James Comey testimony: Date, time and how to watch Trump hearing on TV and online

[Skroe]

I'll take the democratic law professors word over yours

Well done at picking out like, the one.

Mines bigger:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.32e49dd646a9

By Philip Allen Lacovara June 7 at 9:27 PM
Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski.

In prepared testimony released on the eve of his appearance Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey placed President Trump in the gunsights of a federal criminal investigation, laying out evidence sufficient for a case of obstruction of justice.

Comey proved what Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers carefully avoided admitting in their testimony on Wednesday — that the president had specifically attempted to shut off at least a major piece of what Trump calls the “Russia thing,” the investigation into the misleading statements by fired national security adviser Michael Flynn concerning his role in dealings with the Russians. This kind of presidential intervention in a pending criminal investigation has not been seen, to my knowledge, since the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Comey’s statement meticulously detailed a series of interventions by Trump soliciting his assistance in getting the criminal probe dropped. These details are red meat for a prosecutor. Presumably, the team of experienced criminal prosecutors that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has assembled will be following up on this crucial testimony, which rests on contemporaneous memorandums that Comey was sufficiently alarmed to prepare immediately after receiving the president’s requests.

That both Coats and Rogers denied that they “felt pressured” provides no comfort for the president’s position. The obstruction of justice statute prohibits not only successful interference with pending criminal investigations but also any use of “threats” to “endeavor” to obstruct an investigation. Thus, it is the attempt or objective that is criminal, and Coats and Rogers were apparently unable to deny that the president had solicited their interference in the pending FBI investigation. If Coats and Rogers did not yield to the endeavor, kudos for them, but that is no excuse for the president.

Moreover, Comey’s testimony also supplies the element of “threats.” He vividly describes a dinner with the president on Jan. 27, which the president surprisingly limited to just the two of them. The president asked Comey whether he liked his job and wanted to continue in it, even though, before the inauguration, the president had asked Comey to stay on the job, and Comey had eagerly accepted.

Leaving little doubt about the price of continued retention, the president twice, according to Comey, told him that he expected “loyalty” from Comey, just as he did from everyone else around him.

Then, on Feb. 14, the president carefully structured another one-on-one meeting with Comey, specifically ordering Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to whom the FBI director ordinarily reports, to leave the Oval Office where Comey, Sessions and other national security officials (and Jared Kushner) had been meeting. At that point, the president laid his cards on the table, according to Comey: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Next, in phone calls on March 30 and April 11, the president solicited Comey’s help in removing the “cloud” over Trump resulting from the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible Trump campaign collusion. The president again demanded loyalty: “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” He pressed Comey to make public statements exonerating the president, but Comey declined to do so.

The president dropped the other shoe on May 9, summarily firing Comey. The White House initially blamed this action on Comey’s actions during the 2016 campaign, but within the week Trump admitted that the cover story was a sham. He brazenly stated that he fired Comey in order to bring the “Russia thing” to a close, and he bragged to senior Russian officials in a private Oval Office meeting that this is what he thought that he had accomplished by sacking Comey.

Comey’s statement lays out a case against the president that consists of a tidy pattern, beginning with the demand for loyalty, the threat to terminate Comey’s job, the repeated requests to turn off the investigation into Flynn and the final infliction of career punishment for failing to succumb to the president’s requests, all followed by the president’s own concession about his motive. Any experienced prosecutor would see these facts as establishing a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.

But whether a sitting president may be indicted while in office is an open question. I advised the Watergate special prosecutors (and argued to the Supreme Court in the Nixon tapes case) that the president enjoys no unique immunity from obeying criminal laws. Other Justice Department officials, however, have taken a contrary position.

The ball now is in Mueller’s court to decide whether he has (or will have) enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction and, if so, whether to reach the same conclusion that I reached in the Nixon investigation — that, like everyone else in our system, a president is accountable for committing a federal crime.

Dershowitz, Trumpkin's favorite exusemaker. Never mind his relationship with Jared Kuschner at Harvard, nosiree.

