Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's assume for a moment that Trump used his position as POTUS to tell the head of the FBI to stop the investigation of Flynn. Lets say the memo details that. It would be a crime.
Now, why didn't Comey report that crime? Why would he wait until after he lost his job to report it?
You know that if he testifies that Trump committed this crime, Comey will be asked why he didn't immediately take it to the DOJ. Since the accusation, the POTUS forcing the FBI to stop a criminal investigation of a high ranking official, is extremely serious, what could be the justification for inaction?
The only testimony Comey could make without making it look like he agreed to not pursue Flynn is that Trump did not pressure him; otherwise, it would appear as though he made a deal and backed out only after he was fired.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Let's assume for a moment that Trump used his position as POTUS to tell the head of the FBI to stop the investigation of Flynn. Lets say the memo details that. It would be a crime.
Now, why didn't Comey report that crime? Why would he wait until after he lost his job to report it?
You know that if he testifies that Trump committed this crime, Comey will be asked why he didn't immediately take it to the DOJ. Since the accusation, the POTUS forcing the FBI to stop a criminal investigation of a high ranking official, is extremely serious, what could be the justification for inaction?
The only testimony Comey could make without making it look like he agreed to not pursue Flynn is that Trump did not pressure him; otherwise, it would appear as though he made a deal and backed out only after he was fired.
Since when has justification ever been a requirement for all the BS that goes on in Washington?
And IF the scenario is as painted, Comey could well testify under a grant of immunity and it would hardly be the first time a small fish is granted immunity to catch a larger one.
Since when has justification ever been a requirement for all the BS that goes on in Washington?
And IF the scenario is as painted, Comey could well testify under a grant of immunity and it would hardly be the first time a small fish is granted immunity to catch a larger one.
Do you think he would admit to criminal activity, essentially making himself an accomplice, in order to take down Trump even if given immunity?
He will have two choices when testifying about the memo. He can either say Trump was saying to Comey that he was hoping there was nothing to it and that it would be dropped or that Trump wanted Comey to essentially commit a crime and Comey agreed. Which do you think he will go with?
Let's assume for a moment that Trump used his position as POTUS to tell the head of the FBI to stop the investigation of Flynn. Lets say the memo details that. It would be a crime.
Now, why didn't Comey report that crime? Why would he wait until after he lost his job to report it?
You know that if he testifies that Trump committed this crime, Comey will be asked why he didn't immediately take it to the DOJ. Since the accusation, the POTUS forcing the FBI to stop a criminal investigation of a high ranking official, is extremely serious, what could be the justification for inaction?
The only testimony Comey could make without making it look like he agreed to not pursue Flynn is that Trump did not pressure him; otherwise, it would appear as though he made a deal and backed out only after he was fired.
There is video of Comey at work, and it is disturbing. Anyone with children, have them leave the room before clicking the following clip
What person at the DOJ was he going to report to? Sessions?
Bet the rent money that Comey was wired at that dinner, too.
Yes, Sessions.
No matter what, if any POTUS were to break the law, the head of the DOJ would be an appointee of that POTUS.
Are you saying the DOJ isn't qualified to deal with government corruption because it's headed by an appointee?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
