'Nothingburger': ABC: Comey will NOT testify Trump asked him to Obstruct Investigation

[Reasonable]

Breaking: Comey won't claim Trump obstructed investigation, ABC reports - Hot Air

"Everyone in Washington and the media awaits James Comey’s testimony on Thursday with bated breath, but they may be in for a deep disappointment. ABC News’ Justin Fishel and Jonathan Karl report that sources close to the former FBI director say he will not claim that Donald Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into Michael Flynn."

“He is not going to Congress to make accusations about the President’s intent, instead he’s there to share his concerns,” the source said, and tell the committee “what made him uneasy” and why he felt a need to write the memo documenting the conversation."


So Comey will bring no evidence before Congress. Instead, he will be there to talk about his 'feelings' and his 'emotions'.


View attachment 131349

Hot Air is a far right site. They're the nothing burger.
Hearty laughs you idiots keep pretending this isn't going down.

what exactly is going down?

Trump eventually. Comey nailing Trump on Thursday.
Keep dreaming.

trump on what? that wasn't an answer.

6 from Trump's staff made undisclosed trips to Russia. They wouldn't have done that without him telling them to.
There was no legit reason for these trips.
The road to impeachment goes thru these 6 stooges.

 

[jc456]

Breaking: Comey won't claim Trump obstructed investigation, ABC reports - Hot Air

"Everyone in Washington and the media awaits James Comey’s testimony on Thursday with bated breath, but they may be in for a deep disappointment. ABC News’ Justin Fishel and Jonathan Karl report that sources close to the former FBI director say he will not claim that Donald Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into Michael Flynn."

“He is not going to Congress to make accusations about the President’s intent, instead he’s there to share his concerns,” the source said, and tell the committee “what made him uneasy” and why he felt a need to write the memo documenting the conversation."


So Comey will bring no evidence before Congress. Instead, he will be there to talk about his 'feelings' and his 'emotions'.


View attachment 131349

Hot Air is a far right site. They're the nothing burger.
Hearty laughs you idiots keep pretending this isn't going down.

Dipshit......the link actually has ABC Reports in it...........you left wing morons are pretty stupid...

they are useless. nothing is ever from a source they like when it isn't in their favor. It's why I have my signature. almost every post I'm doing what is in my signature.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[jc456]

We don't know what Comey will say if he should happen to say he felt Trump was trying to obstruct justice it will be interesting to see how he answers the question why didn't he say or do anything about when he was still head of the FBI.

Been answered many times by legal experts.
Not on Fox of course which is probably why you didn't hear it.

And yet you couldn't answer it even though you claim to have seen it. Do the world a favor pull your lower lip over your head and sallow.

omg, dude that is special. ohhhhhh myyyyyyyyyyyyyy gdddddddddddddddd

 

[jc456]

View attachment 131377

again, what's the crime? come on dude, you can't go through life with nothing can you?

 

[Tom Horn]

Maybe he can explain at the reception why he "tried to blend in with the blue drapes until he caught the President's eye". He was also supposedly "disgusted" with the President's "attempted hug" which never happened. Trump simply gave him a standard handshake/backpat which the former Director found unsavory somehow....talk about a nutjob.

 

[kwc57]

Breaking: Comey won't claim Trump obstructed investigation, ABC reports - Hot Air

"Everyone in Washington and the media awaits James Comey’s testimony on Thursday with bated breath, but they may be in for a deep disappointment. ABC News’ Justin Fishel and Jonathan Karl report that sources close to the former FBI director say he will not claim that Donald Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into Michael Flynn."

“He is not going to Congress to make accusations about the President’s intent, instead he’s there to share his concerns,” the source said, and tell the committee “what made him uneasy” and why he felt a need to write the memo documenting the conversation."


So Comey will bring no evidence before Congress. Instead, he will be there to talk about his 'feelings' and his 'emotions'.


View attachment 131349

What the..........when are we going to finally get that evidence that leads to criminal wrongdoing and impeachment the left and their media arm keeps hyping? Gawddammit, I'm tired of being sold a bill of goods! I want actionable evidence. There has to be a picture of Trump in garters and black leather spanking Putin somewhere.

