Comey decries leaks but is a prime example himself

[jc456]

As soon as Comey testified that he was the source of leaks, I hoped Sessions would prosecute. I think prosecution of Comey is fully warranted.

I think Comey has a "victimization" defense in mind.

jwoodie

Defense for what?

[emoji780][emoji780][emoji780]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Leaks for starters. He admitted leaking his memo thru a friend to the press in hopes of triggering a special counsel. If he leaked that and considering all the leaking that has been going on even before Trump took office, how many other things has he leaked and what if any of it was sensitive. He just outed himself and it raises questions about whether this is an ongoing thing with him.

 

[kwc57]

geez you guys are desperately spinning to try and make this a positive - it's a mixed bag at best, that looks pretty bad for Trump and not to great for Clinton.

Im kind of on the "mixed" train as well. I think it looked worse for the dems but only because of lynch. But I didn't catch all of it.
Lynch thing really got under my skin.

The Lynch thing sank any remaining respect for Clinton - that bothered me a lot. But what I got about Trump bothered me even more because of the impression of abuse of power that was way inappropriate. I don't, at this time, think there is direct colussion between Trump and Russians, but his campaign is a different story. All Trump needed to do was shut up, work on policy and let the investigation work to a conclusion like other presidents. Instead, he demands personal loyalty, attempts to subvert the process and the director, and get the investigation closed down. If he's not guilty of anything, it still is the act of someone utterly unaware of appropriate boundaries and separation and the legal process. It's mind boggling.

I agree.
Him asking comey to dinner and it being private is WAY over the line. Much like lynch and bill. Amazing how inconsistent both sides are about that shit.. lol
I understand he really doesn't know any better(politically speaking), but goddamn! I guarantee you people are advising against his shenanigans!!!!!
But I will add this to what you said. The DOJ trying to use power and get the head of the FBI to manipulate an investigation is almost as bad as trump. Only reason its "almost" is because he is POTUS. But if her or Hillary was, you can bet your bottom dollar they would do it too. Cant forget how Hillary conspired with DNC about Bernie and stuff.... Debate question answers, lawyers collaborating with the DNC for talking points and attacks...
Our government sucks BALLS

The fact that he told everyone else to leave - no witnesses - shows he did know he was doing wrong.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You've never had a one on one with your boss? Really? Given all the leaking going on.....and now knowing that Comey is a leaker.......holding one on one meetings lets Trump know who is leaking if details of their meeting made it into public. Keep throwing shit at the wall, you might eventually get something to stick.

 

[Political Junky]

As soon as Comey testified that he was the source of leaks, I hoped Sessions would prosecute. I think prosecution of Comey is fully warranted.

I think Comey has a "victimization" defense in mind.

jwoodie

Defense for what?

[emoji780][emoji780][emoji780]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Leaks for starters. He admitted leaking his memo thru a friend to the press in hopes of triggering a special counsel. If he leaked that and considering all the leaking that has been going on even before Trump took office, how many other things has he leaked and what if any of it was sensitive. He just outed himself and it raises questions about whether this is an ongoing thing with him.

Those are the talking points for Trumpettes. I've heard them numerous times today.

 

[jc456]

As soon as Comey testified that he was the source of leaks, I hoped Sessions would prosecute. I think prosecution of Comey is fully warranted.

I think Comey has a "victimization" defense in mind.

jwoodie

Defense for what?

[emoji780][emoji780][emoji780]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Leaks for starters. He admitted leaking his memo thru a friend to the press in hopes of triggering a special counsel. If he leaked that and considering all the leaking that has been going on even before Trump took office, how many other things has he leaked and what if any of it was sensitive. He just outed himself and it raises questions about whether this is an ongoing thing with him.

Those are the talking points for Trumpettes. I've heard them numerous times today.

the talking points are there are no talking points any longer. comey done, left done. MSM done. wow. three strikes you're out.

