By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - James Comey interview

Faust said:

im glad u asked. Im not Mueller so i cant say for sure, but my guess is that he wants to prosecute him for something bigger, and im glad he is not focused solely on the Russia thing and he is actually looking at his financial ties around the world, cuz I happen to believe the Russia scandal has blown out of proportion and the real meat is somewhere else (money or lack of).

And honestly, i could have gone further with other instances of criminal behavior but i didn't want to expand on other issues to make things easier, but im finding oddly entertainment reading some excuses, so im gonna make a list of a few issues that  i can think of out of my mind right now to find out if you actually care about any issue regarding this Guy.

 

Mar a Lago.- leave aside the fact that he promised not to golf while being president (thats irrelevant), this guy is actually making money by golfing on his own                        properties. So yeah, he is using his office to make a profit which is illegal in case you didnt know.

Family business.- He appointed her Daughter and son in law to work for him in the white house. Also Illegal

Drone Strikes.- Obama did it... still Illegal.

Trump "university".- Even if you are the president fraud is Illegal 

More obstruction of Justice.- When Mueller asked for the documents of the guy who was investigating Price's corruption before he was fired by Trump, man       im not gonna lie, that made me extremely happy.
 
 Now, spin it as hard as you can to see if you get the grand prize

@Bold LOL, yeap you've definitely went into full conspiracy theory mode now ... (Alex Jones would be proud) 

You say "criminal" but you pointing his private school lawsuit means you're oblivious to the fact that it was "civil lawsuit", more evidence that you truly don't give don't a shit since you can't be bothered to do any research ... 

Your first link is fail since the presidents and vice-presidents exempt from that statute ... 

As for your second link, the Justice department says otherwise ... 

Notice in your third link that you had to resort to using the "opinion" section ...

You don't know jack, do you ? I'll be waiting for you to demonstrate that you're educated about US law or that you'll be grasping at straws ...  



Around the Network

 

fatslob-:O said:
Faust said:

im glad u asked. Im not Mueller so i cant say for sure, but my guess is that he wants to prosecute him for something bigger, and im glad he is not focused solely on the Russia thing and he is actually looking at his financial ties around the world, cuz I happen to believe the Russia scandal has blown out of proportion and the real meat is somewhere else (money or lack of).

And honestly, i could have gone further with other instances of criminal behavior but i didn't want to expand on other issues to make things easier, but im finding oddly entertainment reading some excuses, so im gonna make a list of a few issues that  i can think of out of my mind right now to find out if you actually care about any issue regarding this Guy.

 

Mar a Lago.- leave aside the fact that he promised not to golf while being president (thats irrelevant), this guy is actually making money by golfing on his own                        properties. So yeah, he is using his office to make a profit which is illegal in case you didnt know.

Family business.- He appointed her Daughter and son in law to work for him in the white house. Also Illegal

Drone Strikes.- Obama did it... still Illegal.

Trump "university".- Even if you are the president fraud is Illegal 

More obstruction of Justice.- When Mueller asked for the documents of the guy who was investigating Price's corruption before he was fired by Trump, man       im not gonna lie, that made me extremely happy.
 
 Now, spin it as hard as you can to see if you get the grand prize

@Bold LOL, yeap you've definitely went into full conspiracy theory mode now ... (Alex Jones would be proud) 

You say "criminal" but you pointing his private school lawsuit means you're oblivious to the fact that it was "civil lawsuit", more evidence that you truly don't give don't a shit since you can't be bothered to do any research ... 

1.-Your first link is fail since the presidents and vice-presidents exempt from that statute ... 

2.-As for your second link, the Justice department says otherwise ... 

3.-Notice in your third link that you had to resort to using the "opinion" section ...

You don't know jack, do you ? I'll be waiting for you to demonstrate that you're educated about US law or that you'll be grasping at straws ...  

This is rich, i actually stated that it was just a guess since im not Mueller but you decided to ignore it anyway. Well, point by point:

 

1.-There is, however, a law outside of the conflict-of-interest statutes that could deter Trump from retaining his business interests while in office—and one that has received insufficient attention. Introduced in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it prohibits any senior “noncareer officer” of the government from permitting his or her name to be “used” by any firm that “provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship.”

