Trump says ahead of former FBI Director Comey's testimony - 'I wish him luck'

[webfact]

Trump says ahead of former FBI Director Comey's testimony - 'I wish him luck'

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump (L) speaks in Ypilanti Township, Michigan March 15, 2017 and FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., May 3, 2017 in a combination of file photos. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/Kevin Lamarque/File Photos

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump had a brief message for former FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday ahead of Comey's Thursday testimony to the U.S. Congress on his conversations with Trump about Russia."I wish him luck," Trump told reporters as he met with Republican congressional leaders.

 

(Reporting By Steve Holland; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-07

[Thailand]

The leader of the free world. 

[kamahele]

I think the President may be the one needing luck.

[yardrunner]

the report missed out the bit about gritted teeth

[Traveler19491]

Look for the committee to soon ask to speak with the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates. Apparently, the orange one also asked Coates to intervene with the FBI to get them to shut down the investigation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-on-fbi-russia-probe/ar-BBCc5lj

 

But, Trump is innocent. Right.

[jerojero]

Ha ha.... It's Trump who needs the luck. His ass may be on the line!

[MaxYakov]

1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said:

Look for the committee to soon ask to speak with the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates. Apparently, the orange one also asked Coates to intervene with the FBI to get them to shut down the investigation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-on-fbi-russia-probe/ar-BBCc5lj

 

But, Trump is innocent. Right.

Was that a statement or a question?

 

If a statement: Right, until found guilty.

 

If a question, innocent of what?

[Traveler19491]

5 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Was that a statement or a question?

 

If a statement: Right, until found guilty.

 

If a question, innocent of what?

Given your aversion to sarcasm (or possible inability to identify such), allow me to clarify:

 

But, Trump is innocent (say his legions of gullible sycophants who are unwilling to entertain even the possibility that the continuing accumulation of as yet circumstantial evidence clearly leads any thinking person to the not unreasonable conclusion that something may well be amiss and to demand a thorough investigation to answer questions that require answering, and that even the fact that his former supporters on the "all Trump all the time" network, FOX, are now abandoning him will not break through their blind adherence to his "holiness", or the fact that his staff are starting to look into hiring lawyers and are taking extreme steps to ensure that they don't destroy anything that may later be subpoenaed will lead them to question so much as his inexplicable unwillingness to cooperate by coming completely clean with everything he has in order to finally put to rest any and all questions about what actually happened, but continues demanding a halt to the investigation without lifting a finger to prove his own innocence). Sorry, but that is willful blindness to the extreme, so don't expect those of us capable of rational inquiry and thoughtful examination of the facts to go along with a blatant and unreasonable unwillingness to hold power to account.

 

The trumpettes didn't have any problems with the eighth investigation into Benghazi, even after the first seven produced bupkus, so they shouldn't get their panties in a wad when we demand one investigation into what happened during the campaign that Russians hacked into and which several on Trump's staff have, to date, been unwilling or unable to explain their odd meetings with Russian officials, government and private, who were in positions to influence the handling of the information gleaned in said hacking.

 

Is that better?

[MaxYakov]

7 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

Look for the committee to soon ask to speak with the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates. Apparently, the orange one also asked Coates to intervene with the FBI to get them to shut down the investigation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-on-fbi-russia-probe/ar-BBCc5lj

 

But, Trump is innocent. Right.

 

6 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Was that a statement or a question?

 

If a statement: Right, until found guilty.

 

If a question, innocent of what?

