Video: Trey Gowdy questions James Comey on "Russia election interference"
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
That should end the Russia hacking investigation once and for all, but it won't because the Democrats have to have a scapegoat for getting their butts kicked in the last presidential election. The Democrat leadership has to keep this ridiculous narrative alive in order to keep their base hoodwinked.
http://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/comey-house-intel-russia-hearing-trump
We are now into hour number three of the hearing, and have a few clear takeaways so far.
1) Mr. Comey confirmed for the first time the FBI has an ongoing investigation into contact between Russian officials and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. His refusal to say more about it means that it is sure to dog the administration for many months, until either cases are filed or Mr. Comey provides a full accounting of what the investigation found, as he did with the investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's email.
2) Two separate hearings are underway. Republicans are zeroing in on leaks about classified information that forced Mr. Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn, from office. Democrats are pursuing questions about Russian influence in the election and any contact with the Trump campaign.
3) Mr. Comey said the FBI and the Justice Department had no evidence to back up President Trump’s tweets that he was wiretapped by his predecessor, a claim the White House has continued to defend. The ball is back in the White House’s court on this one.
With multiple lawmakers still waiting for a turn at questions, we expect to be here for at least another hour. But with questions growing more and more specific - and eliciting more and more no comments -- it seems unlikely for big new disclosures to come from the hearing.
We are now into hour number three of the hearing, and have a few clear takeaways so far.
1) Mr. Comey confirmed for the first time the FBI has an ongoing investigation into contact between Russian officials and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. His refusal to say more about it means that it is sure to dog the administration for many months, until either cases are filed or Mr. Comey provides a full accounting of what the investigation found, as he did with the investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's email.
2) Two separate hearings are underway. Republicans are zeroing in on leaks about classified information that forced Mr. Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn, from office. Democrats are pursuing questions about Russian influence in the election and any contact with the Trump campaign.
3) Mr. Comey said the FBI and the Justice Department had no evidence to back up President Trump’s tweets that he was wiretapped by his predecessor, a claim the White House has continued to defend. The ball is back in the White House’s court on this one.
With multiple lawmakers still waiting for a turn at questions, we expect to be here for at least another hour. But with questions growing more and more specific - and eliciting more and more no comments -- it seems unlikely for big new disclosures to come from the hearing.
President Trump has asked FBI Director James Comey to stay on the job, according to Comey himself.
When Comey met with the president at Trump Tower earlier this month, Trump said he hoped the director would remain in charge of the federal government’s top law enforcement agency.
Comey relayed the news to senior FBI staff, according to multiple sources.
By keeping Comey, Trump would spare himself from a potentially volatile conformation battle on top of the fight he’s already facing next week when he announces his Supreme Court pick to fill the seat left by the late Antonin Scalia.
“Yes, he has confidence in Director Comey,” Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, said. “We have had a great relationship with him over the last several weeks. He’s extremely competent.”
“But, look, his term extends for some time yet. There’s no plans at the moment in changing that term.”
Unless fired, FBI directors serve a 10-year term under federal law and Comey was appointed by former President Obama in 2013.
Hillary Clinton blamed Comey for her election loss after he reopened the investigation into her misuse of classified emails less than two weeks before the election.
Comey told Congress he reopened the case because new, related emails were discovered on a laptop used by former Congressman Anthony Weiner who was under FBI investigation for reportedly soliciting sex from a minor.
Weiner was then married to Clinton insider Huma Abedin.
Other insiders said that Clinton would have asked Comey to resign if she was elected, despite the political ramifications.
https://www.infowars.com/trump-keeps-comey-as-fbi-director/
When Comey met with the president at Trump Tower earlier this month, Trump said he hoped the director would remain in charge of the federal government’s top law enforcement agency.
Comey relayed the news to senior FBI staff, according to multiple sources.
By keeping Comey, Trump would spare himself from a potentially volatile conformation battle on top of the fight he’s already facing next week when he announces his Supreme Court pick to fill the seat left by the late Antonin Scalia.
“Yes, he has confidence in Director Comey,” Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, said. “We have had a great relationship with him over the last several weeks. He’s extremely competent.”