 

^^ this is coming from the article you linked and thats another way of corruption btw. The Mar a Lago thing is even worse, cuz he is putting tax payer money into his pocket

 

2.-Someone else did it, so its okay if my guy does it right?

 

3.-pff i thought it was common knowledge. (as the article indicates, Obama also did it but it was wrong cuz the constitution n stuff)

 

lastly i love how you disregard the whole Fraud enterprise that the Trump University ultimately was, proving once and for all my original point.... you wont change your mind about him.



Investigations, gathering of evidence, all to prove without a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty or innocent on all charges takes time, and in some cases 2 or more years.

I was on jury duty recently in a Mafia case in my home town in NYC which lasted about 12 days. The FBI gathered a mountain of evidence spanning over 2 years cause they wanted to get this guy guilty on all charges.

some of y'all are being so petty.

Off topic:

in case you're wondering, yes we found him guilty on everything.

(deleted link because the mafia could be watching)

 

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 19 April 2018

CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5
Faust said:


This is rich, i actually stated that it was just a guess since im not Mueller but you decided to ignore it anyway. Well, point by point:

 

1.-There is, however, a law outside of the conflict-of-interest statutes that could deter Trump from retaining his business interests while in office—and one that has received insufficient attention. Introduced in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it prohibits any senior “noncareer officer” of the government from permitting his or her name to be “used” by any firm that “provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship.”

 

^^ this is coming from the article you linked and thats another way of corruption btw. The Mar a Lago thing is even worse, cuz he is putting tax payer money into his pocket

 

2.-Someone else did it, so its okay if my guy does it right?

 

3.-pff i thought it was common knowledge. (as the article indicates, Obama also did it but it was wrong cuz the constitution n stuff)

 

lastly i love how you disregard the whole Fraud enterprise that the Trump University ultimately was, proving once and for all my original point.... you wont change your mind about him.

I don't care if it was a guess, what you just did was fucking raise a conspiracy theory with no evidence to boot ... 

1. "Yet there is one thing standing in the way of him being prosecuted: In 1991, the Office of Government Ethics wrote a regulation exempting the president and vice president from the category of “officer” for purposes of the name ban, even though Congress said no such thing in the actual statute.", basically he's allowed to keep his private property as long as the Office of Government of Ethics doesn't repeal this regulation so you don't have crap ... 

2. As long as they don't get paid then he's allowed to choose whoever he wants, heck many plaintiffs can't even file a case against him since precedent rules that their punishment be is NOT GETTING PAID ... (another striking example of you not knowing US laws) 

3. If Obama was able to order an airstrike in Syria without being tried even once for impeachment then what makes you Trump is  going against constitution ? 

As for Trump University, I don't give a rats ass since it's just another one of his very numerous "civil" lawsuits and I find it very cute how hard you and the others (Nem/JRPG) are reaching to come up empty handed ... (Still waiting for you to show Trump's "criminal" cases but I don't expect anything when you don't even know the basics) 

Tell me, how does it feel to keep up as being uninformed as yourself ? 

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 19 April 2018

Hiku said:

The FBI was investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian election interference effort.
While Trump wasn't personally under investigation at that time, that could change at any given moment as he was part of the campaign.

Trump just wanted Comey to clarify the public that he himself personally wasn't currently under investigation. How the hell hard can it be to make that declaration or does he have to be obtuse to want to keep his job ? 

Edit: Another thing, the FBI works for the executive branch so it cannot be insubordinate to the President ... 



Around the Network
Hiku said:

I don't recall if what you just described was supposedly a topic they had during their meeting, but even if it was, Trump didn't just want Comey to do that. There was also asking him to let the Flynn investigation go, and asking for loyalty.

The FBI director reports to the Justice Department, not the President.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/20/fbi-director-reports-justice-department-not-president/495094001/

Actually, Trump "hoped" that Comey would drop his investigation about Flynn and his testimony supports this, big difference ... (Trump didn't order Comey to drop the Flynn investigation like the latter thought so that's confusion on his part) 

I think you're reading too much into the whole loyalty thing ... (Trump only sees value with those at his side) 

And in turn that Justice Department reports to the President so going by the chain of command, Trump DOES have jurisdiction over the FBI since he able to dismiss James Comey on a personal basis ... (he could dismiss the rest of the executive branch as well except for the vice-president) 

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 19 April 2018

He's no different than that pornstar. It's all for the $$$.



