Comey Under Oath: ‘Have Not Experienced Any Requests to Stop FBI Investigations’Perjury? McCabe too?

[Wry Catcher]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

This is so typical of how the Right lies to their suckers level of ignorance.
Clearly the Right are implying that the "ANY influence" was pathological liar Tramp, by not posting the actual question!!! These lying scum know that their suckers are too lazy to actually look up the question to see if the question actually implies lying scum Tramp. So it comes as no surprise to me that the actual question implies NOTHING to do with Tramp, but everything to do with the Attorney General and the DOJ!!!

HIRONO: Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?

COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want tit. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Wrong! The DOJ operates under Trump. The head of the DOJ works at the pleasure of the POTUS - they are in contact regularly and work together often.

Comey's last line as I hear him say it clearly is fundamentally a game changer...... "in my experience" - meaning "in ALL my experiences" there has never been pressure to end an investigation.

That would have to include Trump

Where is pathological liar Tramp cited in the question???
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

DoJ answers to the POTUS, the pertinent part is the following where he states unequivocally that he has never been asked to halt an investigation without a legitimate reason or for political purposes:


COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

That's a wrap on the obstruction of justice claims, thanks for playing, better start looking for your next pile of bullshit to sling to see if it sticks.

Funny how many claim they know the legal meaning of obstruction of justice, and choose to post their ignorance as factual and thus dismiss, out of willfully thinking, weather Trump has or has not committed a criminal act. Here is a link few will read in its entirety - and I'm not one of the few. But to flip through the pages two things ought to be obvious:

1. The issue (see the link) is esoteric;
2. Bias for the specific issue (Trump's culpability) will determine the lay persons interpretation, and how they cherry pick a word, phrase or paragraph to fit their needs.

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/osullivan.pdf

 

[The Irish Ram]

If Trump did ask Comey to stop an investigation, why are we just hearing about it AFTER Comey was canned? Comey was derelict in his duties to keep such information to himself. And yet not a word about it until now.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

In his testimony!


www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/smoking-gun-comey-testified-oathtrump-never-pressured-fbi-halt-investigations/

nope. if he did, you would cite it. fake quote.

The video of his testimony in question.

you are a retard. he does not say it. fake quote. and fake paraphrasing as well.

As an American patriot, I only post the truth with sheer accuracy. You're in denial. Comeys words are precise.

comey's words are precise. the quote in this thread is a fake quote.

Comey verifies Trump didn't commit Obstruction of Justice.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

It does present a problem for the Comey narrative that Trump is guilty of obstruction. But the timing of all this is important. Let's assume we know that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation on Feb 14 as per his memo. Fast forward 8 weeks- he is now asked if someone has ever tried to stop an investigation and he says no. Then he gets fired. Now he looks back and thinks "Trump asked be to drop the investigation, I don't drop the investigation, so Trump fires me". Trump can wiggle out of this, but it doesn't look good. It depends on the merit and believability Trump has for firing Comey and who is going to corroborate Trumps side of the events. It's very messy, to say the least.

Lol there are two options either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not try to interfere in the investigation. "Woops I forgot until a week after I was fired," isn't going to cut it pal. Comey was fired because of the reasons already listed by Rosenstein and the DNC when they were for his termination before they were against it.

Wrong. If we assume the memo exist, then it is clear that what trump said to Comey during the meeting was significant enough to write it down. That alone is not obstructionism, and therefore when asked if he has ever experienced attempted obstruction he replies no. That all changes in his mind when he is fired however, because it has come full circle. It's more subtle than some people can comprehend, obviously.

Imagine if a females boss asked her out on a date, she politely declines. What she is doing at work doesn't change, but 3 months later she is fired. What do you think is going then her mind?

What an incredible load of nonsense if it was obstruction after he was fired then it was obstruction when he wrote the memo and it was obstruction when he testified under oath, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, your spin is laughable, there are only two options and only two either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not obstruct justice end of story.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

This is so typical of how the Right lies to their suckers level of ignorance.
Clearly the Right are implying that the "ANY influence" was pathological liar Tramp, by not posting the actual question!!! These lying scum know that their suckers are too lazy to actually look up the question to see if the question actually implies lying scum Tramp. So it comes as no surprise to me that the actual question implies NOTHING to do with Tramp, but everything to do with the Attorney General and the DOJ!!!

HIRONO: Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?

COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want tit. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Wrong! The DOJ operates under Trump. The head of the DOJ works at the pleasure of the POTUS - they are in contact regularly and work together often.

Comey's last line as I hear him say it clearly is fundamentally a game changer...... "in my experience" - meaning "in ALL my experiences" there has never been pressure to end an investigation.