 

[jc456]

Breaking: Comey won't claim Trump obstructed investigation, ABC reports - Hot Air

"Everyone in Washington and the media awaits James Comey’s testimony on Thursday with bated breath, but they may be in for a deep disappointment. ABC News’ Justin Fishel and Jonathan Karl report that sources close to the former FBI director say he will not claim that Donald Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into Michael Flynn."

“He is not going to Congress to make accusations about the President’s intent, instead he’s there to share his concerns,” the source said, and tell the committee “what made him uneasy” and why he felt a need to write the memo documenting the conversation."


So Comey will bring no evidence before Congress. Instead, he will be there to talk about his 'feelings' and his 'emotions'.


View attachment 131349

Hot Air is a far right site. They're the nothing burger.
Hearty laughs you idiots keep pretending this isn't going down.

what exactly is going down?

Trump eventually. Comey nailing Trump on Thursday.
Keep dreaming.

trump on what? that wasn't an answer.

6 from Trump's staff made undisclosed trips to Russia. They wouldn't have done that without him telling them to.
There was no legit reason for these trips.
The road to impeachment goes thru these 6 stooges.

no they didn't, why don't you post the links if you believe that.

 

[Reasonable]

Morons: Comey broke the law.
They're coming after Hilary.
They coming after Obama..
All smoke screens because you KNOW or won't admit THEYRE COMING AFTER TRUMP.

 

[Reasonable]

Hot Air is a far right site. They're the nothing burger.
Hearty laughs you idiots keep pretending this isn't going down.

what exactly is going down?

Trump eventually. Comey nailing Trump on Thursday.
Keep dreaming.

trump on what? that wasn't an answer.

6 from Trump's staff made undisclosed trips to Russia. They wouldn't have done that without him telling them to.
There was no legit reason for these trips.
The road to impeachment goes thru these 6 stooges.

no they didn't, why don't you post the links if you believe that.

Omg. They've been talking about it for months and you didn't see it?
Your fucked up sources lie to you..

 

[kwc57]

Let's save this thread.

Put it next to all the ones about Trump not standing a chance and how Hillary was going to break the glass ceiling with a landslide. It will be in good company.

 

[jc456]

Morons: Comey broke the law.
They're coming after Hilary.
They coming after Obama..
All smoke screens because you KNOW or won't admit THEYRE COMING AFTER TRUMP.

all more activity than a russia hack job. or fk job or .....nothing burger.

 

[jc456]

what exactly is going down?

Trump eventually. Comey nailing Trump on Thursday.
Keep dreaming.

trump on what? that wasn't an answer.

6 from Trump's staff made undisclosed trips to Russia. They wouldn't have done that without him telling them to.
There was no legit reason for these trips.
The road to impeachment goes thru these 6 stooges.

no they didn't, why don't you post the links if you believe that.

Omg. They've been talking about it for months and you didn't see it?
Your fucked up sources lie to you..

so post the link bubba. let's see your months of talk in black and white. oh wait, they didn't travel they were on phone calls. As part of their jobs as reps to the government in a new administration transition. oh wait, that's what every president elect and staff does. it's getting prepared to run the country. wow dude you are one fked up fella.

 

[Reasonable]

