Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hst2

James Comey is “incredulous” about the ravings of the guy he handed the presidency to

67 posts in this topic

Maybe Comey should have picked one side and stuck with it , seems like he kept switching sides, he certainly seems like a very confused person, I have to wonder how he ever got the job in the first place 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they could tap Donny's personal lines in Trump Towes without a FISA order. 

Of course they couldn't, they always, always follow the letter and spirit of the law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That still wouldn't explain why anyone would be listening to calls at Trump Tower if they were listened to.  That would require evidence that a crime was being committed which would require a warrant or that communications with a foreign government were going on, which would require a FISA warrant.  If law enforcement and intelligence can just willy-nilly listen to everyone, then we have a problem.

I hope there's not a moment in the Big Dunce's day when he's not being monitored. Children need that for structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ridiculous myth that Comey caused Hillary to lose is really out of vogue now. Hillary caused Hillary to lose. End of story.

 

  

Hitting the nail on the head, so to speak.

 

The link provides a graph that shows otherwise, but I understand how you wouldn't want to accept this, tarnishing your Dear Leader's victory more than it already is, what with him losing the popular vote and his campaign colluding with a foreign power for help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Comey should have picked one side and stuck with it , seems like he kept switching sides, he certainly seems like a very confused person, I have to wonder how he ever got the job in the first place

 

Just because he found that Hillary broke no laws doesn't mean he was on her side, disappointing as that may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey didn't "cause" her to lose but his stunt did hurt her.

Bernie would have won. Anyone denying that is just fooling themselves.

You should look at the graph in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart in the article makes a big assumption that one particular incident is totally responsible for Hillary Clinton's slide. Her final slide occurred with two weeks to go before the election, a time when most undecided voters begin to break one way or the other. He offers no concrete evidence that Comey's letter was the one piece in a campaign full of mis-steps that drove people out of the Clinton column and into the Trump column. In fact, new articles days after Comey's letter were pushing the narrative that his letter had little or no effect on the campaign. It certainly didn't help her, and of course it would damage her to a degree, but it wasn't the single factor cited by people who chose not to vote, or to throw their support behind Jill Stein. The chart also shows a drop in her negatives from -11% to -37% three weeks prior to the Comey letter. Hillary lost because of a cumulative set of things, not simply because of one letter that was largely discredited soon after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Comey didn't "cause" her to lose but his stunt did hurt her.

 

Bernie would have won. Anyone denying that is just fooling themselves.

 

 

I agree that Sanders would have won, although there are many democrats who still disagree with this. Sanders would have held the vote that stayed home and switched to Stein and that would have been enough to take the swing states that went to Trump. Trump fully maximized his votes. I can't see anyone who didn't vote for him already switching to him over Sanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree that Sanders would have won, although there are many democrats who still disagree with this. Sanders would have held the vote that stayed home and switched to Stein and that would have been enough to take the swing states that went to Trump. Trump fully maximized his votes. I can't see anyone who didn't vote for him already switching to him over Sanders.

When you look at the graph and see Hillary's numbers plunge with the Comey announcement, such speculation seems rather pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey is seeing the ship he helped launch start sinking.

 

His change of heart isn't surprising, just loathsome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

The link provides a graph that shows otherwise, but I understand how you wouldn't want to accept this, tarnishing your Dear Leader's victory more than it already is, what with him losing the popular vote and his campaign colluding with a foreign power for help.

 

The link itself is a lie. There are no more blind as those who will not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"James Comey is “incredulous” about the ravings of the guy he handed the presidency to. 

The FBI director was reportedly flabbergasted when President Trump alleged that Barack Obama had ordered Trump’s “wires tapped” in the weeks before the election, and is restlessly waiting for the Department of Justice to refute Trump’s claims. 

 

One course of action Comey might consider is refuting Trump himself, with a reminder that the FBI spent most of October not wiretapping Trump, but investigating and leaking about Hillary Clinton, before Comey himself landed her campaign a fatal blow, and handed his new tormentor the presidency. 

 

This chart comes from Brad Fay of Engagement Labs, who says Comey’s infamous letter to Congress announcing the FBI had uncovered a new cache Clinton emails, (which turned out to be nothing, but could have been the smoking gun which proved she did Benghazi) was decisive in the election....Comey can’t unfoul this bed. But when his Trump-Russian inquiries have run their course he owes the world an accounting. Just for starters. "

 

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141219/james-comey-incredulous-ravings-guy-handed-presidency-to

 

 

 

Who names their kid... The Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey didn't "cause" her to lose but his stunt did hurt her.

