Comey fired

[ne1410s]

What weird thrill do you get when you support a pussy grabber and you have a pussy? It's a conundrum.

[Estonut]

As I said before, you are going insane. Either that, or you're the worst lawyer in the world.

Don't believe the latter statement? Donny emptied the room before he had the key conversation with Director Comey.

How do you know what was said if the room had been emptied? Where's the tape? Has our legal system abandoned the requirement for proof?

We know what was said because the former Director of the FBI told us what was said. Under oath. With his recollection backed up by contemporaneously prepared memoranda and his own contemporaneous recounting of the conversation to other officials of the FBI.

So it appears to be the latter. Is this a new feature in our legal system? You take the side you want to believe and convict based on one-sided hearsay alone? Are there any substantiated corroborated claims from "other officials of the FBI," or are we just to believe Comey on that, too?

Finally, of course, Donny has admitted on camera that he did in fact fire Comey because Comey wouldn't end the investigation into his Administration.

Are you talking about the video linked below? If not, please provide a link, as Google can't find it. Despite what the headline writer claims, he made no such admission. You are full of shit again, Mr. Juch.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-an ... ing-comey/

I'm talking about the Lester Holt interview. Like Director Comey, for once I'm willing to take Donny at his word.

That IS the Lester Holt interview, you jackass. The "admission" you and the headline writer claim does not exist.

[Bob78164]

As I said before, you are going insane. Either that, or you're the worst lawyer in the world.How do you know what was said if the room had been emptied? Where's the tape? Has our legal system abandoned the requirement for proof?

We know what was said because the former Director of the FBI told us what was said. Under oath. With his recollection backed up by contemporaneously prepared memoranda and his own contemporaneous recounting of the conversation to other officials of the FBI.

So it appears to be the latter. Is this a new feature in our legal system? You take the side you want to believe and convict based on one-sided hearsay alone? Are there any substantiated corroborated claims from "other officials of the FBI," or are we just to believe Comey on that, too?

If you're going to toss around legal terms, you should probably learn what they mean, at least if you want to argue with a lawyer. Comey's testimony isn't hearsay. He's a percipient witness to what Donny said, and Donny's statements are themselves the operative legal act. Comey's testimony alone would be sufficient to secure an indictment and, if believed by the jury (over the word of a proven liar), would be sufficient to convict.

As for the Lester Holt interview, I can't help you if you choose not to hear what was plainly said. Donny directly admitted that the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey. That admission alone is enough to demonstrate the corrupt motive element of an obstruction charge. Of course, we have much more than Donny's admission. We have his abortive efforts to disguise his motive, which demonstrates consciousness of wrongdoing, when he asked Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to create a pretextual memo to justify a decision he'd already made. And of course, we have the fact, discussed above, that Donny cleared the room to avoid witnesses to his incriminating statements. This is yet another demonstration of his corrupt motive.

But Donny has apparently said that he'd be happy to testify under oath on the subject. I believe that almost as much as I believed his claims that he'd release his tax returns any day now. But if he does end up on the witness stand, I have little doubt that the eventual indictment also will include perjury.

And if you really want to test my skills as a lawyer, just sue one of my clients or give one of them cause to sue you. Then you'll get the opportunity to see for yourself. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Is this a new feature in our legal system? You take the side you want to believe and convict based on one-sided hearsay alone?

That is how the legal system works. The jury takes the side they want to believe and convicts or not on that basis. Lots of people get convicted based solely on the testimony of an eyewitness that they committed a particular crime. In this case, the obstruction of justice would consist of Trump's statements that Comey believed were intended to force him to drop the investigation of Flynn. As Bob said, that's not hearsay because the statements themselves are the crime, just as in perjury, the false statement itself is the crime. If Trump had said, "I saw Michael Flynn going into the Russian embassy on five different occasions," that would be hearsay, because the crime involved would be Flynn's meetings.

Now, whether or not Comey's uncorroborated statement is sufficient to convince any particular jury or not is a different story. That's the reason why prosecutors always try to gather as much evidence as possible before bringing a case. For all we know, the special prosecutor is doing that right now and Comey either has no direct knowledge of that or is not commenting because it's an active investigation (neither of which are foreclosed by his testimony).

