Comey has been accused of evading 254 answers ...
26 responses | 0 likes
Started by carlberky - Dec. 9, 2018, 4:13 p.m.

Comey has been accused of evading 254 answers in his recent five hour testimony. Here's an example:

When asked about his "best friend" relationship with Mueller, Comey said, “I admire the heck out of the man, but I
 don't know
his phone number, I've never been to his house, I don't know his children's names … We're not friends
 in any social sense.” OK, there's two of them.

When asked for a yes or no about an event, he said, "I dont recall the date ..." and then explained that if it happened
 after a certain date, then the answer was a yes.

I haven't read the full transcript and don't intend to ( will you ? ), but from what I have read, he did not evade any answers or you can be sure the Pubs on the committee would have reacted.

Comments
By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 4:35 p.m.
Like Reply

"but from what I have read, he did not evade any answers or you can be sure the Pubs on the committee would have reacted."


Hi Carl,

I'm not sure what sources that you read but evading seems to be a very fair description by an objective person based on the actual interview. 

Considering the circumstances "evading" the questions was likely a smart thing for him to do at this point to keep  from getting into trouble.

Probably the count of 254 was greatly exaggerated by one side. However, since you started this thread and are not going to read the transcript(I may do that because I can't believe either sides interpretation of it) I thought you should know more than what the sources you read are stating. 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/fbi-lawyer-prevented-evasive-james-comey-from-answering-key-questions-republicans-say/

"Comey had two attorneys with him, Issa said, one of whom was a DOJ attorney who advised him "time and time again" not to answer key questions about their investigation into FBI malfeasance in 2016. He told Fox News that Comey followed the lawyer's advice with “gleeful acceptance.”

When asked what types of questions the fired FBI director was evading, Issa said: "In broad-brush strokes, everything related to Hillary's investigation, everything related to how they got on to it and what their process was, everything related to the FISA warrants and the fake dossier -- broadly those are the areas in which, time and time and time again, he's not answering."

  

He said that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rep. John Ratcliff (R-TX) asked some very pertinent questions regarding those issues -- including the anti-Trump text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. He added that when the transcript comes out, people will be "displeased but maybe a little surprised" by Comey's answers.

Issa went on to say that Comey's answers were not what "you would think a forthright individual would give."

When asked about Comey's famous leak to his friend Daniel Richman, Issa said, "Comey speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He doesn't want to answer a lot of questions -- even when he answers, I would call them evasive."

By mojo - Dec. 9, 2018, 4:51 p.m.
Like Reply

I can't get Cult 45 members to answer the question of why Rump won't have a face to face interview with Mueller.

I've asked 3 or 4 times & never gotten an answer.

They all know that he's guilty as hell of everything that he's ever been accused of, & they just don't want to admit it.

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 4:54 p.m.
Like Reply

OK, I downloaded the transcript and looked over the first part of it.........enough to see that he was being evasive.

I copied a couple of answers that numbered in the many dozens that are like this:

Mr. Comey:

I don't know because 

I don't know what collusion 

means.  It's a term I haven't heard in my career in the Justice 

Department, so I don't know.  

Mr. Comey.

I don't know that I can answer that question 

because I'm not

--

because I'm a witness, in a sense.  I don't 

know the universe of facts that would reflect on that, so I can't 

answer 

it.  

file:///C:/Users/Basement/AppData/Local/Temp/395242059-Comey-Interview-Transcript-12-7-18-Redacted-1.pdf

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 5:33 p.m.
Like Reply

"I can't get Cult 45 members to answer the question of why Rump won't have a face to face interview with Mueller.

I've asked 3 or 4 times & never gotten an answer.

They all know that he's guilty as hell of everything that he's ever been accused of, & they just don't want to admit it."


I'm not one of the Cult 45 members that you refer to but since you seem to be very frustrated at not getting an answer here at MarketForum to a question that you say you've asked repeatedly, let me help you out.

Mueller is supposed to be investigating crimes by Trump in connection with Russia, helping him to get elected. Since he has failed to find any evidence of this so far, he has resorted to finding other crimes by expanding the investigation to cover anything that he wants it to cover. 

One of his favorite tricks has been to bring people connected with Trump in and question them..........then catch them in a lie and charge them with a crime for lying to his questions. 

