Well, that's been "Duh!" since day one to any semi-objective observer (where's EEF when you need him?  ), but you have to wonder what Feinstein is up to for her to comment this way... all the illegal crap done during the Obama administration by the DOJ, IRS, BATFE, State Department, intelligence agencies, etc., etc., etc., and NOW she questions one thing? Weird, man, weird. 

The investigation will hit a huge snag as soon as Bill Clinton has to answer, "Do you swear to tell the truth?" 

He'll need to ask his lawyers what the legal definition of "tell" is!

 

The investigation will hit a huge snag as soon as Bill Clinton has to answer, "Do you swear to tell the truth?" 

He'll need to ask his lawyers what the legal definition of "tell" is!

 

When asked if he met with Loretta Lynch privately in a jet his answer would be "I never had sexual relations with that woman". 

When asked if he met with Loretta Lynch privately in a jet his answer would be "I never had sexual relations with that woman". 

Yeah, I bet it's hard for him ( ) to keep straight which crime he's being accused of with which person in which circumstance.

So now Diane Feinstein is saying there should be an investigation into Loretta Lynch...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/11/dem-senator-wants-investigation-into-lynch-interference-on-clinton-email-investigation/

Wow! And from Feinstein! 

I had been hoping that things would start unraveling around the BS that went down under Obama. Seemingly swept under the rug or distracted but some racially charged news story. Notice how we aren't hearing that much about those in the last 6 months.

Also had a feeling that once questions about Comey start getting asked if that didn't open a bunch of doors. Doors that were opened by Comey being fired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, that's been "Duh!" since day one to any semi-objective observer (where's EEF when you need him?  ), but you have to wonder what Feinstein is up to for her to comment this way... all the illegal crap done during the Obama administration by the DOJ, IRS, BATFE, State Department, intelligence agencies, etc., etc., etc., and NOW she questions one thing? Weird, man, weird. 

Someone else will be here soon to call it fake news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other words you have nothing but pure speculation based upon nothing but your own a priori assumptions, which lead you to speculate on every single issue you raise that Trump is in some kind of trouble. Never once did your pure speculation lead you to suspect that Comey, or Brennan, or Clapper, or Lynch, et al. are liars or worse. Interesting. Especially given your assertions of being "objective". Plus you are wrong on several of your claims about what was or wasn't said in  Comey's testimony, but since that's easily available in both written and video forms I won't bother to ask you to read/view the actual evidence.

Not so.

I do consider all possibilities. Come could be a mastermind manipulating something big, it just doesn't seem probable. What I do notice in all of this are some Trump supporters who are so eager to vindicate Trump instead of wanting to know the truth. Case in point, they attack Comey's credibility but then claim he is credible when Comey says Trump is not under investigation? Clearly a double standard.

I don't know where I am wrong about what was said and not said, I got all of those points I listed from the actual written transcript of the testimony. I think one of them came from a video of the testimony though. Feel free to point out where I am wrong instead of just making the claim without backing it up.

I am not speculating so much as I am looking at circumstantial evidence. Obviously claims of a lie by both sides don't prove who is telling the truth but when everything that was said is examined as a whole it leads me to the conclusion that Comey is probably telling the truth. Comey behaves in a way that lends credibility and his testimony certainly fits within a reasonable explanation of what is happening. On the other side we have Trump teasing that there may be tapes then refusing to even say whether there are tapes. We have Trump devolving to personal attacks while Comey disputes claims without trying to make it personal. Like I said, if all the facts became public I may be forced to change my position but as it stands I think it more likely that Comey is telling the truth.

I don't have an axe to grind here. Granted I don't like Trump but I hold justice to reign supreme over any personal dislike for Trump. Justice is blind. Say I were a judge and you were before me charged with a crime. Now say you had previously punched my grandmother in the face. I would still give you the same punishment as I would anyone else, I wouldn't throw the book at you with a maximum sentence just because you had punched my grandmother. Granted I would have recused myself from such a case in real life but my point here is to illustrate how true I hold to the whole justice is blind ideal.

Not so.

I do consider all possibilities. Come could be a mastermind manipulating something big, it just doesn't seem probable. What I do notice in all of this are some Trump supporters who are so eager to vindicate Trump instead of wanting to know the truth. Case in point, they attack Comey's credibility but then claim he is credible when Comey says Trump is not under investigation? Clearly a double standard.

That's not a he said/he said issue requiring "credibility".  The existence of an investigation (or lack of one) is simple to prove through FBI documentation. 

Unless you have documentation to the contrary, then it is YOU who refuses to see objectively that ON THAT POINT at least, Comey is telling the truth, and one he would be stupid to lie about when he knows there's no evidence to prove the was such an investigation targeting Trump..

Not so.

I do consider all possibilities. Come could be a mastermind manipulating something big, it just doesn't seem probable. What I do notice in all of this are some Trump supporters who are so eager to vindicate Trump instead of wanting to know the truth. Case in point, they attack Comey's credibility but then claim he is credible when Comey says Trump is not under investigation? Clearly a double standard.

