James Comey Tesitifies

Here's the transcript of the testimony so far.

Sounds like he said he believes Trump is a liar, and that he directed him to drop the Flynn investigation, but he can't say whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

Was there a smoking gun in his testimony? Not from the news coverage I've seen.

< ISIS Attacks In Iran Kills 12, Iran Responds to "Fumbling Firecrackers" | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    At the hearing's conclusion, Sen. McCain ... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    ... sounded terribly confused in a senior moment-like way. (No snark intended.) To be perfectly honest, his performance this afternoon rather shocked me. Were I on his staff, I'd be concerned about what I just saw and would be keeping a close eye on him for the rest of the day. Were these moments of confusion a sign that he was just tired, or of something else?

    Maybe I'm reading more into it than is necessary, but I was in the room with my late grandmother when she suffered a stroke. She was always very sharp and precise in her speech, even into her nineties and in retrospect, the very first indication that something was wrong was a similar sudden confusion on her part while talking. We initially thought she was just tired, and we were wrong.

    I mean, was McCain really implying that there may have been similar contacts between the Clinton campaign and Russian operatives, as has been alleged with the Trump campaign? Given all his previous public statements regarding this matter, that made me sit up and actually take notice of his physical appearance on the Senate panel at that moment. And he looked as though he was struggling to maintain a cohesive train of thought.


    McCain was playing the old (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    "hey, I'm not insinuating Anything, I'm just asking questions" game.

    The smell of Clinton email-red herrings coming from that room was so overpowering, you almost wanted to put a hankie over your face.


    Smoking gun (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    It may possibly come in closed session.  Comey refused to answer some telling questions because they weren't suitable for open session.  But will we ever know?

    Things (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    have a way of getting out. So we might know sometime down the line.

    Will we ever know? (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    Not if our government can help it.  It's gonna take leakage.

    This (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    seems significant
    The former FBI Directer said they had heard the Attorney General was going to recuse himself, but not only because he lied during his confirmation hearing, but for a variety of reasons.

    Comey said, "We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an opening setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia related investigation problematic."

    Comey and the FBI seemed to be very sure of Session's recusal and he seemed to indicate that there are classified facts beyond his his apparent lies to the committee...hmmm.

    Today I (Maybe) Learned... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    ex-KGB guys don't smoke reefer, if Sessions is down with 'em ;)

    Is it possible to score tickets to the uncensored "closed session" on Stubhub or something?  I feel like the last two days of testimony is like when they air a movie on regular tv and all the good dialog with curse words is censored and/or butchered.  No fun, no fun at all.


    This is what everyone said (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    Would be the problem with the main investigation being in this committee.

    But the truth is the most serious part if this is a counter intelligence investigation, a literal spy hunt.

    We were never going to hear the best parts.


    After its over (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    The various books will be best sellers fer sure

    Yeah, maybe ever.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:16:00 PM EST
    especially when Repubs, much to their shame, are uniformly in full circle-the-wagons, take one for the team mode. Like an African termite mound.

    Though a few may suddenly, miraculously see the light, if any more truly troublesome leakage sees the light of day.


    This is, I think, significant (none / 0) (#28)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    although it apparently will take some time for the media to see it.

    they were just discussing it (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    on MSNBC

    also Ken Delanian says Comey basically confirmed today that Mueller is working on an obstruction case against Trump.

    he says the fact he turned all his notes over to Mueller and that he said at least twice, once saying he was "sure", Mueller was looking at obstruction.

    and it sure sounded that way to me as well.  when the republican was trying to get him to say he just "hoped" he would let Flynn go and Comey quickly adding it felt like more than that.


    Good, but I was replying (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    to the post re Sessions.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    So was I

    I just consolidated comments


    They had quite a long (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:56:14 PM EST
    Discussion about the Sessions comments

    Probably confusing.  Sorry.  And I was just reading about it.  Ill see if I can remember where.