Hiku said:

When the president asks everyone else to clear the room and says "I hope you can let this go", that can naturally be interpreted as a direction.
If someone says "That's a nice daughter you have. It'd be a shame if something bad happened to her" would you be saying "They weren't making threats. They just said "it would be a shame"?
Though I forgot how Trump worded it for a moment.

Asking for loyalty from the one leading the investigation on his campaign, after clearing the room, and saying "I hope you can let go of the Flynn investigation", I don't think that sounds proper. Even without considering the following;

The Justice Department reports to the president but neither the President nor the White House oversee investigations of the Justice Department.

"Long-standing protocol dictates that the FBI and Justice Department operate free of political influence or meddling from the White House. That's one reason that the FBI director serves a 10-year term and does not turn over the reins as presidential administrations come and go. It also means that presidents are not supposed to supervise, initiate or stop law enforcement investigations."

So it would not be proper to ask for loyalty from Comey.
Furthermore, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, etc, can refuse an order from the president and resign, if they don't consider the order lawful.

It's an implicated path to direction but it shouldn't be taken as an absolute demand or request from Trump since the statement factors in probability of disappointment that Comey's decision won't go his way but even if Trump pressed Comey it still wouldn't be sufficient grounds to prove his intention of obstruction of justice with just Comey's testimony alone ... (there hasn't been a follow up in nearly a year about the subject of Trump's obstruction ever since Comey testified during the congressional hearing, the trail is looking very cold from here on out) 

As far as proper do you mean that from an ethical perspective or a legal perspective ? If it's the latter then I don't think many legal experts would agree with you but if it's the former then that's an area of uncertainty that can be argued ... 

There is a regulation that the President can't interfere with investigations done by the Justice Department but as long as they remain working for the executive branch then Trump is their true boss ... (Trump has power to compel his Attorney General to fire anybody who operates for the Justice Department, actually the President itself can fire any agents from the FBI, though not without possible repercussions) 



Faust said:
EricHiggin said:

Comey admitted he told Trump he wasn't being investigated, which is why Trump was pissed about Comey not making it clear to the press that Trump was in the clear. Since Comey clearly has no problem leaking things to the press, and taking interviews, why not make it known that Trump wasn't being investigated?

Comey's explanation is that he couldn't be 100% sure that Trump wouldn't eventually have to be investigated, and so he decided to simply keep quiet. Well guess what Jim, anyone at anytime could possibly and potentially end up part of some investigation, so I guess you can't ever say or leak anything to the press in case you were eventually proven wrong.

Are you saying that making the investigation public was somehow nullified because Trump (the suspect) was told otherwise on private? wow, thats amazing man, i mean, it doesnt bother you? the president actually asked if he was being investigated :S

Comey makes it quite clear that he is a much more sophisticated, higher standards, type of individual than Trump. He also makes it clear how important his job was, and everyone he worked with, and how important it was to be civilized, uphold the law, and make sure they weren't allowing things like leaks because that would obviously be a problem when your job is security of any kind. Comey then leaks information himself, useful or not, to the press about Trump. If he had no way to get this super important info to where it needed to go, then he has point. Since he could have easily gotten it to where it needed to go, makes him a hypocrite, and based on his past job, that's a scary thought. Either that, or he simply has terrible judgement, in which case, again, based on his past job...

JRPGfan said:
EricHiggin said:

1* I'd prefer he either give a solid yes, no, or no comment. He's not what you would call an everyday joe, based on his past position, and he's not a celebrity spewing whatever pops into their heads to keep the spotlight on themselves. He could be doing it to keep himself in the spotlight for whatever reason, like for his book, or whatever his "higher loyalty" is exactly...

