, that is not a valid reason for him to have done this.

Actually, memos written and filed by FBI agents are routinely used in court. Comey filed these and sent them to other FBI agents right after his meetings with Trump.

What are you even talking about? An inter-agency memo isn't a legal document. It doesn't mean anything. If that memo happens to source actual information that is one thing but that is not what we are even talking about. His notes were just a personal account allegedly written from memory.

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm getting at here either. What purpose does he have for doing this? He said himself that trump wasn't under investigation for anything. Trump didn't do anything illegal according to his own memos. Trump wasn't even president yet at the time so he wasn't even a government official. What purpose is there for recording this? It actually makes no sense. It serves no purpose to him as FBI director.

Based on what he has said and what has happened he had no legitimate motivation here. Of course he was motivated by something, though, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. That is what I am getting at. Why did he do it? I'm trying to make sense of the lack of logic and the inconsistencies of his actions and statements. Because if you take it at face value it doesn't add up.

He said himself he wanted to get it into the public space to get ahead of any potential tapes trump had (which also makes no sense--how would his notes at all refute a recording of their conversations that didn't support what comey said).

He never said that...

1. Comey said he wanted to get ahead of any misrepresentations Trump made about their meeting. That's why he wrote the memos, and passed them along to other agents, well before he was fired. He had good reason. Refer to Trump's own attorney's in '93 saying they had to meet in pairs for that exact reason.

2. Comey said today, that he hopes Trump made tapes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nlZD8-jQrE

He said himself that trump wasn't under investigation for anything.

Trump didn't ask him to stop an investigation against him. He asked him to stop an investigation against Flynn. You are wrong on multiple factual points.

Uh no, he 100% said that. I watched that part multiple times. He said he woke up in the middle of the night (which was also weird to me, makes me wonder if someone called him and told him to act) after trump was tweeting about tapes and it made him remember his notes and realize he should leak it to the press.

Comey saying he hopes trump made tapes doesn't mean anything. Of course he would say that whether he believed there were tapes or not. It's not like Trump would need to be egged on to release them if he had them. So if they don't exist then it makes comey seem more confident in his account being true. If they do exist it wouldn't matter either way--if they backed up his testimony it wouldn't matter and if they proved his testimony wrong the tapes would have done that no matter what. There's no harm in doubling down for comey which is why it doesn't actually mean anything that he is doing so.

Trump didn't ask him to stop an investigation against him. He asked him to stop an investigation against Flynn. You are wrong on multiple factual points.

I never said anything about that at all. I wasn't talking about him asking comey to stop an investigation about himself or flynn. I just said that comey admitted that trump was not under investigation which is true. I am not wrong about anything I said, you just failed to understand what was said.

There's no harm in doubling down for comey which is why it doesn't actually mean anything that he is doing so.

Well, there's a shitload of harm in going in front of a Congressional inquiry and lying. If he knew that it was possible that tapes existed that would directly contradict him, he wouldn't have given any testimony. He would have had a lawyer whispering in his ear, pleading the 5th every two seconds.

Nothing would happen to comey. Nothing happens to any of these people. Especially since he has the cabal behind him. We've seen so many people caught lying and misleading and nothing came of it.

Obviously he doesn't think trump has any tapes anyway. Otherwise he wouldn't have done this to begin with. Which brings us back to my point that you glazed over, that he has nothing to lose by saying he's okay if tapes are released. Either they exist or they don't. At this point he has nothing to lose in saying that because either they exist and would prove him right, they exist and would prove him wrong, or they don't exist. And if they exist and prove him wrong then him saying he is okay if they are released changes literally nothing.

Things definitely happen to people when the majority of Congress doesn't like you. Congressional Republicans and Trump wouldn't hesitate to crucify Comey if they could show he perjured himself.

Just like they did with Clinton. Oh wait.

The Republican Congress had zero support to impeach the president over lying about a blowjob.

Bill Clinton WAS impeached. It wasn't just about a blowjob either...what he was actually charged with was perjury and obstruction of justice. Congress voted in favor of those two things and they went through. Then he was acquitted of those charges by the senate. It wasn't about congress having "zero support" to impeach him or anything because they DID successfully impeach him and then nothing came of it even though there was proof of perjury and obstruction of justice.

It's actually a perfect example that nothing ever happens to these people. You can catch them in a lie and prove they were in the wrong and oops they get off free.

Then there is Hillary Clinton who is guilty of all kinds of shit and caught in much worse than that as well as some of the same things and she wasn't even charged in the first place. Unless they are using you as a fall guy, as long as you are on the good side of the deep state you are immune. Any time it appears that one side is trying but is unsuccessful at bringing someone like this down it is all just theater.

even though there was proof of perjury and obstruction of justice.

But you're still ultimately talking about lying about a blowjob. Politically, it was not a good move for Republicans to try to get Clinton out of office. He was a popular president, and people didn't care that much.

Any time it appears that one side is trying but is unsuccessful at bringing someone like this down it is all just theater.

Boy howdy, that's a broad, unsupported statement.

Perjury is perjury. That is not something that is taken lightly. It doesn't matter how silly or small the matter was. If your president is lying under oath and otherwise obstructing justice that is a huge fucking deal. At that point it is not about the subject but rather the fact he is willing to do what he did for his own interests.

You can say it was just a blowjob, but that sentiment goes both ways. He was willing to lie over something so small and stupid--imagine what he would do for something even bigger.

Either way that is just one example. Plenty of people have been caught in similar ways and nothing has happened. It blows my mind that people like you will brush that off no matter what political stance you take (I do not take either side). The fact that we have pieces of shit like Clapper testify and outright lie to the public about NSA surveillance and we find out clear as day that it was a lie without anything done to him about it is insane. And then everyone acts like you're the crazy one for not trusting these people who play the same game.

Boy howdy, that's a broad, unsupported statement.

Unsupported in what way? That is my interpretation. You don't have to agree with it, but to say it is unsupported is incorrect. It is supported by several instances of this happening where there is no doubt that a politician or law enforcement official has wormed their way through. Not even incompetence can explain this fact.

He actually said because of the circumstances. Trump is kind of directly involved this was a unique situation to him. He was scared basically. For his job. But that doesn't mean that he needed to be he was just being cautious which was smart.

He also said because of the individual involved, it wasn't just the situation, but Trump himself, that made him want to record the meetings.

Well we will never know because the circumstances were there for Trump and were not for the formers.

and?

I think even his biggest fans are aware he's a bit of a sleazebag man.

Yep, he's sleazy and still better than Crooked Hillary

At this point, that's highly debatable. They're both equally very crooked and sleazy.

... i'd even go so far as to say Trump is slightly worse due to his wonton and flagrant disregard for the law. At least Hillary tried to cover her tracks and be hush hush about it.

Trump is such a prick he brags about how he can get away with shit like "shooting someone on 5th avenue" or grabbing whatever women he pleases even without them wanting it.

Also, the guy is a rapist. Idk why that always gets ignored around here. But he's been accused of rape and sexual assault by almost as many women as Bill Cosby and that stretches back to even before he became political, which leads me to believe a lot of those are probably true. He's a real piece of manipulating shit and, honestly, everything people like me have been afraid of in a leader.

Meh, I'll take the sloppy criminal over a cold, calculating snake that constantly evades prison when we all know she belongs there. We know she got off on a technicality of the tall order of proving intent, we know she destroyed evidence too and did not cooperate with promptly providing her private work related emails that were under subpoena, giving her time to wipe them.

If this doesn't take Trump down, something else likely will. He's pretty unhinged.

But Hillary is a sack of shit and I'll never regret not voting for her.

Lol I don't disagree.

I just think Trump is worse. Incompetent. Manipulative. Cult leader. Complete disregard for democracy and the people he is supposed to represent. He doesn't even try to hide his disdain for us.

That's a special kind of piece of shit. He belongs in the same category as Erdogan, Mugabe, and Maduro.

Just an absolute disregard and flat out zero respect for civil society. Consumed by his ego.

But it's fine. We can agree to disagree.

ill take the sloppy criminal only because all that shit will get exposed and just MAYBE we'll have reform

Trump didn't get Americans killed in Benghazi. Clinton wins "Biggest Piece of Shit Award".

Neither did Clinton, did she?

Pretty sure Obama holds the blame for that since ... you know... he was in charge.

Or maybe the people in congress who defunded embassy security?

I never really understood how Clinton got blamed for that. But I do understand how she was cleared of any involvement after ... FOURTEEN... separate Congressional investigations

Here is the leftist side:

https://youtu.be/xSzXtRHPG9U

A victim's mother's opinion (FROM CNN), please ignore the Trump stuff at the end because it's not relevant to this debate:

https://youtu.be/rvyiiufbThs

Here is a survivor's opinion:

https://youtu.be/sTFQU5QpOlM

Here's the darker side:

https://youtu.be/4E_Ts4Zr7tA

And Lastly, Clinton nonchalantly admitting it:

https://youtu.be/Z4Hy3t2qrgM

If you need more, I can keep going. Just let me know.

I thought Wikileaks revealed that Benghazi was actually a weapons smuggling operation, smuggling arms to the rebels and also to Syria.

Is it?

he did in yemen, while eating the most beautiful chocolate cake youve ever seen

Trump's raid in Yemen at the start of his term was a bigger disaster than Benghazi and he's only fucked up more since then.

Sources, please.

Read the news please. This was a huge story.

Here's what I've learned over the past year or so on this sub:

Help people with sources = people will respect you and you might even sway some opinions

Tell people to do shit themselves = you are either lazy, a shill, or apathetic. Either way, no one likes those people.

Just my two cents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakla_raid

At least Hillary tried to cover her tracks and be hush hush about it.

You see that as a positive?

Comparing to the guy who knows he can just do it out in the open and face absolutely zero consequences because his cult of personality around him will spin, deflect and protect him?

Yes. Yes I do.

It's like this: Both would fuck us. But at least Hillary would use lube. Trump fucks us hard and dry because he just has zero respect or decency whatsoever.

Ignorance = lube to you?

So basically, her actions are irrelevant as long as your precious feelings don't get hurt.

Her actions are the same as Trump's.

The only difference is that at least tries to hide it. There's something just a tad bit worse about someone who doesn't give a shit about getting caught.

It really isn't debatable:

https://arkancide.com/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz4jRH2Pdbo

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp2akjuUULI

That says A LOT about the two candidates the people of America had to chose between. Holy shit.

Yeah, we were set up. Actually there were four candidates, but you wouldn't know it from watching TV.

Most of the people I talked to post-election weren't even aware of the Green Party or Libertarian candidates.

Thanks to our wonderful corporate-owned media, who wants to make sure the corporate-military-industrial complex wins

I'd say they are both crooked, but Hillary is far more polished about it, and far less so. And sleazy is not a presidential trait, and never should have been.

