Two issues with Comey's testimony

[JoeMoma]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

1. Russia and other countries have been trying to hack our institutions for a long time. Its called gathering intel. The more they have and the more they know the more leverage they obtain. So the fact the Russia tried to hack the RNC doesn't prove anything. When you look at their actual actions and how they leaked the information the motives of trying to discredit and impose harm on Clinton became apparent.

2. Comey and many others have all said that there is no evidence to back up Trumps claim. This verifies what most of us knew when we first read Trumps tweets. That he was just emotionally reacting to the Sessions debacle and trying to change the narrative. His claims were baseless. By you saying that surveillance still could have happened, well that may be true, but you are on what they call a Witchhunt. Searching for evidence to fit a narrative. The truth remains that Trump wrote those tweets without evidence, probably after reading some infowars or breitbart story... it was reckless and irresponsible and way beneath the actions of what our president should be doing. What an embarrassment.

Russia trying to hack the RNC shows that Russia is trying to weaken America by doing the devide and conquer strategy. And it looks like its working. Putin is probably laughing his head of about all the finger pointing going on. Do people really beleive trump made a deal with Russia to help him win the election ? I beleive that it is more likely that putin/Russia did what it did to screw around with everyone and to create as much division as possible.

 

[Faun]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

He's obviously hiding the facts and trying to mislead the public and congress.
He only there to discredit Trump and prevent Hillary and Obama from being properly investigated.

How are trolls like you allowed on this board... do you just make this shit up?

It's a free country, cocksucker.

At least you're aware you make shit up.

 

[oreo]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

It's best that you read what Comey actually said about Russians hacking into the RNC--LOL

"FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle on old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use. Republicans have previously denied their organizations were hacked. (They denied it because they were no longer using that OLD domain, and their current domain was not hacked into. Nor was there an attempt to hack into the new domain.) The testimony came in a Senate intelligence committee hearing that examined Russia's intrusions in the 2016 election campaign and its intentions, with America's top intelligence officials testifying just days after they released an unclassified report blaming Moscow for the hacks."
FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia - CNNPolitics.com

So basically you have a 20 year old AOL email account, that is no longer in use. Do you give a rats ass what anyone finds there. Probably not. It was more than likely used by the Russians as a "head fake" to get into REAL time DNC databases.

Trump specifically tweeted that Obama had the Trump Tower wiretapped. There is only one definition according to the Meridian-Webster dictionary: to tap a telephone or telegraph wire in order to get information.
Definition of WIRETAP

FBI Director Comey, under oath testified that there was no wiretapping order done by the FBI, or any agency of the DOJ, and also stated NO President has the authority to order a wiretap on any American citizen.

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia


Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Slade3200]

There are two issues I see with Comey's testimony that I haven't heard reported on:

1) Comey admitted that there was evidence to suggest Russia attempted to hack into other institutions, including the RNC. This is consistent with this story that Russia attempted to hack the RNC around the same time they hacked the DNC...they just were unsuccessful at doing so. It makes more sense that Russia wanted to create confusion in the election than simply help Trump win, which is why I take Comey and Rogers' statements that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump with a grain of salt. If Russia wanted to help Trump win, why were they trying to hack the RNC?

2) People keep saying Comey flatly rejected Trump's tweets about Obama having him wire tapped. Couple of points with that. First of all, Comey said he's seen no information to support Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped. Aside from the fact that that answer doesn't completely eschew the idea that Trump was wiretapped, it's also a careful bit of word parsing. The question everyone wants to know is, "did the Obama administration have Trump surveilled during the 2016 election?" If, for example, Loretta Lynch authorized it, technically speaking that doesn't mean Obama did it, but it went down under his watch which is kind of the same thing. But also, "I have no information to support that claim" is...curiously noncommittal. If you recall, here's Comey testifying on whether Hillary Clinton told the truth about her private e-mail server. See how straightforward that is? I'm just saying. I think there's another shoe to drop.

1. Russia and other countries have been trying to hack our institutions for a long time. Its called gathering intel. The more they have and the more they know the more leverage they obtain. So the fact the Russia tried to hack the RNC doesn't prove anything. When you look at their actual actions and how they leaked the information the motives of trying to discredit and impose harm on Clinton became apparent.

2. Comey and many others have all said that there is no evidence to back up Trumps claim. This verifies what most of us knew when we first read Trumps tweets. That he was just emotionally reacting to the Sessions debacle and trying to change the narrative. His claims were baseless. By you saying that surveillance still could have happened, well that may be true, but you are on what they call a Witchhunt. Searching for evidence to fit a narrative. The truth remains that Trump wrote those tweets without evidence, probably after reading some infowars or breitbart story... it was reckless and irresponsible and way beneath the actions of what our president should be doing. What an embarrassment.

