Comey's opening statement is out.

[BmorePat87]

(06-08-2017, 08:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The cloud is that people think he's under investigation. He wants Comey to tell everyone he's not a target.  Gotta read the whole thing.

I did. My only comment is that I actually believe the golden shower story now that I've heard Comey say that Trump mentioned Russian hookers 2 months after this unsubstantiated report said he got peed on by Russian hookers.. 

[GMDino]

Nothing has surprised me so far.

Trump thinks he's running his company.  Private dinner to keep away witnesses and exert his power over someone (as boss), demand loyalty, etc.

He (Trump) is just unprepared to adapt to the job and how it works versus how private companies work.  I don't think that's enough to bite him in the arse because 34% of the country think he's doing a good job doing that and the rest already knew he wouldn't bother to change.

[*michaelsean*]

Just reading a couple snippets, Comey saying he took the Flynn statement to be an order. Hard to see taking it that way, but he's saying that in his testimony.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 01:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just reading a couple snippets, Comey saying he took the  Flynn statement to be an order.  Hard to see taking it that way, but he's saying that in his testimony.

My take was that comes down to inflection and the situation of being alone with the "boss."

He's not a novice at reading people I'd assume.

And he's been careful to not try and interpret things (like tweets) versus times he actually spoke with the President.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: My take was that comes down to inflection and the situation of being alone with the "boss."

He's not a novice at reading people I'd assume.

And he's been careful to not try and interpret things (like tweets) versus times he actually spoke with the President.

Can't say if he did stop the investigation in an open session.  That would go a long way to seeing if he took it as an order.  

Of course I still contend the President has every right in his role to halt an FBI investigation.  Speaking legally not ethically.  

Quote:The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

That sort of goes against him thinking Trump was ordering him.

[*michaelsean*]

Alan Dershowitz:

Quote:Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

Comey did not say he would "let this go," and indeed he did not grant the president’s request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor. He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that "throughout history, some presidents have decided that because 'problems' come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close."

That is an understatement.

Throughout American history -- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama -- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge.

It would be far better if our constitution provided for prosecutors who were not part of the executive branch which is under the direction of the president.

In Great Britain, Israel and other democracies that respect the rule of law, the Director of Public Prosecution or the attorney general are law enforcement officials who, by law, are independent of the Prime Minister.

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

If that is true, it is certainly not an obstruction of justice.

Nor is it an obstruction of justice to ask for loyalty from the director of the FBI, who responded "you will get that ('honest loyalty’) from me."

Comey understood that he and the president may have understood that vague phrase -- "honest loyalty" -- "differently." But no reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous words would give rise to a crime.
Many Trump opponents were hoping that the Comey statement would provide smoking guns.

It has not.

Instead it has weakened an already weak case for obstruction of justice.

The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch Comey's words and take Trump's out of context and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguard in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/dershowitz-comeys-statement-fails-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 01:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Can't say if he did stop the investigation in an open session.  That would go a long way to seeing if he took it as an order.  

Of course I still contend the President has every right in his role to halt an FBI investigation.  Speaking legally not ethically.  


That sort of goes against him thinking Trump was ordering him.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 01:53 PM)GMDino Wrote:

And?  

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 03:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And?  

I guess we'll see....

[Bengalzona]

My thoughts:

1) I like Comey as a person and professional. How he has carried himself since the Hillary email thing has been mostly exemplary, in my opinion, and makes me think that he handled that situation well as well (he wasn't on my radar, so to speak, before that).

2) I don't see that Donald Trump has done anything illegal or impeachment worthy regarding this. Naive and stupid, yes. Illegal, no. It does appear that he made exaggerations abut the conversation he and Comey had. But Trump wasn't under oath, so that is not necessarily illegal.

3) This whole hearing has been over-hyped. I attribute it to the love-hate relationship between Trump and the media. That said, the hearing was interesting. I suppose that is one way to get people interested in government affairs again (maybe not the best).

[Bengalzona]

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-asks-entire-senate-clear-out-chamber-so-he-c-56198?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 03:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:



I guess we'll see....

Never stop reaching for your dreams.  Dershowitz completely disagrees with you, and while he is not the end all of law, he's pretty good at it.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 04:11 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: My thoughts:

1) I like Comey as a person and professional. How he has carried himself since the Hillary email thing has been mostly exemplary, in my opinion, and makes me think that he handled that situation well as well (he wasn't on my radar, so to speak, before that).

2) I don't see that Donald Trump has done anything illegal or impeachment worthy regarding this. Naive and stupid, yes. Illegal, no. It does appear that he made exaggerations abut the conversation he and Comey had. But Trump wasn't under oath, so that is not necessarily illegal.  