 

29 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

Given your aversion to sarcasm (or possible inability to identify such), allow me to clarify:

 

But, Trump is innocent (say his legions of gullible sycophants who are unwilling to entertain even the possibility that the continuing accumulation of as yet circumstantial evidence clearly leads any thinking person to the not unreasonable conclusion that something may well be amiss and to demand a thorough investigation to answer questions that require answering, and that even the fact that his former supporters on the "all Trump all the time" network, FOX, are now abandoning him will not break through their blind adherence to his "holiness", or the fact that his staff are starting to look into hiring lawyers and are taking extreme steps to ensure that they don't destroy anything that may later be subpoenaed will lead them to question so much as his inexplicable unwillingness to cooperate by coming completely clean with everything he has in order to finally put to rest any and all questions about what actually happened, but continues demanding a halt to the investigation without lifting a finger to prove his own innocence). Sorry, but that is willful blindness to the extreme, so don't expect those of us capable of rational inquiry and thoughtful examination of the facts to go along with a blatant and unreasonable unwillingness to hold power to account.

 

The trumpettes didn't have any problems with the eighth investigation into Benghazi, even after the first seven produced bupkus, so they shouldn't get their panties in a wad when we demand one investigation into what happened during the campaign that Russians hacked into and which several on Trump's staff have, to date, been unwilling or unable to explain their odd meetings with Russian officials, government and private, who were in positions to influence the handling of the information gleaned in said hacking.

 

Is that better?

Not really.

 

I simply wanted you to explain your position by providing clear, coherent, English sentences, since your first effort had neither. Calling Trump "the orange one", BTW, doesn't impress me either.

 

Instead we get the predictable flood of Trump-demonizing verbiage (second paragraph, first sentence - 170 words) combined with the usual (so-far) unsubstantiated* claims that Trump's staff colluded with Russia and so on.

 

* = In the original MSN/WaPo article which you provided a link to, we have "said officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates" and "according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity" and "according to officials familiar with the discussions". Nothing from Coats directly. I guess we'll have to wait until he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee to get substantiation from Mr Coats.

[blackson]

nobody has anything on Trump, especially Comey otherwise trump would be behind the pipes already. If trump approached comey some months ago about "dropping the investigation", comey should have arrested Trump then!

[Traveler19491]

5 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Calling Trump "the orange one", BTW, doesn't impress me either.

That certainly works out well, being as impressing you was the farthest thing from my mind.

 

6 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Instead we get the predictable flood of Trump-demonizing verbiage (second paragraph, first sentence - 170 words)

You can count! Good for you! However, that leads me to the somewhat depressing conclusion that your retirement years must be sadly devoid of interesting things with which to occupy your time if you're left having to amuse yourself with counting the words in my post. And yes, I do "demonize" Trump. However, to compare him to demons is to be grossly unfair to demons. He is far worse. Demons have no choice as to whether or not to do good. He does, yet chooses not to.

 

8 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

combined with the usual (so-far) unsubstantiated* claims that Trump's staff colluded with Russia and so on.

...aaaaand there you demonstrate a dazzling ability to grasp the obvious. I do believe that there is an ongoing investigation to determine just that very thing...whether there was collusion or not. And fear not dear Trump fan...the investigation is young. However, if you will avail yourself of a closer examination, at no point did I assert that there was collusion. In fact, I specifically stated that the evidence to date is circumstantial... "the continuing accumulation of as yet circumstantial evidence clearly leads any thinking person to the not unreasonable conclusion that something may well be amiss..."

 

And yes, we will have to wait to hear from both Mr. Comey and Mr. Coates to get confirmation. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[JHolmesJr]

Ye of little faith and vented spleen

 

comey got nothin

 

nothin

 

great response by the Donald

[USPatriot]

Ask comney how the Russians were able to get the Clinton emails when the fib found nothing.

 

 

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, USPatriot said:

Ask comney how the Russians were able to get the Clinton emails when the fib found nothing.

 

 

How would comey know, he works for the fbi not the russians. 

[Traveler19491]

13 minutes ago, blackson said:

nobody has anything on Trump, especially Comey otherwise trump would be behind the pipes already. If trump approached comey some months ago about "dropping the investigation", comey should have arrested Trump then!

And with that dismal post, you demonstrate a pathetically inept understanding of the American system of justice.