    Josh Barrow (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    business insider
    It didn't get the most attention, but one of the newsiest pieces of information to come out of Thursday's hearing with James Comey, the fired FBI director, was not about President Donald Trump, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    Yeah, I would definitely (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:08:42 PM EST
    agree with that. The fact that the FBI basically had enough goods on Sessions to pressure him to recuse from the Russia investigation.

    And in closed session, Congress (none / 0) (#53)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    learned of another, third meeting with Russians that Sessions forgot.

    I would think that such a faulty memory is not good for an AG.


    That weasel must go!!! (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    And he's out of the Senate too. Such a phucking puke weasel.

    another prosecutor (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    just said the same thing

    Josh Marshal (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    has been great on this

    A former federal prosecutor sends in this note.

    May 9, 2017: CNN reports that grand jury subpoenas have been issued in Flynn investigation.

    May 9, 2017: Trump fires Comey.

    Did Trump find out about the subpoenas and continued investigation before the decision to fire Comey? This could be a key fact for Mueller's team to determine. If Trump was telling Comey to let Flynn go and then he finds out that, rather than letting him go, subpoenas start flying, that would be compelling evidence of intent to obstruct. Mueller will have to dig into internal White House communications (emails, texts, meetings) about what Trump knew about the Flynn investigation, when he knew it, and what he was saying about it to those in his orbit. Given what he was saying to Comey, you would have to imagine that he was saying a lot more to his inner circle.

    My favorite part of the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    Was when Comey left the republican senator stunned and blinking by telling him he leaked his notes to a friend with the intention of having that person leak it to the press with the specific intent of getting a special prosecutor named.

    Awsum.  The republican was even more speechless when he was totally unapologetic about it and explained he didn't want to do it himself because it would be like "feeding the seagulls"

    Just awsum

    Of course republicans are soiling themselves.  Trumps televangelist looking lawyer was apoplectic.

    Watching professor Douchowitz (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:34:24 PM EST
    Light his hair on fire over this




    Speaking of Alan Dershowitz, ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 10, 2017 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    What they both want (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 10, 2017 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    Is air time. And they are getting it.  In this in this age of absurd media "balance" it's just good marketing to be the "on the other hand".  Especially if you are pretty much the only one.  

    I'd say he "gave" his notes (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    to his friend. In a pretty public, above board manner.

    "Leaked" makes it sounds like he was doing something treacherous, surreptitious, and illicit -- the way Trump's lawyer is trying to spin it.

    And he basically said he did it because he knew Trump was a liar.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:22:24 PM EST
    My bad.

    That's what republicans are calling it.

    He was pretty hilariously cheerful about it.

    Yeah, damn right, theyre mine.  They belong to me and I can do what ever the hell I want with them.
    You got a problem with that, talk to the hand.


    Yeah, to them all leaks (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    are bad and un-American, unless they're coming from Russian hookers.

    The FBI psychological (none / 0) (#85)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    ...profiling team has compiled a list of 150 hot red buttons Comey can push on Trump to provoke precisely targeted intemperate reactions.

    He just pushed number three.


    And that mention of his friend (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    as a faculty member at Columbia School of Law caused its website, within minutes, to crash.

    Comey's comment (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    about giving his notes to a friend was just gratuitous.  He just brought it up on his own.

    Comey was basically saying to Trump:  You fire me and trash me and the FBI, and I want you to know that I was the one who effed you and got the Special Counsel appointed.  Payback is a b*tch.

    Comey wanted Trump to know that it was he that stuck the knife in.  


    Also (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 07:37:06 AM EST
    I think Comey was sending a message that he felt the investigation was so important and so likely to be compromised that he did what he could to ensure the appointment of a special counsel.

    Reading (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    between the lines here
    COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an opening setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic. So we were convinced -- in fact, I think we'd already heard the career people were recommending that he recuse himself, that he was not going to be in contact with Russia-related matters much longer. That turned out to be the case.
    indicates that Comey and the FBI already considered Sessions compromised. Apparently they were sitting on evidence that Sessions was continuing to lie about his meetings with Kislyak and apparently they still are.