It's not a virtue but Trump is certainly not the first sleazy president we've had. Even great presidents have a certain sleaze to them.

Ok, out of curiosity, who would you say has been our sleaziest contemporary president?

Sleaziest, Bill Clinton, but at this rate I would expect Trump to best him by the end of his term.

For the record my favorite president JFK was pretty sleazy too.

For the most part, I agree verbatim... except what about Nixon? Being sleazy has a definite sexual connotation, but that isn't all it means.

still better than Crooked Hillary

Meh, at least Clinton isn't a moron. She's pretty intelligent policy wise.

I'll still never understand any argument for Trump over Hillary unless it involves the hope Trump will just resign or get impeached.

Well I was a BernieBro so for me it's justice. Let Trump do whatever he wants and hopefully teach the DNC a lesson of what happens when you try to shove a coronation down our throats. There should be consequences for what she did.

Yeah, but she isn't gonna suffer, we are.

She's suffering every morning she looks in the mirror and scowls that she's not the first woman president. That to me is worth any suffering the country bares.

I hope you aren't serious.

More people voted for Clinton in the primaries. Nobody shoved anything down your throat.

The idea shoved down our throat (for years now) is that we need a relatively centrist candidate to win an election. That's why the DNC and media pushed Clinton on everyone, because of the idea that someone like Bernie can't win. Even though he polled better than Hillary against Trump, and someone like Trump did win.

Even though he polled better than Hillary against Trump

Only when he was the underdog, and Clinton was getting attacked by both sides. Hell, Trump was praising Sanders during the primaries. I wonder why.

"Only when he was the underdog" what does that mean? Trump was considered the "underdog" in the primaries despite him consistently polling well, and ended up winning. Then exceeded his expectations from the polling in the general election. Trump praised Sanders to attack Clinton because he knew he wouldn't be the candidate. Sanders is a populist of the other side, and populism draws people from the whole spectrum. Any idea that Sanders was not the better candidate is delusional at best.

Trump rode a wave of complete horseshit, which Republicans had primed the pump for. They should have shouted him down when he was blathering about Obama's birth certificate for the last 8 years. It came back to bite them.

Sanders polled well when he wasn't being attacked. People had a meltdown when two people from the DNC merely discussed, quite briefly, attacking Sanders. I can't imagine the GOP would have been so generous during the general campaign. Clinton was getting attacked from both Sanders and Trump. Clinton didn't attack Sanders, because she wanted his voters.

As the underdog, Sanders could make a ton of promises he didn't need to keep. He was looking to win the primary. Clinton was looking to make campaign promises that would win her a 2nd term in office.

Sanders was looking to start a movement that could support his presidency or someone else's like him (that can hopefully happen down the line). We know that he couldn't deliver everything he wants on his own. But he could lead us to that direction in the best way possible. And his genuineness is what attracted voters who were sick of establishment types, with many of them joining the Trump camp as a result. Playing it safe like Hillary doesn't cut it anymore. You have establishment Republicans barely edging out Berniecrats in deeply conservative districts. Access to information and political involvement is booming like never before with our social media. And the only way Hillary types will cut it in 2020 is with the failures of Trump.

She'd better be, after her policies have been signed off on by hundreds of people they better be impeccable.

One on one, unscripted, she's a fucking moron.

The one redeeming quality I like about Trump is hes unfiltered and isn't afraid to stick his neck out for liberals to shoot at.

Plus his winning over any other republican is just icing on the cake seeing how much he triggers liberals.

I dislike Hillary as much as the next guy, but do you honestly still believe this? 33% approval rating, 2 failed travel bans, no wall, no Mexico paying for said wall, a joke of a healthcare bill, and on top of all that, an investigation into half his campaign team. I know he himself is not currently under investigation, but Comey's testimony today clearly reflected how much of a scum bag this guy is. But oh yeah, Hillary's emails and pizza gate bullshit must mean she wouldve done a worse job

So Congress and activist judges blocking his agenda is his fault? Should he pull an obama and sign an executive order for something Congress already voted down?

I thought he was the best dealmaker? The smartest man in the room? Playing 5D chess? And yes, it IS his fault. A smart person could have written a law that would have passed.

Somebody needs to watch School House Rocks

Congress

A Republican Congress...

activist judges

Republicans even have a majority on the Supreme Court.

His plans are just shit.

... that is just as never Trump, pro globalist, anti American citizen as the dems.

but good to know that it's within the authority of Obama's activist district and circuit court judges (not Supreme Court) to rule based on whether they think his plans are shit.

Nobody is going to actually push for a wall, it's an awful waste of money. Trump's travel ban could be reworked to be constitutional, but he's too dense to figure it out. What else does he have?

I do. I don't care if any of his agenda is blocked or goes through.

She cheated her primary win and colluded with the media to propel Trump as a pied piper candidate to distract from the Democratic Primary.

Trump could start WW3 and I'd never regret voting for him over that entitled cunt.

we voted him in because he is a sleazebag, he shows his flaws and doesn't pretend he doesn't have any.

Exactly and idiots like the orginal commenter still cant understand that...

What? He denies every mistake he's ever made, no matter how small. Even the "covfefe" typo wasn't a mistake. According to him a small group of unidentified individuals knew what he meant by it and he was tweeting to them. He's not honest, he's just an idiot who doesn't know how to pick his battles.

hes won the election and in currently winning yugely for america

Are you changing the topic because Trump does actually pretend he doesn't have flaws?

What? Why are you sad mad at trump?

What is "sad mad"? I think what I said was factual.

would you rather clinton been president instead of trump?

Easily, but I'm not American and am luckily not a slave of your extremely partisan politics and your two party system.

You are also extremely ignorant of American history if you would have wanted Clinton to be pres.

You know stickied at the top of this sub is a woman who's son was killed by the clintons, right?

I don't actually believe that. I have watched people make up so many stories about the Clintons in the past year alone. Like literally starting with an assumption and "connecting the dots" until a whole lot of nothing was a "truth". That makes it hard for me to believe the earlier stories are true.

But maybe these recent stories were made up so that people wouldn't believe the earlier true stories...

I assume you are talking about SR and PG as the "new" ones. I personally think there is something to both of them but I don't blame you for being turned off by the partisan way info was dessimenated.

If you ever feel like you can stomach the blantant partisanship, take a second look at the evidence for those two conspiracies. You'll be surprised.

I may do that when I find the time.

If you ever feel like you can stomach the blantant partisanship, take a second look at the evidence for those two conspiracies. You'll be surprised.

Surprised by the fact that both conspiracies have no actual proof?

Just shows you have never actually researched said conspiracies. Put aside your partisanry for justice

I would like to hear your evidence for SR conspiracy except for Julian Assange refusing to say that he was the leaker

You want evidence that it's a conspiracy theory that should be researched or that it is true? If I told you all the reasons it should be further researched I imagine you would answer back with some snide remark about how that's not real "proof" even though we are on a conspiracy forum...

You just need to realize narratives are being woven constantly, Assange is one man- he is obviously trying to fight against false narratives

Assange is one man- he is obviously trying to fight against false narratives

Yet he's pushing a false narrative by hinting at SR being the leaker while at the same time refusing to confirm it nor help the police with the investigation

And there never will be if the word nvestigation is continually squashed by DCPD, the media, and internet astroturfing

And there never will be if the whole investigation is continually squashed by DCPD

[citation needed]

the media

How does that affect the investigation?

and internet astroturfing

How does that affect the investigation?

There's enough evidence to show that SR's murder should Atleast be looked at as a possible assassination

There is none until Julian actually confirms his hints to the police

The fact that ppl are acting like that is so unreasonable just pushes the idea that they are hiding something

What are they hiding?

Maybe the fact that the DNC murdered Seth Rich and the media is complicit in the coverup?

fact

You asked why I think there is a hypothetical media Coverup. This is why It's not a fact, but it's a fact in my theory. I'm not gonna try to say my word is infallible even though you apparently think Comey's is. That theory could be totally wrong. But at this point enough ppl have asked for an investigation that there should be an investigation.

You know stickied at the top of this sub is an Iama by a woman who's son was killed by the clintons, right?

There you go making shit up again. What ties the crime to the Clinton's? It's much more likely that it was a cover up by the local government.

Idk man why don't you go ask the kids Mom. Christ, I swear it feels like the same ppl saying "don't investigate Seth rich! His parents said stop! You are desecrating his life!" Are the same ppl saying not to listen to this guys mom asking for a further investigation

What ties it to the Clintons? Mena airport drug-running for Reagan/Bushs Iran-Contra money laundering

What ties it to the Clintons? Mena airport drug-running for Reagan/Bushs Iran-Contra money laundering

Mena is 242 miles away from where they were found bub. So again, it's more likely that they stumbled upon something their own corrupt local government was doing and where followed and silenced because of it.

I swear it feels like the same ppl saying "don't investigate Seth rich! His parents said stop! You are desecrating his life!" Are the same ppl saying not to listen to this guys mom asking for a further investigation

I swear it's the same people obssessed over cheese pizza and the DNC are the same people who keep trying to shut down discussion and alternate theories about anything they blame on the Clinton's

Idk man why don't you go ask the kids Mom.

Because shes shady as fuck and only does interviews for alt- right websites that pay her cash up front? From what I saw of her AMA, she wasn't too interested in questions that challenged her own conclusions.

Shut down discussion on what?

Hmmmm idk, what was the subject we were talking about? Man beats me. I really wish Reddit had an option to view comments that were made a few hours ago

Is this all not related at this point?

He's done nothing on his agenda.

Comey is a sleazebag, and incompetent.

Proof?

Leaking docs to the press?

That's called being smart

Lol. That's called illegal.

that's called obstruction of justice

How ?

The conspiracy sub thinks leaks to the press makes you a scumbag? Are you shitting me?

I think acting like your poop doesn't stink for congress while you act manipulatively speaks to character.

When it's a obviously a ploy by a man who is an alleged conspirator in countless conspiracies? Yes.

The exact same thing could be said about Snowden, or Assange, but I don't think you'd call them scumbags. The only difference is that this leak tells you something you don't like, so it make the leaker an asshole.

Oh, what did it tell me again?

Leaking as a "Fuck You" in response to a tweet is pretty childish, no?

You're assuming that's why he did it though, and even if it was, who cares if the document is legit? Man, it's just so strange seeing people on this sub upset about a leak.

I'm not upset, I just think being a crybaby who is getting back at someone by doing something udnerhanded is lame.

Sure, I push paper and the global plot to make all frogs gay comes across my desk...What do I do?

Get fired and retaliate? Or leak it to the frog press? Why wait until it serves me politically to tell the frogs? All frogs matter.