 

First..."nobody has anything on Trump,". You have no possible way of confirming such a savagely stupid statement. The investigation is in its infancy. Only a very small number of witnesses have been interrogated under oath. No evidence has been presented to a duly constituted board of inquiry of any kind. Even the Congressional investigations have barely begun. To assert that "nobody has anything" is to presume knowledge so far outside of your possible realm of understanding as to be laughable...which I actually did upon reading.

 

Second..."especially Comey otherwise trump would be behind the pipes already." No one gets to go "behind the pipes" without first having a fair trial. Perhaps people are railroaded into jail without a fair trial where you come from, but in the U. S. the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a trial by a jury of their peers who must find them guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Third..."If trump approached comey some months ago about 'dropping the investigation', comey should have arrested Trump then!" Again, another astounding display of ignorance. No law enforcement individual can arrest anyone without proof of a crime being committed. Trump had everyone else leave the room, according to the statements made to date. Hence, no corroborating witnesses. No witnesses, no crime. No crime, no arrest. What did apparently happen is that Mr. Comey created a memo to record his version of events. The Supreme Court has found that contemporary records, like memos, are admissible in court, but can not be the only evidence of a violation of the law.

 

In the future, please do try to acquire at least a minimal amount of knowledge before spouting off. That way you don't look so dazzlingly stupid. Also, a little grammar, capitalization, and punctuation might lend a degree of credibility to your "argument".

[JHolmesJr]

5 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

 The investigation is in its infancy. Only a very small number of witnesses have been interrogated under oath. No evidence has been presented to a duly constituted board of inquiry of any kind. Even the Congressional investigations have barely begun.

Yes...i am sure the plan is to investigate and probe and depose and subpoena for the next 8 years if necessary. Lol. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by JHolmesJr

[Traveler19491]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Yes...i am sure the plan is to investigate and probe and depose and subpoena for the next 8 years if necessary. Lol. 

Well, fair is fair. You had BENGHAAAAAAZZZZZZZIIIIIIIII forever and a day. Our turn. Oh, and just as a BTW...it was the GOP who convened these investigations...and appointed a Special Counsel...or did you miss that?

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, Traveler19491 said:

Well, fair is fair. You had BENGHAAAAAAZZZZZZZIIIIIIIII forever and a day. Our turn. Oh, and just as a BTW...it was the GOP who convened these investigations...and appointed a Special Counsel...or did you miss that?

This belongs in a benghaaaaaaazzzzzi thread. 

[Traveler19491]

13 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

This belongs in a benghaaaaaaazzzzzi thread. 

I would have expected no more from you. And you didn't exceed expectations.

[MaxYakov]

9 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

That certainly works out well, being as impressing you was the farthest thing from my mind.

 

You can count! Good for you! However, that leads me to the somewhat depressing conclusion that your retirement years must be sadly devoid of interesting things with which to occupy your time if you're left having to amuse yourself with counting the words in my post. And yes, I do "demonize" Trump. However, to compare him to demons is to be grossly unfair to demons. He is far worse. Demons have no choice as to whether or not to do good. He does, yet chooses not to.

 

...aaaaand there you demonstrate a dazzling ability to grasp the obvious. I do believe that there is an ongoing investigation to determine just that very thing...whether there was collusion or not. And fear not dear Trump fan...the investigation is young. However, if you will avail yourself of a closer examination, at no point did I assert that there was collusion. In fact, I specifically stated that the evidence to date is circumstantial... "the continuing accumulation of as yet circumstantial evidence clearly leads any thinking person to the not unreasonable conclusion that something may well be amiss..."

 

And yes, we will have to wait to hear from both Mr. Comey and Mr. Coates to get confirmation. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

Firstly, I used the UNIX/Linux "wc" utility [Wiki link] with the -w option to count the words in your rambling 170-word sentence. You think I counted them myself? You have no idea about me and, obviously, many things.