3) This whole hearing has been over-hyped. I attribute it to the love-hate relationship between Trump and the media. That said, the hearing was interesting. I suppose that is one way to get people interested in government affairs again (maybe not the best).

The best thing to come out of all this will be the end.  One way or the other.  

Would I like to see Trump under oath? Pffft.  That would be high comedy!  But since that will never happen we'll just have the GOP say there's nothing to see here no matter what happens or is said so let's just get the thing over with.

What sticks out, to me, is that the head of the FBI said he figured Trump might lie about their meeting so he started making notes.  Even though he never thought that about a previous POTUS.  How sad that the man elected to the office had such a personality flaw that that that thought even crossed the FBI Director's mind?  


And that no one in the this hearing even questioned it?

(06-08-2017, 04:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Never stop reaching for your dreams.  Dershowitz completely disagrees with you, and while he is not the end all of law, he's pretty good at it.

Oh no doubt he's good.




Not my dream however.  Pence is more of nightmare because he can speak and form a thought...words and thoughts that echo his belief that we should have biblical laws.

I'm merely pointing out that just because it is "legal" that doesn't mean we just smile and it goes away.  History has proven otherwise.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: ...the GOP say there's nothing to see here no matter what happens or is said so let's just get the thing over with.

Maybe wait until, oh I don't know, there's something to see here before criticizing people for not seeing it?

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 04:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Maybe wait until, oh I don't know, there's something to see here before criticizing people for not seeing it?

I just don't believe that it would matter.  Short of an actual smoking gun they won't do anything.

And that's fine.  I think they would have ended this already if there wasn't so many bad optics coming from the POTUS and his people.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: The POTUS doesn't really care if associates were doing anything wrong or illegal...

That would be an opinion, and I don't think a very good one (and arguably demonstrably false since he DOES seem to care about Flynn).  I think Trump, probably heeding advice of lawyers, is simply distancing himself from statements about associates that he can never make with 100% certainty.

The only things you can really say about an associate DURING an investigation is "they've assured me there is no wrongdoing".  Along the same lines, it's understandable why Comey refused to say Trump wasn't a target, because he knew that new information could change that.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 04:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just don't believe that it would matter.  Short of an actual smoking gun they won't do anything.

And that's fine.  I think they would have ended this already if there wasn't so many bad optics coming from the POTUS and his people.

So, short of evidence you don't think they will do anything?  I would agree.  We had more evidence in all the Obama scandals yet never had a special prosecutor for a single one.

And even nearing a year, it's still early in this investigation.  It's a much bigger and more complicated one, because you're dealing with a foreign power and associates of a campaign not subject to FOIA or various other record keeping regulations for administrations and govt employees.

My worry is that neither side might never get a satisfactory conclusion, given the necessity and involvement of intelligence services that will result in large sets of facts/findings remaining classified.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 04:58 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That would be an opinion, and I don't think a very good one (and arguably demonstrably false since he DOES seem to care about Flynn).  I think Trump, probably heeding advice of lawyers, is simply distancing himself from statements about associates that he can never make with 100% certainty.

The only things you can really say about an associate DURING an investigation is "they've assured me there is no wrongdoing".  Along the same lines, it's understandable why Comey refused to say Trump wasn't a target, because he knew that new information could change that.

It is an opinion based on how Trump has acted for his entire public life AND the fact that even while firing the FBI Director he emphasizes that HE is not under investigation.

It's all that matters in the end...selling the Brand.  It's all he's ever done.  All he knows.

With Flynn Trump knew that he had ignored information and hired him anyway...that reflects poorly on.....Trump.  He wanted the Flynn thing to "go away" because it *might* make himself look bad.

[*michaelsean*]

On a brighter note my mom saw Air Force One fly over her house. That's pretty cool. Took off out of Lunken, and I have no idea how they did that with a 747.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2017, 05:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So, short of evidence you don't think they will do anything?  I would agree.

 

Short of absolute, damning evidence.

(06-08-2017, 05:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: We had more evidence in all the Obama scandals yet never had a special prosecutor for a single one.

(06-08-2017, 05:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And even nearing a year, it's still early in this investigation.  It's a much bigger and more complicated one, because you're dealing with a foreign power and associates of a campaign not subject to FOIA or various other record keeping regulations for administrations and govt employees.

My worry is that neither side might never get a satisfactory conclusion, given the necessity and involvement of intelligence services that will result in large sets of facts/findings remaining classified.

Oh, no doubt. If Trump was impeached the right would claim it was the Democrats fault even while they control Congress. If nothing is done to Trump the left will claim the GOP is covering for him.

Like I said, get it over with.