[Lionhearte0]

So now that Trump has been totally & completed vindicated, as we all heard straight from the 6'8" horse's mouth himself -- now that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign or associated with him in any way attempted to stop any investigation; that Trump never threatened, persuaded, coerced, or otherwise tried to obstruct justice -- and ultimately that there will be NO impeachment hearings -- now that all of this is firmly planted behind us.. what are all of you going to do? I know today must be a difficult day for most of all, as many of you have spent MONTHS going on and on and on about this fantasy of an impeachment, but I'm truly sorry to say, none of that will end up happening, not now, not ever.

Hmm, what's that sound? Ahh, that sound, my sweet child, is the sound of your world crashing down around you. It's called reality - and it is finally setting in for you.

Anyways, since not a single one of you can dispute what I said above, as it's all 100% fact, I'll simply go ahead and ask you this, as it's the only real news that came out of today: What explanation do you think there is of this link between Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch? You do all realize that Lynch, attempting to persuade Comey into changing his terminology, when the Clinton campaign had been calling it a "matter" for long before that, is, kind of, y'know.. Illegal, right? You do understand this, yes? That perhaps there was possible - dare I say - collusion going on?

You realize this means that Tarmac meeting may have been about a little more than grandkids and golf?
You do realize all of this.. right?

[Ripster42]

Go look at Rubios and Rischs segments

Look at Kings segment.

King: In his press conference on may 18th the president was asked whether he had urged you to shut down the investigation into michael flynn the president responded, "No no, next question." Is that an accurate statement?

Comey: I don't believe it is.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

So now that Trump has been totally & completed vindicated, as we all heard straight from the 6'8" horse's mouth himself -- now that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign or associated with him in any way attempted to stop any investigation; that Trump never threatened, persuaded, coerced, or otherwise tried to obstruct justice -- and ultimately that there will be NO impeachment hearings -- now that all of this is firmly planted behind us.. what are all of you going to do? I know today must be a difficult day for most of all, as many of you have spent MONTHS going on and on and on about this fantasy of an impeachment, but I'm truly sorry to say, none of that will end up happening, not now, not ever.

Hmm, what's that sound? Ahh, that sound, my sweet child, is the sound of your world crashing down around you. It's called reality - and it is finally setting in for you.

Anyways, since not a single one of you can dispute what I said above, as it's all 100% fact, I'll simply go ahead and ask you this, as it's the only real news that came out of today: What explanation do you think there is of this link between Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch? You do all realize that Lynch, attempting to persuade Comey into changing his terminology, when the Clinton campaign had been calling it a "matter" for long before that, is, kind of, y'know.. Illegal, right? You do understand this, yes? That perhaps there was possible - dare I say - collusion going on?

You realize this means that Tarmac meeting may have been about a little more than grandkids and golf?
You do realize all of this.. right?

I don't think you understand what the words "on-going investigation" mean.

[DarkTZeratul]

Anyways, since not a single one of you can dispute what I said above, as it's all 100% fact.

100% alternative fact, more like...

[cubby]

Well done at picking out like, the one.

Mines bigger:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.32e49dd646a9


Dershowitz, Trumpkin's favorite exusemaker. Never mind his relationship with Jared Kuschner at Harvard, nosiree.

That goes right back to your overall point. Trumpkins just don't care about facts. They don't care about critical analysis. And they don't care about how reality works. They just seem like people tossed off a boat, desperately clinging to one thing after another, hoping they will stay afloat - not know that their ankle has been tied to an anchor this entire time. Sinking has always been their only option.

[Skroe]

Realistically what the Republican Party should be focused on is ignoring the situation and trying to pass as much legislation as they can before 2018. Sadly for them they seem far too divided to manage that.

I mean the investigation(s) is underway and it will conclude in due course. The Democrats are non-existant, noone cares about them right now because right now, they have no power. Instead of this cannibal feast, they should focus on getting their tax cuts on paper and perhaps try and start working on infrastructure. I still think it is entirely possible for the GOP to pin it all on Trump before 2020 and still win a second term under a different candidate.

That wouldn't happen with ANY President. Even if it were like the second coming of Reagan.

Before the election, I wrote of the coming Republican Civil War when Trump lost. Well Trump won, and the Republicans snatched victory from the jaws of a catastrophe. So the Civil War didn't explode... but we've seen many flashpoints the past 140 days.

It comes down to this: the Republican Party only has the majority for the seam reasons the Democrats had a majority from January 2007 until January 2011 in the House, and until 2014 in the Senate - because they're a coalition party.


