I still have an issue with Comey using a 3rd party to 'leak' his memo(s)

[rog1187]

I don't buy his seagulls-on-a-beach analogy. If he is such a stand-up guy he would have done it himself right? Were those memos government property that he gave to a 3rd party? Where are they now and have they been turned over for review? Has he ever done anything like this before...or has anyone to his knowledge in the FBI done anything like this before?

 

[WVUBRU]

I don't buy his seagulls-on-a-beach analogy. If he is such a stand-up guy he would have done it himself right? Were those memos government property that he gave to a 3rd party? Where are they now and have they been turned over for review? Has he ever done anything like this before...or has anyone to his knowledge in the FBI done anything like this before?

Doesn/t matter how he did it. It doesn't mitigate the act that is recorded in the memos nor will it get investigated as those that matter know and understand no law was broken. Now, idiots here will post all day he has but that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[rog1187]

Doesn/t matter how he did it. It doesn't mitigate the act that is recorded in the memos nor will it get investigated as those that matter know and understand no law was broken. Now, idiots here will post all day he has but that doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't think he broke the law. It was an odd way of handling it...especially from a man that was held up to be such a shoot-straight kind of person.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don't buy his seagulls-on-a-beach analogy. If he is such a stand-up guy he would have done it himself right? Were those memos government property that he gave to a 3rd party? Where are they now and have they been turned over for review? Has he ever done anything like this before...or has anyone to his knowledge in the FBI done anything like this before?

At this point, it doesn't really matter. I think there was plenty of positives for the President yesterday and some negatives, but nothing really damning.

The obvious big takeaways:
1. Still no collusion (that we know of)
2. Comey stated he didn't believe it to be obstruction
3. Comey acknowledged the President was not under investigation at the time, which gives credence to the wacky termination letter.
3A. This is the excuse that the President can use to say why he fired Comey, because Comey would not shed light on this fact to the public.
4. Comey outed himself as leaking (not good)

For Dems:
1. The FBI Director called the President a liar and said he was untrustworthy.
2. He painted a scenario where one could argue obstruction.

Feel free to add from your respective takeaways.

 

[TarHeelEer]

At this point, it doesn't really matter. I think there was plenty of positives for the President yesterday and some negatives, but nothing really damning.

The obvious big takeaways:
1. Still no collusion (that we know of)
2. Comey stated he didn't believe it to be obstruction
3. Comey acknowledged the President was not under investigation at the time, which gives credence to the wacky termination letter.
3A. This is the excuse that the President can use to say why he fired Comey, because Comey would not shed light on this fact to the public.
4. Comey outed himself as leaking (not good)

For Dems:
1. The FBI Director called the President a liar and said he was untrustworthy.
2. He painted a scenario where one could argue obstruction.

Feel free to add from your respective takeaways.

One word caught my attention. Comey said Flynn "was" under investigation. Comey didn't use the word "is". Either the FBI is done with him, or Comey just doesn't know now.

 

[Mntneer]

At this point, it doesn't really matter. I think there was plenty of positives for the President yesterday and some negatives, but nothing really damning.

The obvious big takeaways:
1. Still no collusion (that we know of)
2. Comey stated he didn't believe it to be obstruction
3. Comey acknowledged the President was not under investigation at the time, which gives credence to the wacky termination letter.
3A. This is the excuse that the President can use to say why he fired Comey, because Comey would not shed light on this fact to the public.
4. Comey outed himself as leaking (not good)

For Dems:
1. The FBI Director called the President a liar and said he was untrustworthy.
2. He painted a scenario where one could argue obstruction.

Feel free to add from your respective takeaways.

That's about it. And it's not like we didn't already know you can't trust Trump's word as far as you can throw him.

 

[mule_eer]

One word caught my attention. Comey said Flynn "was" under investigation. Comey didn't use the word "is". Either the FBI is done with him, or Comey just doesn't know now.

The tense used could be related to the context of the question. It doesn't necessarily mean that the particular event is entirely in the past.

 

[TarHeelEer]

The tense used could be related to the context of the question. It doesn't necessarily mean that the particular event is entirely in the past.

Right. It's certainly not an aha moment, just caught my ear.

 

[WVPATX]

Doesn/t matter how he did it. It doesn't mitigate the act that is recorded in the memos nor will it get investigated as those that matter know and understand no law was broken. Now, idiots here will post all day he has but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Is Jonathan Turley an idiot. He just posted the legal jeopard that Comey now faces.

 

[WVPATX]

At this point, it doesn't really matter. I think there was plenty of positives for the President yesterday and some negatives, but nothing really damning.

The obvious big takeaways:
1. Still no collusion (that we know of)
2. Comey stated he didn't believe it to be obstruction
3. Comey acknowledged the President was not under investigation at the time, which gives credence to the wacky termination letter.
3A. This is the excuse that the President can use to say why he fired Comey, because Comey would not shed light on this fact to the public.
4. Comey outed himself as leaking (not good)

For Dems:
1. The FBI Director called the President a liar and said he was untrustworthy.
2. He painted a scenario where one could argue obstruction.

Feel free to add from your respective takeaways.

I haven't read many legal scholars saying that hope would warrant obstruction. I saw a network yesterday that interview 10 hard core prosecutors and each one said no evidence of corruption of justice. This is dead, Imo.

And the FBI calling Trump a liar after he admitted leaking information to the press reduces his prestige and mitigates at least somewhat his liar charge. He transcribed all Trump meetings because he was a liar but refused to even produce a transcript of Hillary's interrogation? Doesn't pass the sniff test, imo. Hillary may be the biggest liar of them all.

 

[WVUBRU]

Is Jonathan Turley an idiot. He just posted the legal jeopard that Comey now faces.

I have no clue but he is a college professor with an opinion. He is one voice and obviously is dissenting versus many others. You love to find anyone that agree with your preconceived agenda and by golly, that is the ALMIGHTY TRUTH.

It isn't.

 

[WVPATX]

I have no clue but he is a college professor with an opinion. He is one voice and obviously is dissenting versus many others. You love to find anyone that agree with your preconceived agenda and by golly, that is the ALMIGHTY TRUTH.

It isn't.

I have found many voices (lawyers) that claim Comey may be in legal jeopardy and posted some of them last night. FBI employment agreement. Federal statute on securing federal records. FBI policy. I even cited the federal statute that seems to apply if you take the time to read it.

BTW, Turley is more than a college law professor. He is one of the most respected legal scholars in the country.

 

[WVUBRU]

I have found many voices (lawyers) that claim Comey may be in legal jeopardy and posted some of them last night. FBI employment agreement. Federal statute on securing federal records. FBI policy. I even cited the federal statute that seems to apply if you take the time to read it.

BTW, Turley is more than a college law professor. He is one of the most respected legal scholars in the country.

he might be, you are not. His opinion is worth noting, yours isn't. But his isn't the ultimate. Let the issue play out by those that are responsible instead of being a fool and making claims that are not true at this time.

 

[WVPATX]

he might be, you are not. His opinion is worth noting, yours isn't. But his isn't the ultimate. Let the issue play out by those that are responsible instead of being a fool and making claims that are not true at this time.

I agree let the issue play out. I posted his opinion, right. Not sure why you are complain. You are the one that called him a "college professor with an opinion." Seems to underplay his national credibility.