Comey the Phony

[Geaux4it]

So, Comey lied under oath stating he leaked the government memo AFTER a tweet from POTUS when in fact the NYT started leaking the memo BEFORE the tweet.

Secondly, he leaked a a document which was Government property which is a crime.

Lastly, Comey is being sued and will likely be convicted like the young liberal indoctrinated woman

Good times

-Geaux

 

[The Professor]

Yes you conservatives live by a terribly hypocritical double standard. Had this been Hillary Clinton you would not be doing his. There would be no denial of fact. And impeachment proceedings would have started long ago.

You should run for office since you can't answer direct questions

-Geaux

Your direct question is not based on anything that has happened. On top of that you provide no link and you haven't heard him testify under oath when that question is asked.

So you are denying Comey, under oath, stated that he was not pressured by anyone do drop the Russian investigation?

-Geaux

Former FBI Director James Comey testified under Senate oath May 3rd that the Trump administration had not pressured his agency to halt any investigation for political purposes.

According to who? The Gateway Pundit?

Comey’s past comments on FBI investigation interference

Now stop lying.

This is starting to get fun

-Geaux

Spot on!

If you listen carefully to what Comey says, he testified that someone in authority telling the FBI to stop an investigation is a big deal but that never happened on his watch. But there is something even more important. Comey added that sometimes individuals offered an opinion saying in effect there is no case hear and I think you should drop it. Comey did not classify such opinions as improper. Comey makes a distinction – as he should - between interfering with an investigation (which Trump did not) and offering an opinion that a case had no merit and should not be pursued. According to Comey's sworn testimony Trump did not obstruct justice, he merely gave his opinion about a particular case which he is allowed to do.

If Comey now believes that Trump's mere suggestion is tantamount to obstruction, he contradicts himself yet again. At any rate, from a legal perspective offering an opinion does not constitute obstruction and only someone who is ignorant of the law would think otherwise.

Comey is nothing more than a disgruntled employee trying to make his ex-boss look bad. He is a wishy-washy opportunist lacking in courage and integrity.

 

[Reasonable]

So, it is reported that Comey the Phony WILL NOT state whether POTUS actions were considered Obstruction of Justice. Well of course not, for that would put him in a tougher place than he already is.

He didn't report it....

I would ask how he came to the conclusion that Hillary had committed no crime and that no prosecutor would take up the case yet he can't make the same conclusion relative to conversations with POTUS

Comey has no credibility and his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt

-Geaux

A proven compulsive, habitual, pathological LIAR vs a former FBI Director, with a meticulous memo record establishing that very fact.
Look who the dumbfuck DEPLORABLES choose to back.

 

[Reasonable]

You should run for office since you can't answer direct questions

-Geaux

Your direct question is not based on anything that has happened. On top of that you provide no link and you haven't heard him testify under oath when that question is asked.

So you are denying Comey, under oath, stated that he was not pressured by anyone do drop the Russian investigation?

-Geaux

Former FBI Director James Comey testified under Senate oath May 3rd that the Trump administration had not pressured his agency to halt any investigation for political purposes.

According to who? The Gateway Pundit?

Comey’s past comments on FBI investigation interference

Now stop lying.

This is starting to get fun

-Geaux

Spot on!

If you listen carefully to what Comey says, he testified that someone in authority telling the FBI to stop an investigation is a big deal but that never happened on his watch. But there is something even more important. Comey added that sometimes individuals offered an opinion saying in effect there is no case hear and I think you should drop it. Comey did not classify such opinions as improper. Comey makes a distinction – as he should - between interfering with an investigation (which Trump did not) and offering an opinion that a case had no merit and should not be pursued. According to Comey's sworn testimony Trump did not obstruct justice, he merely gave his opinion about a particular case which he is allowed to do.

If Comey now believes that Trump's mere suggestion is tantamount to obstruction, he contradicts himself yet again. At any rate, from a legal perspective offering an opinion does not constitute obstruction and only someone who is ignorant of the law would think otherwise.

Comey is nothing more than a disgruntled employee trying to make his ex-boss look bad. He is a wishy-washy opportunist lacking in courage and integrity.

Comey told the truth about all the lies of Trump.
You can't handle the truth.

 

[JoeB131]

So, Comey lied under oath stating he leaked the government memo AFTER a tweet from POTUS when in fact the NYT started leaking the memo BEFORE the tweet.

