Two issues with Comey's testimony

[TNHarley]

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.

In 2007, they realized they were gone.
Two watchdog groups sued and then they found them. Obama said they found every one of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(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?

That tells me you did not listen to Comey's testimony. Listen to it.

 

[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?

That tells me you did not listen to Comey's testimony. Listen to it.

LOL Give me a break

 

[jc456]

(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.

I didn't know you had conversations with Putin. how often do you two communicate comrade?

 

[jc456]

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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

 

[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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

Nice try dude

 

[jc456]

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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

Nice try dude

facts bubba, just facts.

 

[Care4all]

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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

Hillary was investigated by the FBI for over a year an NOT a single wiretap was needed.

IF the Russian interference in our election process includes surveillance on Russian operatives, then they could be all that's needed....surveillance on trump campaigners is not necessary...if they are involved with Russian agents, they will be captured in their conversations with the Russian operatives.

 

[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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

Nice try dude

facts bubba, just facts.

More spin than facts but if thats what you need then go for it. The claim by Trump BTW was that Obama was illegally wiretapping Trump tower during the campaign. That is what is being investigated in conjunction to any collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government. Trump is trying very hard to divert the collusion investigation towards a hunt for leakers and he is trying to distort his baseless accusations about Obama and the "wiretaps" into a generalized claim of surveillance. Sane people won't feed into the spin, though you obviously have

 

[jc456]

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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

Nice try dude

facts bubba, just facts.

More spin than facts but if thats what you need then go for it. The claim by Trump BTW was that Obama was illegally wiretapping Trump tower during the campaign. That is what is being investigated in conjunction to any collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government. Trump is trying very hard to divert the collusion investigation towards a hunt for leakers and he is trying to distort his baseless accusations about Obama and the "wiretaps" into a generalized claim of surveillance. Sane people won't feed into the spin, though you obviously have

hey the man spoke it, I take a man at his word. obviously you don't.

 

[Slade3200]

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

Nice try dude

facts bubba, just facts.

More spin than facts but if thats what you need then go for it. The claim by Trump BTW was that Obama was illegally wiretapping Trump tower during the campaign. That is what is being investigated in conjunction to any collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government. Trump is trying very hard to divert the collusion investigation towards a hunt for leakers and he is trying to distort his baseless accusations about Obama and the "wiretaps" into a generalized claim of surveillance. Sane people won't feed into the spin, though you obviously have

hey the man spoke it, I take a man at his word. obviously you don't.

If you want to look at his words you need to hear when he, and everybody else, says that there is NO evidence to back up the claims in Trumps tweet tweets. Simple as that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

There's no parsing of words. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him but he tried to be nice about the president being an unrepentant liar.

no, comey admitted he did. He stated he was investigating the trump campaign. can't do that without surveillance. so he says he is, so surveillance there is. baddabing bubba.

You are babbling. What you are ducking is that he said the DOJ said unequivocally that no evidence of an Obama wire tap of Trump existed throughout the entire department.

Your fumbling argument, crumbling in the light of evidence, ignores the point that no one tapped Trump. No one.

 

[Divine Wind]

facts bubba, just facts.

That is all that the FBI seems to be interested in discussing.

 

[Divine Wind]

...he said the DOJ said unequivocally that no evidence of an Obama wire tap of Trump existed throughout the entire department.

Your fumbling argument, crumbling in the light of evidence, ignores the point that no one tapped Trump. No one.

1) An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2) President Trump has backed away from "wiretapping" comment by saying there are other forms of surveillance. IMO, he was exaggerating as much as Hillary did with her "sniper" and "dead broke" comments. All of this seems to go back to the Flynn incident and our nation's intelligence agencies monitoring of foreign calls into the US.

 

[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.

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?

If we were talking about a short ski slope, agreed. Virgin snow spread evenly all around then neighborhood? While it could be magic elves, I think a jury would conclude it snowed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...he said the DOJ said unequivocally that no evidence of an Obama wire tap of Trump existed throughout the entire department.

Your fumbling argument, crumbling in the light of evidence, ignores the point that no one tapped Trump. No one.

1) An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2) President Trump has backed away from "wiretapping" comment by saying there are other forms of surveillance. IMO, he was exaggerating as much as Hillary did with her "sniper" and "dead broke" comments. All of this seems to go back to the Flynn incident and our nation's intelligence agencies monitoring of foreign calls into the US.

It sure is if Comey said it, and he did, and no one has evidence to the contrary. Trump was talking out his as and won't admit it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

If we were talking about a short ski slope, agreed. Virgin snow spread evenly all around then neighborhood? While it could be magic elves, I think a jury would conclude it snowed.

Circumstantially, yes, as to be trucked in.

 

[Divine Wind]

It sure is if Comey said it, and he did, and no one has evidence to the contrary. Trump was talking out his as and won't admit it.

Agreed, just like Hillary "Sniper" Clinton's "dead broke" comment. Fucking politicians, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It sure is if Comey said it, and he did, and no one has evidence to the contrary. Trump was talking out his as and won't admit it.

Agreed, just like Hillary "Sniper" Clinton's "dead broke" comment. Fucking politicians, eh?

Sure, Clinton is gone, very good, time for Trump to resign.

 

[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.

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?

If we were talking about a short ski slope, agreed. Virgin snow spread evenly all around then neighborhood? While it could be magic elves, I think a jury would conclude it snowed.

Circumstantially, yes, as to be trucked in.

Try persuading a jury, or any other group of reasonable people, that a virgin field of snow across an entire neighborhood could be spread evenly by trucks without leaving evidence it was man-made.