That bullshit again? :rolleyes:
Fine, if you think this one inconsistency proves ABC is an unreliable source, then go ahead and ignore everything they ever said. Does that change what we know about Trump/Russia connections in any way??
Where did I say that?
I never said Comey did not say it - I said Comey was very specific in what he said and why - and that does change the narrative from Trumps version of the story.
Context matters
The context was that Trump was not under investigation. And Comey told that to Trump, three times. And ABC and CNN made up the story that Comey didn’t, and was going to testify that he didn’t. That context?
The story wasn’t that he didn’t, but that someone said he told them he would testify that he didn’t. That leaves several explanations short of “ABC and CNN” made it up.
They didnt ‘make up’ a story - they reported on what they were given.
They were told that he was going to contradict trump on it - and in fact, he did - by being very specific in what and why he made the statements to Trump that he did.
Context putting the big orange ego in a bad light matters not to Ozkra the Humbug.
I’ve highlighted the part of this statement I find interesting. Comey is using very specific language that doesn’t rule out other types of open cases, such as money laundering. Hmmmm…
exactly.
If your organization, or those around you are being investigated, then you may find yourself under investigation, even if the investigation is not personally investigating you.
The fact that comey was careful to make sure that he said “personally under investigation” in each instance tells me that that phrasing was deliberate, and with purpose.
Say you and a bunch of friends go out and break some law, maybe you robbed a bank, maybe it’s a white collar deal, doesn’t matter. The police are investigating the crime. You ask if you are under investigation, and the police say, “You are not personally under investigation” that does not mean that you are off the hook, just that they are looking into the circumstances around the crime that was committed, and they do not need to investigate you at this time in order to determine your culpability.
What, in your estimation, did ABC and CNN have to gain by making up a story about how Comey would testify, if they knew his testimony would contradict it?
I have quoted this post and commented on it previously in this thread. But you know what? We’re on a new page now in this thread, and perhaps there are people that missed this the first time around. If You are someone who would like to see the former Mexican President tear Trump a new one, then you really want to click Crazyhorse’s link. (Pass it on.)
You really shouldn’t bother. You’ve gone through this before (link in post 6760), remember? Same bullshit, different thread.
It’s funny how Trump and his supporters claim that Comey is a liar then point to his testimony to prove their assertions.
You know, as much as it annoys me when people affect to pronounce foreign words the foreign way (like Obama did on his Puerrrto Rrrico trip), it kinda bugs me that he, a native Spanish speaker, doesn’t pronounce Mexico the Mejican way. And yet he *does *say tortilla the Spanish way ?! GRNX !
Comey was asked if he was using specific language to avoid talking about other open investigations. He said no, that there was no investigation of any kind into Trump, he wasn’t being coy.
I don’t recall if he also addressed something like “I’m investigating Russian interference in general, not Trump, but if he comes up I’m still calling that a Russia investigation, not Trump investigation.”
Folks: IIRC, this site has a rule against using a foreign language. You’re being mean to Okrahoma by using two. Logic and honesty are foreign to you, ardn’t they, okra?
Wow.
If you try to corner the FBI director and make him say whether you are under investigation, you need to be put out of office as soon as possible.
If you get the answer that you’re not “personally under investigation”, and you think this means none of your colleagues or employees are, or will be, and that you never can be, just because of what the FBI Dir. said that day when you buttonholed and pressured him inappropriately for privileged info, you need to be removed from office ASAP.
If you assert to the public that the FBI directors statement means anything about your “vindication” you are insane and should not be in public office.
If you are a journalist and you are covering this story as something other than “an intellectually and morally crippled man who cannot parse a simple sentence, and cannot cope with any semantic distinctions at all, is president,” you have a real problem too.
If they think you committed a crime, then they are obligated to investigate you. If they don’t, then no. Doesn’t mean “you’re off the hook” in perpetuity, no, because obviously they can open an investigation at any time, but at the moment, no, you’re not under investigation. There is no way that you’re not “personally” under investigation, but you’re under investigation. That’s not how it works.
But it is fun to watch you (plural) tie yourselves in logical pretzels to justify CNN and ABC lying.
Massive clicks from Trump Derangement Syndrome idiots.