    I think that whole certainty about his recusing himself is a bit of a smoke screen and the words also and problematic carry a huge amount of weight here.


    good point (none / 0) (#81)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 04:19:10 PM EST
    Comey has a way with words, doesn't he?!

    The part (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    where he told the GOP senator I forget which one that there is no there there in the Hillary email investigation. The guy just looked stunned.

    That would be John Cornyn, ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    ... one of the two deuces that Texas is holding in the poker game that's the U.S. Senate.

    He seemed to me (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    To be trying hard to not look like he was enjoying himself

    I caught (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    that too.

    I have it recorded for posterity (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    Cornyn whining that he also asked for a special prosecutor for the Clinton emails investigation but Comey denied him this, and Comey answering we had no case with Clinton.

    The Trump defenders keep bringing up that Trump wasn't under FBI investigation. Really you guys? Cuz I'm pretty sure Trump is under investigation now.


    I keep wondering (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    what did Comey memorialize in his very first memo from the Jan 6 meeting? In his written statement and his testimony he was quite specific in describing tRump's words and actions in all the subsequent contacts and he was also quite forthcoming in describing his own perceptions. There is very little or none of that in his descriptions of the Jan 6 briefing and private follow up.

    All we have from the written statement

    we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.
    and from the testimony,
    COMEY: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances, first, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president. The subject matter I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI's core responsibility, and that relate to the president, president-elect personally, and then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before, but had led me to believe I got to write it down and write it down in a very detailed way.
    Where he lays down a stunning perception of the meeting(he is probably going to lie about it!)yet he does not quote or paraphrase tRump nor ascribe any behavior to him that might indicate why.

    Aside from his "reaction" to the private briefing (which Comey indicates he had planned for)there is no reasons given for Comey's rush to memorialize the meeting and much less to justify his labeling trump as a probable liar.

    The smoking gun (1.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 07:59:52 PM EST
    The smoking gun was Loretta Lynch turning the DOJ into an arm of the Hillary campaign.

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 08:06:00 PM EST
    Yeah, this is the line from the Trump apologists and the alt-right media. No, I guess you did not actually listen to the testimony yourself. He said Lynch asked him to use one word instead of another.

    I guess you also missed the point where Comey said there was no there there to the Hillary investigation. I have to say though you a proving that the GOP is a master at fleecing the rubes.


    Bringing Loretta (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 08:42:38 PM EST
    Into the conversation seems unwise since it blows a big hole in what seems to be their only defense for Agent Orange, namely ignorance.  He just "didn't know" he should not meet privately with Comey.

    The problem being Trump screeched for months about Bill and Lorettas runway conversation.


    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 09:00:47 PM EST
    I think "ignorance" is the right direction but they should really go for an Insanity Defense

    Seems to me that would be a slam dunk.


    Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 09:25:56 PM EST
    always pull the stupid defense. Start talking to them and about George W. Bush and the Iraq War. He was misled by his advisors. He didn't understand the intel and on and on it goes.

    And then they all wonder why everybody gets upset and thinks they are stupid.


    This is trolling (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 10:30:08 PM EST
    A one line gratuitous off-topic drive by.

    The topic in case you missed it... (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 10, 2017 at 08:28:17 AM EST
    is the Comey testimony.

    Not really (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 10, 2017 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    Just a sideshow.   Attorney General Lynch is no longer in office.

    Typical conservative b.s.--change the subject.....


    It's always projection with these deplorables ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Erehwon on Sat Jun 10, 2017 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    Sessions has done nasty things so let's blame Lynch. And it works with the less informed deplorable community. So it's 2-fer!

    Yes really (none / 0) (#101)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    The topic is right at thee top of the page. Scroll up and you will find it. Are you disputing that Comet testified under oath regarding Lynch's behavior in the last election?

    I am disputing that (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    Lynch is relevant to anything.  She is gone.

