Jonathan Turley on Comey's testimony

[Carey]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/

[Carey]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/


I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.

[Shakes]

Denied. You have sinned !

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:04:04 PM UTC+2, Carey wrote:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/


USA Today?

Lol


Max

[Guypers]

Moron, know who J Turley is??

[calim...@gmx.de]

And why exactly would I care, dickhead?


Max

[Guypers]

You just quoted him, you nazi piece of cocksukking shit!!

[bob]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.

"We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."

bob

[calim...@gmx.de]

Nazi?
now, this coming from YOU really is comedy gold!


Max

[TT]

Carey kirjoitti 8.6.2017 klo 22:04:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>

The writer is wrong.
Of course it is obstruction of justice...

Trump asked the FBI chief to drop the investigation and when he didn't
then Trump fired him.

[TT]

'Trump didn't understand' is a lie...

He cleared the room from other people before making his demand to Comey.
So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.

And he probably also did the same thing with other intelligence chiefs
who refuse to answer questions...

[StephenJ]

>On 6/8/2017 3:04 PM, Carey wrote:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>

There's no way the House holds a vote to impeach Trump. Comey said Trump
"hoped" he would drop the Flynn investigation, which doesn't make it
clear he directed him or even asked him to.

Furthermore, even if Comey had said that Trump did tell him to drop it,
that would just be his word vs Trump's, and you shouldn't remove a
President from office merely because someone claims they said or did
something.

Nixon wasn't forced to resign until a tape was released which proved
that he assented to interfering with an investigation. It will take
similar proof to impeach Trump, and it should take similar proof.

[StephenJ]

(1) saying you 'hope' someone else does something isn't the same as
asking them to do it. At the least, it requires clarification.

(2) the only evidence we have that Trump 'asked' the FBI chief to drop
the investigation is Comey saying he did, and that's not proof. I can
say the tooth fairy visited me last night, that doesn't prove it happened.

Now if a tape emerges that shows Trump ordered Comey to drop the
investigation, that would be different.

[*skriptis]

StephenJ <step...@flex.com> Wrote in message:

;)

--

[bob]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:04:47 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>bob kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 2:18:
>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>>> I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.
>>
>> "We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>'Trump didn't understand' is a lie...
>
>He cleared the room from other people before making his demand to Comey.
>So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.

"demand?" lol. nope. he said "i hope he won't need to be
investigated." chose his words carefully and legally.

>And he probably also did the same thing with other intelligence chiefs
>who refuse to answer questions...

probably this, probably that.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 06:24:01 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com> wrote:

> >On 6/8/2017 3:04 PM, Carey wrote:
>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>>
>
>There's no way the House holds a vote to impeach Trump. Comey said Trump
>"hoped" he would drop the Flynn investigation, which doesn't make it
>clear he directed him or even asked him to.

i believe trump said he "hoped flynn wouldn't need to be investigated"
which is even less than saying "i hope you drop the investigation."

>Furthermore, even if Comey had said that Trump did tell him to drop it,
>that would just be his word vs Trump's, and you shouldn't remove a
>President from office merely because someone claims they said or did
>something.
>Nixon wasn't forced to resign until a tape was released which proved
>that he assented to interfering with an investigation. It will take
>similar proof to impeach Trump, and it should take similar proof.

bob

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 2:49:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:04:47 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> bob kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 2:18:
>>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>>>> I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.
>>>
>>> "We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>>
>> 'Trump didn't understand' is a lie...
>>
>> He cleared the room from other people before making his demand to Comey.
>> So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.
>
> "demand?" lol. nope. he said "i hope he won't need to be
> investigated." chose his words carefully and legally.
>

You're trying to lawyer around clear cut blackmail/obstruction case.

Maybe you could claim that Trump didn't mean it IF he had not fired the
guy when he didn't comply.

Besides, according to Comey's testimony Trump had already promised to
keep him previously, but questioned the position again during the 'hope
discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...

>> And he probably also did the same thing with other intelligence chiefs
>> who refuse to answer questions...
>
> probably this, probably that.
>
> bob
>

No other good reason for Roberts not to answer the question and clear
Trump of that allegation.

Trump also cleared the room before discussion with Roberts.

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 2:11:30 AM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> bob kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 2:49:
> > On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:04:47 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >
> >> bob kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 2:18:
> >>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> >>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
> >>>> I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.
> >>>
> >>> "We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."
> >>>
> >>> bob
> >>>
> >>
> >> 'Trump didn't understand' is a lie...
> >>
> >> He cleared the room from other people before making his demand to Comey.
> >> So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.
> >
> > "demand?" lol. nope. he said "i hope he won't need to be
> > investigated." chose his words carefully and legally.
> >
>
> You're trying to lawyer around clear cut blackmail/obstruction case.
>
> Maybe you could claim that Trump didn't mean it IF he had not fired the
> guy when he didn't comply.
>
> Besides, according to Comey's testimony Trump had already promised to
> keep him previously, but questioned the position again during the 'hope
> discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...
>

But couldn't he just have ORDERED Comey to drop the investigation? He is the President!
So nothing illegal here.


Max

[StephenJ]

On 6/9/2017 8:11 PM, TT wrote:
> bob kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 2:49:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:04:47 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> bob kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 2:18:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>>>>>>
>>>>> I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.
>>>>
>>>> "We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'Trump didn't understand' is a lie...
>>>
>>> He cleared the room from other people before making his demand to Comey.
>>> So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.
>>
>> "demand?" lol. nope. he said "i hope he won't need to be
>> investigated." chose his words carefully and legally.
>>
>
> You're trying to lawyer around clear cut blackmail/obstruction case.
>
> Maybe you could claim that Trump didn't mean it IF he had not fired the
> guy when he didn't comply.
>
> Besides, according to Comey's testimony Trump had already promised to
> keep him previously, but questioned the position again during the 'hope
> discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...

You can keep declaring that things are 'clear cut' all you want, but the
words Trump actually used can only "clearly" mean what you claim if you
are biased against Trump and want to think the worst about him.

Proof of this is that, and Comey, have to mention things like Trump
"clearing the room" and "well then why did he fire him?" to assign
meaning to the words. If they were clear cut, they would speak for
themselves, no blather about 'context' needed.

[TT]

Well Nixon did.

[TT]

On the contrary, what he said and did is very clear unless you are
biased to make excuses for him.

[StephenJ]

No matter how many times you say it ...

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:17:58 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>
wrote:

which is how TT and a large portion of the american and world's
population are thinking. that's why it's impossible to get a good read
on things, and have to read multiple sources and make your own logical
judgment.

it's like listening to rst talk about fed, nadal, djok, roddick,
sampras.

>Proof of this is that, and Comey, have to mention things like Trump
>"clearing the room" and "well then why did he fire him?" to assign
>meaning to the words. If they were clear cut, they would speak for
>themselves, no blather about 'context' needed.

the words "i hope you won't need to investigate," if those were the
words, are simply expressing a wish, not anywhere near an order.

bob

[StephenJ]

Agreed, that's what's clear cut about them.

In the end, the American People really will decide, and so far, even
though Trump's approval rating is in the toilet, there is no groundswell
for impeachment because what is clear is that no decisive objective
evidence against Trump has been presented.

In July 1974, Nixon was almost universally hated, and everyone thought
he was a crook. But until the tape was released which proved he
obstructed justice, he wasn't going to be impeached.

The same will prevail here, no amount of drip drip drip testimony from
anyone, nor the endless critical pontificating of the media will force
actual impeachment. Only an objective "smoking gun" like a tape or DNA
or something similar will do it.