That would have to include Trump

Where is pathological liar Tramp cited in the question???
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

DoJ answers to the POTUS, the pertinent part is the following where he states unequivocally that he has never been asked to halt an investigation without a legitimate reason or for political purposes:


COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

That's a wrap on the obstruction of justice claims, thanks for playing, better start looking for your next pile of bullshit to sling to see if it sticks.

Funny how many claim they know the legal meaning of obstruction of justice, and choose to post their ignorance as factual and thus dismiss, out of willfully thinking, weather Trump has or has not committed a criminal act. Here is a link few will read in its entirety - and I'm not one of the few. But to flip through the pages two things ought to be obvious:

1. The issue (see the link) is esoteric;
2. Bias for the specific issue (Trump's culpability) will determine the lay persons interpretation, and how they cherry pick a word, phrase or paragraph to fit their needs.

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/osullivan.pdf

It's Comey who committed 'Obstruction of Justice'. He violated two statutes.

 

[2aguy]

It does present a problem for the Comey narrative that Trump is guilty of obstruction. But the timing of all this is important. Let's assume we know that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation on Feb 14 as per his memo. Fast forward 8 weeks- he is now asked if someone has ever tried to stop an investigation and he says no. Then he gets fired. Now he looks back and thinks "Trump asked be to drop the investigation, I don't drop the investigation, so Trump fires me". Trump can wiggle out of this, but it doesn't look good. It depends on the merit and believability Trump has for firing Comey and who is going to corroborate Trumps side of the events. It's very messy, to say the least.

Lol there are two options either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not try to interfere in the investigation. "Woops I forgot until a week after I was fired," isn't going to cut it pal. Comey was fired because of the reasons already listed by Rosenstein and the DNC when they were for his termination before they were against it.

Wrong. If we assume the memo exist, then it is clear that what trump said to Comey during the meeting was significant enough to write it down. That alone is not obstructionism, and therefore when asked if he has ever experienced attempted obstruction he replies no. That all changes in his mind when he is fired however, because it has come full circle. It's more subtle than some people can comprehend, obviously.

Imagine if a females boss asked her out on a date, she politely declines. What she is doing at work doesn't change, but 3 months later she is fired. What do you think is going then her mind?

What an incredible load of nonsense if it was obstruction after he was fired then it was obstruction when he wrote the memo and it was obstruction when he testified under oath, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, your spin is laughable, there are only two options and only two either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not obstruct justice end of story.

Do you think the left wing nut jobs want fries with their comey memo "Nothing Burger?"

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

And McCabe...

If the Times’s report is true, including the implication that the President obstructed justice, then the President’s critics are in a double bind: Either

1. McCabe committed perjury when he said “there has been no effort to impede” the investigation; OR
2. McCabe did not consider the statements of the President to constitute an “effort to impeded” the investigation, which would mean no senior FBI officials viewed the President’s statements as an attempt to obstruct justice."

Oh this is getting better by the minute. Thanks the NYT. You just screwed them over.



NYT’s Comey Memo Story Doesn’t Pass The Smell Test

Comey Under Oath: 'Have Not Experienced Any Requests to Stop FBI Investigations' - Breitbart

daily caller and breitbart? thats like me referencing huffpo put down the rw kool aid tinydancer

Hey kid genius the testimony was before Congress and is all on video, testimony starts at the 1:45 mark:

Another idiot "with an attention span shorter than a goldfish" who even after hearing the question clearly say the "ATTORNEY GENERAL and the DOJ," pretends he heard the name Tramp!!!

You stupid little faggot, the DOJ serves at the discretion and behest of the POTUS. If the question applies to the DOJ it applies to the POTUS who is the Attorney Generals boss moron.


COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Thnx for playing cock sucker.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

This is so typical of how the Right lies to their suckers level of ignorance.
Clearly the Right are implying that the "ANY influence" was pathological liar Tramp, by not posting the actual question!!! These lying scum know that their suckers are too lazy to actually look up the question to see if the question actually implies lying scum Tramp. So it comes as no surprise to me that the actual question implies NOTHING to do with Tramp, but everything to do with the Attorney General and the DOJ!!!

HIRONO: Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?

COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want tit. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Wrong! The DOJ operates under Trump. The head of the DOJ works at the pleasure of the POTUS - they are in contact regularly and work together often.

Comey's last line as I hear him say it clearly is fundamentally a game changer...... "in my experience" - meaning "in ALL my experiences" there has never been pressure to end an investigation.

That would have to include Trump

Where is pathological liar Tramp cited in the question???
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

DoJ answers to the POTUS, the pertinent part is the following where he states unequivocally that he has never been asked to halt an investigation without a legitimate reason or for political purposes:

Asked by the ATTORNEY GENERAL or the DOJ, you left that part out!