The mistake that Trump's supporters choose to make is that each story that comes out represents the entirety of the "case" against Trump, Flynn, Sessions, any of his other supporters, or various Russians. It's the same as thinking that your opponent's exposed cards represent the entirety of his poker hand. Bet on that basis and you'll occasionally win a pot but you'll go broke in the long run.

[Estonut]

Is this a new feature in our legal system? You take the side you want to believe and convict based on one-sided hearsay alone?

That is how the legal system works. The jury takes the side they want to believe and convicts or not on that basis. Lots of people get convicted based solely on the testimony of an eyewitness that they committed a particular crime. In this case, the obstruction of justice would consist of Trump's statements that Comey believed were intended to force him to drop the investigation of Flynn. As Bob said, that's not hearsay because the statements themselves are the crime, just as in perjury, the false statement itself is the crime. If Trump had said, "I saw Michael Flynn going into the Russian embassy on five different occasions," that would be hearsay, because the crime involved would be Flynn's meetings.

Now, whether or not Comey's uncorroborated statement is sufficient to convince any particular jury or not is a different story. That's the reason why prosecutors always try to gather as much evidence as possible before bringing a case. For all we know, the special prosecutor is doing that right now and Comey either has no direct knowledge of that or is not commenting because it's an active investigation (neither of which are foreclosed by his testimony).

The mistake that Trump's supporters choose to make is that each story that comes out represents the entirety of the "case" against Trump, Flynn, Sessions, any of his other supporters, or various Russians. It's the same as thinking that your opponent's exposed cards represent the entirety of his poker hand. Bet on that basis and you'll occasionally win a pot but you'll go broke in the long run.

There is no jury yet. There aren't even charges yet. I was pointing out that Bob keeps making statements based on one of 2 guys who both have every reason to lie about what was said and when. He doesn't believe ANY of the smoke from 30 years of Clintons, but is now ready to convict Trump before he has heard any evidence whatsoever.

[Estonut]

As for the Lester Holt interview, I can't help you if you choose not to hear what was plainly said.

Look who's talking!

Donny directly admitted that the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey. That admission alone is enough to demonstrate the corrupt motive element of an obstruction charge.

Listen again. He said he had long planned to fire Comey. Someone pointed out that some people might think it was because of the investigation. He said there was no good time to do it, but it had to be done. He only said that the investigation was on his mind because of what some people might think. In this interview, he IN NO WAY supported your claim that, "Donny has admitted on camera that he did in fact fire Comey because Comey wouldn't end the investigation into his Administration."

And if you really want to test my skills as a lawyer, just sue one of my clients or give one of them cause to sue you. Then you'll get the opportunity to see for yourself.

I'll just wait until you get another traffic ticket you can't get out of.

[Beebs52]

What weird thrill do you get when you support a pussy grabber and you have a pussy? It's a conundrum.

Had Hilz won you could have asked her gal supporters the same thing.

[Estonut]

Chris "Thrill up his leg" Matthews sees through the smoke...

[BackInTex]

What weird thrill do you get when you support a pussy grabber and you have a pussy? It's a conundrum.

Interesting question. Maybe Hillary will answer it when she writes her memoirs.

[ne1410s]

You'll need someone to read it to you.

[Beebs52]

Where's a whack-a-mole game when you need one?

[BackInTex]

You'll need someone to read it to you.

Nah, I read well above a 2nd grade level.

[tlynn78]

What weird thrill do you get when you support a pussy grabber and you have a pussy? It's a conundrum.

Interesting question. Maybe Hillary will answer it when she writes her memoirs.

What gives me a tingle is waking up every day that she isn't my president. That'll be enough to get me by.

[flockofseagulls104]

The biggest thing to come out of Comey's testimony is the allegation that Loretta Lynch told him to use the word 'Matter' instead of 'Criminal Investigation' when referring to the Clinton Email Server investigation. The MSM are, of course, ignoring it, but even Diane Feinstein believes this should be investigated. If what he said is true, that, combined with her meeting with Bill Clinton, is much more evidence of obstruction of justice than they have on President Trump. Let's go into full investigation mode. That's what Congress should be used for..... Let them all investigate each other. At least it keeps the extremists from both parties busy at something other than proposing and passing stupid and dangerous legislation.

[silverscreenselect]

The biggest thing to come out of Comey's testimony is the allegation that Loretta Lynch told him to use the word 'Matter' instead of 'Criminal Investigation' when referring to the Clinton Email Server investigation. The MSM are, of course, ignoring it, but even Diane Feinstein believes this should be investigated.