 

[kwc57]

As soon as Comey testified that he was the source of leaks, I hoped Sessions would prosecute. I think prosecution of Comey is fully warranted.

I think Comey has a "victimization" defense in mind.

jwoodie

Defense for what?

[emoji780][emoji780][emoji780]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Leaks for starters. He admitted leaking his memo thru a friend to the press in hopes of triggering a special counsel. If he leaked that and considering all the leaking that has been going on even before Trump took office, how many other things has he leaked and what if any of it was sensitive. He just outed himself and it raises questions about whether this is an ongoing thing with him.

Those are the talking points for Trumpettes. I've heard them numerous times today.

Really? Well good for them. I'm drinking my first cup of coffee and checking posts on her. Glad to know that other sane and reasonable people agree with my personal assessment. Feel free to actually point out any factual errors about him saying he leaked, who he leaked to and the purpose for it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As soon as Comey testified that he was the source of leaks, I hoped Sessions would prosecute. I think prosecution of Comey is fully warranted.

I think Comey has a "victimization" defense in mind.

jwoodie

Defense for what?

[emoji780][emoji780][emoji780]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Leaks for starters. He admitted leaking his memo thru a friend to the press in hopes of triggering a special counsel. If he leaked that and considering all the leaking that has been going on even before Trump took office, how many other things has he leaked and what if any of it was sensitive. He just outed himself and it raises questions about whether this is an ongoing thing with him.

Those are the talking points for Trumpettes. I've heard them numerous times today.

No, the IDIOT actually testified that he was one of the leaks, we SAW it. How STUPID does he have to be to admit to a felony on national TV in front of a Senate committee. Clearly this fools was never qualified to be in charge of the FBI.

He is a butthurt little Obamabot who I hope pays the maximum penalty under law not only for his crime, but for the betrayal of his position.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. The fact that trump didn't collude with russia makes it all go away.

It's not a fact yet, not until the investigation is concluded.

After 5 months and nothing to show us? Yes, it's a fact.

The investigation has been impeded from the beginning, until its done, I don't think anything is a fact...I will wait

How has it been impeded? I really am curious about this. One thing that has been very obvious is trump really is clueless about protocol and how the government actually works. I honestly don't think he's capable of doing that sort of thing. There is certainly no evidence to support it that i know of, and believe me I have looked!

I think Trump's attempted subversion of Comey, early on, for one, then his subsequent firing by Trump. I don't think he's "clueless" so much as utterly arrogant and above the law - the details don't apply to him so he can't be bothered. Look at how he handled ethics issues - constantly proclaiming it didn't apply to him. I can't get a good read on him because he reflexively lies and then contradicts himself.

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

 

[Coyote]

It's not a fact yet, not until the investigation is concluded.

After 5 months and nothing to show us? Yes, it's a fact.

The investigation has been impeded from the beginning, until its done, I don't think anything is a fact...I will wait

How has it been impeded? I really am curious about this. One thing that has been very obvious is trump really is clueless about protocol and how the government actually works. I honestly don't think he's capable of doing that sort of thing. There is certainly no evidence to support it that i know of, and believe me I have looked!

I think Trump's attempted subversion of Comey, early on, for one, then his subsequent firing by Trump. I don't think he's "clueless" so much as utterly arrogant and above the law - the details don't apply to him so he can't be bothered. Look at how he handled ethics issues - constantly proclaiming it didn't apply to him. I can't get a good read on him because he reflexively lies and then contradicts himself.

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

Yes, but you're a partisan hack desperate to "get" Trump. What you see is what furthers your partisan goals.

"I hope you can see past this" is not an order to any rational person, nor in a court of law. The fascist narrative collapsed yesterday, accept it.

 

[westwall]

After 5 months and nothing to show us? Yes, it's a fact.

The investigation has been impeded from the beginning, until its done, I don't think anything is a fact...I will wait

How has it been impeded? I really am curious about this. One thing that has been very obvious is trump really is clueless about protocol and how the government actually works. I honestly don't think he's capable of doing that sort of thing. There is certainly no evidence to support it that i know of, and believe me I have looked!