 

You are supporting a Trump witch-hunt and hate campaign which has been thoroughly debunked today in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

The only reason you supported the unsubstantiated  MSN/WaPo article  and witch hunts is that you don't like Trump and/or the fact that he is President.

 

I am not a Trump fan or supporter. I just don't like to see dirty tactics occurring in the US, or any, government and the supposedly unbiased US media, regardless of who the targeted person is.

 

Coats and Rogers deny that Trump "pressured" them (in direct opposition to the MSN/WaPo article that you provided that cited several unsubstantiated and/or anonymous/unnamed sources):

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by MaxYakov

[Rob13]

13 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

 

You are supporting a Trump witch-hunt and hate campaign which has been thoroughly debunked today in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

 

Comey would probably disagree with that. 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336848-comeys-dramatic-account-rocks-washington

Edited June 7, 2017 by Rob13

[MaxYakov]

6 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

Comey would probably disagree with that. 

You could be correct, but only Comey knows at this juncture, yes?

 

In my world, "probably" is a problematic argument.

[Rob13]

3 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

In my world, "probably" is a problematic argument.

Agreed there....

 

Notional Review's take: 'Maybe not obstruction but fishy anyway'...

 

Quote

 

Here’s the larger puzzle: We now have on-the-record testimony alleging that Trump made a request to drop at least a portion of the FBI’s Russia investigation, a request that he cleared the room to make. We have on-the-record testimony that the director refused Trump’s request.

 

Next, we know that Trump then fired Comey, provided a false pretext for doing so, and later confirmed that he terminated Comey at least in part because of the Russia controversy. I still don’t believe that this adds up to a charge of criminal obstruction (for a host of reasons that I discussed recently on my podcast with my friend and former assistant U.S. attorney Ken White), but it still constitutes an intolerable abuse of power. 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448386/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump-actions-are-questionable

 

 

[Damrongsak]

I say we dig up bodies from previous administrations before they completely rot and the statute of limitations expires.  We can feast on the carrion and have plenty left in case there are lean and honest years ahead. 

 

 

[blackson]

14 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

And with that dismal post, you demonstrate a pathetically inept understanding of the American system of justice.

 

First..."nobody has anything on Trump,". You have no possible way of confirming such a savagely stupid statement. The investigation is in its infancy. Only a very small number of witnesses have been interrogated under oath. No evidence has been presented to a duly constituted board of inquiry of any kind. Even the Congressional investigations have barely begun. To assert that "nobody has anything" is to presume knowledge so far outside of your possible realm of understanding as to be laughable...which I actually did upon reading.

 

Second..."especially Comey otherwise trump would be behind the pipes already." No one gets to go "behind the pipes" without first having a fair trial. Perhaps people are railroaded into jail without a fair trial where you come from, but in the U. S. the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a trial by a jury of their peers who must find them guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Third..."If trump approached comey some months ago about 'dropping the investigation', comey should have arrested Trump then!" Again, another astounding display of ignorance. No law enforcement individual can arrest anyone without proof of a crime being committed. Trump had everyone else leave the room, according to the statements made to date. Hence, no corroborating witnesses. No witnesses, no crime. No crime, no arrest. What did apparently happen is that Mr. Comey created a memo to record his version of events. The Supreme Court has found that contemporary records, like memos, are admissible in court, but can not be the only evidence of a violation of the law.

 

In the future, please do try to acquire at least a minimal amount of knowledge before spouting off. That way you don't look so dazzlingly stupid. Also, a little grammar, capitalization, and punctuation might lend a degree of credibility to your "argument".

Like I said...nobody "gots" nuthin" on Trumpski...and THEY DON'T!!!

Use some logic, connect the dots, see it for what it is.

You don't like my grammar, don't read it school-boy.

You don't like the truth about Trump do you...can't handle the truth and / or the facts

You have BEEN schooled, now go see you mama punk.

