Comey Testifies - Page 4 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

That's not "I hope you have a successful investigation that clears Michael Flynn", that's "I hope you stop looking into this **** right now", and when Comey didn't, he was fired!!

If you're trying to splice the words of the guy who had justice obstructed by Lynch, then perhaps the internet isn't good for your mental health. Sounds like you're in chaos, I hope you get the help you need.

06-09-2017 , 02:45 PM

#78

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go."
"I expect loyalty."
*fires Comey after he doesn't drop investigation*
"I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

Yeah, nothing to see here.

06-09-2017 , 02:48 PM

#79

JiggyMac

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,809

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Former GOP congressman

"exonerated" lol

Good thing Gowdy won his seat then.

Also, looks like Inglis might not find fans in this forum anyway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis
"Inglis is a staunch advocate of a federal prohibition of online poker. He also supported actions to aid people in war-torn Darfur. In 2006, he co-sponsored H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act[16] and H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[17] On December 27, 2008 Inglis published an op-ed in The New York Times in support of a revenue neutral carbon tax.[18]"

It is interesting after all of the corruption from the Clintons that
a) His wife was ever politically capable of running in the first place
b) He wasn't convicting on his more substantive crimes besides lying under oath. Al Capone and tax evasion and all...

This could be sour grapes from Inglis considering he lost a Republican primary for not being Republican enough - don't know where he's been on issues since his loss.

06-09-2017 , 02:57 PM

#80

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggyMac

If you're trying to splice the words of the guy who had justice obstructed by Lynch

lol, more cherry picking and wanting it both ways. Is Comey's testimony reliable, or isn't it? If Donald Trump doesn't come out of yesterday looking bad to you Trumpkins, then Loretta Lynch couldn't possibly be worrying about anything she did right now.

Jiggy/Bitchi/Sushy all have some amusing echoes of this Washington Post article on the "Trump Internet"'s reaction to Comey testimony, spicy memes abound, but perhaps most of all this:

Quote:

Another important moment for the Trump Internet was the discussion of Comey’s conversation with former attorney general Loretta E. Lynch, which the Trump-supporting blog Gateway Pundit headlined as, “COMEY ADMITS DEM CORRUPTION.” The story detailed Comey’s description of Lynch’s directive that he refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a “matter,” a much softer term than the more accurate “probe” or “investigation.” Although much of the Trump Internet treated this statement as new information that would no doubt be buried by the mainstream press, it was actually first reported by the New York Times in April.

How embarrassing is it for you guys that you've worked yourselves up into quite a lather over two month old details that even the hyper-liberal fake news New York Times reported on?

06-09-2017 , 03:14 PM

#81

Abbaddabba

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,807

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

the stock market has been on absolute fire since election day. it had a big sell off may 17 when news broke of the memos that could impeach trump. after yesterdays testimony the market rallied hard. the market is currently out of its mind imo but it does reflect the actual sentiment of people who actually back their opinion with their money

the money is telling a pretty obvious story. nothingburger. everyone knows trump is a liar. now reasonable people have more clarity on the russia hysteria being totally politically motivated drama absent of evidence. trump may have colluded with russia, but at this point there is no evidence. evidence is when hilary got caught mishandling classified info. it wasnt a conspiracy. they didnt prosecute. in trumps case, they dont even have any evidence yet and people want a prosecution. its political games and people who arent politically motivated are voting with their money that this situation is a massive nothingburger (at this point)

trump being a liar isnt even news. his voters know this and dont care

That is correct, everyone knows he's dishonest - both his supporters and detractors.

Note that the hearing wasn't about the russia collusion case though. That's why he repeatedly said he couldn't take about it in an open hearing. What we got was pretty much what was expected... doesn't mean it's nothing though.

Does it prove obstruction? Of course not. Maybe he was just felt it necessary at that moment in time to express his hopes and dreams to comey because he thought he'd be a sympathetic ear. Maybe he asked the other people to leave the room because they had bad BO. All you just need the tiniest shred of doubt to justify whatever opinion you want to be true, and the political world is filled with dishonest people.

It wasn't a command or an order, but you'd have to be downright ******ed to think that he wasn't trying to influence him. As for the actual definition of obstruction, we'll have to wait and see, but let's not pretend that the vast majority of people dismissing these claims are doing so on completely dishonest grounds.

06-09-2017 , 03:27 PM

#82

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

"exonerated" lol

06-09-2017 , 03:31 PM

#83

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

http://openjurist.org/46/f3d/636/uni...es-v-a-johnson

Quote:

10
Based on this threat, the district court enhanced Johnson's sentence two levels for obstruction of justice, stating:

11
the obstruction of justice goes to the threats, the intimidation, and specifically the threat against the witness John Twiggs where he was seen in a car with officer Lamar and later Mr. Johnson told him to the effect that I hope you aren't doing what I think your doing because that's unhealthy ... I think anybody in their ordinary meaning of that would take that as a threat.

12
We review a district court's finding that a defendant obstructed justice for clear error. United States v. Wright, 37 F.3d 358, 361 (7th Cir.1994). Johnson asserts that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous in this case because he did not know that Twiggs was a government witness. We disagree. A threat to a potential witness is sufficient to warrant an enhancement under section 3C1.1, as long as the statement was intended to threaten, intimidate or unlawfully influence that person. United States v. Cherif, 943 F.2d 692, 703 (7th Cir.1991); United States v. Sanchez, 35 F.3d 673, 680 (2d Cir.1994). Johnson also makes this claim, namely that his statement to Twiggs was not a threat. The district court disagreed, however, finding that the ordinary meaning of Johnson's statement "[y]ou was seen with Steve Lamar and that it wasn't healthy" constituted a threat. This finding was not clearly erroneous.