Now you have your answer for why Trump is not being dumb enough to have an interview with Mueller, which clearly would just be a perjury trap set by Mueller................even though you will not believe it and will, instead continue to be 100% sure that its because Trump is hiding all of his crimes. 

Alan Dershowitz describes whats actually going on quite well here............Mueller is actually causing crimes to be committed because of his investigation.


https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/11/29/dershowitz-rips-mueller-for-false-statement-prosecutions-theyre-crimes-that-were-committed-as-the-result-of-his-appointment/


“These are not crimes that had been committed prior to his appointment, they’re crimes that were committed as the result of his appointment, and that raises some questions about the role of special prosecutors in creating crimes, or creating opportunities for crimes to be committed.”

“In the end, I don’t think Mueller’s going to come up with very much, in terms of criminal conduct, that existed before he was appointed, and that’s pretty shocking,” added Dershowitz."

By frey_1999 - Dec. 9, 2018, 5:48 p.m.
Like Reply

And now we know why Comey wanted the event to be televised  and the public to be able to get all of the questions and answers  vs letting the leaks and transcripts to be handled by the controlling  politicians. 


What I can't  understand is why the pubs demanded this be done behind closed doors

By cliff-e - Dec. 9, 2018, 6 p.m.
Like Reply

Comey gave answers...just not the answers ReTrumplicans wanted to hear.

MAGA=Many Are Getting Arrested.

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 6:29 p.m.
Like Reply

"And now we know why Comey wanted the event to be televised  and the public to be able to get all of the questions and answers  vs letting the leaks and transcripts to be handled by the controlling  politicians. "


Funny how the one guy that has been the confirmed leaker in the past..........is accusing the other ones of his underhanded tactics.........and everybody on one side believes everything that he says. 


Justice Department watchdog investigating leaked Comey memos over classified information: WSJ

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/comey-memos-under-investigation-by-doj-watchdog-over-classified-information-wsj.html

Since Comey was fired by Trump, he went from being the goat, blamed for Hillary's loss to being the hero/martyr.........every word believed, all his many dishonest actions in the past gone forever in the minds of those that hate Trump. 

By carlberky - Dec. 9, 2018, 7:25 p.m.
Like Reply


"One of his favorite tricks has been to bring people connected with Trump in and question them..........then catch them in a lie and charge them with a crime for lying to his questions." 

"Now you have your answer for why Trump is not being dumb enough to have an interview with Mueller, which clearly would just be a perjury trap set by Mueller."

Mike, It's easy to avoid a perjury trap by telling the truth ... unless the truth leads to something worse than perjury.


By frey_1999 - Dec. 9, 2018, 7:37 p.m.
Like Reply

have the questioning be in an open public forum.


So why did the the republicans fight the request and not allow it to happen.

the obvious answer is so they could control the information flow so that the TT's got feed what they needed them to get feed.


and it worked, you'll are running around repeating the company line.


Here's a novel thought  the republicans control the legislative branch for another 3 weeks they should call on trump to come in and testify before the Senate and the House and then he can answer all of these questions with his version of the truth. When trump does this he should do no less than Comey and demand his testimony be in a open hearing.


Seems fair don't you think Mike  

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 9:38 p.m.
Like Reply

"Mike, It's easy to avoid a perjury trap by telling the truth ... unless the truth leads to something worse than perjury."

Excellent point Carl!

 In Washington DC and politics, they have different versions of the truth based on what your party affiliation is. I have no  doubt that Trumps version of the truth even if he was being honest(which is sometimes not the case) will contradict Muellers version and  viola, he can be charged with perjury because Mueller can show an inconsistency in Trumps version.............completely unrelated to Russia.

We can all agree that Trump did some unethical stuff(cheated on his wife for instance) and Mueller can probe into plenty of non Russian related realms that Trump doesn't want to tell him about. If he states some facts wrong.......which Trump does alot............Mueller catches him and charges him with perjury and everybody applauds from one side,  even if it has nothing to do with Russia. 

Is this how investigations should take place?

If I'm charged with armed robbery, the prosecution presents a case against me for armed robbery, the crime that I committed. Do they interview people that I associate with, find out that I dealt  illegal drugs 5 years ago and then try to get me on illegal drug dealing from 5 years ago, even if it has nothing to do with the armed robbery?............and if I lie about it, use the testimony of people that say I dealt illegal drugs 5 years ago to get me for perjury?