But in all seriousness, I'm not assuming anything:

Trump's "tapes" tweet prompted Comey to leak memos

https://www.axios.com/comey-testifies-in-front-of-senate-intel-committee-live-updates-2436847918.html

"He said that it dawned on him that there could be corroboration of a memo that he wrote after the President tweeted that he better hope there were no White House tapes of their conversations.

"My judgment was that I needed to get that out into the public square," he said. He added he took the step "because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.""

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump/index.html

Trump's "tapes" tweet prompted Comey to leak memos

https://www.axios.com/comey-testifies-in-front-of-senate-intel-committee-live-updates-2436847918.html

May 3: Comey stated under oath that he never leaked information. June 8: Comey stated under oath that he leaked information.

Charges When?

Loretta Lynch asked Comey to downplay Clinton investigation Comey said its one of the reasons they didn't indict Clinton Comey concerned about Bill Clinton / Lynch meeting

Charges When?

"He said that it dawned on him that there could be corroboration of a memo that he wrote after the President tweeted that he better hope there were no White House tapes of their conversations.

"My judgment was that I needed to get that out into the public square," he said. He added he took the step "because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.""

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump/index.html

I assume Lynch will be charged when Trump is charged.

Doubtful. Asking the head of the FBI to change what terminology they use in press briefings is a bit different than asking the head of the FBI to drop an investigation.

holy shit that's why you think he leaked them?

he literally said why, he wanted a special prosecutor

Trump's "tapes" tweet prompted Comey to leak memos

https://www.axios.com/comey-testifies-in-front-of-senate-intel-committee-live-updates-2436847918.html

"He said that it dawned on him that there could be corroboration of a memo that he wrote after the President tweeted that he better hope there were no White House tapes of their conversations.

"My judgment was that I needed to get that out into the public square," he said. He added he took the step "because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.""

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump/index.html

I'm not sure if you're trying to push a narrative, or if someone pushed a narrative on you. Either way, please read his own damn words

It's hilarious that people think AG Sessions or a Republican committee would have been fine, instead of a special prosecutor. Comey was absolutely right to leak those memos.

Man the bots must be swarming today. I feel like i'm in that scene from The Matrix when they're breaking into Zion.

As do I. Good god everything anyone has on both sides is just out in force.

If it's your choice for president? Yes.

The "docs" were his own unclassified memoranda, which directly contradict the allegations Trump was publicly making. Why do you think Comey should not have released those memos to the public?

Comey thought Lynch had a conflict of interest so he exonerated Hillary himself; he thought Trump had one, so he pushed for special counsel?

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/872871928624594944

Comey didn't "exonerate" Hillary, he oversaw a lengthen investigation of her, based upon which he made a final recommendation re prosecution. The special counsel will oversee exactly the same thing regarding the Trump campaign-Russia ties; and the only reason why a special counsel is needed is that the AG is himself a subject of the investigation.

In both cases, the matters will be fully investigated. What's your complaint?

"Leaked" his own unclassified notes about his interactions with trump?

That isn't a leak.

I think you're projecting.

Comey behaved like a sleazebag when he had a friend leak documents to the press, then he got pissed he was fired and badmouthed his ex boss.

Was he fired BECAUSE he leaked?

Funny how you love leaks from the DNC but you hate leaks from the Trump admin. Strange huh.

He leaked after he was fired

You mean he leaked his own UNCLASSIFIED memos?

What are you trying to prove or point out? It was just proven there's no Russian shit, all of the press stuff is fake as comey just pointed out, but somehow you STILL need to find stupid shit to make Trump look bad?
I'm not even a Trump supporter, but fuck this is just sad at this point.

Just because you say so, does not make it true. But keep telling yourself that.

I didn't say it, Comey just testified to it. Keep plugging your ears to the truth though, it really proves my point for me.

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

Which has... what to do with Trump? Literally fifteen seconds after your link he says "this was not about a political party".

Video linked by /u/Cherios_Are_My_Shit:

$quote Fired FBI Director James Comey tells his side of the story...

^{Info | /u/Cherios_Are_My_Shit can delete | v1.1.1b}

Trump supporters are running wild with the fact Comey said President wasn't personally under investigation. Alt-right is hanging on this soundbite hard, yet calling all of Comey's other statements dishonest. If you've been following the Trump/Russia scandal it's always come down to his close advisors. We've seen them begin to fall already, Is that all evidence to simply ignore?

Quote you: I'm not missing this piece. That's only ONE tool (in regards to Trump tower server talking to Russian bank) which was already proved to be inaccurate before the election. You can't Dismiss all of the other business ties, phone calls, private meetings and the attempt to cover those up with CIA Hacking tools.
This was just a few months ago. Are you changing your narrative now that proof has been presented?

No, Im saying the exact same things. All of Page, Stone, Manafort, Kushner, Sessions, Flynn, Exxon, Rosneft so and and so on. Like I said trump personally is only one player. Everyone else has not been vindicated. Yet Trump wants to brush his shoulders off and claim victory. This investigation is still ongoing as Comey said with confidence Russia interfered succesfully w the election. We will see when it all comes to light, but nice try.

RemindMe! 90 days "Tell this guy how stupid he is."

I will be messaging you on 2017-09-06 19:48:48 UTC to remind you of this link.

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

Nice way to recuse yourself from this investigation. So long!

all of the press stuff is fake as comey just pointed out

Comey cited one story in particular from the NYT that was wrong and said that multiple others weren't true, but in no way did he say that all of the press stuff is wrong, thats simply a lie.

It was just proven there's no Russian shi

Where is Mike Flynn?

Not in the white house?

Why not?

Because our President and Commander in Chief removed him from office, for Russian ties, thus adding to the list of evidence the President has no russian ties?

He was removed from office weeks after they were informed of Flynn's Russian ties. Only after it was reported in the media.

Didn't seem like a big, urgent issue to them until he became a political liability.

And then Trump was so pissed that his guy lied about his Russian ties that the President tried to get the FBI Director to take it easy on him. And then the Director was fired shortly after. And that's what brings us here today.

The director admitted that nothing Trump said had any influence on any investigation. Flynn was investigated, the information came out, Trump waiting until he had all information and then fired him. So once again, why are you trying to muddle the narrative?

The director admitted that nothing Trump said had any influence on any investigation.

That doesn't mean he didn't try to, why are you being disingenuous?

Trump waiting until he had all information and then fired him.

Trump already had the information, he waited until the public had it. Why are you being disingenuous?

He passed the memos along before he was fired though...

Where did you hear that?

Details of Comey’s notes have been shared with a very small circle of people at the FBI and Justice Department, these people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/notes-made-by-former-fbi-director-comey-say-trump-pressured-him-to-end-flynn-probe/2017/05/16/52351a38-3a80-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.7f9959ea5f41

“I hope you can let this go,’’ Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.

There is a reason the Trump administration isn't claiming that Comey just made it up. Nor will they release any tapes (if they exist). Comey shared these memos before he was fired, they just weren't publicly leaked until he was fired.

I'm not turning off adblocker for that propaganda rag, can you copy/paste the text?

Funny how the DNC hated Comey before he was fired and LOVED him after he was fired. DNC was calling for him to be fired, they were saying he was horrible, and shouldn't be at the head of the FBI. But Trump fires him like they want and they FREAK THE FUCK OUT.

And?? Is being a sleazebag an impeachable offense?

Bill Clinton

You don't become a billionaire by not being a sleazebag, so people already knew this before they voted for him. "We got Blumpf for sure this time!"--No, no you don't.

Comey purjured himself under oath, nice.

I like how media if flipping their shit over our President telling someone in our government that he needs loyalty. OMG what an atrocious notion! How dare our President ask for loyalty from his staff! Cause you know, Obama and Killary would have never done that.

Not really. The director of the fbi isnt voted in and was even fired by the president. If a president can fire him that pretty much makes him your boss.

But thats not how the FBI is set up. You're thinking the FBI is like a Sheriff's office it isnt. The FBI is a part of the Executive branch that is ran by the President. We the people dont elect them. We elect the president to run them.

Ha, you're talking reason to a liberal. Good luck with that.

Nice divisive insult to derail the discussion and pull focus away from the topic at hand. Wonder why that could be?

It definitely doesn't have anything to do with his whopping 2 months experience with reddit

Right, the whole loyalty pledge idea is just a weird quirk that looks really bad given the surrounding circumstances. If he wasn't in this sticky mess that loyalty comment looks harmless.

WRONG. They (FBI) are independent of the President. He is the head of the executive branch which means he has the power to fire the director of the FBI, but he is in no way his boss and cannot sway him to act as he pleases. That's why we have checks and balances, friend.

Lmao. Yes the we have checks and balances. But its not the FBI's job to do that. That job belongs to Legislative and Judicial branches. The FBI is part of the executive branch which is ran by the President. He is the boss.

he has the power to fire the director of the FBI, but he is in no way his boss

You realize you said this in the same sentence, right?

Congress has the power to fire the president, does that make Congress the president's boss?

actually, yes

if the congress did not act first, there would be nothing for the executive branch to execute.

he works for the fucking country.

He works for the Bureau, which has demonstrated itself to be the enemy of the country on numerous occasions.

The irony of this comment is not lost on me.

A bunch of conservatives LOVED the FBI when it was leftist getting fucked for no reason. We might have had another Hemmingway novel if not for the FBI, bunch of better dead than reds have no class.

Comey is essentially the head investigator in criminal matters for the FBI. let's assume that's his role.

A leader asking the head investigator for loyalty implies some things that you're missing.

it implies that the leader intends or has done things that could be troublesome for them in criminal matters.

If you're a real American, please explain to me why you would want your lead investigators to be loyal to any elected official over the system of laws? and please explain to me why that would be a good thing for Americans?

And if Obama did the same thing and asked Comey to drop the investigation into Hillary, I suspect you would say the same thing? That the head of the FBI should be loyal to the president?

I like how media if flipping their shit over our President telling someone in our government that he needs loyalty.

Loyalty to the laws, to the Constitution, to the country? Yes.

Loyalty to a person? That isn't how America doesn't things.

Be honest. If Hillary Clinton was the president and she asked for loyalty from the Director of the FBI, a man who is explicitly supposed to carry out operations independetly of the best interest of the president, would you have the same level of indifference?

Hillary would have flat out fired him on day 1.

If Hillary asked Comey for loyalty it would be a front page post with thousands of upvotes and would be talked about daily. This sub is biased as FUCK. There is a lot of overlap in commenters who post heavily on T_D and this sub.

Do you think the media would actually report it?

They didn't save any punches over the email thing, non stop coverage!

Considering how frequently the media reported on the email investigation, and considering how Comey became a household name during the election, I don't think they would report it, I know they would.

