Comey Testimony, only what republicans said

[Gold Dragon]

Former FBI Director Comey Say President | Video | C-SPAN.org

I know folks here are not interested in hearing this testimony but I think even if you assume everything that Comey said was a lie, there are some pretty interesting things to note even if you only listen to the statements made and questions asked by Republican senators. I listened to the entire testimony and it was fascinating even if you look at it just as a window into the inner workings of the FBI and its relationship with the white house in previous administrations.

A couple of other notes.
1. The questions asked by Democratic Senator Kamala Harris were completely useless as Comey had to say no comment to almost all of them. Her section was a complete waste of time.
2. Is McCain getting dementia? I generally like what McCain has to say but he was pretty incoherent in his questions and comments. He was one of the most critical of Comey but it almost felt like a forced attempt to curry favour with Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html

RISCH: Yesterday, I got, and everybody got, the seven pages of your direct testimony that's now a part of the record, here. And the first -- I read it, then I read it again, and all I could think was, number one, how much I hated the class of legal writing when I was in law school.

And you were the guy that probably got the A, after -- after reading this. So I -- I find it clear, I find it concise and, having been a prosecutor for a number of years and handling hundred -- maybe thousands of cases and read police reports, investigative reports, this is as good as it gets.

And -- and I really appreciate that -- not only -- not only the conciseness and the clearness of it, but also the fact that you have things that were written down contemporaneously when they happened, and you actually put them in quotes, so we know exactly what happened and we're -- and we're not getting some rendition of it that -- that's in your mind. So...

....

RISCH: That's obvious, sir.

The -- the chairman walked you through a number of things that -- that the American people need to know and want to know. Number one, obviously we're -- all know about the active measures that the Russians have taken.

I think a lot of people were surprised at this. Those of us that work in the intelligence community didn't -- it didn't come as a surprise. But now, the American people know this, and it's good they know this, because this is serious and it's a problem.

I -- I think, secondly, I gather from all this that you're willing to say now that, while you were director, the president of the United States was not under investigation. Is that a fair statement?

COLLINS: I'd like to now turn to the conversations with the president about Michael Flynn, which have been discussed at great length. And, first, let me make very clear that the president never should have cleared the room, and he never should have asked you, as you reported, to let it go -- to let the investigation go.

But I remain puzzled by your response. Your response was, "I agree that Michael Flynn is a good guy." You could have said, "Mr. President, this meeting is inappropriate. This response could compromise the investigation. You should not be making such a request."

It's fundamental to the operation of our government that the FBI be insulated from this kind of political pressure. And you've talked a bit today about that you were stunned by the president making the request.

But my question to you is, later on, upon reflection, did you go to anyone at the Department of Justice and ask them to call the White House counsel's office and explain that the president had to have a far better understanding and appreciation of his role vis-a-vis the FBI?

BLUNT: The -- any suggestion that the -- that General Flynn had violated the Logan Act, I always find pretty incredible. The Logan Act's been on the books for over 200 years. Nobody's ever been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act.

My sense would be that the discussion -- not the problem -- misleading investigators or the vice president might have been.

LANKFORD: And then you made a comment earlier about the attorney general -- previous attorney general -- asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails, saying that you'd been asked not to call it an "investigation" anymore, but to call it a "matter."

And you had said that confused you. Can you give us additional details on that?

...
LANKFORD: It gave the impression that the campaign was somehow using the same language as the FBI, because you were handed the campaign language and told to be able (ph) to use the campaign language...

COTTON: Let me turn to a couple of statements by one of my colleagues, Senator Feinstein. She was the ranking member on this committee until January, which means she had access to information that only she and Chairman Burr did. She's now the senior Democrat on the -- on the Judiciary Committee, meaning she has access to the FBI that most of us don't.

On May 3rd, on CNN's Wolf Blitzer's show, she was asked, "Do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?"

She answered, "Not at this time."

On May 18th, the same show, Mr. Blitzer said, "The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked if you had actually seen any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me, and I'm quoting you now -- you said, 'Not at this time.' Has anything changed since we last spoke?"

Senator Feinstein said, "Well, no. No, it hasn't." Do you have any reason to doubt those statements?

...

COTTON: On February 14th, the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story, and you said, in the main. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?

...

COTTON: We can discuss that in a classified setting, then.

I want to turn attention now to Mr. Flynn and the allegations of his underlying conduct: to be specific, his alleged interactions with the Russian ambassador on the telephone, and then what he said to senior Trump administration officials and Department of Justice officials.

I understand there are other issues with Mr. Flynn, related to his receipt of foreign monies or disclosure of potential advocacy activity on behalf of foreign governments. Those are serious and credible allegations that I'm sure will be pursued, but I want to speak specifically about his interactions with the Russian ambassador.

There was a story on January 23rd in the Washington Post that says -- entitled, "FBI reviewed Flynn's calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit." Is this story accurate?

BURR: Jim, several of us on this committee have had the opportunity to work with you since you walked in the door. I want to say, personally, on behalf of all this -- all the committee members, we're grateful to you for your service to your country, not just in the capacity as FBI director, but as prosecutor, and more importantly, being somebody that loves this country enough to tell it like it is.BURR: I want to say to your workforce that we're grateful to them -- with the level of cooperation that they have shown us, with the trust we've built between both organizations, the Congress and -- and the bureau. We couldn't do our job if it wasn't for their willingness to share candidly with us the work that we need to see.

 

[Adonia]

1. The questions asked by Democratic Senator Kamala Harris were completely useless as Comey had to say no comment to almost all of them. Her section was a complete waste of time.

This woman is despicable. I heard her the other day at some hearing and she would never give the retired General whom she was questioning any chance to answer before she rudely interrupted him with another question. Such disrespect to a retired military person is unacceptable. She is a complete partisan Democrat hack!

2. Is McCain getting dementia? I generally like what McCain has to say but he was pretty incoherent in his questions and comments. He was one of the most critical of Comey but it almost felt like a forced attempt to curry favour with Trump.

Yes, the man has seen better days and he should have retired years ago. He served his country admirably in the military, a genuine hero if there ever was one. His political career on the other hand has been pitiful. He is the Republican establishment's example of a political hack, another big spending anti-constitutionalist who cares not one wit about liberty for the American people.

Former speaker Nancy Pelosi who is 77 is another one who has age related mental issues and they are showing. She is an embarrassment and it is time for her to retire to her large estate in California. Enough already!

 

[just-want-peace]

Without the perks of power, these folks would be absolutely miserable; it's their reason for living I do believe!!

 

[carpro]

2. Is McCain getting dementia?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html

He's been losing it for awhile. Time for retirement,

 

[Gold Dragon]

Without the perks of power, these folks would be absolutely miserable; it's their reason for living I do believe!!

While Harris and McCain's questions were a waste of time, I thought the other members, both democrat and republican asked some very good and important questions that i felt were quite revealing. Some of it that was damaging to the democrats and mainstream media as Rev and carpro are so eager to cut and paste articles about. But if you don't depend on a secondary source to filter your information for you so that you only hear what they want you to hear, there are also many other things to be concerned about that this hearing provided a lot of clarity about, even if you just look at what republicans said.