Comey Testimony

OUBubba said:
So is asking comey to call it a matter instead of an investigation a crime of some sort? It was still what it was and didn't change comey's direction.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the response I expected from the Left. Not that you are completely wrong, but you probably think that Trump broke the law when he told Comey that "he hopes" that Comey can let the Flynn investigation go. I would agree that Trump should not have said that but it was not illegal to do so. There is so much more smoke around Lynch potentially obstructing justice given that Comey eventually did let HRC off in a very shady and bizarre way. Not even mentioning the obvious appearance of impropriety of Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton during an on-going investigation of his wife. Lynch needs to be called to testify as well. It's always fun to see more Obama admin officials take the 5th.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-oliver-james-comey-testimony-2017-6

"The most tantalizing moments may turn out to be the things that Comey didn't or wasn't able to say," Oliver said.

Think about what he said with an open mind. What he is really saying is that Comey did NOT provide anything in his testimony that would create some sort of momentum for impeachment. So Oliver must resort to what was not said. That's not a case folks. It's wishful thinking.
 
DCI4OgzWAAEsxc6.jpg
 
Comey said --

“....the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed....."

(link above)​
 
CNN spent alot of airtime saying Comey would specifically deny that he told Trump three times that he wasn't a target.

When Comey did not, CNN was forced to issue a sort of retraction

But even then, they still acted like weasels saying "Comey does not directly dispute" POTUS instead of "Comey confirmed Trump's position."

DCNV2--XsAAJQ5D.jpg
 
Trump tweeted about fake media generally
CNN dude got triggered by it



Unfortunately for him CNN is fake news
1. Comey wasn't granted more resources for investigation
2. Comey will say he didn't tell Trump he wasn't under investigation
3. Trump is going to live tweet during Comey hearing
4. Trump is under investigation by the FBI
5. Trump pulled the MLK bust out of WH
6. Carter Paige colluded with Russia
7. Trump dossier is true
8. Trump had two scoops of ice cream
9. Flynn is spilling the beans on Trump
10.Trump will fire Spicer
11. Hillary has 90% chance of winning
12. Comey is a Boy Scout and apolitical
13. Trump fired Comey over investigation
14. Trump has no path to 270
15. Donna Brazile didn't give debate q's to Hillary
16.Hillary didn't say she wanted open borders in a speech
.......

DCNVdFKUMAEFG1C.jpg

DCNVh9dUQAE8ol1.jpg


DCNZWh4WsAIENij.jpg
 
For the record, if Lynch intervened in the Clinton investigation she should be held accountable. I agree with Feinstien.

That doesn't mean that Mueller's investigation shouldn't also continue.
 
Joe Fan said:
1. Comey wasn't granted more resources for investigation
2. Comey will say he didn't tell Trump he wasn't under invest.
3. Trump is going to live tweet during Comey hearing
4. Trump is under investigation by the FBI
5. Trump pulled the MLK bust out of WH
6. Carter Paige colluded with Russia
7. Trump dossier is true
8. Trump had two scoops of ice cream
9. Flynn is spilling the beans on Trump
10.Trump will fire Spicer
11. Hillary has 90% chance of winning
12. Comey is a Boy Scout and apolitical
13. Trump fired Comey over invest
14. Trump has no path to 270
15. Donna Brazile didn't give debate q's to Hillary
16.Hillary didn't say she wanted open borders in a speech
Click to expand...

Wait...some of those have been proven true! Trump DID have 2 scoops of ice cream and he did fire Comey over the Russia investigation. The former is inconsequential but the latter issue is pretty big. Some other topics listed are pretty biased views of what the media actually reported. At least 50% of those are true and the media completely whiffed on.
 
I thought Comey was very clear that they weren't investigating Trump when he was asked. However, they couldn't announce that because if, during the course of the ongoing investigations, that changed then they'd have to come out and announce the change. Much like Bill created with Loretta Lynch.

I do tire of seeing "Breaking News" on the chryon evertime I go pee. I drink a lot of coffee to...
 
The Senate should forget about about Jeff
Sessions.
Instead, they should drag Loretta Lynch before Congress to testify.
RIGHT NOW.
 
And once again John McCain struggles to ask coherent questions. He wasn't even attempting a gotcha inquiry either.

