If I were Trump's attorney I would have asked the Justice dept to indict comey for leaking
- Thread starter Airport
- Start date
Yes much better considering the whole sordid affair, kinda hard not to be wouldn't you agree?
You of course are free to think this, even suggest that. But fortunately before it becomes fact and not just your fantasy there must be something called evidence to prove it and so far despite your beliefs to the contrary that does not exist.
I agree with you 100% on this. I said there has been no collusion and nothing Comey testified to yeserday changes that current status of the investigation. I agree, we need to wait and see what the final results are, but I wouldn't rule out collusion by someone other than Trump (hint: they're on your side)
I want you to remember this statement, buecause as I said in the other post, prior to yesterday's testimony I'm sure you were just as confidently predicting the same charges you've been making were all going to be confirmed. I know you're disappointed you still haven't been able to seal that deal, but I do admire your continued expressed confidence and I hope you hold onto it until the investigation is complete. That way it will hurt you even worse than yesterday did when it all turns out to be a false confidence.
Not sure what you mean by this because no one is asking the Republicans to give up their party or choose it over the country. I trust they will uphold the Law no matter what the facts show which is something unfortunately I cannot say either Hillary, Comey, or the Left is actively supporting right now as it pertains to their illegal activity.
I'm not holding out for anything. One person has testified under oath about his version of a conversation(s). My question is simply this: how can anyone except the only other participant in the conversation refute that testimony? No one else was present. No one else has personal knowledge of what was said because no one else was there. Only Trump has the personal knowledge to refute that. Will Trump testify under oath to refute Comey's testimony, or will Comey's testimony be unrefuted? Will Trump raise his hand, put himself under oath like Comey did, look the Senators and American people in the eye, and testify as to his side of the story, and let himself be cross-examined as Comey was? I hope so. I hope, for the good of our country, that Trump does so and gets this cleared up and put behind us so we can move our country forward.
My other point was that Mueller's investigation will likely provide us with the most accurate picture of what happened or didn't happen. He may say there was wrongdoing. He may say there was no wrongdoing.
If you want to spin my comments to incorrectly pigeon-hole me, so be it. Free speech, etc.
I disagree...he should just let this whole thing get over and move on to doing what he said he was going to do.
You know Trump isn't going to testify. Why would he? Thats a ridiculous assertion. There was nothing in Comey's testimony that was damning enough to require the President to take the stand to refute it. He basically cleared the President, while trashing him, while indicting Loretta Lynch, and for the coupdegras he took a lighter and gasoline to the NYT. Couple that with the testimony the day prior and this week was not a good one for those wanting to see the President empeached.
Not trying to pigeon-hole you at all my Man. In this case I think you have to refer to Comey's famous explanation of possible violation of the Law..."intent"
What was Trump's "intent" behind his request of Comey regarding Flynn?
Clearly he (Trump) had already been told by Comey himself on at least 3 separate occasions that he (Trump) was not the subject of any criminal investigation so there no "intent" to clear himself right?
Then, since he had already fired Flynn, he surely wasn't trying to protect the Man's job correct?
So one can logically conclude that Trump's request of Comey was simply to get to the bottom of whatever he was possibly being "investigated" for and either clear Flynn or spill the beans on what if anything he had done wrong?
Trump was interested in clearing Flynn's name if there was no "Intent" on his part to break any Laws.
Since Comey has essentially corroborated Trump's version of the story of what actually was discussed between them, the whole "memo thingy" being "leaked" suggesting something otherwise was not only a part of Comey's vivid imagination as to what Trump's "intent" was, but also his own "intent" or attempts to keep his *** out the sling for possible violations of Federal Law.
At the end of the day, Trump didn't tell Comey to call off his investigation, nor did he obstruct any attempts already underway. This was the heart of the Left's and the Media's outrageous charges against Trump, along with colluding with the Russians to deep six Hillary's election and even Comey himself admitted nothing of the sort occurred.
So I'm not "spinning" anything Dunedein. There is no evidence of any obstruction, or collusion, or lying, and all we are dealing with now is how folks such as yourself view the "intent" behind the actual words that were spoken in that meeting between Comey and Trump.
So, you keep thinking there was something other than what happened...just as you said it's a free country.
Fortunately we don't convict people of violations of the Law based on "intent". We've certainly seen how certain administrations refuse to prosecute folks on that basis but actually being convicted of willful violations of the Law requires a lot more than "intent" or how someone "feels" about the Law. It requires rock solid irrefutable evidence...something that is sorely missing in this media fed hysteria about Trump you're sadly buying into.