I don't know where I am wrong about what was said and not said, I got all of those points I listed from the actual written transcript of the testimony. I think one of them came from a video of the testimony though. Feel free to point out where I am wrong instead of just making the claim without backing it up.

I am not speculating so much as I am looking at circumstantial evidence. Obviously claims of a lie by both sides don't prove who is telling the truth but when everything that was said is examined as a whole it leads me to the conclusion that Comey is probably telling the truth. Comey behaves in a way that lends credibility and his testimony certainly fits within a reasonable explanation of what is happening. On the other side we have Trump teasing that there may be tapes then refusing to even say whether there are tapes. We have Trump devolving to personal attacks while Comey disputes claims without trying to make it personal. Like I said, if all the facts became public I may be forced to change my position but as it stands I think it more likely that Comey is telling the truth.

I don't have an axe to grind here. Granted I don't like Trump but I hold justice to reign supreme over any personal dislike for Trump. Justice is blind. Say I were a judge and you were before me charged with a crime. Now say you had previously punched my grandmother in the face. I would still give you the same punishment as I would anyone else, I wouldn't throw the book at you with a maximum sentence just because you had punched my grandmother. Granted I would have recused myself from such a case in real life but my point here is to illustrate how true I hold to the whole justice is blind ideal.

You may have successfully fooled yourself, but (most of) the rest of us are not such fools. YOU'RE the one who is "so eager to vindicate Trump Comey" that you even deny that your speculation is speculation, based upon nothing more than unwarranted assumptions, as you yourself say you don't know the answers to the questions that might allow one to have a fuller picture (and even then those are only Comey's answers, only one side of the overall question). You're being led "to the conclusion that Comey is probably telling the truth" by further speculating about "circumstantial evidence" consisting of nothing more than your belief/prejudice that "acting a certain way" "lends credibility" to your own speculative "reasonable explanation". How much further from facts can you get? How much more obvious bias can you display. You're the one with a double standard. You're like the cops that are  so sure some guy did it (most often some minority poor guy, maybe with a criminal record) that they feel justified in fabricating evidence in order to get a conviction, while totally overlooking (or even deliberately ignoring or hiding) an exculpatory evidence. If you really were "objective" you would only say: "It's far too early to even speculate. We'll have to wait and see how the totality of all the investigations pan out, and even then we won't know for absolute certainty, given the imperfections of the system and the humans who administer it." Or maybe you think the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (or Hawaii's courts) renders "objective" decisions on cases involving Second Amendment rights?

I seriously doubt that anyone said "Every single utterance of Comey is a lie", and then said "Except when he said he told Trump on three separate occasions that Trump was not the subject of an investigation". I am not saying that no one said that, just that I doubt it. Partly because it would be silly to claim that everything anyone said is a lie (What if they said "I lie about everything"?), but mostly because I have not read every statement nor heard every utterance by every person on the planet, and given that range of possibilities, including the use of humor and sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised if several people said such things, but didn't really mean them. Anyone we know?

You ever consider that Comey is in serious trouble and everything he does is CYA? Think about it. It'd just be speculating, but...

You're like the cops

like?

That's not a he said/he said issue requiring "credibility".  The existence of an investigation (or lack of one) is simple to prove through FBI documentation. 

Unless you have documentation to the contrary, then it is YOU who refuses to see objectively that ON THAT POINT at least, Comey is telling the truth, and one he would be stupid to lie about when he knows there's no evidence to prove the was such an investigation targeting Trump..

Your fallacious thinking lies in the fact that Comey doesn't have to tell the truth on the matter and in fact there may be interest in lying on such an issue. You think a drug dealer if a drug dealer called the cops and asked if he was being surveilled they would say yes if they in fact were? If the FBI is investigating Trump, probably best not to advertise that huh?!

Your fallacious thinking lies in the fact that Comey doesn't have to tell the truth on the matter and in fact there may be interest in lying on such an issue. You think a drug dealer if a drug dealer called the cops and asked if he was being surveilled they would say yes if they in fact were? If the FBI is investigating Trump, probably best not to advertise that huh?!

Your thinking is flawed in that you believe yourself to be right even when you know you're not.  So you persist in analogies that are totally unrelated to the facts of this case.

Comey made a statement under oath that Trump is not, and has never been, under investigation.  Did you bother to watch his testimony, or just the "Gotcha" coverage on MSNBC?

Read the last line 3 times:

Comey said he did tell Trump on Jan. 6 that the president was not personally under investigation.
When the president asked Comey on March 30 to spread the word that he was not under investigation,
Comey said he decided not to tell Trump that the FBI didn't want to make that statement public. In part,
he said, that is because such a statement would have to be publicly corrected if Trump did come under
investigation.

Hence, there was never an investigation targeting Trump.

The more I hear of Comey's testimony and analysis of it the worse things look for Trump.

