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.
Donald Trump Jr. — the president's eldest son — seemed to confirm Comey's version of events in a Saturday interview on Fox News as he tried to emphasize the fact that his father did not directly order Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
“When he tells you to do something, guess what? There's no ambiguity in it, there's no, 'Hey, I'm hoping,'" Trump said. “You and I are friends: 'Hey, I hope this happens, but you've got to do your job.' That's what he told Comey. And for this guy as a politician to then go back and write a memo: 'Oh, I felt threatened.' He felt so threatened — but he didn't do anything.”
Sounds like the trumps need to get their stories straight.
I'm not surprised. Look at what Trump's press team said about Comey vs what Trump said...
Just that Sessions likely had a 3rd undisclosed meeting with Ambassador Kislyak that he lied under oath about. He's testifying Tuesday in front of the Senate Intel Committee about it.
The reason we need to have an investigation is to see who from Trump's campaign team talked to Russians, when they did, why they did and what they did talk about. The way Trump is handling things makes him look far more guilty than he arguably is. Had he not asked Comey to not investigate Michael Flynn, and then fire Comey to end the Russia thing (Trump's own damn words) he would not be questionable for obstruction of justice charges. As I said Trump is in a catch-22 if he testifies on Capital Hill (whether on his own accord or forced to.)
As for your lastsentence, I ask who watches the watcher?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The focus of the investiogation is the Russian hacking into our election, but it has spilled over into the Trump campaign becasue of their dishonest answers regarding meeting with Russia. Trump isn't helping matters through some of his comments regarding wiretaps and tapes, if he wants this to go away he should just step out of the way and not comment. Reagan was silent during Iran Contra and it was completed in over a year. This may drag out for years with all the side issues.
The question is to what effect was the hacking. I think that efforts that are utterly ineffectual don't need to be investigated. It's more like delegitimization of the election results.
In other words if the purpose of the investigation is to either bring someone to justice or to make legislative changes that is fair game. In this case there is not a shred of evidence that a crime happened. What we have is an investigation, in search of a crime and then in search of a criminal. A President has a right to stop such a waste of time, effort and reputation.
What's really impressive our President does this for no pay. He donates his salary to good causes. Hillary took millions in bribes from foreign countries as Secretary of State. Can you imagine what a chit show Hillary would have turned the White House into. She would be making billions in side deals while telling her blind and mindless minions how fortunate they were to have voted her into the presidency and she is watching out for their interests. ROTFLMAO!
Hell has a special place for this wench.
This is why she was so devastated that she LOST. She wanted to financially rape every form of cash-cow she could and all her followers would have blindly donated to her GOFUNDME-but-HATE-me fund.
Yep. And word is Comey met with Lynch several times in private.
The FBI and the AG are both part of the DOJ and as the heads of their respective bureau/offices, they almost certainly met many, many times. It's part of their job.
It's different than, say, Bill Clinton meeting Lynch privately while his wife is under investigation.
Other red flags: "a source close to the investigation said...", "unnamed sources say ...", "an anonymous source said ...", "according to sources ..."
Sorry but that is standard practice by all administrations, the White House the Depts and Agencies including the Trump. They provide what is actually official information but require that the source not be revealed.
Other red flags: "a source close to the investigation said...", "unnamed sources say ...", "an anonymous source said ...", "according to sources ..."
Anonymous sources are an important part of journalism for a litany of reasons, not the least of which includes the fact that antonymous sources are vital for whistleblowing and exposing corruption. Having worked in State Gov't PR, I've been frustrated by anonymous sources that have shared partial information that shouldn't have been public and we've had to respond accordingly, but anonymous sources are an important part of government or business accountability. As with anything, you should take information from anynymous sources in major publications for what they are- a part of the story (notnusually the whole thing) and potentially wrong. But reporters typically go through great lengths to verify the credibility of their sources. As with anything else, it's imperfect, but we are a LOT better off with reports based on anonymous sources than ignoring them altogether.
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.
