Comey and Mueller

2-efcfdc1f2b.jpg



Q: So when you found out in early May that there was, that the Director had written a draft of what the statement might look like, how did you learn about that?
A: [Redacted] gave me a hard copy of it ...
Q: So what happened next with respect to the draft?
A: I don't know for sure um, I don't know. There were many iterations, at some point there were many iterations of the draft that circulated.
 
Joe Fan said:
It's the Hot Tub Time Machine for Comey and the Clintons
Click to expand...

It's interesting how much interaction all the main players in these scandals have had over the years. D.C. insiders really are a tight knit group. No wonder even the Republicans hate Trump.
 
If nothing else, every American owes DT a debt of gratitude for exposing the true depths of government corruption and collusion that transcends party lines.

Some speculated we really have a one party (money) system, but most dismissed the severity as overblown conspiracy paranoia.

After Trump pulled back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz, the reality has far surpassed what most could've imagined.
 
Clean said:
It's interesting how much interaction all the main players in these scandals have had over the years. D.C. insiders really are a tight knit group. No wonder even the Republicans hate Trump.
Click to expand...

It's almost like it's a swamp, or something
 
Brad Austin said:
If nothing else, every American owes DT a debt of gratitude for exposing the true depths of government corruption and collusion that transcends party lines
Click to expand...

and yet there are still some here that defend both Dem and/or GOP establishments.

Let's face it, I can understand how some don't like DT and the way he presents things, but if they are going to be honest with themselves they would see past his words and actually see what all the good he is doing for our great country. From draining the swamp to turning around and growing our economy again.
 
Last edited:
The whole investigation of Hillary was FAKE
Fake news
Fake FBI investigations

The swamp would appear to be real
 
Article appears to be written after 2000 but purports to be in 1996. That seems odd. The difference between these pardons and the one that the POTUS just did? A pardon requires an admission of guilt. Sheriff Joe was not ever actually sentenced and will never admit guilt. But, at least he got to send people to Hawaii to investigate that f'n birth certificate. LOL
 
OUBubba said:
The difference between these pardons and the one that the POTUS just did?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not normal for a President to have to pardon an innocent man, but it's real normal for a President to pardon criminals that are actually guilty of crimes.
 
I35 said:
Yeah it's not normal for a President to have to pardon an innocent man, but it's real normal for a President to pardon criminals that are actually guilty of crimes.
Click to expand...
Clearly guilty of the contempt order. The thing is he was likely not going to get an actual sentence with any jail time as he's 85 and had been voted out of office for costing the taxpayers of MC MILLIONS of dollars in legal fees and settlements. Now he's talking about running for Senate. Classic!

Ironically, this is a dog whistle to Mueller and the NY AG about the potential of the pardon pen. They will now work together to create a legal hurdle that a criminal living at 1600 Penn can't just overcome with a pen.
 
Here is Andrew McCarthy on Comey

"It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s"

"...... The decision not to indict Hillary Clinton was not made by then-FBI Director Comey. It was made by President Obama and his Justice Department – Comey’s superiors. If you want to say Comey went along for the ride rather than bucking the tide (as he concedes doing when Lynch directed him to call the Clinton probe a “matter,” not an “investigation”), that’s fair. But the fact that Comey already knew in April what he would say in July has long been perfectly obvious. The Obama administration was going to follow its leader. What Comey ultimately stated was just a repeat of what Obama was openly saying in April, and what Obama’s Justice Department was leaking to the press in May.

Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan."​



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision
 
That's no surprise, but it doesn't change the fact that Comey was a corrupt bureaucrat. He was willing to toe the line for Obama but not Trump. If Comey was truly a patriot he would have been fired by Obama for refusing to go along with the corruption. I am glad he is no longer the FBI director.
 
Joe Fan said:
Here is Andrew McCarthy on Comey

"It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s"

"...... The decision not to indict Hillary Clinton was not made by then-FBI Director Comey. It was made by President Obama and his Justice Department – Comey’s superiors. If you want to say Comey went along for the ride rather than bucking the tide (as he concedes doing when Lynch directed him to call the Clinton probe a “matter,” not an “investigation”), that’s fair. But the fact that Comey already knew in April what he would say in July has long been perfectly obvious. The Obama administration was going to follow its leader. What Comey ultimately stated was just a repeat of what Obama was openly saying in April, and what Obama’s Justice Department was leaking to the press in May.

Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan."​



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision
Click to expand...

And that's what has gotten lost in this. The decision not to prosecute lies with DoJ and the President. Regardless of what Comey may have said, it was never his call. Furthermore, everyone with a brain knew that Obama and Lynch were never going to prosecute their own party's presidential nominee regardless of the law or the evidence. If they have to make up phony intent requirements, they'll do that. (And of course, the intent requirement they made up wasn't even a real intent requirement. Intent requirements generally require you to intend to commit the act, not intent to violate the law. That's why ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Obviously a true intent requirement wasn't going to work, because Hillary did intend to commit the relevant acts.)

Just more reason why a special prosecutor should have been appointed.
 
We have a conflict between the FBI and Congress

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley and the committee's ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, want to interview two high-ranking FBI officials about some key aspects of the bureau's role in the Trump-Russia investigation -- the Trump dossier, the firing of James Comey, and more. But the FBI doesn't want those officials to talk -- even though the Judiciary Committee has oversight responsibility for the FBI, and even though the request is bipartisan, and even though there appears to be no conflict with the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller.​

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...senate-fbi-over-trump-dossier/article/2633288
 
There is some rumbling that Comey will get subpoenaed over possible perjury in his Congressional testimony

RATCLIFFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?

COMEY: After.​

But, as we now know, Comey had drafted his statement exonerating Hillary before the FBI had ever interviewed her or the 16 other witnesses. That would really be something if it happened.

Here is the WH press secretary from a briefing --

“Since the director’s firing, we’ve learned new information about his conduct that only provided further justification for that firing, including giving false testimony, leaking privileged information to journalists, he went outside of the chain of command, and politicized an investigation into a presidential candidate....”
​
On the perjury question itself, she said --

“I think that’s something, probably, for DOJ to look at, not me. I’m not an attorney.”​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top