He's also talking about the President. *2 Now if Trump did do something wrong, then just shut up and let Mueller take care of it, because if your so sure that Trumps guilty, justice will be served. The media should only get solid evidence and minor details, but the people investigating Trump need the full scoop. If your not sure if he's guilty, then put a sock in it, because if he's innocent, *3 you've just helped hold back progress due to all the nonsense the President has been dealing with since he took office. It would also make you look like you were potentially unfit for your prior position, which one would have to wonder why you were given that position in the first place, and how qualified really was that individual who hired you?

I'm sure lot's of Comey's past co-workers could constantly spill the beans about all of his faults and make him out to be a horrible person, and make his career hell going forward, when maybe he's not really that bad, and simply isn't perfect like the rest of us, which he alludes to in the interview. The reason they wouldn't do this, aside from the possibility that he was great at his job, is because if it needed to be taken care of, it would have been, behind closed doors, with the media only getting minor details here and there. Taking care of things like sophisticated adults do, like the type of people you would hire to protect a country and it's citizens.

1) His.... "maybe/coulda" "lets wait what the investigation finds" is probably a solid Yes, even if it doesnt sound that way.
You dont go to the lengths he has, unless you where basically sure something rotten was going on.

2) Thats basically why hes going "maybe + lets see what investigation finds", hes just waiting for muller to take care of it.

3) common trump has a million differnt scandals going on, dought it makes all that much differnce, and again I dont think anyone would go to these lengths without them believeing there being just cause for it (ei. Comey's is 100% sure Trump is guilty, he's just to scared to come out and say it).

1. I explain that him constantly saying things like possibly and probably is part of the problem, and you respond with he "probably" means yes? You don't go to his lengths unless something is seriously wrong, correct, if he's honest. If your not an honest individual, or have ties to say, the Dems/left for example, then going to this length to make the Republicans and Trump look as bad as possible to help your party, "business associates", etc, get back into power, makes perfect sense. How well do you know Comey personally?

2. He says "maybe" + "let's see" so often, it's hard to tell if it's dodging/hiding info, or just the way he is. For all we know, it really and truly simply means what it means, and that he doesn't really know, but he may not want to say that, considering his past position, it could make him look bad/stupid.

3. Trump is a target. When he went to visit the Japanese PM, he's called out for being a jerk for dumping out his entire bowl of fish food all at once, which apparently is bad for the fish. Headline MSM news. Funny how if you watch the full video elsewhere, Abe actually does this first himself, which leads Trump to put his head down to try and cover his laughter, in which case Trump then shrugs his shoulders and dumps his too, like what the hell, go with the flow I guess. Comey is 100% sure that many criminals were guilty, but he was too scared to say it, even though that's exactly what his job was, being the head of the department and all, so all those criminals were aloud to get away scot free because firing Comey and hiring someone who would man up, well that would be just wrong...

Hiku said:
EricHiggin said:

You mean like how Comey doesn't give specific answers to "cover himself", instead of speaking more directly without saying anything he legally can't? Like how he decided to shut down the Clinton e-mail investigation, only to re-open it, and then basically let her off the hook completely? Seemed like lots of connections between Hillary's campaign/White House to Comey during her investigation. He made it clear he eventually thought bringing it back to light wouldn't matter because she was going to win anyway, so what if he knew she just may lose? Would that have changed his decision? Sure sounds like it.

People also tend to "look out for themselves" if they know their job/career is on the line. I'm sure the reason he tried to keep the e-mail scandal hush hush had nothing to do with "looking out for himself". The fact he says that it had to be let out to the public so "her win" would be completely legit is also telling, by making sure nothing could come back on him after "she won". Funny how Comey kept super detailed notes about all of his encounters with Trump, and only Trump, no other Presidents or Government members apparently, and yet didn't leak them until after he was fired. If Trump was so bad and breaking so many laws, why not do something asap? I mean, you were investigating him anyway right? If it was on record and taken account into the Russia investigation, then that would be in Mueller's possession now, so why leak it to the press? It's not like Comey had his citizenship revoked and was kicked out of the country.

Well I'm specifically referring to "looking out for oneself" in the case of a criminal investigation. If there was no separation of governing branches then it would be all the more difficult to hold government officials accountable. But sure, someone like Comey could make moves to protect his job after wrongdoing. And in such a case, if his boss won't take proper action, there are other government branches that can do it instead.
But if it was standard for someone in Comey's position to ask for loyalty from the justice department, the supreme court, the president, etc, it would be a different matter.