“But, look, his term extends for some time yet. There’s no plans at the moment in changing that term.”
Unless fired, FBI directors serve a 10-year term under federal law and Comey was appointed by former President Obama in 2013.
Hillary Clinton blamed Comey for her election loss after he reopened the investigation into her misuse of classified emails less than two weeks before the election.
Comey told Congress he reopened the case because new, related emails were discovered on a laptop used by former Congressman Anthony Weiner who was under FBI investigation for reportedly soliciting sex from a minor.
Weiner was then married to Clinton insider Huma Abedin.
Other insiders said that Clinton would have asked Comey to resign if she was elected, despite the political ramifications.
https://www.infowars.com/trump-keeps-comey-as-fbi-director/
They were both professional in making their points.
Gowdy was more interested today in the source of the leaks than possible illegal conduct that may have been disclosed by the leaks. IMO, that reflects he wants to make sure that issue is a part of the investigation as well (as opposed to the only thing he is interested in).
Comey held to his statement that no details beyond the actual existence of an ongoing investigation would be discussed at this time.
Trumpies will try to paint Comey as a deep state operative of the shadow government despite Trump keeping him on and despite prior statements by Trump and his reps during the Hillary e-mail investigation as to his credibility and competence.
Dems and others will try to paint Gowdy as only being interested in who called the fire department and not at all in who may have committed arson.
So look at those that take either of those or similar positions as confirming their personal bias more than anything else.
Maybe the Russians used laser beams from outer space to manipulate voter ballot machines in swing states across the country on election day. So, like when someone cast their vote for Donald Trump the machine added another and so on. Pure evil genius!
Maybe the Russians used laser beams from outer space to manipulate voter ballot machines in swing states across the country on election day. So, like when someone cast their vote for Donald Trump the machine added another and so on. Pure evil genius!
See what I mean?
The #1 Board Trumpy Cheerleader reveals himself immediately.
Don't you get the impression this is nothing more than a dog and pony show? Gowdy asks his probing questions and conservatives salivate. Comey stonewalls. The American people learn nothing of importance. And probably never will. "National security" is at stake, after all. It strikes me it is nothing more than bread and circuses.
Not at this point.
IMO, Comey should stonewall while there is an ongoing investigation. I work in law enforcement and that is certainly the position we routinely take, and with good reason.
If he doesn't come back and make a public statement to Congress as to the results/conclusion of the investigation a la results of the Hillary e-mail server investigation then I will concede that you may have a point.
NZ, what did Comey say in regards to who provided Wikileaks with the damning information on Hillary and the Democrats during the election? Do you have a video of the one witness who answered this directly? I would love to have it if you do. The Rogers testimony to be more precise.
Last edited:
He didn't comment on the ongoing investigation in any substantial manner.
Are you seriously making statements like this....
While having no clue about what Comey may have said during the hearing?
Lol. I already know the answer. I'm just looking for the video. Which leads to another possible explanation if you take Russia/Wikileaks collusion and lasers out of the equation. Maybe the Russians used tractor beams to manipulate the voting machines in swing states? Maybe it took the Russians using weaponized satellites deploying such advanced beams to take the election away from Hillary and her friend Donna Brazile? Maybe it went down something like this...
Good stuff, but this hasn't been resolved to the best of my knowledge. Why would the DNC not allow the FBI access to their hardware to investigate Russian hacking claims? And why would the FBI use anything provided by a private security company paid by the DNC as part of their investigation?
Smells super fishy.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d/
I will predict he will come back and make a statement in which he says absolutely nothing of importance. No heads will roll. Nothing will happen. It will all be quietly shoved into the background to be forgotten. The media and the politicians will move on to a new crisis (which won't be resolved either).
The same DNC that gave Hillary the debate questions, and a secret teleprompter?
And who the hell was this DNC-approved dude at the debate?
Lol. I already know the answer. I'm just looking for the video. Which leads to another possible explanation if you take Russia/Wikileaks collusion and lasers out of the equation. Maybe the Russians used tractor beams to manipulate the voting machines in swing states? Maybe it took the Russians using weaponized satellites deploying such advanced beams to take the election away from Hillary and her friend Donna Brazile? Maybe it went down something like this...