Secondly, he leaked a a document which was Government property which is a crime.

Lastly, Comey is being sued and will likely be convicted like the young liberal indoctrinated woman

Wow, this is a lot of fantasy thinking going on.

Now, seriously, here's the thing. The FBI director just called your guy a liar. In front of Congress and the whole world.

Trump is having his "I am not a crook" moment.

 

[JoeB131]

If Comey now believes that Trump's mere suggestion is tantamount to obstruction, he contradicts himself yet again. At any rate, from a legal perspective offering an opinion does not constitute obstruction and only someone who is ignorant of the law would think otherwise.

Trump suggesting it isn't obstruction in and of itself.

Trump suggesting it and then FIRING Comey when he doesn't IS obstruction.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem for the GOP is that, in contrast to Trump, Comey looks calm, humble, stable, professional and respectful. And therefore more believable.

And it's not terribly close.
.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Your direct question is not based on anything that has happened. On top of that you provide no link and you haven't heard him testify under oath when that question is asked.

So you are denying Comey, under oath, stated that he was not pressured by anyone do drop the Russian investigation?

-Geaux

Former FBI Director James Comey testified under Senate oath May 3rd that the Trump administration had not pressured his agency to halt any investigation for political purposes.

According to who? The Gateway Pundit?

Comey’s past comments on FBI investigation interference

Now stop lying.

This is starting to get fun

-Geaux

Spot on!

If you listen carefully to what Comey says, he testified that someone in authority telling the FBI to stop an investigation is a big deal but that never happened on his watch. But there is something even more important. Comey added that sometimes individuals offered an opinion saying in effect there is no case hear and I think you should drop it. Comey did not classify such opinions as improper. Comey makes a distinction – as he should - between interfering with an investigation (which Trump did not) and offering an opinion that a case had no merit and should not be pursued. According to Comey's sworn testimony Trump did not obstruct justice, he merely gave his opinion about a particular case which he is allowed to do.

If Comey now believes that Trump's mere suggestion is tantamount to obstruction, he contradicts himself yet again. At any rate, from a legal perspective offering an opinion does not constitute obstruction and only someone who is ignorant of the law would think otherwise.

Comey is nothing more than a disgruntled employee trying to make his ex-boss look bad. He is a wishy-washy opportunist lacking in courage and integrity.

Comey told the truth about all the lies of Trump.
You can't handle the truth.

Except....comey just leaked memos, is now named in a lawsuit illegal spying on Americans, ties to the Clinton foundation.

 

[easyt65]

So, it is reported that Comey the Phony WILL NOT state whether POTUS actions were considered Obstruction of Justice. Well of course not, for that would put him in a tougher place than he already is.

He didn't report it....

I would ask how he came to the conclusion that Hillary had committed no crime and that no prosecutor would take up the case yet he can't make the same conclusion relative to conversations with POTUS

Comey has no credibility and his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt

-Geaux

Funny how the snowflakes were defending Comey after he got fired and were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Comey declaring Trump was guilty of Obstruction.

My how the pendulum has swung back the other way AGAIN after Comey declared NO CRIMES, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.

BTW, Comey testified that Trump told him he (Trump) HOPED the Kelly issue would blow over (especially since no crime had been proven).

Only in the mind of a butt-hurt PU$$Y snowflake are the words 'I HOPE' considered an 'ORDER'.

 

[JoeB131]

Funny how the snowflakes were defending Comey after he got fired and were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Comey declaring Trump was guilty of Obstruction.

My how the pendulum has swung back the other way AGAIN after Comey declared NO CRIMES, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.

BTW, Comey testified that Trump told him he (Trump) HOPED the Kelly issue would blow over (especially since no crime had been proven).

Only in the mind of a butt-hurt PU$$Y snowflake are the words 'I HOPE' considered an 'ORDER'.

"I hope' becomes an order when he follows it up with Firing Comey and then says it was specifically about the Russian investigation after having the DOJ come up with some horseshit about how he handled the Clinton investigation.

That's what makes it obstruction.

 

[easyt65]

"I hope' becomes an order when he follows it up with Firing Comey and then says it was specifically about the Russian investigation after having the DOJ come up with some horseshit about how he handled the Clinton investigation.

That's what makes it obstruction.

