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

This thread isn't about Susan Rice. Start a new thread if you want to talk about her.

 

It's not about Jeff Sessions either.

At least Comey showed up. Rice however

 

This is what he is talking about. Of course, he got it wrong.

Fox News correspondent Ed Henry misleadingly recounted May 3 testimony provided by then-FBI Director James Comey during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to falsely suggest that Comey had lied under oath. Henry’s flawed version of Comey’s responses to a Republican senator’s line of questioning mirrors a May 12 Breitbart.com article, which made the same misinformed suggestion.

On the June 11 edition of Fox News’ MediaBuzz, Henry quickly rattled off a series of questions posed to then-FBI Director James Comey by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) during a May 3 hearing. After quoting Grassley’s questions from a transcript, Henry then paraphrased Grassley, claiming the senator asked Comey “whether he had allowed others to leak anything,” to which Comey responded, according to Henry’s erroneous account of the May 3 hearing, “no, no, no.” Henry suggested that this supposedly misleading testimony from Comey stood as evidence that the ousted FBI director was no “white knight” before claiming that Comey seemed “like someone who had been leaking a lot before”:

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

JAMES COMEY: Never.

GRASSLEY: Question two, relatively related, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

COMEY: No.

GRASSLEY: Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his association — associates been declassified and shared with the media?

COMEY: Not to my knowledge.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...lied-under-oath-about-leak-trump-memos/216864

 

It sure is. Where have you been? You seem very misinformed. You are making this stuff up as you go along.

 

And we have shown that Comey was not truthful in the above statements.

 

Comey vs. Trump.

 

Oh. Ok. That is the pattern on the extreme right wingnut media. They just attribute statements that they made up to others to advance their point.

Sad thing this time is that "their point" is that we shouldn't investigate an illegal attack on our system by a foreign adversary.

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about. You just say whatever is convenient to your argument, and truth can go to he!!.

 

Funny stuff. And again TDS by the PUI's. Putin is most appreciative.

 

Funny stuff. And again TDS by the PUI's. Putin is most appreciative.

 

I didn't say anything about Jeff Sessions.

 

"We" have not shown any such thing.

 

Obama's Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 has done so.

 

Under what do we file this automatic classification of a president's "hope's"?

• 1.4(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
• 1.4(b) foreign government information;
• 1.4(c) intelligence activities, sources, or methods, or cryptology;
• 1.4(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
• 1.4(e) scientific, technological or economic matters relating to national security; which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
• 1.4(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
• 1.4(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects or plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; and/or
• 1.4(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.

 

Keep looking.

 

Those ARE the categories for classified documents. As you have so astutely observed, a discussion appearing to seek obstruction of justice is not covered and anyone could have requested the notes on the FBI computer under the freedom of information act.

 

You are just wasting my time, which is exactly what you want to do.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title3-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title3-vol1-eo13526.pdf

 

You are wasting your own time on these phony conspiracy theories in support of Putin's strategic plan to disrupt the US government.

 

I might add, the President is responsible for our security and protecting our form of government. Not once has Trump condemned Russia for its assault on our democracy. Now why is that? He claims the Russian matter is a hoax.

 

Really ??

 

You have not. You have claimed that, but you have not shown it, just as you did not show it in the post you are replying to.

You are under the false impression that saying something makes it true. Trump has the same problem. He is all talk and no substance. He has you fooled.

 

Boy, are you funny. Did you listen to your own video? First, did you see the word, President, in my post? In my post I was talking about the President's responsibilities. At the time of your video, Trump didn't have any Presidential responsibilities. He was candidate Trump in the midst of a debate.

Yes, in his first sentence, Trump said he condemned Russia if it interfered in our election. 99% of his reply, though, was a promotion of Putin and a putdown of Clinton and the President.

Perhaps if I spell it out for you, you will understand. One never knows, though. President Trump has never condemned Russia for interfering in our election.

Doesn't that bother you? It should.

 

Trump is Trump whether candidate or President elect or President.

Promotion of Putin ?? How many times does the President have to condemn the Russians per week ??

 

As I've shown Comey absolutely was not truthful. The PUI's are at it again.