The DOJ is part of the Executice if the question applies to the DOJ then it applies to the POTUS as they are the ultimate head of the DOJ you ignorant fuckwit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is a big deal IMO. Comey can't have it both ways. Either Trump asked him to stop the Flynn investigation and he perceived it as an attempt of obstruction, or he didn't. This essentially could make his memo moot, or he did indeed commit perjury. Now if he perjured himself then Trump is not off the hook, but Comey may go down with him. Oh the intrigue!

This is getting good. The NYT hasn't even seen this so called memo. Just relying on the anonymous source telling them what's partly in it.

I wonder how many people bought into this story thinking the NYT had a hard source. Probably the same number of people who believe that if Trump is impeached Clinton gets to take over instead of Pence.



That'll be divine justice at its finest seeing the left wing loons freak out having to say "President Pence".

What good does a "memo" written by Comey do anyway? Just because he writes something down, that makes it the truth and "evidence" of anything? I think not. He wasn't conducting the investigation, he was just the FBI figurehead.

Actually it does have merit, especially if he showed the memo to others when he wrote it, which has been reported. Keep an eye on the Repubs in congress and others close to him. If they start jumping ship like rats on a sinking ship, he's doomed. Only question at that point will be does he resign for the good of all, or does he fight and destroy what little is left of the GOP.

"what little is left of the GOP"?
The GOP CONTROLS!!!! the Congress/Senate/White house!

Fair enough, but the party is in turmoil. They have a president who is not in the "club". They are divided into factions in congress, they are not putting forward a United front. You have the old school losers like McCain, the younger up and comers like Rubio and Cruz, and none of them get along. The GOP couldn't get the voters to nominate a 'real' republican. I don't know how old you are, but look back at what the party was like on Reagan, strong, United and getting things done.

IMO: Reagan liked people, Trump uses people. Reagan and Tip O'Neil had a mutually respect for others, and worked well together. Trump is an autocrat; Ryan is teats on a bull, and McConnell is a worthless hack who puts party before our nation and its people.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Forget what side of the isle you're on; isn't it obvious the intelligence community & federal law enforcement is a mess?

 

[Syriusly]

Comey testimony starts at 1:45


So it would seem that either Trump did not obstruct justice or Comey perjured himself.

Or that Comey did not consider it obstruction.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

This is so typical of how the Right lies to their suckers level of ignorance.
Clearly the Right are implying that the "ANY influence" was pathological liar Tramp, by not posting the actual question!!! These lying scum know that their suckers are too lazy to actually look up the question to see if the question actually implies lying scum Tramp. So it comes as no surprise to me that the actual question implies NOTHING to do with Tramp, but everything to do with the Attorney General and the DOJ!!!

HIRONO: Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?

COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want tit. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Wrong! The DOJ operates under Trump. The head of the DOJ works at the pleasure of the POTUS - they are in contact regularly and work together often.

Comey's last line as I hear him say it clearly is fundamentally a game changer...... "in my experience" - meaning "in ALL my experiences" there has never been pressure to end an investigation.

That would have to include Trump

Where is pathological liar Tramp cited in the question???
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

DoJ answers to the POTUS, the pertinent part is the following where he states unequivocally that he has never been asked to halt an investigation without a legitimate reason or for political purposes:

Asked by the ATTORNEY GENERAL or the DOJ, you left that part out!

The AG is head of the DoJ... soooooooo....

 

[Syriusly]

Well now we have a man with impeccable credentials investigating this whole affair. We shall see who is lying and who is not.

And we all know that the Trumpsters welcome Mueller's investigation.......lol

 

[Faun]

Update!


www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/smoking-gun-comey-testified-oathtrump-never-pressured-fbi-halt-investigations/

Fake news

Comey never said Trump didn't ask him to halt looking into Flynn's connections to Russian officials.

 

[Syriusly]

Comey testimony starts at 1:45



So it would seem that either Trump did not obstruct justice or Comey perjured himself.

The libidiots will be calling for the resignation of James Comey......oh wait a minute. Trump fired the sorry sack of shit... The liberals will be calling for Trump to fire himself....Oh wait, a minute, the libtards, are totally clueless, as usual....

They're already saying that Mueller isn't bi-partisan .

Actually virtually all liberals are all applauding the choice of Mueller.

Its the Trumpsters(and Trump) having a meltdown about the appointment of Mueller.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Update!


www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/smoking-gun-comey-testified-oathtrump-never-pressured-fbi-halt-investigations/

Fake news

Comey never said Trump didn't ask him to halt looking into Flynn's connections to Russian officials.

Wrongo Bucko.