No, what makes it 'obstruction' is a nasty, lingering, hate-backed, festering, butt-hurt grudge over Trump beating Hillary, who should have been forced out of the campaign because of her multiple FBI invetigations and crimes.

 

[JoeB131]

No, what makes it 'obstruction' is a nasty, lingering, hate-backed, festering, butt-hurt grudge over Trump beating Hillary, who should have been forced out of the campaign because of her multiple FBI invetigations and crimes.

Except you guys spent 25 years investigating Hillary and came up with exactly nothing.

My guess, it won't take that long to find out what Trump is guilty of, especially if we start taking apart all his sleazy business dealings.

 

[easyt65]

No, what makes it 'obstruction' is a nasty, lingering, hate-backed, festering, butt-hurt grudge over Trump beating Hillary, who should have been forced out of the campaign because of her multiple FBI invetigations and crimes.

Except you guys spent 25 years investigating Hillary and came up with exactly nothing.

My guess, it won't take that long to find out what Trump is guilty of, especially if we start taking apart all his sleazy business dealings.

You continue to prove you are either too stupid to know or too partisan to admit there is a difference between finding something and prosecution.

Comey just testified Barry's 2nd criminal US AG is the only reason Hillary was not indicted.

 

[JoeB131]

You continue to prove you are either too stupid to know or too partisan to admit there is a difference between finding something and prosecution.

Comey just testified Barry's 2nd criminal US AG is the only reason Hillary was not indicted.

Not really, but if you need to believe that... go ahead.

What he said was no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case with these facts.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI




... our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges....we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

 

[paperview]

So, Comey lied under oath stating he leaked the government memo AFTER a tweet from POTUS when in fact the NYT started leaking the memo BEFORE the tweet.

^ Lie.

 

[paperview]

Secondly, he leaked a a document which was Government property which is a crime.

Wrong.

Were James Comey’s leaks lawful?

The precedents are clear: Disclosures like these are constitutionally protected.

By Stephen M. Kohn
Stephen M. Kohn, a partner in the whistleblower-rights law firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, is the author of “The New Whistleblower’s Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What’s Right and Protecting Yourself.”

"During his Senate testimony Thursday, former FBI director James B. Comey admitted to being an anonymous leaker — a phrase that now has negative connotations. President Trump’s lawyer even hinted that Comey may deserve prosecution.

Let’s set the record straight. The vast majority of anonymous leaks are fully legal, many serve the public interest, they follow in a tradition widely practiced by our nation’s Founding Fathers, and they are recognized as fully protected speech by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law is clear and was most recently tested in a case pitting a federal employee whistleblower, fired for leaking information to MSNBC, against both the Bush and Obama administrations.

It started on July 26, 2003, when the Department of Homeland Security issued a confidential internal notice warning...

<snip>

Why is leaking protected? First, absent a specific legal prohibition, government employees have a constitutional right to speak out on matters of public concern. This right was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1968 and is unchallenged today.

Second, Americans have a right to blow the whistle anonymously. Our Founding Fathers engaged in anonymous speech, and the utility of speaking out confidentially is widely recognized.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in another First Amendment Supreme Court case, explained that “the historical evidence indicates that the Founding era Americans opposed attempts to require that anonymous authors reveal their identities on the ground that forced disclosure violated the ‘freedom of the press.’ ” In that case, the majority opinion was more blunt: “Anonymity is a shield from . . . tyranny.”

Whistleblowers know that anonymity is their best shield against the tyranny of government. Once a whistleblower is known, his or her life is never the same. They are ostracized, fired and blacklisted.

Former FBI director James B. Comey testified about his interactions with President Trump before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 8. Here are key moments. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Comey’s admission — that he gave a memo documenting a conversation with Trump to a friend to be leaked to the press — is also legal. Was the information classified or secret as a matter of a federal law? Absolutely not.

Did he reveal a matter of public interest? Yes. Did Comey have a right to expose these facts anonymously? Yes.

It is time to stop attacking leakers. If someone illegally releases properly classified information, that violates the law. But the vast majority of leakers who release information on matters of public concern are not illegally disclosing classified information; they are blowing the whistle anonymously.

The right of current or former government employees to speak out on matters of public concern is protected under the U.S. Constitution. This is how a democracy functions."

Check out the rest at the link: Analysis | Were James Comey’s leaks lawful?