(06-06-2017 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...I still say it depends on whether him answering definitively will effect any ongoing investigations.

If he is asked point blank if Trump obstructed any investigations. How is yes or no going to impact any ongoing investigations?

Comey would need to know that, not me. I suppose it could have an effect on investigations who might still be seeking or talking to other sources, etc.

It's just speculation on my part.

Under your premise it would help investigations, not hinder, if Comey were to say "yes, the president attempted to obstruct the FBI's investigations." Sources would be emboldened to come forward now that a high level former official was on the record admitting to an illegal act by the president. The domino effect would be a net gain for the anti Trump side.

So if he does not do so, then I will be able to draw no other conclusion other than there is nothing there. Unless you have additional reasons he would not use the opportunity to get on the record for presidential obstruction.

I don't think it matters whether it helps or hinders an investigation. If there's one, it needs to be left to operate and not meddled with...at all.

Under that logic, him testifying at all is going to "meddle" with the investigation

(06-06-2017 02:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If he is asked point blank if Trump obstructed any investigations. How is yes or no going to impact any ongoing investigations?

Comey would need to know that, not me. I suppose it could have an effect on investigations who might still be seeking or talking to other sources, etc.

It's just speculation on my part.

Under your premise it would help investigations, not hinder, if Comey were to say "yes, the president attempted to obstruct the FBI's investigations." Sources would be emboldened to come forward now that a high level former official was on the record admitting to an illegal act by the president. The domino effect would be a net gain for the anti Trump side.

So if he does not do so, then I will be able to draw no other conclusion other than there is nothing there. Unless you have additional reasons he would not use the opportunity to get on the record for presidential obstruction.

I don't think it matters whether it helps or hinders an investigation. If there's one, it needs to be left to operate and not meddled with...at all.

Under that logic, him testifying at all is going to "meddle" with the investigation

Depends what he is asked and what he answers.

Well if he can't answer a basic yes or no question on the legality of the president's actions without interfering with an active investigation, what useful information do you suggest he will be able to provide.

(06-06-2017 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well if he can't answer a basic yes or no question on the legality of the president's actions without interfering with an active investigation, what useful information do you suggest he will be able to provide.

I don't suggest...I have no clue what they're going to ask him or what he's allowed to say. As I said before...this is just all speculation as I don't know the state of any active or closed investigations.

(06-06-2017 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Well if he can't answer a basic yes or no question on the legality of the president's actions without interfering with an active investigation, what useful information do you suggest he will be able to provide.

I don't suggest...I have no clue what they're going to ask him or what he's allowed to say. As I said before...this is just all speculation as I don't know the state of any active or closed investigations.

so youre not going to speculate or offer your opinion? what a buzzkill

Does Harold Watson Gowdy III get to interview him. If so the office of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III will be sending him some fun prizes.

https://youtu.be/arZdeg_fL-I

I'm glad Trump is having dinner with a few Republicans so he can plant a few questions of his own. I think there is a reason no bombs have dropped this week about Trump. It all comes down to Thursday. I've got my popcorn ready. Trump will probably make himself look worse than Comey will. Buckle up.

I can't wait to follow the live Tweets!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-06-2017 07:56 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  I'm glad Trump is having dinner with a few Republicans so he can plant a few questions of his own. I think there is a reason no bombs have dropped this week about Trump. It all comes down to Thursday. I've got my popcorn ready. Trump will probably make himself look worse than Comey will. Buckle up.

you taking over the ride now? about time! I was waiting for Mach to start the engine... I've been buckled up for so long now, that I cant even feel my legs.

Are there Vegas side bets on the testimony? Stuff like:

- how many times he "can't answer" because it's "classified"
- how many times he says "the President" or "Trump"
- the over/under on questions from Rs he answers
- the over/under on questions from Ds he answers
- if he cries

... asking for a friend with $20 burning a hole in their pocket ...

Morning Joe says the bars will open early for the testimony. lol. Didn't know this was such a huge event. Covfefe.

(06-07-2017 09:19 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Morning Joe says the bars will open early for the testimony. lol. Didn't know this was such a huge event. Covfefe.

Yup! Shaw's Tavern on Florida Ave NW is opening half an hour early tomorrow.

From their Facebook event page:

"Come on... you know you want to watch the drama unfold this Thursday. We will be opening early at Shaw's Tavern at 9:30am and the hearing starts at 10am on all 5 tv's with sound. We will feature $5 Stoli Vodka flavors and our "FBI" sandwich (our take on a BLT - simply for the abbreviation :) Fried Chicken Breast, Bacon and Iceburg Lettuce on a toasted bun with fries) for $10. Also we will feature our "FBI" Breakfast - French toast, bacon and ice cream for $10! Grab your friends, grab a drink and let's COVFEFE!"

Dems have shown their true colors on this Comey stuff. They hated and blamed him for the Evil B#tch's loss to Trump and now they love him because they think he can hurt Trump. Well sorry libs, the American people see Comey for what he is. An incompetent FBI director who deserved to be fired and now just a bitter ex-employee who wants to hurt the person that fired him. Happens everyday in this country.

Comey is a clown. Nothing he says has meaning to me.

So...Dan Coats was asked under oath today if he was pressured on the Russia probe.

His answer was "I don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session"

Likely what we will also hear from Comey.

(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...Dan Coats was asked under oath today if he was pressured on the Russia probe.

His answer was "I don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session"

Likely what we will also hear from Comey.

Finish what Dan Coats said.

"I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way,"

Also what Rogers said.

"I am not going to discuss the specifics of interactions that I may or may have not had with the President," Rogers said, adding he has never felt pressured to do anything unethical. "I do not recall feeling pressured to do so."

(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...Dan Coats was asked under oath today if he was pressured on the Russia probe.

His answer was "I don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session"

YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT YOU PIECE OF...............

These shitheeds work for us the public, and can't be aresed to tell us the truth. Gawdawn I am ready for that Nork ICBM to hit downtown Washington and I'm ready of a government of the first ten people picked via a dart into a phonebook.

(06-07-2017 10:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...Dan Coats was asked under oath today if he was pressured on the Russia probe.

His answer was "I don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session"

Likely what we will also hear from Comey.

Finish what Dan Coats said.

"I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way,"

Also what Rogers said.

"I am not going to discuss the specifics of interactions that I may or may have not had with the President," Rogers said, adding he has never felt pressured to do anything unethical. "I do not recall feeling pressured to do so."

That's interesting...I didn't hear about the other comments...but why would he say what I quoted and then the other...they don't seem to jive.

Apologies...I'll look for the whole thing in context.

(06-07-2017 10:28 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...Dan Coats was asked under oath today if he was pressured on the Russia probe.

His answer was "I don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session"

YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT YOU PIECE OF...............

These shitheeds work for us the public, and can't be aresed to tell us the truth. Gawdawn I am ready for that Nork ICBM to hit downtown Washington and I'm ready of a government of the first ten people picked via a dart into a phonebook.

What's that... the secret service is in route... copy... that's a 10-4.

(06-07-2017 10:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...Dan Coats was asked under oath today if he was pressured on the Russia probe.

His answer was "I don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session"

Likely what we will also hear from Comey.

Finish what Dan Coats said.

"I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way,"

https://news.grabien.com/story-dan-coats...f-i-was-pr

Do you have a source for his other comments which you quoted above?