You asked what he said, because you knew what he said....yeah, okay.
What an incredible cheerleader lacking in any critical thinking whatsoever you are.
CowboyUp is to Obama as Guns is to Trump. I'm embarrassed for you.
Last edited:
Certainly a possibility. I personally prefer to comment when that happens over predicting that it will.
Additionally, there is a possibility no heads will roll because the investigation actually doesn't discover any illegal conduct from either side.
Last edited:
You collect all the information you can before assessing the credibility of any given asserted fact.
I agree that the DNC denying FBI access to the servers for their own forensic examinations makes the information from the private security company less credible. I don't agree that the proper response from the FBI to that denial should be "well....guess it's all over....no more investigating to be done." (Not saying that is what you are asserting or anything).
I also believe the DNC hack is part of the investigation, but not the entire investigation...nor should it be the entire investigation.
DNC knowing they had compromising content on their servers (see Donna B) of course would prefer to have an "independent" forensics team involved. That is a no brainer.
They were a bunch of amateur turds.
This is completely orthogonal to the larger claims of Russian influence to the benefit of Trump in the overall election.
I think the exchange between Comey and Gowdy pretty much showed that criminality took place. Comey as much as admitted so when he said there were only two possibilities the newspapers could have received the classified information: after the proceedings had been legitimately made public or someone broke the law and gave them the information. The fact that he refused to discuss any part of the FBI's investigation confirms the information had not been legitimately made public. Leaving the only possibility that a felony had been committed. I repeat my prediction that Comey will tell us a full review had been made, followed by nothing happening.
This thing started primaily as the Russians hacked the DNC. It isn't difficult to see how this thing has evolved into something more "grand." Why would the DNC have an issue turning over their hardware to the FBI for investigation? The Donna B shit was already publicly known.
What if there was no hack at all? What if the physical evidence shows the Wikileaks stuff came from someone inside the DNC? Hard to know since they refused access to their hardware for idependent investigation. Very similar to "I turned all of my emails over and none of the 30+ thousand I deleted were work related" after erasing your server's hard drive.
Amateur isn't a word I would use to descibe anyone at the DNC.
I completely disagree that the exchange established criminality definitely took place and was very, very far from establishing who committed any such criminality if it did occur, particularly when you consider the level of proof necessary to successfully pursue a prosecution and the a conviction. The criminality was basically assumed by Gowdy in the presentation of his hypothetical.....that information that was leaked was in fact classified information. I disagree that the "only possibility" is that a felony has been committed. The "anonymous sources"....whomever they were....may have simply been passing on rumors and innuendo as fact as well.
Feel free to repeat your prediction as many times as you like. I prefer to wait and comment on what actually happens rather than make predictions. It's not like I claimed your prediction was completely outside the realm or rational possibility or anything.
If the physical evidence shows it came from an inside source, that is still a hack by exceedingly the level of authorization for disclosure and dissemination...just not necessarily a hack by the Russians.
Don't disagree at all sir. But it would possibly change the narrative and focus, something I'm suspicious the DNC would do based on recent history.
I'm just waiting for someone to show proof of something they've alleged. So far, no proof of anything. Right now it looks like the usual political 73/27 ground beef.
Oh, no doubt your position will win the day. It should win the day, innocent until proven guilty and what not. Your argument doesn't pass the smell test, since the newspapers supplied quotes from the documents that had been leaked to them. I say the smell test. I'm not talking in some legalese mumbo jumbo. I recognize there has been no evidence shown (certainly not to the public). And I doubt there ever will be. If it exists (as any clear thinking person knows it does) it will never see the light of day. It will be buried in a file classified "national security." The only way the public will ever know anything is if some honest cop actually catches the perpetrator in the act, with a disinterested press person on attendance. I'll bet you lunch we'll never be told what happened.
I'm not interested in any bet. Nor do I really care what you think about my "legalese mambo jumbo". Sure seems like your looking for an argument with someone that has already said your prediction is "certainly a possibility".