"exonerated" lol

(this is not even the same case Liptak references in the tweet above)

06-09-2017 , 03:36 PM

#84

JiggyMac

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,809

Which, goofy's examples are for when crimes have already been committed. What crime was Trump being investigated for? Does Trump have the authority to tell Comey not to investigate Flynn for his phone calls with Russian Ambassador (please check your answers with Alan Dershowitz before replying).

06-09-2017 , 03:38 PM

#85

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Hope, line, and sinker.

06-09-2017 , 03:39 PM

#86

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

I've seen several articles from respected legal minds today suggesting Dershowitz is wrong. Should I bother posting them?

06-09-2017 , 03:41 PM

#87

JiggyMac

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,809

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

I've seen several articles from respected legal minds today suggesting Dershowitz is wrong. Should I bother posting them?

If you have someone with the gravitas of Dershowitz refuting him, by all means do.

06-09-2017 , 04:11 PM

#88

ogallalabob

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,448

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggyMac

If you have someone with the gravitas of Dershowitz refuting him, by all means do.

Think it really comes down to if a person believes Trump had a corrupt intent.

Most of the legal analysis I have seen which believes there is obstruction of Justice relies on Trump wanting to hide or cover up wrong doing with Russia. Whether by ending the investigation or by protecting Flynn and preventing Flynn from turning states witness.

While the other follows Dershowitz.

Really Mueller needs to find Trump was covering something up to pursue the obstruction charges. Otherwise if Trump knew there was nothing to the Russia collusion thing and really all he was expressing a opinion/order (ie Flynn's a good guy you should let it go) on the Flynn/Turkey felony (which was not really even dealing with Russia collusion issues) then there is really no corrupt intent.

Last edited by ogallalabob; 06-09-2017 at 04:32 PM.

06-09-2017 , 04:22 PM

#89

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Goofy, you need to read more reputable news sources. You're continually getting it wrong.

06-09-2017 , 04:34 PM

#90

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

06-09-2017 , 04:39 PM

#91

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggyMac

Wow, good catch. These two things are exactly the same, so long as Comey is directly overseeing the weather.

I'm guessing you knew this was a terrible thing to post, but you don't care how bad it makes you or your side of the argument look.

06-09-2017 , 05:10 PM

#92

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

Goofy, you need to read more reputable news sources. You're continually getting it wrong.

Correct me, then. On its own this is just a worthless blind assertion.

06-09-2017 , 05:22 PM

#93

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Correct me, then. On its own this is just a worthless blind assertion.

I already gave you the correct facts earlier itt.

Your Watergate turned out to be Nothinggate. LOL

06-09-2017 , 05:22 PM

#94

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggyMac

If you have someone with the gravitas of Dershowitz refuting him, by all means do.

NYU Law professor Rick Pilldes contends that the Supreme Court has in past cases rejected Dershowitz's defense of Trump:

Quote:

Even if the President ordered James Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation and had a corrupt intent for doing so, this would still not amount to the crime of obstruction of justice. The reason, according to Dershowitz, is that the Constitution gives the exclusive power to the President to control all federal law-enforcement investigations—and thus to shut any of them down for any reason the President sees fit. In other words, the President can never commit obstruction of justice by shutting down a criminal investigation or prosecution.

But Dershowitz fails to take into account that the Supreme Court has decisively rejected this view. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), a 7-1 Supreme Court turned back constitutional challenges to Congress’ creation of the Act that gave us the office of the Independent Counsel—and in doing so, dismissed exactly the argument that Dershowitz now seeks to invoke.

Dershowitz's fellow Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has made numerous comments disagreeing with him on Twitter, including this one that points out Nixon was innocent under Dershowitz's standard, along with several more in his feed where he strongly disagrees with Dershowitz.

I have a lot more reading to catch up on today and unfortunately not enough time, but I'll try to get more later.

06-09-2017 , 05:26 PM

#95

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

I already gave you the correct facts earlier itt.

Haha wow, these posts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

Nothingburger alert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

So, after all the hot air we're left with a big nothingburger. Can we let the President get back to running the country now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

Spouting gibberish is all you good for around here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

What? You mean multiple people have said that to you.

WOW. I'm shocked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

Whoops, I got it slightly wrong.

Comey in the ****. Trump exonerated.

LMAO

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

Trump not under investigation re: Russia. No obstruction of justice.

Comey could be in trouble for leaking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

Kiddie game is down the street, Sushy, come back when you actually have stronger arguments than dumb assertions w/ zero sourcing you picked up from the derposphere.

06-09-2017 , 05:32 PM

#96

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

So, which ones did I get wrong then?

06-09-2017 , 05:36 PM

#97

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

- "nothingburger" - lol no
- "Comey in the ****" - lol no, Trump might try some **** and it won't go anywhere (I will happily bet against anyone who thinks Comey leaking that memo will get him in serious legal trouble, and none of you will take that bet because deep down you all know it's true)
- Trump exonerated / no obstruction of justice - lol no, and I've made several sourced posts backing up reasons why

06-09-2017 , 06:08 PM

#98

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Until Trump gets charged with obstruction of justice (and found guilty) then I am right and you are wrong, no matter how many sources you quote.

Both Comey and Loretta Lynn should be investigated for illegal activities.

Last edited by BroadwaySushy; 06-09-2017 at 06:21 PM.