So many of the most important questions in the matter Comey stated that it could not be answered in an open session.
-Was Flynn part of the Russia investigation? Closed session
-Why did the AG recuse himself? Closed session
-Did Trump's administration create a back channel with Russia? Closed session
-Was Trump personally under investigation? Closed session.
-Do you believe Trump colluded with Russia? Closed session.

That is a lot of red flags for me. If the answer were simply no, that Trump was not under investigation, then why not just say so? Maybe, just maybe there are perfectly reasonable answers to all of these that just can't be made public but I don't know how probable that is.
Now some will say that Comey told Trump multiple times that he was not under investigation but I consider that relatively meaningless given Comey's job and the nature of such an investigation. Law enforcement officers are allowed to lie to people for starters and in an investigation such as this is would make perfect sense that you would need to keep the investigation secret. If you are investigating someone, especially someone with the country at their fingertips, you do not want to let them know they are under investigation.

The public testimony certainly did not clear Trump, it just left us knowing that most of the biggest questions were not answered publicly. I think Trump's request to drop the investigation is both incredibly unethical and borderline illegal. Depending on what the answers were in the closed session, I think it may be conceivable that there is enough to impeach the president. Heck, we impeached Clinton over a lie about a sex scandal, why not Trump for something much more serious?

Now I do say this all with the reservation that the answers in the closed setting could change my position. Like I said, if the whole picture is viewed it might all make perfect sense but I doubt that is the case and right now the testimony makes me suspect Trump more, not less. When it comest to the question of whether Trump obstructed justice, I get that it comes down to he said/she said  but it would seem that incident is just the tip of the ice berg. Heck, in a lot of criminal investigations it comes down to the cops word vs the accused word but generally the cop's word is accepted as true over the accused given the nature of the whole thing.

you wrote all that to mean ....
.
.
.
absolutely nothing
what a waste of 1s and 0s

You may have successfully fooled yourself, but (most of) the rest of us are not such fools.

Funny, I would have to say the same thing about you. We can all look at the same known facts and arrive at different decisions about the case. Credibility isn't some thing that is easily proven but every day we use the way people speak and act and judge their credibility even though we don't know 100%. Trump shows more signs of dishonesty while Comey shows more signs of honesty. I could support this point given what is known about the science of lies if you wish but that might go too far off topic.

How about this, I listed 4 serious questions in the testimony that were deferred to a closed session. You suggested I was significantly wrong but have failed to back up that statement. But assuming I am right in what I posed, how would you explain/view that those answers could not be made publicly?

Do you think the testimony vindicated Trump?

You ever consider that Comey is in serious trouble and everything he does is CYA? Think about it. It'd just be speculating, but...

Sure, I consider that a possibility. Heck, maybe both a guilty of wrong doing.

Your thinking is flawed in that you believe yourself to be right even when you know you're not.  So you persist in analogies that are totally unrelated to the facts of this case.

Comey made a statement under oath that Trump is not, and has never been, under investigation.  Did you bother to watch his testimony, or just the "Gotcha" coverage on MSNBC?

Read the last line 3 times:

Hence, there was never an investigation targeting Trump.

Your own quote betrays your conclusion. You claim that he testified that Trump was not under investigation however the quote you posted only shows that Comey admits he told Trump he was not under investigation. Those are two different things. Perhaps you posted the wrong quote?

you wrote all that to mean ....
.
.
.
absolutely nothing
what a waste of 1s and 0s

No, I wrote all of that to support my statement that the picture is not looking for for Trump.

Funny, I would have to say the same thing about you. We can all look at the same known facts and arrive at different decisions about the case. Credibility isn't some thing that is easily proven but every day we use the way people speak and act and judge their credibility even though we don't know 100%. Trump shows more signs of dishonesty while Comey shows more signs of honesty. I could support this point given what is known about the science of lies if you wish but that might go too far off topic.

How about this, I listed 4 serious questions in the testimony that were deferred to a closed session. You suggested I was significantly wrong but have failed to back up that statement. But assuming I am right in what I posed, how would you explain/view that those answers could not be made publicly?

Do you think the testimony vindicated Trump?

Sure, I consider that a possibility. Heck, maybe both a guilty of wrong doing.

You're color blind.  The red highlight proves Trump was not under investigation. 

"because such a statement would have to be publicly corrected if Trump did come under investigation."

You're color blind.  The red highlight proves Trump was not under investigation. 

"because such a statement would have to be publicly corrected if Trump did come under investigation."

Doesn't prove anything. They would only have to make the public correction if/when such an investigation became public. They could publicly say he was not under investigation as part of the cover for the actual investigation.  So going back to what I said, they are perfectly in the right to lie to the public about an investigation of Trump if secrecy is necessary.

Doesn't prove anything. They would only have to make the public correction if/when such an investigation became public. They could publicly say he was not under investigation as part of the cover for the actual investigation.  So going back to what I said, they are perfectly in the right to lie to the public about an investigation of Trump if secrecy is necessary.

He was under oath. 


Lying at this point is pointless and punishable as a crime.


He's no longer the FBI director and has no duty to protect any investigations.


Do you know something more than what Comey testified to?