Yes, the head of the FBI - a “real nut job” - refused to publicly say the truth that Trump wanted told. There was a concerted, relentless, campaign at the time of claiming that Trump is being investigated for collusion with Russia. Which was putting pressure on Trump.
Again - your interpretation. But not what Trump said.
Bull. Your Trump-hatred blinders don’t allow you to see it.
You do realize that ONLY TRUMP and the blind cheerleaders with their heads stuck up his rectum (like you) believe this. You’re all seriously outnumbered by people with actual experience with interaction with Comey, who do not appear to believe any of that.
On the three occasions when Trump asked if he was under investigation, he was not yet. It was only his subsequent actions that caused him to be under investigation, so no lie occurred and Comey’s firing was simply the political gaming of a crooked politician.
And, as noted, it is not standard practice to publicly name individuals under investigation before sufficient evidence of possible crimes has become public knowledge.
Direct, personal insults are out of line outside The BBQ Pit.
This is a Warning to refrain from such posting.
[ /Moderating ]
The forum we are in here escaped my attention with that. I apologize to you.
You choose to believe Trump and claim the FBI director was lying, and for no identifiable reason. :dubious:
Okay then, you can’t claim that what’s been coming since isn’t what you *had *coming.
C’mon, guys, you are being massively rolled.
Any reasonable prosecutor wouldn’t respond to Okrah’s arguments, nor should you.
Huh? Comey told the truth - that Trump was not under investigation - to Trump. It was some posters here that claimed that Comey was lying when he said here.
What happened to “on three separate occasions”?
This is a major support for your otherwise flimsy argument and should not be set aside, as it raises the durability and strength of your position from damp toilet paper to cotton candy. With it, your argument is perfectly ridiculous, without it, not quite so perfect.
I’m not sure what’s more alarming— that there are so many haters they need a spokesperson, or that you’ve typed my name enough to land me in your autocorrect dictionary.
If you’d said “when someone wants truth stated about him publicly to combat a campaign of what he claims are false rumors,” I suspect you would be closer to the reality of the situation. At this point, it’s a “he said/he said” situation. But Trump isn’t exactly known as a bastion of truthfulness, credibility, and honesty.
The DOJ confirmed this week that Mr. Trump committed libel regarding this issue. Unfortunately, the president is immune from libel laws, but make no mistake, he committed libel.
So, I’m gonna go ahead and trust Comey in a he said/he said situation here.
You and most people, I would hope.
Is Comey? The media campaign was of rumors that Trump is under investigation for collusion with Russians. Comey told Trump that he was not under investigation. So it is not a “he said/she said”. Trump wanted Comey to publicly say the truth that he told Trump privately.
Do you think that it’s just possible that Comey considered it inappropriate to publicly comment on whether Trump is directly and at the time under investigation when he knows that it’s very possible, and even likely, that he will be down the line (i.e., now for example)?
Jesus, it’s not remotely appropriate for Trump to even expect or ask this of Comey, no less for Comey to comply with this request.
According to his peers, subordinates, and general consensus in the DC area, Comey is considered a man of integrity, though it’s been a bit tarnished. Would Trump’s coworkers and subordinates say the same about him? With the Trump U fraud case, his easily-checked false assertions, lawsuits about his not paying his bills, and so on, Trump seems to have much less than Comey.
Why do you assume that Trump is telling the truth when it’s been demonstrated time and time again that he has been caught lying? Or, if you don’t like lying, him interpreting things to his maximum advantage, despite all evidence to the contrary?
Again, Comey was under no obligation to honor Trump’s request. Despite your assertion, at the very least, issuing a statement like Trump requested could lead to an even bigger ethical quagmire[sup]*[/sup]. One that Comey feared would give the appearance of his being complicit in the investigation.
[sup]*Giggity[/sup]
I think you are confused. In connection to Trump’s saying that Comey told him three times that he was not under investigation - are you questioning that? If not, then what “lying” are you talking about?
When your boss, who can fire you, requests something, there is some obligation there. Or you’re fired.
I’m not disputing that Comey said that. All I’m saying is that, if Comey suspected that the investigation would eventually include Trump, it would be foolish to issue a statement such as was requested of him.
Just because your boss requests something doesn’t mean you have to do it. An obvious (and hyperbolic) example is your boss requesting you to kill someone.
As I said, that’s a deliberate exaggeration. If you’d like an example of something not illegal, I can do that, too. I’m under no obligation to, for example, go pick up his dry cleaning. If he chooses to fire me for that, that’s his prerogative. But his reason for firing me wouldn’t hold up under scrutiny with the unemployment office.
Then why were you talking about Trump’s credibility vs. Comey’s?
How is that relevant to what we’re discussing?
No, you don’t. But then you accept your firing as the consequence.
He did accept his firing (whether it was for this or because of Russia, as Trump suggested publicly).
Mueller is looking into many things – I’m sure that you’re eager as I am to see what this very experienced investigator, with a record of excellent integrity, has found while looking into the affairs of our leaders. This is a really important thing that’s going on and hopefully the President will let the investigation run its course so that the truth can come out.