Right now the Republican Coalition has the Far Right Tea Party "Freedom Caucus", the Conservative Republican Study Comitte, and the Tuesday Group and Main Street Partnership. Those latter two are made up, by in large, of Republicans who could easily have been Blue Dog Democrats, or represent districts that used to be Blue Dog Democrat districts. They're very vulnerable, and may of Republican's 2018 losses will come form them.

These people cannot agree with each other in the most fundamental way. The Freedom Caucus is basically anti-government. The RSC wants to cut taxes and grow the military and repeal Obamacare to a great degree. The MSP/Tuesday Group want to "modify Obamacare" (sort of) and are more interested in social spending.

No Republican President could bridge these gaps in a lasting manner on the big issues. The Republican Civil War needs to be fought.

[Ripster42]

So now that Trump has been totally & completed vindicated, as we all heard straight from the 6'8" horse's mouth himself -- now that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign or associated with him in any way attempted to stop any investigation; that Trump never threatened, persuaded, coerced, or otherwise tried to obstruct justice -- and ultimately that there will be NO impeachment hearings -- now that all of this is firmly planted behind us.. what are all of you going to do? I know today must be a difficult day for most of all, as many of you have spent MONTHS going on and on and on about this fantasy of an impeachment, but I'm truly sorry to say, none of that will end up happening, not now, not ever.

Hmm, what's that sound? Ahh, that sound, my sweet child, is the sound of your world crashing down around you. It's called reality - and it is finally setting in for you.

Anyways, since not a single one of you can dispute what I said above, as it's all 100% fact, I'll simply go ahead and ask you this, as it's the only real news that came out of today: What explanation do you think there is of this link between Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch? You do all realize that Lynch, attempting to persuade Comey into changing his terminology, when the Clinton campaign had been calling it a "matter" for long before that, is, kind of, y'know.. Illegal, right? You do understand this, yes? That perhaps there was possible - dare I say - collusion going on?

You realize this means that Tarmac meeting may have been about a little more than grandkids and golf?
You do realize all of this.. right?

Uh, did you listen to the wrong testimony? Because comey clearly said that trump did pressure him to drop the investigation, and then he believes he fired him over it.

He said that when he was fired, trump wasn't personally under investigation, but that he wouldn't comment in a public hearing about essentially the rest of his staff. I think you've got a bad relationship with facts.

Butheremails though.

[cubby]

So now that Trump has been totally & completed vindicated, as we all heard straight from the 6'8" horse's mouth himself -- now that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign or associated with him in any way attempted to stop any investigation; that Trump never threatened, persuaded, coerced, or otherwise tried to obstruct justice -- and ultimately that there will be NO impeachment hearings -- now that all of this is firmly planted behind us.. what are all of you going to do? I know today must be a difficult day for most of all, as many of you have spent MONTHS going on and on and on about this fantasy of an impeachment, but I'm truly sorry to say, none of that will end up happening, not now, not ever.

Hmm, what's that sound? Ahh, that sound, my sweet child, is the sound of your world crashing down around you. It's called reality - and it is finally setting in for you.

Anyways, since not a single one of you can dispute what I said above, as it's all 100% fact, I'll simply go ahead and ask you this, as it's the only real news that came out of today: What explanation do you think there is of this link between Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch? You do all realize that Lynch, attempting to persuade Comey into changing his terminology, when the Clinton campaign had been calling it a "matter" for long before that, is, kind of, y'know.. Illegal, right? You do understand this, yes? That perhaps there was possible - dare I say - collusion going on?

You realize this means that Tarmac meeting may have been about a little more than grandkids and golf?
You do realize all of this.. right?

You just had a whole little crazy conversation with yourself. Did you win or lose?

Did you even watch the testimony? Or is this Breitbart parroting?

[Skroe]

So now that Trump has been totally & completed vindicated, as we all heard straight from the 6'8" horse's mouth himself -- now that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign or associated with him in any way attempted to stop any investigation; that Trump never threatened, persuaded, coerced, or otherwise tried to obstruct justice -- and ultimately that there will be NO impeachment hearings -- now that all of this is firmly planted behind us.. what are all of you going to do? I know today must be a difficult day for most of all, as many of you have spent MONTHS going on and on and on about this fantasy of an impeachment, but I'm truly sorry to say, none of that will end up happening, not now, not ever.

