Maxine Waters admits there is no 'actual evidence' of collusion

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

Which part of his testimony this part? "

“So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” asked Sen. Hirono of Comey during the question-and-answer period of his testimony.

“In theory, yes,” replied Comey.

Hirono pressed: “Has it happened?”

Comey said, “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

Bump.inquiring minds need to know

[jg121783 3,915]

3 hours ago, ccneat said:

Which part of his testimony this part? "

“So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” asked Sen. Hirono of Comey during the question-and-answer period of his testimony.

“In theory, yes,” replied Comey.

Hirono pressed: “Has it happened?”

Comey said, “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

He totally contradicted that statement in the memo. He either lied in the memo or he lied in his May 3rd testimony. There is no way of getting around that. Now it's just a matter of figuring out if he simply perjured himself by lying in the memo or he perjured himself by lying in his testimony. If the latter is the case he then also obstructed justice by not making the attorney general's office aware of the memo and alleged criminal activity immediately. There is no question he perjured himself. The only question is did he also obstruct justice.

Edited May 23, 2017 by jg121783

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

He totally contradicted that statement in the memo. He either lied in the memo or he lied in his May 3rd testimony. There is no way of getting around that. Now it's just a matter of figuring out if he simply perjured himself by lying in the memo or he perjured himself by lying in his testimony. If the latter is the case he then also obstructed justice by not making the attorney general's office aware of the memo and alleged criminal activity immediately. There is no question he perjured himself. The only question is did he also obstruct justice.

1. Where can we see a copy of the memos?

2. The testimony talks about A.G. and DOJ, not the Whitehouse...big diff

3. No question,  the White House has more to lose on the obstruction department

Edited May 23, 2017 by ccneat

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

1. Where can we see a copy of the memos?

2. The testimony talks about A.G. and DOJ, not the Whitehouse...big diff

3. No question,  the White House has more to lose on the obstruction department

1. They have not been made public but some members of Congress like to run their mouths about what is in them.

 

2. Comey said:

 

"But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

 

You can clearly see by his statement he was speaking in general terms and not excluding anyone including the White House. If he believed there was an exception to his statement regarding the White House he has no reason to not have clearly said so.

 

3. How so? There is no evidence anyone in the White House obstructed justice. I guess you are applying the same standards of evidence to this as you are to the Russian investigation. No evidence required.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

1. They have not been made public but some members of Congress like to run their mouths about what is in them.

So we don't know

 

2. 

Comey said:

 

"But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

 

You can clearly see by his statement he was speaking in general terms and not excluding anyone including the White House. If he believed there was an exception to his statement regarding the White House he has no reason to not have clearly said so.

 

The entire quote shows who

So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” asked Sen. Hirono of Comey during the question-and-answer period of his testimony.

“In theory, yes,” replied Comey.

Hirono pressed: “Has it happened?”

Comey said, “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

 

3. How so? There is no evidence anyone in the White House obstructed justice. I guess you are applying the same standards of evidence to this as you are to the Russian investigation. No evidence required.

Trumps own tweets and statements lead us to see with our own eyes the need to investigate