I would still be up in arms but less so because Trump is an overall bigger asshole who is the face of the far right and the white supremacists that want be like me and my family exterminated.

Correct, neither Obama or Hillary would have asked for that. If they had, how would you have reacted?

I would have reacted the same.

that's not American, it's totalitarian.

They always do, don't act like a president doesn't ask for loyalty. The media has been in their pocket well before they entered office, that's why you haven't heard shit.

So what you're saying is that Obama is man enough to get dat sweet Comey loyalty with only 2 meetings in his 8 years with Comey, but Trump couldn't get it in 10 meetings in less than half a year.

Obama is quite the alpha.

When Comey is working for Killary and Obama, of course. The man was made by the Clintons, he's got everything invested in them.

Stop with your truths. /r/Politics /r/conspiracy cant handle it.

....Are you stupid?

The way that Trump said that would imply that regardless of what you find, you will obey him and what he says.

If I was Coney, I'd assume he meant "Even if something I do is illegal, don't mention it. Stay loyal to me. Don't rat me out."

I'd assume he meant "Even if something I do is illegal, don't mention it. Stay loyal to me. Don't rat me out."

That's your assumption, not the reality.

In the US, we dont pledge loyalty to a man but to the government and nation.

So we gonna stop pretending that Russian interference is fake news now or are you Trump fuckers gonna keep beating the horn as you drive the train over a cliff?

Haha still no evidence, champ

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

/r/thatHappened indeed

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

Lol bot malfunction

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

LoL bOT mALFunCtIOn

Haha maybe if you repeat the same thing again your fantasy will come true. Dont let your dreams be dreams!

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

Keep repeating it, you might eventually convince yourself.

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

Oh, I'm aware he said it.

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

Similar to how Saudis interfered with the 2016 election by funding 20% of Hillary's campaign?

It's the norm now. Yes, it's awful. But it's what everyone has done, for decades. It's not something unique to Trump, or unique to Russia.

So everyone does it and that makes it okay? Whataboutism at its finest.

I specifically said it was awful. I did not say it is okay. I really wish you would read carefully and not put words in other people's mouths.

It is not a uniquely impeachable offence or anything, is my point, and people trying to use it to get rid of Trump are clearly just playing politics because both sides have been guilty of this for a long time now.

So he has evidence that Trump has nothing to do with it...But doesn't have evidence anything at all is going on.

It is fake news. LMAO Comey affected the election just as much as the leaked emails. Days before the election he announced to the press the was opening the investigation into Hillary again. People want to constantly blame Russia but that single action cost her lots of votes. Is Comey Russia now?

You're right I think he's beating the Russia drum hard so history blames Russia and not him.

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

I have yet to see any proof that they interfered. Everyone keeps saying they did but do not offer any hardcore proof. To me this looks just like the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco.

The only solid facts presented so far are emails were leaked that caused distrust with Hillary and the democratic party. Another fact is the Director of the FBI announced more Hillary investigations right before the election which caused distrust with Hillary Clinton. Those are the sole facts I know to be true. People can claim Russia hacked and leaked emails all they want, but that isnt a fact to be proven with evidence currently.

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

Are you not capable of conversing?

Who needs to converse with dumbfucks who are so in their fucking lane they can take a blatant outright statement and incorporate it into their worldview.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

"I am not a crook"

"Weapons of mass destruction"

"You can keep your doctor"

Sometimes mere statements require evidence.

Right and open investigations dont lay all their evidence out for everyone to see and tamper with and know what tracks to cover..

But again. Dumbfuck Trump loving statists dont gice a shit about common sense. Just their orange pedo fuhrer.

ROFLMAOCOPTER

I don't even vote. Its a waste of time. I understand that if the person who got elected miraculously wasn't part of the regime he would be killed. Trump works for the same people Hillary does and its all a show. Comey is the same one that lost the election for Hillary and stated that if another person did what she did they would have been arrested. Yet now he's part of this Russia show against Trump.

What can we infer from this? The establishment is trying to go after/to war with Russia. This is why they let Trump get elected and not Hillary. You can't connect Russia to Hillary.

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

He was asked for proof multiple times and responded that he could not answer in the public portion of the hearing.

He can't answer, because it doesn't exist.

You do realize that even if it did exist he would answer the exact same way, right? There's no smoking gun from this testimony for either side.

It doesnt exist the same way the proof for Weapons of Mass Destruction didn't exist. They just want a reason to validate war with Russia.

I understand that they stand to benefit if it's not fake, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily fake.

There have been a LOT of really shady connections between the Trump administration and Russia and we do know that Russia is was and always will at least try to influence American politics. We even know what their strategy is (use fake news so that people don't know what's true, stoke racial tensions (which they already do on their own people and on Americans through RT)).

So rather than jumping to a conclusion we should be waiting for more information as it comes out. This hearing had a chance of giving us more information, unfortunately it didn't give us much.

What you just stated Russia does is exactly what our own government does. Cnn just got caught setting up a fake protest. Hillary was caught faking rally attendance. The media as in every media outlet has been upping racial tensions for years. The U.S has a police problem and people of all races are dying wrongfully yet our media only paints it as a race issue to divide us. After all the race issue stuff they tried dividing us more with the election. Its not Russia. It is our government.

Our government also uses these strategies, yes.

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

https://youtu.be/FGuJjfQSL_I?t=6160

'More than one thing affected the election, therefore foreign powers influencing it and hacking our government doesn't matter.'

They don't. Its all a ploy to get us to go to war with Russia.

therefore foreign powers influencing it .. doesn't matter

If you were so concerned about that, you wouldn't allow media from the BBC or Canada. Or Israel access to everyone's email.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

I am concerned about that as well.

Nope, cuz these insider fucks won't show the evidence.

How much of it is Crowdstrikes bullshit? How much is whining about RT and the mean shows they use? How much of it is disseminating "fake news"? What are examples of the "fake news" spread by Russia disinfo agents?

None of this should be classified yet it is.

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

Thank you for quoting Comey, that's not evidence and I refer you to my original post

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

Your bot is malfunctioning

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

YoUR BoT Is MALFUnCTiOninG.

that's not evidence

You know what sub this is right?

why should our intelligence agencies show the public their raw evidence? I dont know if you are aware of how stupid that is, but you should be.

1) Our intelligence agencies have bad credibility.

These are the same people who attributed the Sony hack to North Korea cuz IPs while tech experts with basic knowledge of proxy servers laughed at them.

Also the people that lied to us about NSA spying, and WMDs in Iraq.

2) They claim that they can tell Russia did this via a sort of "digital fingerprint". Assuming that has nothing to do with IP addresses that can be easily faked, regardless of if we show the evidence or not, it's presumed that Russia would change their methods in the future anyways to not be discovered.

3) They can be more forthcoming with information that doesn't have to reveal anything about the methods. It wouldn't satisfy me because I'd still want to know how they knew it came from Russia, but where's the list of "fake news" stories that was so widely disseminated that hurt Hillary?

Technically the UK also interfered with the election if posting things on the internet is considered interference. Personally it's the collusion angle that I think is bs. "Interference" depending on how that is defined is definitely plausible but I also wouldn't consider it out of the ordinary.

Jim Risch

OKAY. SO, AGAIN, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT REPORT BY "THE NEW YORK TIMES" WAS NOT TRUE, IS THAT FAIR STATEMENT?

James B. Comey Jr.

IT WAS NOT TRUE. AGAIN, ALL OF YOU KNOW THIS, MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T.

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

anybody noticed that @realdonaldtrump is awfully quiet today?

Legal team is on him

Lawmods took his phone for the day.

He knows people will read it and can ask questions in real time. Expect a Twitter rant when the testimony stops

his son is tweeting for him

is anyone gonna ask why the FBI still has Seths laptop? if he can't discuss it in an open meeting then they know there is SOMETHING sketchy going on.

No, no one is going to ask him about debunked nonsense. Jesus.

Debunked, you mean like the russian thing which Comey admitted was just FEELS and not Reals?

Was that before or after he testified that Trump is a number one cool dude best president ever?

I see you are brainwashed. No point in continuing you'll just keep pushing whatever narrative CNN tells you.

haha. The Comey testimony just happened live. We all watched it. You are the only one "pushing a narrative"

Did you watch the same testimony?

"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened."

He also said that the election wasn't hacked like many are claiming. I would be a fool to say there was no interference at all but on the level the MSM and democrats are saying is nothing but bologna.

He also said that the election wasn't hacked like many are claiming.

Actually he did

Comey: I Have No Doubt Russia Meddled in Our Elections and Hacked the DNC, DCCC, Voter Rolls

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/comey-i-have-no-doubt-russia-meddled-in-our-elections-and-hacked-the-dnc-dccc-voter-rolls/

He also said there was ZERO evidence that Russia hacked the election votes.

He contradicted himself then.

Can you provide a citation? I don't remember that at all

The election votes are different than DNC emails.

oh good. could you link me to the debunking?

Not one that will persuade you, if you're still carrying this torch.

can you link it anyway?

Here you go - from a source that you might not reject out of hand:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/fbi-not-investigating-seth-rich-murder/

I mean seriously couldn't hurt to at least link. I know I try to read through most people's evidence when I ask them about a topic. Why say you can prove something and then not show the evidence? If you don't win over myself or the other commenter maybe you'll convince a lurker or someone else.

I don't really believe that you can't find/haven't seen critiques of this nonsense already.

Hash the details out in one of the innumerable SR threads (where those lurkers will observe that even r/conspiracy is coming to the conclusion that this one's bogus). The question here was whether someone would ask about the conspiracy theory at the Comey hearings. The answer is no, and very obviously no.

So in response for asking for evidence for something that you claimed to have evidence for, you told me no and to go do my own research? Sounds like you're full of it to me. And of course they wouldn't. This is about Trump remember? Id they had a testimony about Seth Rich and they asked an off topic question about the Trump campaign team and the Russians it would be inappropriate at the very least. So asking about Seth Rich at a testimony about Donald Trump would be pretty silly.

www.hillaryforamerica.com/notreallyjustforwallstreet.html

calling an unsolved murder 'debunked' and getting upvoted? very shilly in here.

The idea that the FBI has Seth Rich's computer is debunked.

Lol, the person who originally claimed there was a laptop from Seth Rich in FBI custody walked back on the claims and said he was mislead by FOX news, who also retracted their report.

is anyone gonna ask why the FBI still has Seths laptop?

is there any credible evidence or confirmation that the FBI has seth rich's laptop?

Tom Cotton was going for the jewels!!!!

Did anyone catch that Come said the interception of the Flynn communications he was sure that the FBI hadn't validated yet?

Opinions on the fact that Loretta Lynch directed Comey to refer to the criminal email investigation as a "matter" rather than an investigation?