The prosecutor is obligated to gather evidence to file charges for THE CRIME I am suspected of committing...........not any crimes that he can find going back X number of years after interviewing dozens of people that hung out with me.

In Trumps case, Mueller must have some bad stuff unrelated to Russia that he found out about by going back X number of years and conducting hundreds of interviews with dozens of different people that associated with Trump. We know Trump was not a saint. One side wants this sort of investigation of Trump. 

If this is ok, then every time we elect a new president, we should have a similar open ended investigation into their past that lasts 2 years and cost tens of millions of dollars to try to find stuff he or she did wrong going back X number of years.

Either Trump broke the law, colluding with Russia illegally or he didn't. If he did, then Mueller must have had the evidence a very, very long time ago but not a shred of it has come out.

If he didn't then Mueller just wrecked a bunch of lives, wasted tons of tax payers money and is violating the entire legal objective of his investigation....for  a political agenda.







By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 9:56 p.m.
Like Reply

"the obvious answer is so they could control the information flow so that the TT's got feed what they needed them to get feed.

and it worked, you'll are running around repeating the company line."


Wrong frey, that's not what happened. I read the transcript and posted it here earlier in this thread, including a couple of the comments from Comey. You should read it.

The transcript provides the facts, not "repeating the company line" as you say based on the Republicans controlling the flow of information. 

I also posted a link about Comey leaking information........that really happened based on facts.

Your stuff is wild speculation. 

With regards to Trump testifying before the senate and the house. Do you think that at that time , they would suddenly discover something that Muellers 2 year investigation, using massive resouces was unable to uncover?

If Mueller had been investigating Comey the past 2 years, there would be little need for him to come in for questioning. 

You have decided that we need to do whatever it is, to get Trump based on knowing that he is guilty of loads of things based on speculation and believing most of the stuff that other speculators in the media and internet sell as actual facts. 




By carlberky - Dec. 9, 2018, 10:19 p.m.
Like Reply

"Mueller catches him and charges him with perjury and everybody applauds from one side,  even if it has nothing to do with Russia. Is this how investigations should take place?"

Probably not, Mike, but Bill Clinton was impeached for lies about a sexual affair which had nothing to do with the original investigation.

By frey_1999 - Dec. 9, 2018, 10:48 p.m.
Like Reply

Thats funny Mike -- with that argument if a cop pulls you over for a non working tail light and you have 25 kilos of heroin hidden in the trunk they can't prosecute you for drug possession only for the broken taillight. 


It's crazy how contorted people's thinking gets in their endless need to defend trump and his illegal activities. 

If you break the law, and a legal  investigations catches you at it then you pay the price. 

Lock them up

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 11:33 p.m.
Like Reply

"Thats funny Mike -- with that argument if a cop pulls you over for a non working tail light and you have 25 kilos of heroin hidden in the trunk they can't prosecute you for drug possession only for the broken taillight."


Hugh???

You obviously did not understand the example. If somebody is breaking 2 laws, they should be prosecuted for breaking 2 laws(broken tail light and heroin possession).......or 10 laws if that's how many they broke based on the evidence or from the cops arrest.

Applying  the principle of my point to your example. It would be like a cop pulling you over for a broken tail light and for heroin and you going to court for it but between now and then, the prosecutor decides to do an investigation of you for anything else that he can find that you might have done over the past X amount of years, interviewing your associates and so on.

You should get investigated for the crimes you are suspected of committing and/or are charged with.

The prosector doesn't get to dig up all sorts of things that he can find in your past in order to charge you with brand new offenses that have nothing to do with what the officer arrested you for.

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2018, 11:41 p.m.
Like Reply

"Probably not, Mike, but Bill Clinton was impeached for lies about a sexual affair which had nothing to do with the original investigation."


So then you must agree with me. 


I will say that Clinton's perjury was pretty blatant and embarrassing. He did a special appearance on national tv to insist "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" then the evidence proved him a liar.

If he had just lied about it and not went directly to the American people face to face, intentionally to sell the lie, it would not have been so embarrassing. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

By frey_1999 - Dec. 10, 2018, 12:04 a.m.
Like Reply

Is probable  cause a viable reason for a search warrant in your mind.

Simple yes or no 

By metmike - Dec. 10, 2018, 12:35 a.m.
Like Reply

I give up..........uncle!!!