Russia trying to hack the RNC shows that Russia is trying to weaken America by doing the devide and conquer strategy. And it looks like its working. Putin is probably laughing his head of about all the finger pointing going on. Do people really beleive trump made a deal with Russia to help him win the election ? I beleive that it is more likely that putin/Russia did what it did to screw around with everyone and to create as much division as possible.

I'm with you on that. The Trump/Russia deal is far fetched and there is no evidence of it so far. It is curious as to why there has been so much deception about interactions with Trumps campaign and Russia but that could just be because of PR. It's worth a look and we will see what turns up if anything

 

[Seawytch]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Damn, too bad we weren't concerned about government officials using private servers way back when...last year...during the hillary failure.

Wait, don't you mean back when the Bush admin was using a private server and millions of emails went missing?

George W. Bush's White House "lost" 22 million emails

From 2003. You would think by the time clinton was there the emails would have been a bit more under control than signing up for AOL. Oh wait, they were! It's how and why she set up her own private server in the denver companies shitter thinking nobody would look there.

Where is Trumps private server? The one you claim to be directly connected to Moscow. Yeah, that one that makes everything shrillary did ok. Can you produce that one?

And they were. She had a private server in a physically secure location and, like her predecessor, Colin Powell, she used a private email. She has admitted it was wrong.

Even in 2003 there was official White House email. 22million emails relating to some pretty important stuff went missing. Where were the hearings?

Nobody has claimed anything about Trumps server being connected to the Kremlin. It's his campaign staff that's connected to Russia.

 

[Onyx]

It's a free country, cocksucker.

Far from it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Damn, too bad we weren't concerned about government officials using private servers way back when...last year...during the hillary failure.

Wait, don't you mean back when the Bush admin was using a private server and millions of emails went missing?

George W. Bush's White House "lost" 22 million emails

From 2003. You would think by the time clinton was there the emails would have been a bit more under control than signing up for AOL. Oh wait, they were! It's how and why she set up her own private server in the denver companies shitter thinking nobody would look there.

Where is Trumps private server? The one you claim to be directly connected to Moscow. Yeah, that one that makes everything shrillary did ok. Can you produce that one?

And they were. She had a private server in a physically secure location and, like her predecessor, Colin Powell, she used a private email. She has admitted it was wrong.

Even in 2003 there was official White House email. 22million emails relating to some pretty important stuff went missing. Where were the hearings?

Nobody has claimed anything about Trumps server being connected to the Kremlin. It's his campaign staff that's connected to Russia.

She picked the bathroom of a local Denver business as secure? Where was Powell's secret server stored? Or did it exist?

 

[Onyx]

I'm with you on that. The Trump/Russia deal is far fetched and there is no evidence of it so far

As Adam Schiff said, there is a shitload of circumstantial evidence. I'd find it far fetched if there was no collusion.

He summarizes it pretty good in his opening statements. Skip to 6:00 and watch the rest if you haven't already.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It's a free country, cocksucker.

Far from it.

Kind of crazy how the further we are from freedom the more power the libs have.

 

[Valerie]

Ask him about trump's private server and his rinky-dink old, very easily hackable android phone that he won't give up.

And how about we ask him how come its okay for the cheeto to broadcast to everyone at his golf resort very private details about America's business?

Damn, too bad we weren't concerned about government officials using private servers way back when...last year...during the hillary failure.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-timeline/


Timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Onyx]

Kind of crazy how the further we are from freedom the more power the libs have.

Those excuses don't work anymore. Trump and the Republican party are in power now.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm with you on that. The Trump/Russia deal is far fetched and there is no evidence of it so far

As Adam Schiff said, there is a shitload of circumstantial evidence. I'd find it far fetched if there was no collusion.

He summarizes it pretty good in his opening statements. Skip to 6:00 and watch the rest if you haven't already.

Yeah, I watched it live earlier today. There is plenty of "smoke" as they are calling it. Like I said, worth a look. I just don't want to jump the gun and make conclusions before there is real evidence.

 

[Onyx]

Yeah, I watched it live earlier today. There is plenty of "smoke" as they are calling it. Like I said, worth a look. I just don't want to jump the gun and make conclusions before there is real evidence.

Circumstantial evidence constitutes the majority of evidence in most criminal prosecutions. The burden of proof in US law is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' You can never be 100% certain of anything, but I believe you would have to be uninformed or in denial at this point to not suspect collusion.

Here's what concerns me

- During the campaign and transition, a senior Russian foreign ambassador publicly claimed that the Trump campaign had communications with several members within the Russian government. The Trump campaign spokesman denied this charge both times. Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says

- The Steele Dossier. Why would a well respected former British spy and intelligence company CEO write bullshit findings? The FBI agreed to pay him, verified that some of the information was correct, and Christopher Steele went into hiding for several months.