I think Trump's attempted subversion of Comey, early on, for one, then his subsequent firing by Trump. I don't think he's "clueless" so much as utterly arrogant and above the law - the details don't apply to him so he can't be bothered. Look at how he handled ethics issues - constantly proclaiming it didn't apply to him. I can't get a good read on him because he reflexively lies and then contradicts himself.

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

And I do recall hearing at least one senator ask if anyone had ever been charged with a crime for hoping about an outcome to which comey said no. I also heard another senator ask if after that initial ask, there had ever been a follow up and once again the answer from comey was no. Thus, in my mind it seems that trump was asking for comey to go lightly on flynn as flynn had been punished enough in trumps mind.

Put another way, what he asked of comey was far less than what comey did for hillary when he invented "intent" as a requirement for her to be charged with a felony which is a complete farce. There are at least two people sitting in Federal Prison right now for doing far less than she did and they too had no "intent" to do harm, but they broke an immutable law, that he gave her a pass on.

 

[westwall]

[

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

Yes, but you're a partisan hack desperate to "get" Trump. What you see is what furthers your partisan goals.

"I hope you can see past this" is not an order to any rational person, nor in a court of law. The fascist narrative collapsed yesterday, accept it.

No, her opinion is every bit as valid. Evidence is evidence, and how it is interpreted is the only difference. The problem is the MSM has spewed out so many false facts that it takes time to sort through the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Coyote]

The investigation has been impeded from the beginning, until its done, I don't think anything is a fact...I will wait

How has it been impeded? I really am curious about this. One thing that has been very obvious is trump really is clueless about protocol and how the government actually works. I honestly don't think he's capable of doing that sort of thing. There is certainly no evidence to support it that i know of, and believe me I have looked!

I think Trump's attempted subversion of Comey, early on, for one, then his subsequent firing by Trump. I don't think he's "clueless" so much as utterly arrogant and above the law - the details don't apply to him so he can't be bothered. Look at how he handled ethics issues - constantly proclaiming it didn't apply to him. I can't get a good read on him because he reflexively lies and then contradicts himself.

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

And I do recall hearing at least one senator ask if anyone had ever been charged with a crime for hoping about an outcome to which comey said no. I also heard another senator ask if after that initial ask, there had ever been a follow up and once again the answer from comey was no. Thus, in my mind it seems that trump was asking for comey to go lightly on flynn as flynn had been punished enough in trumps mind.

Put another way, what he asked of comey was far less than what comey did for hillary when he invented "intent" as a requirement for her to be charged with a felony which is a complete farce. There are at least two people sitting in Federal Prison right now for doing far less than she did and they too had no "intent" to do harm, but they broke an immutable law, that he gave her a pass on.

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

Actually, that is election tampering. Lynch violated the Hatch Act.

https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL121000pub/newsletter/200911/knapp.pdf

 

[westwall]

How has it been impeded? I really am curious about this. One thing that has been very obvious is trump really is clueless about protocol and how the government actually works. I honestly don't think he's capable of doing that sort of thing. There is certainly no evidence to support it that i know of, and believe me I have looked!

I think Trump's attempted subversion of Comey, early on, for one, then his subsequent firing by Trump. I don't think he's "clueless" so much as utterly arrogant and above the law - the details don't apply to him so he can't be bothered. Look at how he handled ethics issues - constantly proclaiming it didn't apply to him. I can't get a good read on him because he reflexively lies and then contradicts himself.

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

And I do recall hearing at least one senator ask if anyone had ever been charged with a crime for hoping about an outcome to which comey said no. I also heard another senator ask if after that initial ask, there had ever been a follow up and once again the answer from comey was no. Thus, in my mind it seems that trump was asking for comey to go lightly on flynn as flynn had been punished enough in trumps mind.