Good talk.
Ongoing investigation by the FBI.....is not a completed investigation ready to disclose "proof" or to announce prosecutions.
Are you also waiting for Trump to prove his tweet allegations with the same skepticism? Given Comey's statement regarding those claims? Or are you in the Mega camp of believing this one whether or not any credible "proof" is forthcoming?
Thanks I enjoyed it! I didn't realize I was looking for an argument. I thought we were having a civil discussion between two people with different points of view. Sorry if I offended you with my pitch for a friendly wager.
Nothing you said offended me, but it certainly wouldn't make much sense for me to bet against something that I said was certainly a distinct possibility now would it?
Saying my position was legalese mumbo jumbo that didn't pass your smell test and suggesting I was not thinking clearly felt more argumentative than civil though. Just an FYI as to why I made that statement.
Last edited:
As I said, I'm waiting on any proof regarding any of the shit that's been alleged. Any proof from an actual credible source that points the gotcha finger to any claim of impropriety. From either/both sides.
Waste of time and money as usual it seems. Political scraps ground into the usual unidentifiable 73/27. "I know you are but what am I" once again. Even if wrong doing occurred, nothing will happen anyhow IMO. Same song, same verse, same shitty dance moves. The shit show carries on.
Would your opinion on these matters change if something was found to have occurred? Or would you take the @MegaPoke approach of the ends justify the means?
Don't be obtuse and retarded at the same time dude. I'm all for holding government types accountable when they break the law. Trump and his herd? Yep. Hillary and her herd? Yep. Obama and his herd? Yep.
But let's be honest. Sleazy Washington DC bureaucracy protects sleazy Washington DC bureaucrats. Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Sid Blumenthal, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Brian Pagliano, etc to the extreme nausea. I'm just listing Obama era sleaze. Bush had as much during his tenure.
I'm ready for government types to have the same level of accountability that I have as a working stiff. If I disclose confidential patient information to the media, my rib roast is way beyond overcooked. If I disclose confidential patient information to my wife, same story. If I fudge on a Medicare claim (Obama tapped my phone! Russians influenced the election!), I can be criminally and civilly liable. At what point can I expect elected folks and those they appoint to have the same level of liability? Never is my answer because politics.
When I got up this morning I read this comment from you and I feel I should reply. Normally I try to leave the last word to the person with whom I am speaking.
Once again I ask that you accept my apology for making you feel insulted. I have read your comments to others in the past, and did not realize you are thin skinned. If we have a disagreement/discussion in the future I will do my best to tone down my rhetoric. It is never my intention to hurt someone's feelings.
Just so you know my comments regarding a "smell test" or "legalese mumbo jumbo" were not intended as a retort toward your comments, although after reading what I wrote I can see how it came off that way.
What I meant to say was you are absolutely right that there needs to be proof of malfeasance before any legal action should be taken. But absence of proof does not mean the situation does not stink to high heaven.
The headline of The NY Times article specifically used the word wiretap. In the article they quoted Flynn's words with his Russian counterpart. Quotes that later proved to be exact. The article says it had/used the transcript from the wiretap. The article specifically named Flynn, in direct contravention of the law, an admission Gowdy had to drag out of Comey, using hypotheticals, knowing Comey would refuse to answer otherwise.
Gowdy admitted the difficulty in finding the leaker. There are countless people in the FBI, CIA and DNI with the capability of unmasking the names of American citizens, who could then pass the information to the Times. It will be next to impossible to find the felon that did it.
But, to me, that doesn't mean a felony didn't occur. It just means there is so much "legal mumbo jumbo" the felon knows he can't get caught. Won't get caught. Nothing will happen.
Anyway, once again please accept my apology for being so obtrusive. Let me buy you lunch in an attempt to make up!
comey's inconsistencies are only exceeded by his sleeziness. these guys are a bunch of lawyers who have to have that background to weave and bob their way through the swamp. comey is not the only crooked politician unfortunately.
Latest posts
-
Trump Vows 25% Tariff On Mexico & Canada, 10% on China On January 20th
- Latest: LAY THE WOODY
-
-
-
-
