Trump asked Comey to shut down Flynn probe - source

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, Trump himself felt the request was so innocuous that he asked everybody else to leave the room before he asked it.

I wasn't aware that you were in the room to know that for a fact .

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

YOu should look up something called Bayesian Inference.

I can't believe you don't realize how unlikely it is that the NY Times would recklessly and/or dishoneslypublish an article with such specificity and one that is overwhelmingly likely to be put to proof in a few days.

 

And I have another prediction for you, when Comey does confirm what the NY Times reported, Trump supporters will say he's lying. Even though the circumstances make that massively unlikely.

The NYT lost all credibility on Trump when they declared for HRC.

[thaibeachlovers]

I just saw a tape of Comey himself saying under oath that if the FBI had been ordered to stop the investigation it would be a "big thing", and it didn't happen.

May 3.

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The NYT lost all credibility on Trump when they declared for HRC.

By your logic, no newspaper could be trusted to cover an election since it's traditional in America for newspapers to declare for one candidate or another. It's clear you don't have a clue about how newspapers work in America.  

[TonyClifton]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

Mueller appointed special counsel! Sessions likely gave a nod for this to happen. Trump is now a dead man walking. How far down will he drag the republicans?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-appoints-special-counsel-in-wake-of-comey-developments/

Soon President Donald Trump will appoint another Supreme Court Justice.  Your side loses.  Cry all you want, but you won't change anything.  Trump's imprint on the SCOTUS will be with us for generations.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just saw a tape of Comey himself saying under oath that if the FBI had been ordered to stop the investigation it would be a "big thing", and it didn't happen.

May 3.

And what major MSM source says he was ordered to do so?

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And what major MSM source says he was ordered to do so?

Oh dear. Jesus Christ himself could appear on earth to declare Trump innocent of the charges, and the Trump haters would dispute that he was telling the truth.

This is just a load of "he did so" and "he didn't" posts, repeated ad nauseam.

I give up. Frankly, there are loads of things more worthwhile to do with my time, so you win, I'm outta here. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, TonyClifton said:

 

Oh, just noted your description of non-partisan for Comey.  He was affiliated as an attorney with the Clinton Foundation.  Hardly non-partisan.  

 

An

And I see that you still haven't provided any substantiation for your allegation that Comey was "affiliated as an attorney with the Clinton Foundation."

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Several ALLEGED things. Proof never counts for anything in a witch hunt- if the baying mob says it is so, they must be right.

 

Sir Bedevere the Wise disagrees:

 

 

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So you got nothing.

Here you go, another false news claim....

 

http://www.snopes.com/comey-clinton-foundation/

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Here you go, another false news claim....

 

http://www.snopes.com/comey-clinton-foundation/

Thank you for the beef. Definitely a prime cut.

[iReason]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Also, the acting Director of the FBI also said under oath that Trump had not exerted any influence over the investigation.

 

Not true at all.

 

You are just making stuff up.

[sujoop]

1 hour ago, TonyClifton said:

I hate to ruin your lovely Thai day with some Comey under oath testimony, but here it is. On May 3rd Comey stated under oath that he has never been asked to stop an investigation.  

 

Chew on that for a while.  I'll wait for the non-response.

 

Oh, just noted your description of non-partisan for Comey.  He was affiliated as an attorney with the Clinton Foundation.  Hardly non-partisan.  

 

 

Clearly they're talking about the DOJ. At no time is Trump, or the White House even mentioned. Perhaps Trump could ask  comrade Putin if he has a better transcript? Russian's have exclusive access to the oval office over American press afterall.

[ilostmypassword]

THREE RUSSIAN SPIES MEET IN THE OVAL OFFICE

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Three men alleged to be prominent Russian spies inexplicably gained access to the Oval Office last week and held a high-level meeting there, according to reports.

 

Eyewitnesses to the meeting said that the three Russian agents spoke at length and shared sensitive intelligence material, at times laughing uproariously.

 

After approximately an hour, the meeting broke up, with two of the spies leaving the Oval Office and the third remaining behind...

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/three-russian-spies-meet-in-the-oval-office

[metisdead]

Posts containing inflammatory trolling comments have been removed.  

[iReason]

2 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

On May 3rd Comey stated under oath that he has never been asked to stop an investigation.

 

No, he didn't state that at all.

 

You are simply, making things up.

 

Your erroneous post doesn't even begin to address this direct question from the video:

 

So, if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Dept. of Justice oppose a specific investigation, can they halt that F.B.I. investigation?

Sen. Hirono. Hawaii

 

A very specific question.

 

Your post is a fabrication.

 

Read full transcript here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.a79874c65e3e

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by iReason

[Ramen087]

But is Watergate really Comeygate?

 

Well, not exactly. To compare any scandal or presidential hoopla to Watergate has become a tired cliché.  “Watergate” is a catch-all term now, losing all meaning to the actual political ramifications against President Richard Nixon. 

 

the above is an excerpt from a story about the current "comeygate" fiasco... some interesting points contained within, from an historical perspective. 

 

full text:  http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/comeygate-is-not-watergate/

Edited May 18, 2017 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

But is Watergate really Comeygate?