Only you and your buddy Sean Hannity would feel that this was the "biggest thing" to come out of Comey's testimony.

[flockofseagulls104]

The biggest thing to come out of Comey's testimony is the allegation that Loretta Lynch told him to use the word 'Matter' instead of 'Criminal Investigation' when referring to the Clinton Email Server investigation. The MSM are, of course, ignoring it, but even Diane Feinstein believes this should be investigated.

Only you and your buddy Sean Hannity would feel that this was the "biggest thing" to come out of Comey's testimony.

You show your shallowness once again. Won't address the subject, just throw out knee jerk, stupid insults.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53875&p=525591&hili ... ty#p525591

[Bob78164]

The biggest thing to come out of Comey's testimony is the allegation that Loretta Lynch told him to use the word 'Matter' instead of 'Criminal Investigation' when referring to the Clinton Email Server investigation. The MSM are, of course, ignoring it, but even Diane Feinstein believes this should be investigated. If what he said is true, that, combined with her meeting with Bill Clinton, is much more evidence of obstruction of justice than they have on President Trump. Let's go into full investigation mode. That's what Congress should be used for..... Let them all investigate each other. At least it keeps the extremists from both parties busy at something other than proposing and passing stupid and dangerous legislation.

Who cares what word they used to refer to it? What's important is what actually happened. It's not as though Attorney General Lynch ever told Director Comey that she "hoped" he could see his way clear to ending the procedure without bringing criminal charges.

Senator Feinstein's name is spelled "Dianne." I'd be surprised if she actually believes an investigation of this issue is warranted but I've been largely off the grid this weekend so I may have missed something. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

If my wife tells me she "hopes" I do something, I know I'd better do it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Senator Feinstein's name is spelled "Dianne." I'd be surprised if she actually believes an investigation of this issue is warranted but I've been largely off the grid this weekend so I may have missed something. --Bob

President Trump's name is spelled 'Donald'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/1 ... ils-239391

[Bob78164]

Senator Feinstein's name is spelled "Dianne." I'd be surprised if she actually believes an investigation of this issue is warranted but I've been largely off the grid this weekend so I may have missed something. --Bob

President Trump's name is spelled 'Donald'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/1 ... ils-239391

People who brag about their ability to grab women by the genitals with impunity don't get to demand respect, nor will I honor the requests of the enablers who demand respect on their behalf. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Senator Feinstein's name is spelled "Dianne." I'd be surprised if she actually believes an investigation of this issue is warranted but I've been largely off the grid this weekend so I may have missed something. --Bob

President Trump's name is spelled 'Donald'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/1 ... ils-239391

People who brag about their ability to grab women by the genitals with impunity don't get to demand respect, nor will I honor the requests of the enablers who demand respect on their behalf. --Bob

What about those men who brag about one of their life's firsts using a crude slang term for a girl losing her virginity?

[Bob Juch]

President Trump's name is spelled 'Donald'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/1 ... ils-239391

People who brag about their ability to grab women by the genitals with impunity don't get to demand respect, nor will I honor the requests of the enablers who demand respect on their behalf. --Bob

What about those men who brag about one of their life's firsts using a crude slang term for a girl losing her virginity?

That implies consent.

[flockofseagulls104]

Senator Feinstein's name is spelled "Dianne." I'd be surprised if she actually believes an investigation of this issue is warranted but I've been largely off the grid this weekend so I may have missed something. --Bob

President Trump's name is spelled 'Donald'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/1 ... ils-239391

People who brag about their ability to grab women by the genitals with impunity don't get to demand respect, nor will I honor the requests of the enablers who demand respect on their behalf. --Bob

Say what you want, Bob. You are fooling no one. You're just being a childish jerk. That's your right as an American.

[Bob Juch]

President Trump's name is spelled 'Donald'.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/1 ... ils-239391

People who brag about their ability to grab women by the genitals with impunity don't get to demand respect, nor will I honor the requests of the enablers who demand respect on their behalf. --Bob

Say what you want, Bob. You are fooling no one. You're just being a childish jerk. That's your right as an American.

No, that's Trump.

[silvercamaro]

That implies consent.

On what planet? Not Earth, at least in any part of the world I've ever been.