By TimNew - Dec. 10, 2018, 8 a.m.
Like Reply

Perhaps Frey is being deliberately obtuse.  I wonder if he knows, for example, that a defense team can petition a judge to deny the prosecutors from presenting previous crimes committed by a defendant.   The rule is that they can only prosecute based on the current crime using evidence associated with the current crime.


On the issue of probable cause,  there are basic rules involved.   If, for example,  you have a search warrant for a stolen piano and you find a piano,  you are good.  If there is heroin in the piano,  you are good.  If you find heroin in the trunk of a car in the garage, you are not good.

By mojo - Dec. 10, 2018, 8:37 a.m.
Like Reply

"Now you have your answer for why Trump is not being dumb enough to have an interview with Mueller, which clearly would just be a perjury trap set by Mueller.."

You gave me an answer but it wasn't an honest answer. The honest answer is that Rump can't interview with Mueller because he's guilty of everything he's been accused of. If he tells the truth he goes to jail. If he lies he goes to jail. He's damned if he does & damned if he doesn't. That's the honest answer I've been trying to get Cult 45 members to admit. So far nobody has.

By TimNew - Dec. 10, 2018, 8:54 a.m.
Like Reply

No,  that's the answer you want.  It's pure speculation as whether it's the correct answer or not

By mojo - Dec. 10, 2018, 9:24 a.m.
Like Reply

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes, Matlock or Columbo to understand that that is the only logical & most likely conclusion.

You know it, I know it & you know that I know that you know it.

You got any more BS you what to try & slip by me this morning? So far, you batting 0 for 3.



By metmike - Dec. 10, 2018, 10:50 a.m.
Like Reply

"The honest answer is that Rump can't interview with Mueller because he's guilty of everything he's been accused of."

Actually mojo, in the real world we base things of substance on facts. In 2 years worth of accusations and assumption of guilt for all these crimes with Russia that one side insists happened between Trump and Russia.........there hasn't been one legit fact to support it.

I'm not saying that its not possible that there is still something that has been held back for 2 years and, in a world where everything about everything is leaked out waaaaay in advance, this has somehow managed to be kept a big secret.

That's possible, I won't rule it out.

However, all your assumptions are built entirely on "faith"....... This is what religion is based on and you guys are like members of a cult that is brainwashed to totally believe anything that anybody puts on the internet or media that is bad about Trump...........without looking at any facts or using any critical thinking. 

When somebody like Tim explains the laws of the real world to you, like a member of a brainwashed cult, you are incapable of understanding his points and absurdly, refer to him as part of a cult. 

You will assume that I'm defending Trump because a person with this view point, has to be one of them.............those on the other side that can't see how guilty Trump is and as you insist, "is guilty of everything that he's been accused of"

Your brain can't even fathom him only being guilty of a couple of things and being innocent of most of it. It completely rejects anything except Trump painted in the worst possible light and seeks out only information that confirms that.

There are several more just like you here. Carl is not one of them as he has plenty of objective brain cells. 


By pj - Dec. 10, 2018, 12:46 p.m.
Like Reply

"Trumps version of the truth even if he was being honest(which is sometimes not the case)"

"which sometimes is not the case" has to be the understatement of the decade... :-)

By metmike - Dec. 10, 2018, 3:08 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi pj!

Definitely not one of his strong points (-:

By mcfarm - Dec. 10, 2018, 3:56 p.m.
Like Reply

Heard something today which many of you will not agree with but I think is so true. Trump has been one of the most honest Presidents in history when it come to not laying the DC games. In this last dust up with Tillerson he could of played the usual games and lied like most politicians, painted over what he really meant, softened the tone and made stuff up. He did not and does not. Tillerson took the first shot and Trump, being Trump responded and described Tillerson as he accurately thought. Like it or not Trump was being honest and like it or not most every politician is not honest.

By mojo - Dec. 11, 2018, 7:22 a.m.
Like Reply

"Actually mojo, in the real world we base things of substance on facts. In 2 years worth of accusations and assumption of guilt for all these crimes with Russia that one side insists happened between Trump and Russia.........there hasn't been one legit fact to support it."

Seriously, Mike? Come on, man!

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/thats-lot-russians-reporter-lays-stunning-evidence-linking-trump-campaign-kremlin/