 

Well, not exactly. To compare any scandal or presidential hoopla to Watergate has become a tired cliché.  “Watergate” is a catch-all term now, losing all meaning to the actual political ramifications against President Richard Nixon. 

 

the above is an excerpt from a story about the current "comeygate" fiasco... some interesting points contained within, from an historical perspective. 

 

full text:  http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/comeygate-is-not-watergate/

I read the article. So much to criticize there but l'll just leave 2 salient points:

why no mention of Trump asking Comey to stop the investigation?

why did Trump fire Comey when he did?

[Ramen087]

Elvis says Trump runs in 2020 and wins!  

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. From the tirade it would seem that everyone thinks every president before Trump was a good man 55555555555555555555

The list of presidents in my lifetime contains a few possible war criminals, crooks, a couple of womanisers, liars, an incompetent, a nonentity, one that resigned before impeachment and one that was impeached, but is now regarded as a "good" president.

Seems to me that Trump is actually a pretty typical president.

I think Trump is well above average in terms of self-inflicted wounds and agenda stopping problems so early in his administration.

[metisdead]

Off topic trolling posts and replies have been removed. 

[TonyClifton]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Here you go, another false news claim....

 

http://www.snopes.com/comey-clinton-foundation/

Snopes is hardly an authoritative source of anything.  The husband spends his money on hookers and call girls, the wife is into weird stuff, and they have a left bent.  

 

Let's put it this way, you would not let either of them babysit your children.

[sandrabbit]

not a Trump supporter as you will have seen from my posts but this is getting ridiculous

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/one-donald-trumps-closest-allies-claimed-receives-payment-vladimir-putin-080035695.html

[TonyClifton]

1 minute ago, sandrabbit said:

not a Trump supporter as you will have seen from my posts but this is getting ridiculous

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/one-donald-trumps-closest-allies-claimed-receives-payment-vladimir-putin-080035695.html

Let's not forget about Trump in Moscow with pissy hookers.  

 

I laugh at you on the left, not with you, but at you.

[sandrabbit]

5 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Let's not forget about Trump in Moscow with pissy hookers.  

 

I laugh at you on the left, not with you, but at you.

is there a point to your post?

[thaihome]

9 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

I hate to ruin your lovely Thai day with some Comey under oath testimony, but here it is. On May 3rd Comey stated under oath that he has never been asked to stop an investigation.  

 

Chew on that for a while.  I'll wait for the non-response.

 

Oh, just noted your description of non-partisan for Comey.  He was affiliated as an attorney with the Clinton Foundation.  Hardly non-partisan.  

 

 

Only problem is the question was specfic to has the DoJ ever asked to stop an investigation, not the president himself. Comey's response is specfic about only related to the DoJ.  Comey is well known to be the type of person who you have to ask the the right questions and he won't volunteer any more information then what is asked. Nobody asked if Trump had ever asked for an investigation to be stopped ( mostly because nobody ever imagined Trump would actually do such a thing).

 

If there is indeed a memo of a conversation between Trump and Comey that documents Trump asking to "let the Flynn investigation go" into his conversation with the Russian ambassador on sanctions (or his lying about paid links to Turkey) then Comey's response to this question is not perjury as claimed in the video.

 

TH 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  Continue and suspensions will be given. 

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, simple1 said:

Here you go, another false news claim....

 

http://www.snopes.com/comey-clinton-foundation/

 

3 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

Snopes is hardly an authoritative source of anything.  The husband spends his money on hookers and call girls, the wife is into weird stuff, and they have a left bent.  

 

Let's put it this way, you would not let either of them babysit your children.

Your post has nothing to do with the validity of the link.

 

Unable to refute the message so you attack the messenger.  That doesn't surprise anyone who has been following this thread.

 

Why not refute the statements in the source:

 

"There's no proof that Comey directly benefited from any of his employers' relationships with the Clinton Foundation."

 

"The Breitbart article linked Comey to the Clinton Foundation through a series of circumstances without ever coming close to proving that Comey received money directly from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation."

 

Can you disprove this or any thing else in the Snopes link?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

This is not a court of law, therefore I have no evidence.  You don't have any either. 

You are correct.  Nobody has produced any evidence linking Comey to the Clintons.  Yet you disputed a Snopes link that stated that, and presented a WND headline that said there were links, but provided no evidence.

 

Now you are conceding the Snopes link is correct.  Why do you bother?

 

Note to self:  If TonyClifton really is a lawyer, never hire him.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are correct.  Nobody has produced any evidence linking Comey to the Clintons.  Yet you disputed a Snopes link that stated that, and presented a WND headline that said there were links, but provided no evidence.

 

Now you are conceding the Snopes link is correct.  Why do you bother?

 

Note to self:  If TonyClifton really is a lawyer, never hire him.

 

5 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

I thought I explained to you that you have no evidence.  Nor do I.  I gave you a definition of evidence. I'm guessing you didn't read it.

 

I haven't conceded anything other than note a material fact in this matter.  Perhaps you would care to rephrase your question.

 

Where's the BEEF?

Still editing my posts, shifting the topic, retreating from your posts about Comey - Clinton links and confirming the accuracy of the Snopes article you dismissed.

 

You think I should rephrase the question "Why do you bother?"  No.

 

Clearly you have no beef.