Hmm, what's that sound? Ahh, that sound, my sweet child, is the sound of your world crashing down around you. It's called reality - and it is finally setting in for you.

Anyways, since not a single one of you can dispute what I said above, as it's all 100% fact, I'll simply go ahead and ask you this, as it's the only real news that came out of today: What explanation do you think there is of this link between Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch? You do all realize that Lynch, attempting to persuade Comey into changing his terminology, when the Clinton campaign had been calling it a "matter" for long before that, is, kind of, y'know.. Illegal, right? You do understand this, yes? That perhaps there was possible - dare I say - collusion going on?

You realize this means that Tarmac meeting may have been about a little more than grandkids and golf?
You do realize all of this.. right?

No.
And Adam Schiff put it best.

[Blur4stuff]

Lots of Trump supporters have entered this fantasy world today where Comey somehow completely cleared Trump.

I'm honestly not sure how they arrive at this position. It's very clear from Comey's testimony that Trump is either incredibly ignorant and unqualified to be president or committed obstruction and should be removed.

I don't think many believed today would somehow start impeachment proceedings. No one expects that with republicans in control regardless of what Trump does. They will hold on to power no matter what.

[Celista]

I'll take the democratic law professors word over yours

There are a LOT of dissenting opinions to Dershowitz, I particularly take issue with his commentary in his opinion piece today where he stated it is appropriate for a sitting president to interfere in a federal investigation. "Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn." There is a lot of legal support for the idea that such actions indicate obstruction, undermine our system of checks and balances and raise ethical questions regarding the scope of the office.

Also the Silver Fox looks sexy AF here, too bad he's gay.

[cubby]

Uh, did you listen to the wrong testimony? Because comey clearly said that trump did pressure him to drop the investigation, and then he believes he fired him over it.

He said that when he was fired, trump wasn't personally under investigation, but that he wouldn't comment in a public hearing about essentially the rest of his staff. I think you've got a bad relationship with facts.

Butheremails though.

Comey also read into Congressional Record Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice. Which, while we've all heard it a thousand times, was the first time it was made official. As I said before, Trump brought a swizzle stick to a knife fight.

[vondevon]

I'll take the democratic law professors word over yours

You keep pulling videos from before the testimony, and I can only presume it's because Comey's testimony today pretty handily defeats whatever narrative you're trying to push #shrug

[Stacyrect]

Well done at picking out like, the one.

Mines bigger:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.32e49dd646a9


Dershowitz, Trumpkin's favorite exusemaker. Never mind his relationship with Jared Kuschner at Harvard, nosiree.

Everything Trump has done, he's had the constitutional authority to do. In addition, McCabe is on the record saying FBI has everything it needs, nothing was impeded. Comey states nothing was impeded. Even if you were to ignore constitutional authority, what exactly was obstructed? What command, what direction was given to Comey? Hope? Who has been ever been prosecuted on a hope? No one, ever. Tidy patterns? Delusional if you ask me.

It's all in Mueller's hands now and you are very likely to be disappointed with his findings.

[Allybeboba]

What we can gain from Comey's testimony is this.

1.)Comey thinks the president is a liar ( big surprise )
2.)The FBI may be investigating internal leaks
3.)Trump, Clinton investigations are dominating FBI oversight
4.)Republicans are critical of why Comey didn't speak up sooner
5.)Democrats are pretty sure Comey's firing is the key to what the president did wrong
6.)Comey is pretty sure Trump inappropriately interfered in the investigation
7.)The way Trump handled Comey's firing is what prompted Comey to speak out
8.)No side comes off well in Comey's telling of events
9.)Republicans aren't really trying to defend the president
10.)Comey isn’t sorry

Have fun twisting and spinning folks!

[Muzjhath]

MANCHIN: Finally, did the president ever show any concern or interest or curiosity about what the Russians were doing?

COMEY: Thank you, senator. As I said earlier, I don't remember any conversations with the president about the Russia election interference.

MANCHIN: Did he ever ask you any questions concerning this?