He attempted to ask if Sessions spoke with the Russian Ambassador about Russian security threats when they met during his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee, which McCain also served on.

I heard the question and all I got was wtf. Sessions looked befuddled asking for clarification twice. Took three attempts to communicate what he was specifically asking.

Cold War reboot and DT obstruction is all this senile guy lives for these days. SMH
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
Can you count the different ways he dodged? I don't recall, I don't remember, etc.
Click to expand...

Sessions attended the Trump foreign policy speech event it's rumored that Kislayak was in attendance which would be the 3rd meeting. When asked what his role was (Senator or Campaign Surrougate), a delineation Sessions noted when asked why he didn't disclose his 2nd meeting with Kislayak, he stated "I attended as an interested person". WTF?

I'll say it here and now, for all the misgivings about Comey's actions he was inherently more believable than Sessions, Trump or any of the cavalcade of surrogates. We've all heard of "pleading the 5th" and the White House exerting "executive privilege" to keep people from testifying. Today Sessions introduced the (paraphrasing) "I won't answer that not because Trump is claiming executive privilege but to preserve the right for him to exercise it." If I'm ever in court I'm going to say "I'm not pleading the 5th but want to preserve my right to plead the 5th so I choose not to answer that question."
 
So is asking comey to call it a matter instead of an investigation a crime of some sort? It was still what it was and didn't change comey's direction.
Click to expand...

Could be a violation of both the Hatch Act and FEC regulations -- "government collusion with a campaign." No coordination is allowed.
What we had here appears to have been some type of message coordination -- putting the word ‘matter’ into the FBI press conference. If so then it could be argued it was an "in-kind donation," which is illegal.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all successful with it. And how many were successful doing the reverse? The list is pretty much non-existent.
Click to expand...
Reagan wasn't. While he cut taxes spending wasn't cut correspondingly. Clinton increased the marginal tax rate.
 
OUBubba said:
Reagan wasn't......
Click to expand...

JOB GROWTH:
Let's look at some numbers. President Reagan entered office in a period of high inflation which was stamped out by high interest rates that in turn led to the 1982 recession. His job-creation record after that may fairly be termed outstanding: nearly 20 million more Americans were employed when he left office than when the recession ended. Overall, including the recession on his watch, Reagan's net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million.

Reagan's economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding into the workforce.
http://ijr.com/2014/01/109489-reagan-vs-obama-7-charts-prove-real-recovery/#PrettyPhoto[109489]/1/​

OVERALL GROWTH:
The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5% -- 4.9% after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That's a 32% bump. -- it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.​

SPENDING:
How about Reagan's spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That's including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the "peace dividend" that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9% of GDP to 22.1% in 1989 .... Total accumulated debt was at 53% of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is (the highest in recorded history -- the debt has exploded by 66% in the Obama years)​

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesm...n-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#cfb366655e19
 
"The national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation." It happened just after Fonzi jumped the shark. Ironic?

I will say that Reagan did it right except for the military spending that ended up putting the USSR in the ground. So, I don't begrudge him that part.

To do supply side economics correctly you have to decrease spending in an amount corresponding to the amount that you're decreasing taxes. Otherwise it is actually? Anyone? Anyone? Something d o o economics. Voodoo economics. That's all we've seen in the modern era. Tax breaks with no reduction in spending. Hell, W. issued $1200 helicopter dropped stimulus checks while having MULTIPLE unfunded wars and Medicare Part D. To think that Trump is going to be some economic genius is folly. In the eastern OK town I grew up in one group, when declaring how "city" a guy was exclaimed "he can't even drive a backhoe!". Well, Trump can't make money running a freakin' casino.
 
OUBubba said:
Reagan wasn't. While he cut taxes spending wasn't cut correspondingly.
Click to expand...

That's another matter. If we're talking about spending cuts, JFK didn't do it either. And don't be duped into the superficial mindset that the president is primarily responsible for spending. Congress writes and passes spending legislation.

OUBubba said:
Clinton increased the marginal tax rate.
Click to expand...

And what difference did that make? Growth was already underway a year before he took office. Furthermore, you leave out the fact that the income tax hike was followed by a sharp reduction in the capital gains rate and a child tax credit. (Just FYI - I think capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income, but that's beside the point.)

And I'm still looking for the list of presidents who did Reaganomics in reverse and saw success.
 
Last edited:
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