There's been quite a bit in this testimony, I'm pretty happy with it to be honest. Comey even called out a bunch of press for false stories.

"I didn't want to die on that hill (ary)"

Sounds like obstruction of justice to me!

No, because it doesn't affect the investigation. Only public statements. An example of obstruction would be more like "please let that go".

That's where you're completely backwards.

Loretta Lynch telling Comey to publicly call the FBI's Hillary investigation a "matter" instead of what it was, is her putting her finger on the scale for political reasons.

is her putting her finger on the scale for political reasons.

Yes it was, and it was certainly not right. But it didn't have an effect on the conclusion of the investigation. And wasn't supposed to.

I'm not saying the following would hold up in court, but aren't voters more or less judges of political candidates? And "justice" would be voting them out of office. Hillary misled the "judges" throughout the election as well.

Nobody found the truth until after all primary voting was over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

So the American people couldn't hold Clinton (or the DNC) accountable for their actions. IMO that is obstruction of justice whether or not the law agrees.

If only Americans had the opportunity to vote for the candidate they preferred http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/08/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-consistently-beats-donald-t/

Voters aren't the judges in a criminal investigation, no. What this could be is collusion, what this could be is deception of the public (but the public called it investigation anyways). What this could not be is obstruction of justice, because it didn't have an effect on any investigation, only on the publics perception of it.

What this could not be is obstruction of justice, because it didn't have an effect on any investigation, only on the publics perception of it.

What investigation are you talking about? I'm talking about the lies Hillary was guilty of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

Both weren't right, but Trump actually tried to get an investigation to shut down, which is way worse.

Nothing is worse than our democracy getting subverted via lies & corruption. Democracy is the only thing the American people have to hold our leaders accountable and democracy demands the truth so people can make intelligent decisions.

And even if Trump were literally worse than Clinton, then that makes the entire Democratic Party even worse because they allowed Trump to be elected by ignoring American voters (aka not allowing our democracy to function). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/08/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-consistently-beats-donald-t/

Asking someone to call an investigation "matter" instead of "investigation" is not as bad as asking someone to shut down the investigation. Regardless of what the investigation is.

And everything you say has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I'm talking about the lies Hillary was guilty of.

Lying isn't necessarily a crime, if it was Trump would have been impeached months ago.

Nothing is worse than our democracy getting subverted via lies & corruption.

Like calling an active investigation into the integrity of the election, a cornerstone of the democracy, fake news and trying to stop it?

And everything you say has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

That's because we are talking about voters not whatever you want to distract me with. VOTERS are supposed to hold politicians accountable, but they can't do that if political parties rig the system against them and the politicians lie to them.

I already told you this isn't "obstruction of justice" in a legal sense regarding the criminal investigation. I said that in my first comment so I'm not sure why you even tried to argue. Thanks for agreeing with me I guess.

However it certainly is an obstruction of justice in the way I described it. If you want to try to argue that American voters shouldn't be allowed to vote based on the truth then be my guest lol.

Lying isn't necessarily a crime, if it was Trump would have been impeached months ago.

Fraud is a crime https://www.facebook.com/DNCfraudlawsuit/

Like calling an active investigation into the integrity of the election, a cornerstone of the democracy, fake news and trying to stop it?

What are you talking about? I'm literally not sure. The election already had zero integrity. Bernie was cheated by Clinton & the DNC & Trump was elevated via the media (Clinton + DNC plan) https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785615427913199616

That's because we are talking about voters not whatever you want to distract me with.

Let's look back... The first comment I replied to:

Sounds like obstruction of justice to me!

to wich I replied:

No, because it doesn't affect the investigation. Only public statements. An example of obstruction would be more like "please let that investigation go".

Then I got the following answer:

That's where you're completely backwards. Loretta Lynch telling Comey to publicly call the FBI's Hillary investigation a "matter" instead of what it was, is her putting her finger on the scale for political reasons. She asked him to lie, or mislead, the American public.

to which I replied:

is her putting her finger on the scale for political reasons. Yes it was, and it was certainly not right. But it didn't have an effect on the conclusion of the investigation. And wasn't supposed to.

No one was talking about the election or voters.

Then you came into the discussions by shifting the topic to distract me, not the other way round.

Then you came into the discussions by shifting the topic to distract me, not the other way round.

I made it my points explicitly clear. I wasn't talking about obstruction of justice. I was talking about obstruction of justice per my argument.

Thank you for agreeing with me that it was not the former, but it definitely is obstruction of justice per my argument.

So it wasn't actually obstruction of justice but you made an argument and called it obstruction of justice? I would argue that per your argument it is actually strawberry cheesecake and therefore not obstruction of justice.

Voters hold politicians accountable, but they need the truth to do so. I personally think that writing out an explanation as to why it's strawberry cheesecake and not what I said would be a waste of time, but go ahead if that's what you wanna do.

Or you could just admit that I'm right. Admit that voters do in fact vote for politicians and that we do need the truth in order for democracy to function correctly. And admit that our democracy should not be rigged.

Or you could just not reply to this. I really don't care.

Obstruction of justice has a meaning. What you talkes about has nothing to do with it. I'm glad we can agree it wasn't obstruction of justice and you can post your argument somewhere it's on topic.

It literally was obstruction of justice. Thanks for moving on because I really don't like the dialog you're replying with in regard to Clinton & the DNC obstructing the only way American voters could hold them accountable (aka they obstructed justice).

You mean the investigation that concluded 2 days after it started?

I'd that's obstruction of justice you agree that Trump firing Comey is absolutely without question obstruction of justice right? Otherwise that would be hypocritical

it's not

Opinions on the fact that Loretta Lynch directed Comey to refer to the criminal email investigation as a "matter" rather than an investigation?

Big imo, also helped to convince people (including myself) that Comey was likely telling the truth during his testimony. He was very candid about testimony regarding people with affiliations with both parties.

Comey even called out a bunch of press for false stories.

Yes, but he also clearly has faith in the press, given how he chose to disseminate the information re: his memo.

Yes, but he also clearly has faith in the press, given how he chose to disseminate the information re: his memo.

I'm sure he used whatever tools he had, faith or not.

If you though the press was a lying piece of shit, would you A) personally announce the memos and their contents, or B) disseminate the contents through the press.

He really did seem genuine, which was surprising to me. Especially the way he launched into the Lynch thing so confidently, I think he was being honest.

Agreed, he hit everyone, and was very consistent in his story. Not to mention his firm confidence that any release of tapes would support him.

Which is unfortunate, because I think Trump was just bullshitting about any tapes.

Yeah, I would love to hear the tapes, it would be nice to have some primary evidence and not have to rely on someone's word.

obvious collusion, remember Bill had a chat with her on an airplane before that happened?

"I'm going to name my grandkid Matter Notinvestigation Clinton"

Yeah, that was what I took from it as well.

Think we can all agree John McCain is an old codger that needs to resign

I'm going to echo what /r/politics is saying. Is McCain having a stroke?

He may not have been having a stroke, but I am about 90% sure he has a stroke since November. His reelection speech was articulate and seemed genuine (but who can really tell?). It was night and day compared to what we saw today.

Night and day between yesterday and today's testimony even. Very weird.

Came here to say this lol. He needs to take his old ass on somewhere.

I have never liked McCain, but that was painful to watch. There is a point when someone's mental faculties begin to deteriorate and they need to take a step back and retire before a serious medical issue happens.

Or is it just show, so he doesn't have to actually say anything

I can't make heads or tails of what he's saying, christ.

Can he seriously not differentiate between the Clinton investigation and the Russian one?

This man is a senator?

This man was a presidential candidate?

Imagine if it were him vs clinton in 08. Could've flipped a coin and the outcome would've been the same in hindsight given how they've both acted through their foundations and foreign policy.

As a filthy leftist it sickens me to think that Hillary was ever considered the liberal candidate. She and bill have more in common with McCain and Romney than anything else.

She and bill have more in common with McCain and Romney than anything else.

They're called New Democrats, and it's not just Hillary. It's also Obama and the rest of the party leadership. There's a significant problem right now where the entire Democratic process has been hijacked by technocrats, and it's evident to the populace that they have no say in the political process (At a national level), but they don't have a mechanism for actual change.

As an equally filthy leftist, I'm actually a little happy that Trump was elected, because it should be a wake up call that even if your social policy is infinitely more reasonable than your opponents, without a labour first platform, you're going to lose elections.

Can't we have a tech literate futurist technocrat candidate that has charisma and campaigns on a New Deal for a New Era.

Medicare For All, An actual infrastructure bill, a minimum wage that is pegged for inflation, legalization of weed, more funding for NASA, less for defense contractors, tech plan to reduce dependence of OPEC/Russian oil.

Can't we have a tech literate futurist technocrat candidate that has charisma and campaigns on a New Deal for a New Era.

Probably not.

1) legalization of weed (lol, when this explicitly gets mentioned I die a little inside.)

2) An actual infrastructure bill (We've already had some great ones, part of the problem is that they go into the private sector and end up padding profits. Lol, last mile fibre promise.)

3) tech plan to reduce dependence of OPEC/Russian oil - (Every time I read this I lol, framing energy as strategic//identity issue while claiming to be tech forward?)

4) more funding for NASA - ? Identity politics much.

5) less for defense contractors - GL

What I'm saying: Most of your list isn't labour forward at all.

Tulsi is coming!

From the CFR, yeah.

"Neoliberals", who are surprisingly similar to neoconservatives. I think the "neo" means "fuck you, plebs"

All hail supply side jesus! He's the only one that can save us now!

Just keep waiting, I'm sure he'll come back next year! Don't try and resist or anything, because Jesus will come back soon so it won't matter anyway

neolib=conduct war on your own people for profits

neocon=conduct war on someone else's people for profits

a neolib, necon=global thermo nuclear war against the entire human race for profits

neoliberal = corporate fascist globalist, but pretends to support gay rights and black people to get elected

neoconservative = corporate fascist globalist, but pretends to support jesus and middle america to get elected

Lol!

Is technocrat the right definition I don't think any of them are scientists or engineers?

Can he seriously not differentiate between the Clinton investigation and the Russian one?

That's what I was really getting from it. He was trying to make a point of a double standard, but it was from a viewpoint of not comprehending that they're two separate investigations.

What the hell was he talking about? He seemed deranged.

Sounded to me like the dots connecting in his brain were

1) Russia hacked DNC emails! 2) Hillary had an unauthorized private email server!

So since both involve emails, Putin hacked Hillary's private email server!