COMEY: Well, there was an initial briefing of our findings. And I think there was conversation there I don't remember exactly where he asked what I found and what our sources were and what our confidence level was. The reason this is such a big deal. We have this big messy wonderful country where we fight with each other all the time. But nobody tells us what to think, what to fight about, what to vote for except other Americans. And that's wonderful and often painful. But we're talking about a foreign government that using technical intrusion, lots of other methods tried to shape the way we think, we vote, we act. That is a big deal. And people need to recognize it. It's not about Republicans or Democrats. They're coming after America, which I hope we all love equally. They want to undermine our credibility in the face the world. They think that this great experiment of ours is a threat to them. So they're going to try to run it down and dirty it up as much as possible. That's what this is about and they will be back. Because we remain — as difficult as we can be with each other, we remain that shining city on the hill. And they don't like it.

MANCHIN: It's extremely important, extremely dangerous what we're dealing with and it's needed is what you're saying.

COMEY: Yes, sir.

So Trump it sounds like Trump only cares about any investigations as far as it makes him look bad. Not in how it matters for the country he's supposedly leading.

(Also, I have to say that @Skroe sounds like he's taken the same "Talking about America!" Course as Comey)

[DarkTZeratul]

So Trump it sounds like Trump only cares about any investigations as far as it makes him look bad.

I mean, that Trump's overriding concern in all things is himself should be pretty obvious.

[Skroe]

Everything Trump has done, he's had the constitutional authority to do. In addition, McCabe is on the record saying FBI has everything it needs, nothing was impeded. Comey states nothing was impeded. Even if you were to ignore constitutional authority, what exactly was obstructed? What command, what direction was given to Comey? Hope? Who has been ever been prosecuted on a hope? No one, ever. Tidy patterns? Delusional if you ask me.

Comey answered this directly: he thought Trump ordered him to squash the Trump-Russia Investigation and let Flynn off the hook. No President has the constitutional authority to order a criminal investigation terminated. Furthermore by Comey's own testimony, Trump was trying to establish a "patronage" relationship whereby Comey owed his job to Trump.

That is obstruction of justice. Period. That is what Lawyers today are saying. Comey, having already told all this to Mueller, delivered the case.

We're taking your President from you Stacy. Bite your lip. This is gonna hurt. The impeachment machine is spinning up.

It's all in Mueller's hands now and you are very likely to be disappointed with his findings.

You do realize in the very likely case Flynn gets charged, followed by others of Trump's inner circle, I'm going to shove this down your throat? Thank you for the weapon.

[Zeek Daniels]

They have found literally nothing that links trump or his advisers to Russian election tampering. Nothing. There is no obstruction of justice. Hes not under investigation nor did he ask that the investigation be stopped. He said many times go ahead do the investigation see where it leads, he wants to know if anyone of his satellites knew of Russian tampering. But how can you obstruct justice when theres not a single piece of evidence. All communication between Trumps officials and Russian officials was "standard procedure." Except in this case the Russians were being blamed for a turn in the election so any and all communication with them is now considered suspect.

There has been zero proof brought to the american public the Russia was responsible for the wikileaks information or the Hillary email situation. All we have heard is that they "strongly believe" or "more likely than not" But they cant get a single piece of information that confirms the Russians did something. Meanwhile they got an investigation into basically anyone that worked with Trump prior to him getting in office and if theres even a hint they talked to a Russian official its immediately leaked to the media to push a narrative.

If the mainstream media wasnt so busy sucking both the liberals and conservatives perspective dicks then maybe instead of sitting in their ivory tower debating news and being one sided opinion heads, they could step into the muck, risk their life to dig up stories about the clintons and their corruption or the DNC and its screwing of bernie sanders. But instead they want to criticize how "Russians" dare interfere with the minds of american voters when the mainstream media does it all the time. And if they did true investigative journalism they would know about the corruption in both the Democratic party and the Republican party but the media wants them to succeed so they dont do good journalism they post stories that are blatantly one sided half truths. They put headlines that are completely out of context. And they make a big deal out of nothing because its anti trump.

Fact of the matter is alot of people in this country think trump is a bad guy not because hes actually a bad guy but because hes not their guy or because the media has convinced them hes a bad guy. The dude is just trying to do what he thinks is best for the country and hes getting bombed left and right by the media and the courts who arent going to let him do anything. Its the weakest a president has ever been imo, and imo he should stand up to this constant bullying with better constitutional awareness about what his actual powers are.