 

Bernie would have won. Anyone denying that is just fooling themselves.

His "stunt" was orchestrated by Obama.  Comey's job was to gather information.  Evidence.  Not make a determination on whether to prosecute.  But Barry could not make that decision (publically), nor could the person whose job was to make that decision after her felonious runway rendezvous with Bill Clinton to talk about nothing except grandchildren.  

 

I think he did the next best thing to resigning.  He obediently said Hillary would not be prosecuted but laid out each and every article needed to produce a conviction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His "stunt" was orchestrated by Obama.  Comey's job was to gather information.  Evidence.  Not make a determination on whether to prosecute.  But Barry could not make that decision (publically), nor could the person whose job was to make that decision after her felonious runway rendezvous with Bill Clinton to talk about nothing except grandchildren.  

 

I think he did the next best thing to resigning.  He obediently said Hillary would not be prosecuted but laid out each and every article needed to produce a conviction.  

Orchestrated by Obama in the sense that Obama, stupidly on his part, appointed him as FBI director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orchestrated by Obama in the sense that Obama, stupidly on his part, appointed him as FBI director.

 

At least he was obedient.  Pretty sure that was the only criterion in a corrupt administration.   But damn it, he told the truth.  So he obeyed your command to say Hillary should not be prosecuted, but the MFer laid out a complete case for why she should be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no evidence that the phones at Trump Tower were Tapped

 

Trump associates had been in contact with Russian diplomats and spies. The Russian diplomats and Spies were under surveillance, not Trump's associates

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.

 

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.

 

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may.

Yeah, actually we do. We know Sessions has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.

 

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may. 

 

 

"Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/flynn-is-said-to-have-talked-to-russians-about-sanctions-before-trump-took-office.html

 

Other Trump aides may have unwittingly spoken to Russian spies but Flynn when he spoke to the Russian ambassador should've known better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you look at the graph and see Hillary's numbers plunge with the Comey announcement, such speculation seems rather pointless.

 

 

So how do you explain the greater plunge in her numbers that took place approximately three weeks prior to Comey's letter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   

 

So how do you explain the greater plunge in her numbers that took place approximately three weeks prior to Comey's letter?

 

It wasn't one that put her behind Trump. That plunge happened in the wake of the Comey letter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do.

 

Do you actually read any news?

You don't KNOW chit. You assume a conclusion based on conjecture that is in the news media. So much for your inaccurate screen name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, actually we do. We know Sessions has been.

Senator Sessions. Along with several other senators who also met with the Russian ambasador. Big whup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Sessions. Along with several other senators who also met with the Russian ambasador. Big whup. 

He was an associate of Trump during the campaign. 

 

Meeting with Russians isn't bad, but lying about it under oath is, which is what Sessions did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't one that put her behind Trump. That plunge happened in the wake of the Comey letter.

That's like only giving credit to the guy who drives in the final run in a 5 run 9th inning comeback. Without the other 4 runs, his RBI is pointless. Without the earlier dips and plunges in her poll numbers, she would have withstood the one that happened two weeks out. Her loss was a cumulative effect of a lot of things, including bad strategy and decisions on her part. The only reason she was still a good bet to win the election was because of who she ran against. Any of the other republican finalists would have crushed her, and the other democrat finalist would have beaten Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was an associate of Trump during the campaign. 

 

Meeting with Russians isn't bad, but lying about it under oath is, which is what Sessions did. 

Did you watch any of the Sessions confirmation hearings? I did. It was one of the more interesting ones.

 

The entire thrust of the questioning was about his role and relationship to Trump, and his prior work as US Attorney with complaints about his civil rights record. His role and position as a Senator was not questioned - it was only mentioned by some of the Republicans on the panel as part of their lead-in remarks, praising his tenure in the Senate. It therefore seems quite plausible to me that any question about meeting with Russians that he was asked was being asked in the context of his role and relationship to the Trump campaign, not in his role as a Senator and a member of a key committee that deals with foreign governments.

 

That he, as a Senator, along with multiple other Senators (from both parties) met with the Russian ambassador (and other foreign government representatives) during the yearlong campaign cycle is unrelated to his role of being a Trump supporter. If he had resigned from the Senate and taken a paid position in the Trump campaign that would be a totally different matter. But that was not the case, and he had every right (and responsibility) to perform his senatorial duties, and based on his committee role that meant meeting with representatives of foreign governments.

 

I think it is good that he recused himself from the justice department's investigations into the Russian meddling issue, but he did that to remove any hint of impropriety that his detractors would raise, vailid or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0