An expert on the subject of executive privilege, Mark J. Rozell, has written, it is an accepted doctrine when appropriately applied in two circumstances: (1) certain national security needs and (2) protecting the privacy of White House deliberations when doing so serves the public interest.
Clearly, Donald Trump's conversations with James Comey do not fall into either area. Trump was wise not to try to concoct a phony justification for using the doctrine, which at best would have been a delaying tactic and only increased the already-fiendish interest in the specifics of Comey's testimony.
Pretending James Comey is testifying only because the President is not invoking executive privilege is not only disingenuous, it borders on small-bore fraud. To claim you have a power you do not, in fact, possess is dishonest. When executive privilege does exist, it is as the Supreme Court noted in US v. Nixon, always a "qualified privilege," meaning there must be balance between presidential privacy and the public's right to know — in contrast with other, absolute, presidential privileges, like the "state secrets privilege" (which the Bush/Cheney administration consistently abused, but was unavailable here for Trump).
This approach to former FBI Director Comey's testimony is a drill symptomatic of the Trump White House. They either do not know what they are doing or when they do they believe no one else does, so they play games. In the annals of executive privilege, it has never been used to block the testimony of a former federal employee. To do so, the White House would have to go to federal court to try to persuade a judge to block Comey, a former employee, from publicly discussing his conversations.
There is no basis for a court to make such a move to prevent Comey from coming before the panel to testify about President Trump's efforts to get him to pull back on the FBI's investigation of Russia's hacking the 2016 presidential race. If the testimony involved classified information, there might be a colorable argument if the former employee agreed the conversation was confidential, and both thought it was covered by executive privilege and held the conversation on that basis, but absent even that dubious argument, conversations with the president of the United States do not give him the power to revoke the First Amendment. Nor do courts engage in prior restraint, enjoining speech before it has been made.
While the term "executive privilege" dates to the Eisenhower presidency, the concept of the executive branch withholding information from its constitutional co-equals goes back to the earliest days of our government. President George Washington convened his Cabinet to discuss and agree to withhold information about a military expedition from Congress. Thomas Jefferson's notes from a Cabinet meeting show he discussed withholding information from Congress and the courts.
It was not until Richard Nixon withheld his secretly recorded conversations from the Watergate special prosecutor who had issued a grand jury subpoena did the US Supreme Court give executive privilege constitutional status based on the separation of powers of the branches. While the high court recognized the concept, it also recognized that President Nixon was using it to prevent the prosecutor from obtaining evidence of his criminal behavior. Nixon's use of executive privilege during Watergate gave it a bad name, and subsequent presidents have invoked it only reluctantly.
No post-Watergate president used executive privilege more aggressively than Bill Clinton, when confronted with the most aggressive special prosecutor in American history, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. It is difficult to imagine any president wanting to silence a witness more than Clinton surely wished to quiet Monica Lewinsky. Yet unlike the Trump White House, the Clinton administration never pretended prohibiting her from testifying before a grand jury or Congress was possible. Before Trump, I have never even heard of a president seriously thinking he could silence someone with whom the president had conversed by invoking executive privilege.
Conspicuously absent from Huckabee Sanders' announcement was any reference to the White House Counsel's office, which surely knew the claim of privilege was nonexistent, and wanted nothing to do with the charade the communications team is playing with Comey. Now we will have to wait to see if any Trump apologists on the Senate Intelligence Committee are so foolish as to join the White House mini-sham

 

[Reasonable]

Trump eventually. Comey nailing Trump on Thursday.
Keep dreaming.

trump on what? that wasn't an answer.

6 from Trump's staff made undisclosed trips to Russia. They wouldn't have done that without him telling them to.
There was no legit reason for these trips.
The road to impeachment goes thru these 6 stooges.

no they didn't, why don't you post the links if you believe that.

Omg. They've been talking about it for months and you didn't see it?
Your fucked up sources lie to you..

so post the link bubba. let's see your months of talk in black and white. oh wait, they didn't travel they were on phone calls. As part of their jobs as reps to the government in a new administration transition. oh wait, that's what every president elect and staff does. it's getting prepared to run the country. wow dude you are one fked up fella.

I swear to God, you trump whores are the dumbest and most uniformed people on earth.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...18-undisclosed-contacts-with-russians-sources

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

 

[jc456]