Regarding the bolded portion, Comey did explain this during his testimony before. He said that he leaked the memos in hopes that it would prompt the appointment of a special council (which it did), after hearing Trump talk about the possibility of tapes being present during their conversation. He figured a special council would be able to subpoena the tapes, if they existed.
Rod Rosenstein announced the appointment of the special council right when Trump was in the middle of interviewing the replacement for Comey, and the person who would presumably take over the Russia investigation.
Imagine if you've done something illegal and being able to fire the person investigating criminal wrongdoing surrounding your campaign, and then picking their replacement.

Well "looking out for oneself" is vital to survival no matter what the scenario. Trying to focus only on Trump and not take Comey into account is ridiculous. If Comey has a left motive or ill agenda, then that surely matters just as much, if not more. Trump was basically Comey's boss, so asking Comey pretty much anything he wants Gov/security related would be completely normal. Now if Comey felt his boss was being a bully or inappropriate, then why didn't he make HR aware of this workplace issue? Why no complaints? Maybe because he thought it would make his job less secure since Trump is such a mean big baddie?

This would make sense if Trump in no way could get rid of Mueller. While it sounds like Trump flat out firing him isn't as cut and dry as Comey, it does sound like Trump could make it happen without too much effort. Now it seems everyone surrounding Trump is telling him that firing Mueller would be a bad idea, and this has been going on for quite some time, so why hasn't Mueller been fired yet? If Trump knows he's guilty, and is firing security personnel because he knows they will find out the truth, and that he will be screwed when they do, then why not fire Mueller asap? Allowing the investigation to continue means either Trump is flat out a complete idiot, or he's innocent, and just felt he needed better people in those security positions.



fatslob-:O said:
Faust said:


This is rich, i actually stated that it was just a guess since im not Mueller but you decided to ignore it anyway. Well, point by point:

 

1.-There is, however, a law outside of the conflict-of-interest statutes that could deter Trump from retaining his business interests while in office—and one that has received insufficient attention. Introduced in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it prohibits any senior “noncareer officer” of the government from permitting his or her name to be “used” by any firm that “provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship.”

 

^^ this is coming from the article you linked and thats another way of corruption btw. The Mar a Lago thing is even worse, cuz he is putting tax payer money into his pocket

 

2.-Someone else did it, so its okay if my guy does it right?

 

3.-pff i thought it was common knowledge. (as the article indicates, Obama also did it but it was wrong cuz the constitution n stuff)

 

lastly i love how you disregard the whole Fraud enterprise that the Trump University ultimately was, proving once and for all my original point.... you wont change your mind about him.

I don't care if it was a guess, what you just did was fucking raise a conspiracy theory with no evidence to boot ... 

1. "Yet there is one thing standing in the way of him being prosecuted: In 1991, the Office of Government Ethics wrote a regulation exempting the president and vice president from the category of “officer” for purposes of the name ban, even though Congress said no such thing in the actual statute.", basically he's allowed to keep his private property as long as the Office of Government of Ethics doesn't repeal this regulation so you don't have crap ... 

2. As long as they don't get paid then he's allowed to choose whoever he wants, heck many plaintiffs can't even file a case against him since precedent rules that their punishment be is NOT GETTING PAID ... (another striking example of you not knowing US laws) 

3. If Obama was able to order an airstrike in Syria without being tried even once for impeachment then what makes you Trump is  going against constitution ? 

As for Trump University, I don't give a rats ass since it's just another one of his very numerous "civil" lawsuits and I find it very cute how hard you and the others (Nem/JRPG) are reaching to come up empty handed ... (Still waiting for you to show Trump's "criminal" cases but I don't expect anything when you don't even know the basics) 

Tell me, how does it feel to keep up as being uninformed as yourself ? 

Dude, plenty of people have been indicted during this investigation... where have you been?

 Besides, u haven't realized but you proved my point a while ago... you wont change your mind of Trump no matter what. In case you forgot, that was the whole point of the discussion.