So Comey under oath said something very interesting

And in May, too!

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

archive.is/8WPkY#selection-9441.0-9441.430

Other urls found in this thread:

cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/03/wolf.02.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Bump. The NYT and the rest of the MSM can go get fucked.

Sure seems like he's talking about what's in the memo and saying it's not a big deal.

Wow its almost like the memo story is BS, either its fake, or comey wrote misleading memo's to "leak" once he was fired.

On May 3rd, former FBI Director James Comey testified the following under oath. I can't imagine how he could have a memo from a Feb 14th meeting with Trump claiming otherwise. cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/03/wolf.02.html

So he's not only saying he's not been told to halt an investigation, at least not without an appropriate purpose, but also saying that he has been told that the executive *often* gives its opinion that there's no case and that they shouldn't waste resources on a particular investigation.

Very interesting on both counts.

James Comey was answering the exact questions, did the AG or DOJ ask him to halt the investigation. He said no.

How about the part where Trump himself asked to end the investigation? My guess only Trump would be stupid enough to ask something like that, for anyone else they're likely to be smart enough to know it's a career ending moment.

I agree, he wasn't asked whether POTUS directly told him to stop something, and of course he didn't answer such a question. As a good federal agent he'd know better than to volunteer information without good reason. So it's entirely possible that his answer is meaningless in connection to Trump.

Also, Trump didn't order any halt, it was more like a favour he was asking Comey to end the investigation, he said "no" and well ended up firing him in retaliation. All things that point to attempted obstruction of justice.

>You said the AG or the DoJ

> not the AG and the DOJ's boss

> Totally different.

VERY PERCEPTIVE

Seems stupid but that's how it works when you testify before Congress.

"But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience."

If it's a very big deal, he would have said something so someone if it had happened. This proves he is not credible or ethical.

So you're saying Sessions was innocent?

>I agree, he wasn't asked whether POTUS directly told him to stop something, and of course he didn't answer such a question. As a good federal agent he'd know better than to volunteer information without good reason. So it's entirely possible that his answer is meaningless in connection to Trump.

Yup James Comey didn't get top position of the FBI, if he wasn't smart enough to cover his own ass and choose his words carefully in any testimony.

You're implying that word "hope" means a command, in which it does not. Even an insinuation, is not explicitly illegal

I bet there is a memo. But Comey never did anything about it because he didn't think there was anything wrong with what Trump said. Now that Comey is gone, others see the memo and interpret it differently. But the important thing is, the person who was there, the person who wrote the memo, didn't think there was any harm in what Trump said.

>HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
>COMEY: In theory yes.
>HIRONO: Has it happened?
>COMEY: Not in my experience.

I see your point OP but couldn't you just argue he was replying wrt the "attorney general or seniro officials..." and Trump doesn't fall under this umbrella term?

But yea he said them saying "don't look here because we don't think it's a big deal" is usually not a problem.

That's not at all what he's saying. I'd say this damage control is desperate, but it's mostly hilarious

Oh, that thing where he gave an evasive/not entirely candid response and people started reporting him to the state bar? Absolutely innocent.

>Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

so something that is 'a very big deal' happened and he ignored it until he was fired?
No, where he said that he never spoke to Russians because the context was different, but he did speak to Russians. btw, I'm not claiming Comey lied under oath, I'm saying he was telling the trtuh

Daily reminder:

Comey is a Clinton Foundation stooge

He also has a massive history of investigating corruption in the Clinton Foundation and related, and coming in and saying "there's not enough evidence".

He has clear conflict of interests.

>No, where he said that he never spoke to Russians because the context was different, but he did speak to Russians. btw, I'm not claiming Comey lied under oath, I'm saying he was telling the trtuh

Yeah, I don't think that was perjury or anything like that. I don't think it was an amazing or perfectly candid answer, but it didn't rise to the level of perjury.

Congress asked for the memo, so I'm sure Comey will be called to testify about it. I guarantee he will say Trump didn't ask for the investigation to be halted, because that would implicate Comey.

>If it's a very big deal, he would have said something so someone if it had happened. This proves he is not credible or ethical.

He chose his words very carefully. Notice "we were told". Comey chose his words very carefully. At no point did he commit perjury, he's too smart for that.

Although the president might have got word that Comey might've been asked to testify, "did the president ask you to halt the investigation" and that's why he got fired. Trump knew they were getting closer to getting Comey to testify to that and while still director, he wasn't giving it up willingly. Now Comey has nothing to lose, hence the daily leaks.

Redpill: Comey going to say story false. Taken out of context. And same Trump and himself.

I think it's very likely Comey will have to testify. I also think he's going to explain away his memo, and not to protect his own ass, but because it was genuinely nothing.

This. Comey is keeping quiet now and not clarifying for the same reason he refuses to tell the public that President Trump is not under investigation...he's a political hack.

Of course

Comey has done shady shit in his time in the FBI and the Clinton Foundation

The government knows it

In that leaf scenario, Comey is a bigger idiot for sitting on it and be complicit in said "obstruction of justice".

"It's not happened in my experience."

- KEK

I am interested in seeing if anything comes of the other Comey memos requested by congress. It could lead to something related to the Clinton cover up.

>I am interested in seeing if anything comes of the other Comey memos requested by congress. It could lead to something related to the Clinton cover up.

One of the virtues of firing comey when he was out of the office, is that all of the notes etc need to be with the FBI HQ. He's not allowed to keep a private stashe of shit a home.
It will be interesting to see what was doctored or fucked with, and how well his records were kept internally.
The deep state shills were definitely caught offgaurd and it took them a week to plot out their next move--from tuesday to tuesday.
That also suggests they are needing to co-ordinate with outside opposition and sympathisers. there will be a trail here...

But the media has told me Trump is a fool who doesn't know what he's doing?

We all are forgetting "executive privilege"

Explain it then instead of calling it damage control. I genuinely want to know.

He is a boisterous fool with extremely limited experience. But, he's smart enough to surround himself with skilled advisors