- Several individuals mentioned in the Steele Dossier are now dead. All of them killed in 'mysterious circumstances.'

- The Trump campaign asked the RNC to drop its position on Russian sanctions, at the same time as his campaign staff was revealed to be meeting with Sergei Kislyak

- How did Roger Stone have a prenatural ability to predict wikileak hacks, which is believed by the intelligence community to be dissecting information provided by the Russian goverment? Roger Stone is now making accusations that people are trying to have him killed so he wont testify.

- 6 people associated with the Trump campaign met with Sergei Kislyak, and 4 of them outright lied about it.

I know people that have been following this story closer and have a lot more questions. All this smoke is a choking hazard.

 

[Onyx]

I can't get over this: "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier."

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier - CNNPolitics.com

Nothing about the 'salacious accusations,' but most of the document was about communications and financial connections. Donald Trump has denied any communications with Russians (although they got exposed with fat Sergei) and having any financial ties to Russia. That leads me to believe that the FBI confirmed that they are lying on at least one of those denials.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm with you on that. The Trump/Russia deal is far fetched and there is no evidence of it so far

As Adam Schiff said, there is a shitload of circumstantial evidence. I'd find it far fetched if there was no collusion.

He summarizes it pretty good in his opening statements. Skip to 6:00 and watch the rest if you haven't already.

Yeah, I watched it live earlier today. There is plenty of "smoke" as they are calling it. Like I said, worth a look. I just don't want to jump the gun and make conclusions before there is real evidence.

An excellent analogy by Representative Shiff...

If I go go sleep at night and there is no snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is...That is circumstantial evidence of snow. Direct evidence is me waking in the middle of the night to see it fall.

Guess what? I know it fucking snowed.

 

[Seawytch]

I can't get over this: "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier."

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier - CNNPolitics.com

Nothing about the 'salacious accusations,' but most of the document was about communications and financial connections. Donald Trump has denied any communications with Russians (although they got exposed with fat Sergei) and having any financial ties to Russia. That leads me to believe that the FBI confirmed that they are lying on at least one of those denials.

The Dossier talked about things the Trump admin has actually DONE...removing the Ukraine language from the GOP platform and going after NATO.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm with you on that. The Trump/Russia deal is far fetched and there is no evidence of it so far

As Adam Schiff said, there is a shitload of circumstantial evidence. I'd find it far fetched if there was no collusion.

He summarizes it pretty good in his opening statements. Skip to 6:00 and watch the rest if you haven't already.

Yeah, I watched it live earlier today. There is plenty of "smoke" as they are calling it. Like I said, worth a look. I just don't want to jump the gun and make conclusions before there is real evidence.

An excellent analogy by Representative Shiff...

If I go go sleep at night and there is no snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is...That is circumstantial evidence of snow. Direct evidence is me waking in the middle of the night to see it fall.

Guess what? I know it fucking snowed.

Actually, that would be direct evidence of snow. Now if you did a fucking snow dance to make it snow before you went to sleep and you found snow outside when you awoke, that would be circumstantual evidence that your fucking snow dance made it snow.

 

[Divine Wind]

If I go go sleep at night and there is no snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is...That is circumstantial evidence of snow. Direct evidence is me waking in the middle of the night to see it fall.

Guess what? I know it fucking snowed.

Snow on the ground is direct evidence it snowed. You don't have to see it falling to know it fucking snowed. It's circumstantial evidence to attribute that snow to Hell freezing over in Washington DC.

 

[Seawytch]

If I go go sleep at night and there is no snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is...That is circumstantial evidence of snow. Direct evidence is me waking in the middle of the night to see it fall.

Guess what? I know it fucking snowed.

Snow on the ground is direct evidence it snowed. You don't have to see it falling to know it fucking snowed. It's circumstantial evidence to attribute that snow to Hell freezing over in Washington DC.

There are other means than snow falling on the ground for there to be snow in the ground. Snow on the ground is strong circumstantial evidence of it having snowed but you don't know it wasn't trucked in overnight do you?

 

[TNHarley]

(1) The flaw is that Putin hated (still hates) Clinton bitterly. He wanted Trump to win as much as he wanted to spread confusion, which is why he hacked the RNC, so people could ask questions without thinking it all the way through.

(2) Comey did more than "flatly rejected Trump's tweets"; he emphasized the DOJ authorized him to say that nowhere in (Sessions) DOJ was there any evidence to support Trump's tweets.*

"Noncommital" was clearly explained by Comey in that he would say there was an "ongoing investigation", but that he would not clarify it more at this time.

Yes, I believe another shoe will drop: Trump and his associates will be identified as in criminal collusion with Russians.

* "And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets," he said.

Proof for number 1?