This is why I don't trust these fools on either side in government. They're incompetent and waste golden opportunities to ask the real, pertinent questions.

agreed. the guy was embarrassing today. rambling, incoherent, confused. i'm a fan of mccain but he needs to enjoy his retirement now.

mccains definitely compromised

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/336973-vladimir-putin-i-like-senator-mccain http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html

friends with manafort and more

"Manafort and Davis didn’t just snooker McCain into trumpeting their client’s cause; they endangered him politically, by arranging a series of meetings with Deripaska, who the U.S. had barred from entering the country because of his ties to organized crime. In 2006, they steered McCain to attend a dinner with the oligarch at a chalet near Davos, where Deripaska speechified for the 40 or so guests. (The Washington Post reported that the oligarch sent Davis and Manafort a thank-you note for arranging to see the senator in “such an intimate setting.”) Seven months later, Manafort and Davis took McCain to celebrate his 70th birthday with Deripaska on a yacht moored in the Adriatic."

From what I've noticed, a few of them need a medical evaluation for their mental stability. The most famous ones:

McCain Pelosi Waters

No doubt there's plenty more that aren't in the media spotlight. Those 3 in particular are akin to one of your grandparents being urged to take another drivers license test because their a danger to other drivers and pedestrians.

Oh look, nothing came to it beyond Comey admitting it's only "feels" about the Russian "involvement" and that COMEY HIMSELF obstructed justice about the Clinton emails.

Reality > Muh russisan narrative.

Nope I watched it all, the russia narrative is just feels. Unless I completely missed it, there was no votes changed due to russia, there was no russian interference.

Flynn had contact yes. But guess what, Trump did nothing wrong. Unlike Comey who admitted to obstructing information in the Clinton Email investigation.

Lying isn't wrong? Pressuring the director to pledge personal loyalty isn't wrong? Pushing to suppress an investigating isn't wrong?

Lying is wrong, however Comey admitted to lying about the Clinton Emails. CNN lies all the time.

Saying "hope" isn't suppression.

That's certainly the current pro-Trump narrative. It's wrong, though - "hope" isn't some magic word that can't be obstruction.

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/872835418194157568

When my boss asks to meet with me alone, and tells me that he "hopes that I do something", I take that as a serious direct order.

Especially if he then fires you for not doing it.

Exactly, and that's probably the lingo Trump used with politicians he gave money to. As in "I hope that permit problem gets solved before that fundraiser I throwing for you" or something like that.

Linking to a twitter of someone who works for a biased news source isn't truth.

He and others in the thread cite relevant legal authorities. Your attempt to create a justification for believing the narrative instead of acknowledging that "hope" is not a magic safe word is a waste of your time and mine.

If we are using "hope" as "order" directive, then anyone who has ever hoped injury on someone could be investigated for causing the injury...

I think with a little time to cool down, even you will be embarrassed by that one.

Nope not at all because I see reality and facts not "hope".

Cool, cool. Well, if you can ever bring yourself to read tweets by a NYT legal reporter, you can go over the reality and facts that thread discusses. Such as opinions they discuss from the 5th, 7th, 8th, and 11th circuits in which terms like "hope" and "guess" supported convictions for obstruction of justice and related offenses.

Yeah, when your boss (who just happens to be arguably the most powerful figure in the world), in private, says he hopes you do something, I'm absolutely sure you wouldn't feel pressured at all to do what he said. FFS even Comey said it felt like an order.

Lol at Trump being the most powerful man in the world

Arguably the most powerful person, but seriously who do you think is more powerful? Putin? Xi JinPing? Maybe the richest people on Earth, the likes of Buffet or Gates? I mean I find it difficult to not rank the President at least in the top 10 or 20, and that would make put him in like the top .0000000001% in terms of power in the world.

I imagine the 20th most powerful person in the world has nothing on number 1 though.

And to answer your question, Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Jinping are probably all a tier lower on the hierarchy than ppl like Kissinger, Koche bros, Soros, Rothschilds, Rockefeller, pope,etc

Saying "hope" isn't an order. To me an order would be, "You do this." Not "I HOPE you do this".

what if you then fire them for not doing what you had hoped?

Sounds like an order.

Your boss comes to you and says "I hope your not going to do x..." Think your gonna do x?

Will I do "x" no, but it's not an order to not do "x".

It is now undisputed that Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner had contacts with Russian government officials that they failed to disclose in their security clearance paperwork. Those contacts included a request by Flynn and Kushner to set up a back-channel line to Moscow that could not be intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

There's no evidence yet that Trump was personally involved, but there is clearly substance to the Trump campaign-Russia narrative.

Wow, you really misheard much of what was said then. He made sure to not mince words, yet you did it for him.

The things he "felt" were about what he thought Trump's intentions were... How he read into the actions and body language. Those are things you can only have a "feeling" for. That doesn't discredit all of the rest of it. Just comey nodding his head to the fact that he could be wrong on those answers.

If there was no russian interference, then why did Flynn plead the fifth?

Trump himself even said, "if you're innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment?

I never said there was No, interference but the extent that liberals think is just not there.

Thats up to Robert Mueller to decide though. We, the public, have limited information regarding Russian interference into the election

Nope I watched it all, the russia narrative is just feels. Unless I completely missed it, there was no votes changed due to russia, there was no russian interference. Flynn had contact yes. But guess what, Trump did nothing wrong. Unlike Comey who admitted to obstructing information in the Clinton Email investigation.

yes

This entire thread is a giant exercise in denial. Truly amazing.

Lets totally disregard all of the times Comey talked about the hundreds of cyber attacks stemming from Russia its all fake lalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalal

Trumpies thrive on ignoring reality. They've gone too great lengths to try and discredit Comey and his testimony.

Also, that Comey was the source of some leaks. Why is everyone just ignoring that?

because it was his own memos that weren't confidential?

If that's the case, then why weren't his records about the Trump meetings used in the hearings? He said, "I thought I would need them one day." Wouldn't today be that day? Why didn't he known how many records he took? Was 8 or 9? He can leak other stuff, but not that? His testimony doesn't add up and the catch all "confidential" doesn't cover it.

He said that he hopes his friend has a copy of them to give to the committee. At least that's what I think I heard. Not entirely sure how it all works but they might subpoena them (I may be getting mixed up with my committees and investigations though).

What parts of his testimony didn't add up?

Why wouldn't he have his own records if he thought it was so important?

My assumption is that he does still have copies and went through them because he was pretty specific telling them what was said. Another assumption is that if he's diligent to make notes, then he is diligent enough to keep records and copies.

However for full disclosure I'm kind of confused about the whole thing and so could be completely wrong.

My assumption is that he does still have copies and went through them because he was pretty specific telling them what was said.

Then why didn't he know how many he had or what he took notes about? We're not talking about something in the 100s here. It's a max of 9.

Another assumption is that if he's diligent to make notes, then he is diligent enough to keep records and copies.

Then where are they? Why didn't he bring them? They're relevant.

I've no idea what his note taking process is. As for where they are, as mentioned in another comment they're with the special counsel.

How do you know they're with the special counsel? Why would they be asking him how many he took and if he documented a particular encounter if they have the notes? This doesn't make any sense. Like I said, it doesn't add up.

Because he said they are? NY Times link.

Memos=/notes

The memos being discussed were his notes of what was said with his conversations in person and on the phone with Trump.

I hate to be that guy but...

mem·o ˈmemō/Submit nouninformal a written message, especially in business.

He turned over memos based on his notes. Where are the notes.

What ? He wrote the memos based on his recollection of the conversations he had with Trump.

What notes are you talking about ? There was no stenographer sitting next to him during the calls/conversations with Trump.

The ones he talked about in the hearing today

He turned over memos based on his notes.

I think this is wrong.

Then Comey is mixing up the words "notes" and "memos," which is possible, but I think he's being deliberately misleading.

This seems to be a Semantical issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note-taking

I am not a native speaker, but for me the context Comey used "notes" in did in no way imply that he first had some kind of ominous "notes" and then afterwards created the memos. Thats not at all how I understood his answer and I dont think the inquiry board did that either.

A memo is a message and is wholly different from taking notes or documenting. It doesn't make sense to write a letter in order to document something.

https://www.google.de/search?q=memo+to+yourself&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=w8U5WcPcK43EXtnQoIgP

Ok last try. As I understand it, in this context, a "memo" is a "memo to yourself" a memorization of an experienced event. In this case a memo/memorization/recollection of his conversations with Trump.

Those were written right after his conversations with Trump. When Comey did a briefing in the Trump Tower, he stated that he started writing on his classified laptop right after entering his car.

Calling them notes is probably not totally correct but that is about it. Thats all I can say about this.

Stop trying to twist writing a meme into the same thing as writing notes. They are two totally separate things and it makes zero sense to write a letter to yourself as a form a note taking. There is no "well maybe 'note' isn't the right word here,'" he was under freak oath and you don't get to fiddle with wordplay. Just ask Bill Clinton about that. You say what you mean and you mean what you say, period.

He stated that he gave them to the special prosecutor

Well, where are they?

??? He explicitly stated that he gave them to Muellers investigation team. ???

He said he gave the memos 1) to a friend and 2) to the team. Where are the actual notes though? Assuming he said notes but meant memos (or vice versa), why does he not have a copy of them? Why were they not used in this hearing? Why ask him 1000 questions that he just says "I don't recall" to when they have them right there?

why does he not have a copy of them?

Why would he ? He is a private citizen now, he doesn't have any power in the government and the most he can do is to give the memos to someone with power, in this case the special investigator.

Why were they not used in this hearing? Why ask him 1000 >questions that he just says "I don't recall" to when they have >them right there?

I think one of the Congressmen asked him about the note he gave to his friend and Comey was ok with giving it to the inquiry board.

I don't think that there is a lot of unclassified information that he couldn't recall that is in the memos. Atleast that's how I understood him. The memos with classified information couldn't have been used today anyways so why care about them ? They are in the best hands possible.

Why would he ? He is a private citizen now, he doesn't have any power in the government and the most he can do is to give the memos to someone with power, in this case the special investigator.

Would you not keep a copy of notes you thought were extremely important and that you "felt the need to document"? That's insane. It doesn't make sense that he would give a copy to everyone but himself.

I think one of the Congressmen asked him about the note he gave to his friend and Comey was ok with giving it to the inquiry board.

Yes, and? That doesn't answer the question.

I don't think that there is a lot of unclassified information that he couldn't recall that is in the memos. Atleast that's how I understood him.

Then maybe you should watch again. He couldn't even remember how many meetings he documented.

The memos with classified information couldn't have been used today anyways so why care about them ? They are in the best hands possible.

Wait, is that a thing? Did any of the memos contain classified information? Treason it is then.

He stopped caring about the memos after the special prosecutor got them. Again he has no political power anymore, why would he want them.

Wait, is that a thing? Did any of the memos contain classified >information? Treason it is then.

Thats how I understood it atleast.