An expert on the subject of executive privilege, Mark J. Rozell, has written, it is an accepted doctrine when appropriately applied in two circumstances: (1) certain national security needs and (2) protecting the privacy of White House deliberations when doing so serves the public interest.
Clearly, Donald Trump's conversations with James Comey do not fall into either area. Trump was wise not to try to concoct a phony justification for using the doctrine, which at best would have been a delaying tactic and only increased the already-fiendish interest in the specifics of Comey's testimony.
Pretending James Comey is testifying only because the President is not invoking executive privilege is not only disingenuous, it borders on small-bore fraud. To claim you have a power you do not, in fact, possess is dishonest. When executive privilege does exist, it is as the Supreme Court noted in US v. Nixon, always a "qualified privilege," meaning there must be balance between presidential privacy and the public's right to know — in contrast with other, absolute, presidential privileges, like the "state secrets privilege" (which the Bush/Cheney administration consistently abused, but was unavailable here for Trump).
This approach to former FBI Director Comey's testimony is a drill symptomatic of the Trump White House. They either do not know what they are doing or when they do they believe no one else does, so they play games. In the annals of executive privilege, it has never been used to block the testimony of a former federal employee. To do so, the White House would have to go to federal court to try to persuade a judge to block Comey, a former employee, from publicly discussing his conversations.
There is no basis for a court to make such a move to prevent Comey from coming before the panel to testify about President Trump's efforts to get him to pull back on the FBI's investigation of Russia's hacking the 2016 presidential race. If the testimony involved classified information, there might be a colorable argument if the former employee agreed the conversation was confidential, and both thought it was covered by executive privilege and held the conversation on that basis, but absent even that dubious argument, conversations with the president of the United States do not give him the power to revoke the First Amendment. Nor do courts engage in prior restraint, enjoining speech before it has been made.
While the term "executive privilege" dates to the Eisenhower presidency, the concept of the executive branch withholding information from its constitutional co-equals goes back to the earliest days of our government. President George Washington convened his Cabinet to discuss and agree to withhold information about a military expedition from Congress. Thomas Jefferson's notes from a Cabinet meeting show he discussed withholding information from Congress and the courts.
It was not until Richard Nixon withheld his secretly recorded conversations from the Watergate special prosecutor who had issued a grand jury subpoena did the US Supreme Court give executive privilege constitutional status based on the separation of powers of the branches. While the high court recognized the concept, it also recognized that President Nixon was using it to prevent the prosecutor from obtaining evidence of his criminal behavior. Nixon's use of executive privilege during Watergate gave it a bad name, and subsequent presidents have invoked it only reluctantly.
No post-Watergate president used executive privilege more aggressively than Bill Clinton, when confronted with the most aggressive special prosecutor in American history, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. It is difficult to imagine any president wanting to silence a witness more than Clinton surely wished to quiet Monica Lewinsky. Yet unlike the Trump White House, the Clinton administration never pretended prohibiting her from testifying before a grand jury or Congress was possible. Before Trump, I have never even heard of a president seriously thinking he could silence someone with whom the president had conversed by invoking executive privilege.
Conspicuously absent from Huckabee Sanders' announcement was any reference to the White House Counsel's office, which surely knew the claim of privilege was nonexistent, and wanted nothing to do with the charade the communications team is playing with Comey. Now we will have to wait to see if any Trump apologists on the Senate Intelligence Committee are so foolish as to join the White House mini-sham

 

[jc456]

trump on what? that wasn't an answer.

6 from Trump's staff made undisclosed trips to Russia. They wouldn't have done that without him telling them to.
There was no legit reason for these trips.
The road to impeachment goes thru these 6 stooges.

no they didn't, why don't you post the links if you believe that.

Omg. They've been talking about it for months and you didn't see it?
Your fucked up sources lie to you..

so post the link bubba. let's see your months of talk in black and white. oh wait, they didn't travel they were on phone calls. As part of their jobs as reps to the government in a new administration transition. oh wait, that's what every president elect and staff does. it's getting prepared to run the country. wow dude you are one fked up fella.

I swear to God, you trump whores are the dumbest and most uniformed people on earth.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...18-undisclosed-contacts-with-russians-sources

you said travel. you got a reading problem?

 

[Reasonable]

No wonder you dopes keep saying these investigations are nothing burgers.
You have no idea what's going on.
That's what you get from reading shit like Conservative Daily, Breitbart and watching Fox.
It's going to be hilarious watching your long drawn sad faces when the shit goes down, can't wait.

 

[kwc57]

Morons: Comey broke the law.
They're coming after Hilary.
They coming after Obama..
All smoke screens because you KNOW or won't admit THEYRE COMING AFTER TRUMP.

We know they're coming after Trump. The problem is that for the past year of investigations, zilch actual evidence. Rumor, innuendo and wishful thinking by the unicorn brigade doesn't count. Now, people inside the Obama admin that were pulling documents, exposing American's names and leaking it to the press......there is some actual hard obtainable evidence. Look for this not to go the way the rainbow patrol hopes. But keep dreaming little broomstick cowgirl.

 

[jc456]

No wonder you dopes keep saying these investigations are nothing burgers.
You have no idea what's going on.
That's what you get from reading shit like Conservative Daily, Breitbart and watching Fox.
It's going to be hilarious watching your long drawn sad faces when the shit goes down, can't wait.

so dude where's that fking link you said you had? I'm waiting. Are you going to take an oops on the board?