James Comey: Higher-ups never asked for halt to FBI investigations

 

[Syriusly]

It does present a problem for the Comey narrative that Trump is guilty of obstruction. But the timing of all this is important. Let's assume we know that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation on Feb 14 as per his memo. Fast forward 8 weeks- he is now asked if someone has ever tried to stop an investigation and he says no. Then he gets fired. Now he looks back and thinks "Trump asked be to drop the investigation, I don't drop the investigation, so Trump fires me". Trump can wiggle out of this, but it doesn't look good. It depends on the merit and believability Trump has for firing Comey and who is going to corroborate Trumps side of the events. It's very messy, to say the least.

Lol there are two options either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not try to interfere in the investigation. "Woops I forgot until a week after I was fired," isn't going to cut it pal. Comey was fired because of the reasons already listed by Rosenstein and the DNC when they were for his termination before they were against it.

Wrong. If we assume the memo exist, then it is clear that what trump said to Comey during the meeting was significant enough to write it down. That alone is not obstructionism, and therefore when asked if he has ever experienced attempted obstruction he replies no. That all changes in his mind when he is fired however, because it has come full circle. It's more subtle than some people can comprehend, obviously.

Imagine if a females boss asked her out on a date, she politely declines. What she is doing at work doesn't change, but 3 months later she is fired. What do you think is going then her mind?

, there are only two options and only two either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not obstruct justice end of story.

The third option is that Comey did not consider it obstruction- but an outsider might.

 

[Faun]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

This is so typical of how the Right lies to their suckers level of ignorance.
Clearly the Right are implying that the "ANY influence" was pathological liar Tramp, by not posting the actual question!!! These lying scum know that their suckers are too lazy to actually look up the question to see if the question actually implies lying scum Tramp. So it comes as no surprise to me that the actual question implies NOTHING to do with Tramp, but everything to do with the Attorney General and the DOJ!!!

HIRONO: Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?

COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want tit. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Wrong! The DOJ operates under Trump. The head of the DOJ works at the pleasure of the POTUS - they are in contact regularly and work together often.

Comey's last line as I hear him say it clearly is fundamentally a game changer...... "in my experience" - meaning "in ALL my experiences" there has never been pressure to end an investigation.

That would have to include Trump

Trump is above the DoJ, not in it.

 

[oreo]

Both denied under oath that there had been any influence to stop the investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Comey:

“Not in my experience,” Comey responded. “Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose.”

“I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it,” Comey said.

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

“It’s not happened in my experience,” Comey said."

And McCabe...

If the Times’s report is true, including the implication that the President obstructed justice, then the President’s critics are in a double bind: Either

1. McCabe committed perjury when he said “there has been no effort to impede” the investigation; OR
2. McCabe did not consider the statements of the President to constitute an “effort to impeded” the investigation, which would mean no senior FBI officials viewed the President’s statements as an attempt to obstruct justice."

Oh this is getting better by the minute. Thanks the NYT. You just screwed them over.



NYT’s Comey Memo Story Doesn’t Pass The Smell Test

Comey Under Oath: 'Have Not Experienced Any Requests to Stop FBI Investigations' - Breitbart

Trump admitted Obstruction of Justice in this video.

 

[Old Rocks]

It does present a problem for the Comey narrative that Trump is guilty of obstruction. But the timing of all this is important. Let's assume we know that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation on Feb 14 as per his memo. Fast forward 8 weeks- he is now asked if someone has ever tried to stop an investigation and he says no. Then he gets fired. Now he looks back and thinks "Trump asked be to drop the investigation, I don't drop the investigation, so Trump fires me". Trump can wiggle out of this, but it doesn't look good. It depends on the merit and believability Trump has for firing Comey and who is going to corroborate Trumps side of the events. It's very messy, to say the least.

Lol there are two options either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not try to interfere in the investigation. "Woops I forgot until a week after I was fired," isn't going to cut it pal. Comey was fired because of the reasons already listed by Rosenstein and the DNC when they were for his termination before they were against it.

Wrong. If we assume the memo exist, then it is clear that what trump said to Comey during the meeting was significant enough to write it down. That alone is not obstructionism, and therefore when asked if he has ever experienced attempted obstruction he replies no. That all changes in his mind when he is fired however, because it has come full circle. It's more subtle than some people can comprehend, obviously.

Imagine if a females boss asked her out on a date, she politely declines. What she is doing at work doesn't change, but 3 months later she is fired. What do you think is going then her mind?

What an incredible load of nonsense if it was obstruction after he was fired then it was obstruction when he wrote the memo and it was obstruction when he testified under oath, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, your spin is laughable, there are only two options and only two either Comey is guilty of perjury or Trump did not obstruct justice end of story.

Do you think the left wing nut jobs want fries with their comey memo "Nothing Burger?"

Well now, we are going to find out, are we not?