Put another way, what he asked of comey was far less than what comey did for hillary when he invented "intent" as a requirement for her to be charged with a felony which is a complete farce. There are at least two people sitting in Federal Prison right now for doing far less than she did and they too had no "intent" to do harm, but they broke an immutable law, that he gave her a pass on.

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

The one major thing that I learned yesterday was that comey started the one on one confabs! Yes, you heard that correctly. Comey was the first one to take trump aside for a confab and thus trump felt that that was an OK thing to do. He's wrong, of course, but if the head of the FBI does it to you, does it not make sense that you, as a newly minted politician would then feel it is OK?

That was a stunning revelation to me.

 

[Coyote]

[

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

Actually, that is election tampering. Lynch violated the Hatch Act.

https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL121000pub/newsletter/200911/knapp.pdf

That's not election tampering.

She "requested", she didn't order. I'm not seeing how what Lynch did is any different then what Trump did.

 

[Coyote]

I think Trump's attempted subversion of Comey, early on, for one, then his subsequent firing by Trump. I don't think he's "clueless" so much as utterly arrogant and above the law - the details don't apply to him so he can't be bothered. Look at how he handled ethics issues - constantly proclaiming it didn't apply to him. I can't get a good read on him because he reflexively lies and then contradicts himself.

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

And I do recall hearing at least one senator ask if anyone had ever been charged with a crime for hoping about an outcome to which comey said no. I also heard another senator ask if after that initial ask, there had ever been a follow up and once again the answer from comey was no. Thus, in my mind it seems that trump was asking for comey to go lightly on flynn as flynn had been punished enough in trumps mind.

Put another way, what he asked of comey was far less than what comey did for hillary when he invented "intent" as a requirement for her to be charged with a felony which is a complete farce. There are at least two people sitting in Federal Prison right now for doing far less than she did and they too had no "intent" to do harm, but they broke an immutable law, that he gave her a pass on.

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

The one major thing that I learned yesterday was that comey started the one on one confabs! Yes, you heard that correctly. Comey was the first one to take trump aside for a confab and thus trump felt that that was an OK thing to do. He's wrong, of course, but if the head of the FBI does it to you, does it not make sense that you, as a newly minted politician would then feel it is OK?

That was a stunning revelation to me.

Yes, where in part Comey was trying to instruct the President on proper boundaries. I'm not sure that is analogous to sending everyone one OUT but Comey, and then talking about letting the Flynn investigation go.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Senator Kamala Harris summed it up perfectly:

"In my experience as prosecutor, when a robber holds a gun to your head and "hopes" for your wallet, "hope" is not the operative word."

What gun?

If trump wanted the investigation shut down he would have shut it down. He legally can do that. He was comeys boss. He is the executive branch. Flynn could be caught on video committing horrendous crimes and be convicted by a jury in ten minutes and trump could legally say, we will pardon you for the. You seriously don't think hr has the authority to shut down an investigation if he wanted you?

But if he wanted to why the heck did he tell Comey to find out if any of his admin were working with Russians?

Come on people think

You know nothing about how this works.

The DOJ and the FBI are sworn in to uphold the law. Nothing is said about the President. The law is above the president, not the other way around.

Just a short time before he was fired, he had asked for more money and assets to investigate the Russian collusion charges. Trump fired him for that.

Comey never asked for more money.
Just more fake news from the left....

 

[westwall]

[

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

Actually, that is election tampering. Lynch violated the Hatch Act.

https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL121000pub/newsletter/200911/knapp.pdf

That's not election tampering.

She "requested", she didn't order. I'm not seeing how what Lynch did is any different then what Trump did.

comey, during his testimony, said that the language that lynch wanted him to use, was the exact same as the hilary election was using. That is a clear violation of the Hatch Act.