But the one he leaked didn't, so nothing to prosecute there.

The memos in the hands of the special investigator on the other hand contain classified information as far as I know. Might be wrong.

He stopped caring about the memos after the special prosecutor got them. Again he has no political power anymore, why would he want them.

He said he thought he would need them one day. Why would he stop caring about them? His political power is not relevant in this.

Thats how I understood it atleast. But the one he leaked didn't, so nothing to prosecute there. The memos in the hands of the special investigator on the other hand contain classified information as far as I know. Might be wrong.

I don't know how you are coming to these conclusions. But as far as "there's nothing to prosecute here" goes, there's, ya know, the perjury..

Ok last comment on this chain aswell.

He stopped caring about the memos because the are in the best hands possible, in the hands of the special investigator. He couldn't release them even if he still had them because some of them contain classified information. The memos have been created for this case basically.

I am not American , but as far as I know, you can't prosecute someone for leaking unclassified personal information, in this case Trump asking Comey to let the Flynn investigation go.

He stopped caring about the memos because the are in the best hands possible, in the hands of the special investigator.

You do understand that you can print two copies of something right? This line of thinking does not make a bit of sense.

He couldn't release them even if he still had them because some of them contain classified information.

He did release them..

That's not what he said, he said he distributed his memo (through a friend) to the press, which wasn't a leak of information, as A) the memos weren't classified, and B) they were effectively his personal documents.

It still doesn't strike you as odd that he gave it to a friend to give to the press? Why wouldn't he make a general announcement to leak it himself? Why manufacture the appearance of a leak?

Why manufacture the appearance of a leak?

My interpretation is that it was a kind of dead man's switch as insurance, he said it was to get a special counsel and they apparently have all the memos.

How is that not weird to anyone else? He's manipulating the system with the appearance of a leak.

This whole thing is fucking weird, we are beyond normal. It is possible that he didn't go to the justice department to raise concerns because it is headed by Sessions who may be compromised and part of the conspiracy. Therefore by discussing it with other leaders of the FBI and informing the media, it forces their hand without being able to cover it up.

Sessions was removed though so it can't be that. And again, he didn't inform the media. He channeled it though a friend in order to make it look like leak. And who's hand did it force? Nothing came from any of it.

So much of this just doesn't make any sense. And I know you said we are beyond normal and you're right, we are.

Sessions was removed though so it can't be that.

Sort of. He recused himself, voluntarily. He can easily fuck with anything if he so chooses. The memo being leaked forced a special prosecutor, which is pretty important in this case.

Who would Comey go to? His boss was Sessions. His boss' boss was Trump. This needed a special prosecutor.

It still doesn't strike you as odd that he gave it to a friend to give to the press? Why wouldn't he make a general announcement to say it himself? Why manufacture the appearance of a leak?

I mean, maybe somewhat odd, but it seems far more important to verify the authenticity of the documents, and their relative truth which, considering how unequivocally Comey stated he wanted tapes (if they existed) to be released to the public seems to be the case.

In so far as the reason not to make a general announcement? If I had to make a guess, I'm assuming he wanted to (as he stated) ensure the appointment of a special prosecutor, and if he immediately after firing held a press conference and released the memoes, I'm sure many"news organizations" would immediately spin the release and try to discredit him due to the circumstances, which would hinder his ultimate goal of having a special prosecutor put in place.

I'm also assuming that, after his firing, Comey wanted to ensure that someone (who he trusted or viewed as bipartisan maybe?) would take over the investigation, and his prediction worked pretty astoundingly.

Comey stated he wanted tapes (if they existed) to be released to the public seems to be the case

Or he knows there aren't tapes..

In so far as the reason not to make a general announcement? If I had to make a guess, I'm assuming he wanted to (as he stated) ensure the appointment of a special prosecutor, and if he immediately after firing held a press conference and released the memoes, I'm sure many"news organizations" would immediately spin the release and try to discredit him due to the circumstances, which would hinder his ultimate goal of having a special prosecutor put in place.

That is my point. He's manipulating the legal process and attempting to control the media narrative. He essentially admitting that the FBI tries to manipulate the media.

Or he knows there aren't tapes

Right, bc it's not like Trump threatened him and heavily implied there were tapes.

That is my point. He's manipulating the legal process and attempting to control the media narrative. He essentially admitting that the FBI tries to manipulate the media.

No he's not... I'm not seeing that conclusion at all, especially considering he only did that after being FIRED from the FBI.

Right, bc it's not like Trump threatened him and heavily implied there were tapes.

He said, "James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" It's possible Comey knows there are no tapes, otherwise why would Trump have put it in such a non-committal fashion?

No he's not... I'm not seeing that conclusion at all, especially considering he only did that after being FIRED from the FBI.

He gave his friend a memo to leak to the press in order to manipulate the narrative and obtain his preferred outcome. How is that not a manipulation?

He said, "James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" It's possible Comey knows there are no tapes, otherwise why would Trump have put it in such a non-committal fashion?

Non-committal fashion? That was the most brazen threat I've seen a President EVER make in such a public forum.

He gave his friend a memo to leak to the press in order to manipulate the narrative and obtain his preferred outcome. How is that not a manipulation?

Well EVERY new bit of information "manipulates" the narrative. Every Wikileaks leak, and Snowden's bombshells, but again, if the information is TRUE, it's important that it comes out, regardless of how much it changes perceptions.

I suppose you could try to paint him in a bad light by saying "he had an agenda!" but while that is likely the case, I don't see why that matters so much. It's interesting to discuss I suppose, but frankly I don't really care that much why he did it, as long as what he's saying is the truth.

There are too many lies out there for me to throw a fit when someone seemingly leaks important truths.

Non-committal fashion? That was the most brazen threat I've seen a President EVER make in such a public forum.

A brazen threat would be "if Comey starts to leak with to the press, I ll release the tapes I made." Also, Comey did leak to the press, so where are the tapes? They don't exist, that's where, and Comey knows that.

Well EVERY new bit of information "manipulates" the narrative. Every Wikileaks leak, and Snowden's bombshells, but again, if the information is TRUE, it's important that it comes out, regardless of how much it changes perceptions.

While that's true, the FBI director chose to create a particular appearance in order to manipulate the narrative. Wikileaks does the same thing, sure, but that doesn't make it ok that Comey does it.

I suppose you could try to paint him in a bad light by saying "he had an agenda!" but while that is likely the case, I don't see why that matters so much.

It matters because he was the director of the FBI. "We're honest! We're non-partisan!" Bullshit. Knowing the agenda is key to understanding motive and context. Is it true? Maybe, it's just Comey's word and painted by his personal feelings. Why should we trust him when he's so manipulative? He's shady, so is Trump, we haven't heard the truth yet.

Also, Comey did leak to the press, so where are the tapes? They don't exist, that's where, and Comey knows that.

So it's not possible at all that trump was bullshitting when he acted like any raped would be damaging to comey?

Do you mind rewording? I think that's supposed to say "tape" but am not sure.

Yes it was. Autocorrect on my phone kept replacing tapes with taped and raped, but I thought caught it the last time

It's possible, but Trump said the thing with the videos after the Comey leaks so...the whole thing doesn't really make any sense.

Easy, for his own safety.

How does that protect his safety?

In his own words "the press was alright on my driveway". Basically going to the press himself is a surefire way to have microphones stuck in your face every time you open the front door.

So? What does that have to do with safety?

That is the worst recap of what was said, and not remotely what happened. Keep your bullshit characterizations in the_Donald.

Let me guess you heard nothing but bullets to "impeach" or "jail" Trump?

No, I see no evidence that Trump is involved with Russia, nor do I think he should be impeached or jailed. I think he is a moron and a piece of shit, but I haven't seen (nor do I think) he is connected to Russia. I think people "around" him may (and probably were in some respect), but not him (at least based on what I know now).

Not everyone who thinks Russia interfered in the election thinks Trump was complicit.

Most do though and that's the problem. Most people think "Trump ordered Putin to do this" when in reality Putin would laugh in Trump's face if he ordered him around.

Most people don't realize Trump has done nothing wrong in the Russia sense, so they just spew the lies and shit that the MSM tells them to think.

Most do though and that's the problem. Most people think "Trump ordered Putin to do this" when in reality Putin would laugh in Trump's face if he ordered him around.

I can't speak for most people, I haven't checked any polls or the like, but yeah a lot of people do think that, but a lot of people jump to conclusions, Republicans, Democrats, people in this sub, and I'm sure I do as well.

Most people think "Trump ordered Putin to do this" when in reality Putin would laugh in Trump's face if he ordered him around.

I think you mean the other way around? No one thinks Trump is ordering Putin (afaik).

Most people don't realize Trump has done nothing wrong in the Russia sense, so they just spew the lies and shit that the MSM tells them to think.

I think you mean, there is no public evidence as of yet that Trump has done anything wrong (at least in regards to Russian collusion). Who knows where we will be a year from now?

Most people think "Trump ordered Putin to do this"

Other way around. Putin clearly wears the pants in that relationship.

There is no relationship.

"I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today. He’s probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form." - Trump on his relationship with Putin, November 2013

"I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently. And I spoke indirectly — and directly — with President Putin, who could not have been nicer." - Trump in May 2014

Nobody's buying your bullshit. Fuck off back to T_D.

If you consider that as circumstantial evidence of collusion, you should be flipping a shit about the things that went on with Uranium One.

I'm not saying it's evidence of collusion. I'm just showing that /u/Midazgo is full of shit.

Except he clearly didn't mean there was absolutely no relationship at all. He clearly meant there was no relationship in terms of rigging the election, collusion, or whatever.

Except he clearly did mean that.

Putin clearly wears the pants in that relationship.

That's what he was replying to. That doesn't mean just the election, it means their relationship in general.

Except that comment, by you, was clearly aimed at the whole idea that Putin and Trump worked together to fuck with the election.

You replied to a comment about how most people think Trump ordered Putin to rig the election for him, for Christ's sake.

Ah, right. I forgot I'm in /r/conspiracy, where there must be a hidden meaning behind every comment.

Stop assuming you know what people actually mean. You're not good at it.

Stop assuming you know what people actually mean. You're not good at it.

Funny given that's actually what you did. You replied to a specific claim, he then replied to your claim, and you took that has a broad and general statement rather than a rebuttal to a specific claim.

But sure, I'm the one who's looking for hidden meanings :)

I'm replying to the words they said. You're replying to what you think they actually meant. And also trying to tell me what I actually meant. I don't give a shit what you think honestly. This conversation is over.

I'm replying to the context of the conversation. You were just looking for a "gotcha" so you could score those oh-so-valuable internet points.

You're replying to a context that wasn't there and arguing semantics with me for internet points. Fuck off troll.

