Comey Testimony - Live

[jdshock]

Comey had a conversation with the leader of the free world and he doesn't know if he taped it or not?

I didn't watch live, so I'm just reading transcripts now, but I don't believe that's actually what he said. According to the transcripts, he said he did not record Obama and he didn't recall ever recording meetings with anyone else.

COTTON: You said that there — you did not record your conversations with President Obama or President Bush in memos. Did you do so with Attorney General Sessions or any other senior member of the Trump Department of Justice?
COMEY: No.
COTTON: Did you... (CROSSTALK)
COMEY: I think it — I’m sorry.
COTTON: ... did you record conversations in memos with Attorney General Lynch or any other senior member of the Obama Department of Justice?
COMEY: No, not that I recall.

That's a pretty different statement. He would've had many meetings with AG Lynch and with other DOJ folks.

[ShockingButTrue]

I didn't watch live, so I'm just reading transcripts now, but I don't believe that's actually what he said. According to the transcripts, he said he did not record Obama and he didn't recall ever recording meetings with anyone else.



That's a pretty different statement. He would've had many meetings with AG Lynch and with other DOJ folks.

Yep.

It helped Trump a great deal last Nov. too.

[wufan]

The "tapes" trump speaks of is important. There are three scenarios here.

1) He has tapes = better obstruction of justice case 2) He lied about the tapes = much, much stronger witness intimidation case 3) he has the tapes = exnorates him. If it was 3 he would release them immediately.

The tweet from Donald:

"James Comey better hope there are no tapes of our conversation before he starts leaking to the press."

Why would Trump actually having tapes be a better case of obstruction? Is recording a conversation obstruction? Is writing memos about conversations obstruction? Why would lying about the tapes be intimidation? I saw he said "hope" in the tweet and we all know what that really means, but was he trying to intimidate him into telling the truth?

[jdshock]

The tweet from Donald:

"James Comey better hope there are no tapes of our conversation before he starts leaking to the press."

Why would Trump actually having tapes be a better case of obstruction? Is recording a conversation obstruction? Is writing memos about conversations obstruction? Why would lying about the tapes be intimidation? I saw he said "hope" in the tweet and we all know what that really means, but was he trying to intimidate him into telling the truth?

I believe scenario one was "he has tapes and they prove an obstruction of justice case," as in it's clear Trump is ordering Comey in the tapes. The other side of this is that he has the tapes but they clear him, which is scenario three.

I also don't really understand scenario two, but I think it does make him look bad to lie about having tapes.

[wufan]

I believe scenario one was "he has tapes and they prove an obstruction of justice case," as in it's clear Trump is ordering Comey in the tapes. The other side of this is that he has the tapes but they clear him, which is scenario three.

I also don't really understand scenario two, but I think it does make him look bad to lie about having tapes.

Thanks for clarifying that! It's quite obvious when I reread the OP.

On scenario two, absolutely it makes him look bad if he lied about having tapes, but even it there aren't any, he didn't say he had them. Besides that, Trump is WAY past making himself look bad. He has done many stupid things that have made him look idiotic or unethical at best.

[pinstripers]

Top 10 things we learned today:

1. Trump was never under investigation.
2. Trump did not obstruct justice.
3. Trump did not collude with Russia.
4. Russia did not alter the election outcome.
5. Comey leaked his own memo.
6. Loretta Lynch pressured Comey to cover for Hillary Clinton.
7. There was ample evidence to put Hillary in jail but Comey chose not to pursue it.
8. CNN and other fake news outlets have been lying / making things up this entire time.
9. The Democratic Party no longer has the ability to scream "RUSSIA" every time Trump tries to do something.
10. The Russia story is dead - any democrat who continues to push it will look foolish and insane to the American people.

— Trent Mann.

[jdshock]

Top 10 things we learned today:

1. Trump was never under investigation.
2. Trump did not obstruct justice.
3. Trump did not collude with Russia.
4. Russia did not alter the election outcome.
5. Comey leaked his own memo.
6. Loretta Lynch pressured Comey to cover for Hillary Clinton.
7. There was ample evidence to put Hillary in jail but Comey chose not to pursue it.
8. CNN and other fake news outlets have been lying / making things up this entire time.
9. The Democratic Party no longer has the ability to scream "RUSSIA" every time Trump tries to do something.
10. The Russia story is dead - any democrat who continues to push it will look foolish and insane to the American people.

