The Comey Hearings.......any comment??

he answered that

I have one question that if answered would say a lot about Comey.
Did he know about any surveillance or investigation into Trump before the election. If so then why did he chose to only disclose Hillary's? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

What does the answer "disclose" about Comey?

What does the answer "disclose" about Comey? Originally Posted by LexusLover

on wolfe blitzer's show yesterday diane feintstein was on

wolfe asked her what evidence do you have that trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians..i think she gave a one word answer..."none"

here's comey's explanation below, notice he uses the term Clinton investigation and Russian (Not Trump) investigation (why would he say Trump was being investigated when the investigation was concerning the Russians anyway?):

"I commented, as I explained earlier, on October 28 in a letter that I sent to the chair and ranking [members] of the oversight committees that we were taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation because I had testified under oath repeatedly that we were done — that we were finished there," Comey said.

"With respect to the Russia investigation, we treated it like we did with the Clinton investigation. We didn't say a word about it until months into it, and then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is — the same thing as with the Clinton investigation — that we are investigating.

"And I would expect that we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. And I don't know what will be said when we're done, but that's how we handled the Clinton investigation as well."

....
"And I would expect that we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. And I don't know what will be said when we're done, but that's how we handled the Clinton investigation as well." Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

... that's factually incorrect.

He testified .... he brought it up again the weekend before the election because more (6,000 + ) emails were "found" and had to be reviewed .... so they weren't "done"!~ And more importantly, at least one person beside Hillary LIED to the FBI agents "investigating" her emails about the existence of classified emails on her server, which ended up on the laptop of the her aids pervert husband .... so two others were in possession of classified material without permissions!

That means: The investigation is STILL ONGOING!

And you didn't deny anything that I posted, so I must be right on the money about YOU EKIM ! Keep crowing " ANYCOCK'LDO " ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Nothing you post makes any sense except to you. why should I bother denying it?
Stick to dick gobbling ekim, dumbest member on the forum.
Have you tried MTpockets he might let you blow him.

Nothing you post makes any sense except to you. Originally Posted by bamscram

.. according to you! So, what?

.. according to you! So, what? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You will get credit for another useless post,shooting got 32,000?

What does the answer "disclose" about Comey? Originally Posted by LexusLover

... that's factually incorrect.

He testified .... he brought it up again the weekend before the election because more (6,000 + ) emails were "found" and had to be reviewed .... so they weren't "done"!~ And more importantly, at least one person beside Hillary LIED to the FBI agents "investigating" her emails about the existence of classified emails on her server, which ended up on the laptop of the her aids pervert husband .... so two others were in possession of classified material without permissions!

That means: The investigation is STILL ONGOING! Originally Posted by LexusLover

As I can see by your comments you concluded that he did not handle both cases the same. He spoke about Hillary when it would hurt her and kept quite about The Russian deal. In my opinion even if he left Trumps name out of it. The Public would have found out they were Attempting to help Trump.

This hearing was a total waste of time. Comey wouldn't answer any of the real questions in a public forum.

As I can see by your comments you concluded that he did not handle both cases the same. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Well, I guess if his BOSS had invited Trump for a "one-on-one" about "how the younins were doin" then I suppose the two cases would have been handled about the same .... but as a practical matter his hand was forced by the inappropriate behavior of his "BOSS" and the Clintons .... and I doubt the FBI or the Feds handle all cases "THE SAME"!

Did I mention "Martha Stewart"? .... Or Petraeus.

Actually, when he announced that the Feds couldn't prosecute her without direct evidence of intent on HillaryNoMore's part ... I "concluded" he didn't handle "her case" the same as probably 90% of the other Federal prosecutions ... including those HE PROSECUTED AS a U.S. Attorney.

.... When Comey announced HillaryNoMore couldn't be prosecuted without direct evidence of "intent," I concluded he didn't handle her case the same as about 90% of the other Federal cases prosecuted, including those he handled as a U.S. Attorney.

Well, I guess if his BOSS had invited Trump for a "one-on-one" about "how the younins were doin" then I suppose the two cases would have been handled about the same .... but as a practical matter his hand was forced by the inappropriate behavior of his "BOSS" and the Clintons .... and I doubt the FBI or the Feds handle all cases "THE SAME"!

Did I mention "Martha Stewart"? .... Or Petraeus.

Actually, when he announced that the Feds couldn't prosecute her without direct evidence of intent on HillaryNoMore's part ... I "concluded" he didn't handle "her case" the same as probably 90% of the other Federal prosecutions ... including those HE PROSECUTED AS a U.S. Attorney. Originally Posted by LexusLover

.... When Comey announced HillaryNoMore couldn't be prosecuted without direct evidence of "intent," I concluded he didn't handle her case the same as about 90% of the other Federal cases prosecuted, including those he handled as a U.S. Attorney. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Trying to stay on point, I am saying this not as an insult but as a honest comparison. You sound like a sound bite from Shawn Spicer. You have strung together irrelevant factors. If Comey wanted to stay non -partisan he would not have added personal opinions and not said anything about the Weiner deal. And by his convictions to tell us about it he should have told us about the Russian?Trump deal as well.

Nothing you post makes any sense except to you. why should I bother denying it?
Stick to dick gobbling ekim, dumbest member on the forum.
Have you tried MTpockets he might let you blow him. Originally Posted by bamscram

Have you seen that Fuckers teeth? Not a chance, he has sucked so many dicks he is starting to look like one.

it's becoming clear Lynch pressured Comey not to press charges against Clinton. and he didn't like her partisanship .. she was acting like a Clinton ally, which she was.

NY Times Story Confirms Loretta Lynch Acted Like a Partisan Hack, Not an Attorney General

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/20...partisan-hack/


now Lynch's chickens come back to roost!

it's becoming clear Lynch pressured Comey not to press charges against Clinton. and he didn't like her partisanship .. she was acting like a Clinton ally, which she was.

NY Times Story Confirms Loretta Lynch Acted Like a Partisan Hack, Not an Attorney General

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/20...partisan-hack/

now Lynch's chickens come back to roost! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yeah... I liked the part where Comey is ribbed after listening to Lynch's semantical bullshit... "I guess you're the Federal Bureau of Matters now!"

That entire NYT story is fascinating reading for anyone who genuinely wants to figure out Comey's thinking over the past 2 years. Here's the link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/u...tion.html?_r=0