[Traveler19491]

5 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Firstly, I used the UNIX/Linux "wc" utility [Wiki link] with the -w option to count the words in your rambling 170-word sentence. You think I counted them myself? You have no idea about me and, obviously, many things.

 

You are supporting a Trump witch-hunt and hate campaign which has been thoroughly debunked today in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

The only reason you supported the unsubstantiated  MSN/WaPo article  and witch hunts is that you don't like Trump and/or the fact that he is President.

 

I am not a Trump fan or supporter. I just don't like to see dirty tactics occurring in the US, or any, government and the supposedly unbiased US media, regardless of who the targeted person is.

 

Coats and Rogers deny that Trump "pressured" them (in direct opposition to the MSN/WaPo article that you provided that cited several unsubstantiated and/or anonymous/unnamed sources):

 

 

Sorry, but this is in no way a "witch hunt". Elected officials, regardless the level of their office, answer to the American people, and when questions arise about their behavior in office or during their election, the people have every right to demand accountability and transparency, neither of which Trump has been forthcoming with. Hence the Republican initiated hearings/investigations.

 

Most investigations of this sort begin with unsubstantiated reports, those reports being unsubstantiated due to the person or persons revealing the information being subject to reprisals were the identities to be made public, as you well know. Contrary to your assertion, these investigations have not been "debunked" by anyone other than his supporters and those media outlets friendly to him. The questions have not been answered to the satisfaction of either the FBI or the Special Counsel. When they are satisfied, then the investigations will conclude, not before. Keep in mind that it was almost two years before Congress uncovered the "smoking gun" that led to Nixon's resignation. We are still very early in the process.

 

You object to my objections for the reason that you are, for some inexplicable reason, enamored of Trump and his inept incompetence. Your attack on my motives notwithstanding, I feel that your assertion, "Coats and Rogers denied that Trump "pressured" them", is either a deliberate obfuscation or a blind unwillingness to acknowledge what really happened. At no point did either Coats or Rogers indicate that they were not asked by Trump to intervene. Rogers indicated that he had never been asked to do anything he felt to be illegal, unethical, or immoral. First, he is not a lawyer, so his interpretation of what is or is not legal is subject to question. Second, ethics and morality are subject to personal interpretation. What he did not do was answer the direct question of whether he thought it proper for a sitting President to even bring up the subject of an ongoing investigation that might involve him or people under his supervision. He also never stated that Trump never asked him to intervene. He said he never felt "pressured", again, a subjective analysis. Being directly asked a question and feeling pressured by that question are two totally different things.

 

Coats, similarly, did not directly respond to the question, but referred to "pressure". Not the question he was asked. Your attempt at deflection, while extremely elaborate, does not succeed in answering my basic question...why, if he is innocent, does Trump refuse to cooperate with investigators? Why does he continually attempt to deflect? Why does he not make himself and his entire so-called administration totally open and available to those asking the questions? His innocence would supply him with many advantages. He would immediately gain the right to rub his opponents noses in their error. He would free his so-called administration from the issues that are prohibiting him from moving ahead with his agenda. He would get huge bragging rights against the media. He would improve his standing among moderate voters and the public at large. He has far more to gain from transparency than he does by his continued efforts to hobble/derail the investigations. And yet he refuses. Which just fuels the debate, provides ammunition to his detractors, and clouds his reputation and ability to "govern". There is no rational explanation for his behavior other than that he is hiding something.

[Rob13]

1 hour ago, blackson said:

You have BEEN schooled, now go see you mama punk.

You trumpies are a bit testy today. Comey must have hit a nerve.

[JHolmesJr]

6 hours ago, Rob13 said:

You trumpies are a bit testy today. Comey must have hit a nerve.

Not a dry pair of underpants at cnn as we speak…..they are all wishing praying and spinning like crazy.

 

That papa comey is going to spill the beans…impeachment tomorrow at noon…..movers in at the whitehouse over the weekend.

 

LOL.