 

[westwall]

"Subversion"? I don't see evidence supporting that. I see comey interpreting a conversation one way of many ways. Trumps firing of comey doesn't impede any investigations at all. At no time did trump tell comey, or anyone for that matter, to do anything about any of the investigations. That much was made clear yesterday. I think trump actually does have a concern for ethical behavior. Everyone I have ever talked to who has had dealings with him, has given a positive review of that interaction. One of my flying buddies is a casino builder and built trumps casino in Vegas and while he doesn't like trump on a personal level he does say that he was always paid on time (rare in that world) and whenever my buddy had an issue, trump dealt with it very quickly (also a rarity in that world).

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

And I do recall hearing at least one senator ask if anyone had ever been charged with a crime for hoping about an outcome to which comey said no. I also heard another senator ask if after that initial ask, there had ever been a follow up and once again the answer from comey was no. Thus, in my mind it seems that trump was asking for comey to go lightly on flynn as flynn had been punished enough in trumps mind.

Put another way, what he asked of comey was far less than what comey did for hillary when he invented "intent" as a requirement for her to be charged with a felony which is a complete farce. There are at least two people sitting in Federal Prison right now for doing far less than she did and they too had no "intent" to do harm, but they broke an immutable law, that he gave her a pass on.

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

The one major thing that I learned yesterday was that comey started the one on one confabs! Yes, you heard that correctly. Comey was the first one to take trump aside for a confab and thus trump felt that that was an OK thing to do. He's wrong, of course, but if the head of the FBI does it to you, does it not make sense that you, as a newly minted politician would then feel it is OK?

That was a stunning revelation to me.

Yes, where in part Comey was trying to instruct the President on proper boundaries. I'm not sure that is analogous to sending everyone one OUT but Comey, and then talking about letting the Flynn investigation go.

It set a precedent for trump to feel that it was OK to go one on one. Had comey not done that first, trump probably would have been more circumspect.

 

[Coyote]

I don't agree at all. When someone in a position of power over someone else makes a "suggestion" or expresses a "hope" in a room cleared of all other people - it's tantamount to a command, especially if that person's job has been questioned (as in keeping the job) - I see no other way to construe that.

And I do recall hearing at least one senator ask if anyone had ever been charged with a crime for hoping about an outcome to which comey said no. I also heard another senator ask if after that initial ask, there had ever been a follow up and once again the answer from comey was no. Thus, in my mind it seems that trump was asking for comey to go lightly on flynn as flynn had been punished enough in trumps mind.

Put another way, what he asked of comey was far less than what comey did for hillary when he invented "intent" as a requirement for her to be charged with a felony which is a complete farce. There are at least two people sitting in Federal Prison right now for doing far less than she did and they too had no "intent" to do harm, but they broke an immutable law, that he gave her a pass on.

Technically speaking - a lawyer could argue that...but you can't deny that when everyone else is told to leave, and Trump expresses this "hope" the optics look bad and it certainly puts Comey in a hell of an awkward position concerning his job given prior remarks regarding whether he wants to keep it (rather than looking at it in isolation it should be seen as part of a pattern). Taken all together it looks very bad. And bringing HIllary up kind of makes the point....Lynch, quite inappropriately, asked Comey to effectively downgrade the investigation into a "probe" ostensably to make it look better for Hillary during the election - again, not strictly "illegal" but it sure doesn't look very good.

I have a feeling that those who are giving a pass on Trump would not give the same pass to Clinton.

The one major thing that I learned yesterday was that comey started the one on one confabs! Yes, you heard that correctly. Comey was the first one to take trump aside for a confab and thus trump felt that that was an OK thing to do. He's wrong, of course, but if the head of the FBI does it to you, does it not make sense that you, as a newly minted politician would then feel it is OK?

That was a stunning revelation to me.

Yes, where in part Comey was trying to instruct the President on proper boundaries. I'm not sure that is analogous to sending everyone one OUT but Comey, and then talking about letting the Flynn investigation go.

It set a precedent for trump to feel that it was OK to go one on one. Had comey not done that first, trump probably would have been more circumspect.

There is no way of really knowing that, and firing Comey on top of it looks even worse.