"troll" ;)

I'm just watching you triple down. It's amusing. But you know what, he clearly didn't mean a relationship between Trump and Putin in relation to the election.

He only said it in response to your claim that they do have an election driven relationship, in a comment thread about that possible relationship, in a thread about the investigation into that alleged relationship.

Clearly I'm the wrong one here.

He wasn't replying to me you fucking retard. I never claimed anything about an election driven relationship. Clearly you are wrong since you can't even keep track of who said what and who you're replying to. Seriously, just fuck off before you embarrass yourself further.

You're running around swearing and insulting people because... I don't know, reasons? Nevermind that you're also misconstruing what was said, by whom, and ignoring the entire context of the comments.

But please tell me more about how I'm the one who's embarrassing themselves.

I'm swearing and insulting people because I'm sick of the brain dead retards like you on this sub. And I don't really give a fuck if you don't like it.

And I'm not misconstruing anything. I know exactly what I said, who i said it to, and what I meant. Your autistic ass insisting otherwise doesn't change a thing.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

I hate the shitposting on T_D bud.. I wish there was a more serious sub that you could discuss on without constant shit posts and blatant karma attempts

Haha right, I'm sure that's why you were on T_D talking about cucks as recently as yesterday. Fuck outta here with this bullshit.

So what? I don't shitpost bud. Also thanks for letting me know you are stalking me... I love you too bby.

Al Green is another cuck in Washington who would be better off fired rather than continue.

Anyone who is demanding Trump be impeached, needs to be impeached themselves and then forced to clean up human and animal waste for the rest of their lives for the shit they constantly spew.

Anybody who's in T_D calling people cucks and talking about "cucked companies" is the very definition of a shitposter. You and everybody like you are cancer. Fuck off.

Exactly. Russia doesn't need Trump in their pocket to benefit from his presidency. They just need him to weaken NATO and reduce America's standing in the world, and he's already made great progress.

Pretty much what I think happened. Russia say a candidate that was pushing for the U.S. to veer towards isolationism away from the rest of the world, and saw an amazing opportunity to further their own ends.

Hell, maybe they even wanted to be caught, so not only they could help get Trump elected, but if he was, it would be a huge blight on his election.

That's pushing some 148D level chess there ;)

And I say that as a TD poster and (reluctant) Trump voter.

Idk, i'm just spitballing. Have not definitively made any conclusion yet, and frankly I've read more insane stuff on this sub, I just don't know.

Was a joke lol. But I can't say it would surprise me. Putin would gain from turmoil in American politics.

I actually think the average person does think Russia and Trump were working hand in hand. The media and Democrats have pushed that narrative, and tried at every turn to link them, that I think the average Jane and Joe believe it.

I don't think most realize Russia (and many other nations) likely did try and fuck with our election. They've tried before, too, and they'll try again. They're not doing it to benefit one candidate over another, but instead to benefit themselves.

The same reason we interfere in foreign politics on a daily basis.

It's hilarious to me that you can be so wrong about so many things in just one sentence.

By admitting that he asked a friend to send documents to the press, Comey has testified that he is, in fact, manipulative and conniving

Just as manipulative and conniving as snowden and Seth rich, right?

Except the public benefitted from their exposure of corruption... what does Comey's leak prove to us? And how come comey isn't dead, or exiled to Russia, or in jail, or stuck in an embassy?
You know, when you leak something that matters, you usually aren't allowed to hang out in the spotlight like this

And how come comey isn't dead, or exiled to Russia, or in jail, or stuck in an embassy?

Because nothing he leaked was classified. This is day one shit dude.

So if it's not classified, he didn't really leak anything did he?

Oh so now he's not a manipulative leaker. Ok then

so are we done here?

I actually see the point and criminality in Snowden and Rich's leaks

He wanted a special prosecutor. You know, because obviously AG Sessions wouldn't be appropriate...

Here's something I never thought I'd say, I agree with John McCain.

President Comey.

Sorry for the uppercase. It is copied directly from c-span transcripts. Here is the NYT being called on for the February story.

Jim Risch

I REMEMBER YOU TALKED WITH US SHORTLY AFTER FEBRUARY 14TH WHEN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" WROTE AN ARTICLE THAT SUGGESTED THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS. YOU REMEMBER READING THAT ARTICLE WHEN IT CAME OUT?

James B. Comey Jr.

I DO IT WAS ABOUT EXTENSIVE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.

...

Jim Risch

OKAY. SO, AGAIN, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT REPORT BY "THE NEW YORK TIMES" WAS NOT TRUE, IS THAT FAIR STATEMENT?

James B. Comey Jr.

IT WAS NOT TRUE. AGAIN, ALL OF YOU KNOW THIS, MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T.

This needs to be its own post, and stickied in every politically-themed subreddit.

Ah yes, that blurry line between trump being investigated personally and his campaign being investigated. So strong.

Which article is he referring to?

https://archive.fo/Ls1qx

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4585340/Comey-knifes-Loretta-Lynch-too.html

Why is almost no one talking about this?

Because it's resolved isn't it? He decided to go public and take LL out of the equation. The same thing he tried to do with Trump until Trump fired his ass.

because it's nothing new.

What would compel an innocent person to repeatedly ask the FBI director if he, himself, was under investigation?

I've never been compelled to do this, mostly because I know I've not done anything that would warrant an investigation, let alone do it on multiple occasions, just saying.

Did the NYT and WaPo claim you were? Was the public convinced you were guilty of being under investigation?

If you were in his shoes wouldn't you want some clarification?

You mean, if I decided to roll around in shit and then complain when people said I smelled like it? No, I'd realize why they would make that assumption and carry on with my own business knowing I have nothing to worry about. Even further, I would offer my testimony under oath if they wanted it.

How does he know he was fired because of the Russia/Trump investigation?

I think that needs to be elaborated on. Was it because he was investigating members of Trumps team? Was it because of the lack of progress in the investigation? Was it because of the leaks?

We need more info!!

Trump said it on live broadcast

Somebody get McCain some pampers. He and Trump both appear to be entering their "second childhood".

glad this thread isnt stickied.

the amount of shit slinging and mis info in here is crazy. To be expected over a heated topic. But seeing so many people talk out there ass than get upvoted is comedy. than the ones that are speaking clear and giving facts instead of opinion get downvoted. People say this sub is run /r/the_donald, this thread proves quite the opposite.

Dude his ass is grass, McCain straight up hinted get with it or get gone to Comey. Then he drops a feeler to see how much dirt he could leak. lmao politics

I love /conspiracy

Its the real /redacted

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Comey Testimony Discussion Thread

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

I just saw this YouTube comment on one of HA Goodmans videos which, so far I think would go close to winning the "Tweet Of The Year Award".

Comment under HA Goodman's video:

"So Comey was a leaker, a liar, not loyal, and "not strong" in his own words. Gee, i wonder why Trump fired his bitch-ass."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UEQcApTrBs

You're right I think he's beating the Russia drum hard so history blames Russia and not him.

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts... it was driven from the top of their government... It's not a close call - that happened.

Are you not capable of conversing?

Easily, but I'm not American and am luckily not a slave of your extremely partisan politics and your two party system.

I think with a little time to cool down, even you will be embarrassed by that one.

Most do though and that's the problem. Most people think "Trump ordered Putin to do this" when in reality Putin would laugh in Trump's face if he ordered him around.

Most people don't realize Trump has done nothing wrong in the Russia sense, so they just spew the lies and shit that the MSM tells them to think.

Exactly. Russia doesn't need Trump in their pocket to benefit from his presidency. They just need him to weaken NATO and reduce America's standing in the world, and he's already made great progress.

Here is the leftist side:

https://youtu.be/xSzXtRHPG9U

A victim's mother's opinion (FROM CNN), please ignore the Trump stuff at the end because it's not relevant to this debate:

https://youtu.be/rvyiiufbThs

Here is a survivor's opinion:

https://youtu.be/sTFQU5QpOlM

Here's the darker side:

https://youtu.be/4E_Ts4Zr7tA

And Lastly, Clinton nonchalantly admitting it:

https://youtu.be/Z4Hy3t2qrgM

If you need more, I can keep going. Just let me know.

'More than one thing affected the election, therefore foreign powers influencing it and hacking our government doesn't matter.'

No, Im saying the exact same things. All of Page, Stone, Manafort, Kushner, Sessions, Flynn, Exxon, Rosneft so and and so on. Like I said trump personally is only one player. Everyone else has not been vindicated. Yet Trump wants to brush his shoulders off and claim victory. This investigation is still ongoing as Comey said with confidence Russia interfered succesfully w the election. We will see when it all comes to light, but nice try.

"He said that it dawned on him that there could be corroboration of a memo that he wrote after the President tweeted that he better hope there were no White House tapes of their conversations.

"My judgment was that I needed to get that out into the public square," he said. He added he took the step "because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.""

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump/index.html

I'm not sure if you're trying to push a narrative, or if someone pushed a narrative on you. Either way, please read his own damn words

Not in the white house?

For the most part, I agree verbatim... except what about Nixon? Being sleazy has a definite sexual connotation, but that isn't all it means.

So he has evidence that Trump has nothing to do with it...But doesn't have evidence anything at all is going on.

Then you came into the discussions by shifting the topic to distract me, not the other way round.

I made it my points explicitly clear. I wasn't talking about obstruction of justice. I was talking about obstruction of justice per my argument.

Thank you for agreeing with me that it was not the former, but it definitely is obstruction of justice per my argument.

Thanks to our wonderful corporate-owned media, who wants to make sure the corporate-military-industrial complex wins

So if it's not classified, he didn't really leak anything did he?

I actually think the average person does think Russia and Trump were working hand in hand. The media and Democrats have pushed that narrative, and tried at every turn to link them, that I think the average Jane and Joe believe it.

I don't think most realize Russia (and many other nations) likely did try and fuck with our election. They've tried before, too, and they'll try again. They're not doing it to benefit one candidate over another, but instead to benefit themselves.

The same reason we interfere in foreign politics on a daily basis.

Stop assuming you know what people actually mean. You're not good at it.

Funny given that's actually what you did. You replied to a specific claim, he then replied to your claim, and you took that has a broad and general statement rather than a rebuttal to a specific claim.

But sure, I'm the one who's looking for hidden meanings :)

I never said there was No, interference but the extent that liberals think is just not there.

I thought Wikileaks revealed that Benghazi was actually a weapons smuggling operation, smuggling arms to the rebels and also to Syria.

https://archive.fo/Ls1qx

lol "no charges should be brought against her, no".

You're running around swearing and insulting people because... I don't know, reasons? Nevermind that you're also misconstruing what was said, by whom, and ignoring the entire context of the comments.

But please tell me more about how I'm the one who's embarrassing themselves.