— Trent Mann.

I've seen this floating around. I love that the author just already gave up by number 2.

It would've been a somewhat persuasive list if each item had been a specific quote or something Comey said and you could timestamp it. Instead, by number 2, the author has to settle for legal conclusions that involve a great deal of nuance and litigation.

[pinstripers]

to me, one of the biggest deals is the Loretta Lynch thing, she directed him to do it, and he complied. Trumps said "I hope" and Comey did not comply. He knew the difference between being ordered to do something, and not being ordered to do something

[jdshock]

Alan Dershowitz is making some really interesting points over on his Twitter page.

He's basically arguing no one is talking about the fact that Trump could basically do whatever he wanted in regards to the investigation. Per my understanding of his argument, the "hope" distinction is irrelevant. Basically, Trump could've just specifically told the FBI director to stop investigating Flynn.

[wufan]

Alan Dershowitz is making some really interesting points over on his Twitter page.

He's basically arguing no one is talking about the fact that Trump could basically do whatever he wanted in regards to the investigation. Per my understanding of his argument, the "hope" distinction is irrelevant. Basically, Trump could've just specifically told the FBI director to stop investigating Flynn.

So is it legal and rationale to say that since he had the power to stop the investigation, that he can't threaten someone by hinting that they stop the investigation? Am I over reaching or misinterpreting? I haven't yet read the link.

[jdshock]

So is it legal and rationale to say that since he had the power to stop the investigation, that he can't threaten someone by hinting that they stop the investigation? Am I over reaching or misinterpreting? I haven't yet read the link.

Truthfully, I don't know much about the topic. It's one of the reasons I've tried to stay away from saying "TRUMP IS DEFINITELY GUILTY" or something. If you want a more in depth discussion than trying to parse through his tweets, here's an article he wrote on the subject: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...uction-justice

But yeah, I think you're right that is what he's arguing. According to Dershowitz, Trump could've instructed Comey to end the investigation into Flynn, so anything less than that (e.g., saying "I hope" you end it) would also be fine.

Maybe I'm too far in the liberal bubble, but it seems weird to me that a bunch of smart people are ignoring this if it's as much of a slam dunk argument as Dershowitz acts like it is. My instinct, and it's little more than that, makes me think it's probably right if the conversation was about just Flynn but maybe Trump doesn't have the same kind of authority over investigations into his own involvement with Russia. Without further research, I really don't know.

[SB Shock]

So is it legal and rationale to say that since he had the power to stop the investigation, that he can't threaten someone by hinting that they stop the investigation? Am I over reaching or misinterpreting? I haven't yet read the link.

Dershowitz has argued that constitutionally the president is the head of the unified executive branch (which includes the Justice and FBI). They therefore work for him.

His summary from the article is:

So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/08/dershowitz-comey-confirms-that-im-right-and-all-democratic-commentators-are-wrong.html

[DUShock]

FactCheck.Org on the testimony

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/the-comey-hearing/

[shocka khan]

Truthfully, I don't know much about the topic. It's one of the reasons I've tried to stay away from saying "TRUMP IS DEFINITELY GUILTY" or something. If you want a more in depth discussion than trying to parse through his tweets, here's an article he wrote on the subject: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...uction-justice

But yeah, I think you're right that is what he's arguing. According to Dershowitz, Trump could've instructed Comey to end the investigation into Flynn, so anything less than that (e.g., saying "I hope" you end it) would also be fine.

Maybe I'm too far in the liberal bubble, but it seems weird to me that a bunch of smart people are ignoring this if it's as much of a slam dunk argument as Dershowitz acts like it is. My instinct, and it's little more than that, makes me think it's probably right if the conversation was about just Flynn but maybe Trump doesn't have the same kind of authority over investigations into his own involvement with Russia. Without further research, I really don't know.

Dershowitz is on the payroll of Fox News. He's being paid for this opinion, just like some of the lawyer types for liberal networks. I can respect Dershowitz the man without respecting something he wrote for Fox, which is the conservative equivalent of the Huffington Post.

[MoValley John]

I'm not sure of many things. But after listening to some clips, I'm pretty sure Comey wasn't born in Kenya, so that controversy can die.