Comey vs. Trump, it is not going to be pretty

They BOTH refused to answer direct questions asked by Congress....

 

Assumng of course that such isn't BS that exist only in your imagination. Have you read Comey's already published opening statement? Looks like you just might go 0 and 3.

 

Comey needed to be fired, the man pissed off both Republicans and Democrats with his inappropriateness and mishandling the whole Clinton email investigation. He illustrated for us again with his testimony in May, with his whole "the capper" story, showed the man was unfit to be FBI Director anymore.

Of course Trump would want "honest loyalty" from an FBI director. No president wants an FBI director to smile to their face, then going behind his back to undermine, and ridicule him and leak classified information.

When people leak Trump's phone calls to world leaders, and leak Manchester terror attack intel the UK gave us, they harm the USA. That is being dishonest and disloyal to the entire nation, just so these people can attempt to destroy a president.

 

Again they already answered the only question that mattered. There was no attempt to pressure Either man to end investigation or perform other actions that would be illegal.

 

You're claiming Executive privilege...which they were NOT

 

you don't get to pick and choose what questions you want to answer.

They claimed they weren't pressured. That's an opinion.

They were asked what was SAID and what was asked...and refused to respond

 

No By It I mean that they gave you the only answer you need there was no attempt to pressure than into ending an investigation even assuming either of them was in a position to do so which they were not. All you wanted to know was if they had been asked ie pressured to end investigations. The answer in their opening statement was no. Anything else was just a fishing investigation in to things not germane to the investigation into obstruction, which appears to be all you've got now.

 

And exactly whose opinion matters? In order for there to be obstruction there must be pressure upon some one to do something about an investigation no pressure no obstruction.

 

^^^Trump puppet. I guess being under oath means nothing to you. Politicians doing their job. Those who avoided the questions only proved how corrupt this new administration is.

Hey! how's that wall a com'in?

 

A. That is what the statute says
B.Comey's opening statement corroborates what I said

 

You got the only answer you need there was no obstruction.

 

Not so fast, pal. This is a long ways from being over with. A long ways.

Hey! How's that wall a com'in. What's your take on that?

 

What?

Testimony isn't about opinion my friend. It's about facts.

Pressure upon someone? Ya mean like a President repeatedly tying an FBI Director's job future with a declaration of loyalty to the President?

Or that same POTUS repeatedly "Asking" and FBI Director to drop an investigation (after ushering all the witnesses out of the room) and subsequently FIRING him when he refused?

Like that?

 

I just scaned it nothing at all about any sort of obstruction.

 

And let's not forget that the POTUS we're referring to SAID that "Russia (the investigation) was on his mind when he fired the FBI Director

 

Sir I imagine that the Russian investigation has been on his mind virtually since the day he was elected.

 

Scan better

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."

 

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President's concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened -- him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind -- was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI's potential investigation of General Flynn.

Sessions was uninterested as to WHY. Apparently he already knew

 

But they said they wouldn't comment in an open session. Does this necessarily mean they wouldn't answer in a closed session? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/russia-hearing-democrats-response/

 

That's ridiculous - but what else to expect from PUI's.

 

They answered to Congress. There was no obstruction of justice.

It's clear just who has the issues - PUI's.

 

So was what he had for breakfast that morning.

 

They don't have that right

 

They all stated that they were not coerced or pressured into abandoning their duties.

And they all retain their 5th Amendment rights regardless of Executive Privilege not being invoked.

The Democrats cried for a Special Counsel that they didn't think that they would get, and are now crying that these intelligence officials are deferring to that very same Special Counsel.

Politics, politics, politics, and more politics.

 

So you have no clue, and don't understand personal guarantees, corporations, LLPs and LLCs? What a jackass remark.