    It was a bad faith distraction when it was raised at the Comey hearing. You raise it in bad faith now.

    I nominate you for troll status. I am hoping you have a more difficult time being a smart as* around here now.


    And what exactly did she do, Abdul? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 11:53:13 PM EST
    She asked then-Director Comey last July that the FBI's just-concluded investigation be referenced by agency personnel as a "matter," rather than as an investigation. There were no charges because no laws were broken.

    So, is that all you got? There's nothing there.


    What she did (none / 0) (#117)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    was political interference with an ongoing FBI Investigation. Since the investigation was incomplete. Lynch had no way of knowing if laws were or were not broken.

    Even Senator Feinstein finds this "matter" needs further investigation


    ... at a Sept. 2015 meeting (in which others were present) that as a personal practice while first U.S. Attorney and then as Attorney General, she had always used the term "matter" when she responded to media inquiries about a particular case, in order to ensure that she neither confirmed nor denied the existence of an active investigation. This, I would add, is entirely in accordance with standing policy at the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

    Attorney General Lynch then suggested that she and the FBI Director should be consistent in their language when discussing the Clinton email inquiry, and at the end of the meeting, she asked if everyone was comfortable with using the term "matter" in reference to that investigation. According to a DOJ official who attended that meeting, everyone agreed including Comey, and nobody took issue with her suggestion.

    Now, Abdul, what is it that you specifically find so disturbing and objectionable about Loretta Lynch's suggestion at this meeting that you've got your panties virtually knotted up in a wad, and you're literally calling for a federal investigation?

    Please don't regurgitate the right-wing spew you've lapped up from your favorite AM radio squawk jocks, or post what other people are saying about Lynch and Comey. Rather, try to think for yourself for once, and tell us in your own words what you believe to be so wrong here.

    Because to be quite honest and blunt, I really don't see anything in it. However, what I DO see here is a rather desperate and ham-handed attempt on the part of you and your fellow Republicans to divert immediate attention away from Trump-Russia, and onto a subject that's much more palatable to your tastes. And I've further no doubt whatsoever that if you could resurrect Benghazi from the rhetorical columbarium that's the GOP's politics nowadays, you'd do that, too.

    Toodle-loo, mein Herr.


    "In case you missed it" (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    The smoking gun was Loretta Lynch turning the DOJ into an arm of the Hillary campaign.

    ... Comey testified to no such thing, and your laughable mischaracterization of his testimony is just a desperate attempt to distract from Trump's obstruction.

    But if that's all you've got ...


    He gets (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    his marching orders from the alt-right media. Apparently they have a bunch of blogging drones that are unable to process facts and actually decide anything for themselves. There is a reason Republicans love Donald Trump and Abdul is a perfect specimen.

    ... over and again and hijack it with baseless right-wing crackpot nonsense.

    One day later, ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 11:46:40 PM EST
    ... I stand corrected.

    The only thing that I saw was that Comey (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    Might be....might be.... a poor communicator, makes some destructive assumptions.

    Something Jeralyn has long warned all if us about the FBI hahaha!

    Comey testified that there was no case against Clinton. He scoffed at Cornyn who whined that he requested a special prosecutor for the Clinton emails and Comey shot him right in the face. If Comey knew there was no case so did Lynch. There was no case but the press was running wild everytime it was called an investigation. Comey feared Lynch was being influenced by the Clinton campaign? Then say so! Tell Lynch this might sound like DOJ and the FBI being influenced by the Clinton campaign. But no....he holds a press conference.

    And 3 times Trump pressured him, I believe the third time Comey should have told Trump, "Sir, this is an inappropriate conversation." And then prepared to be fired, he was going to be fired no matter what he did if he was going to be ethical.

    I am not shocked at all by what Comey did. Not since my spouse became responsible for leadership curriculum and also a course on toxic leadership. Comey was just trying to make it through, protect the FBI. I've heard long dinner discussions about what subordinates can do when they are saddled with a toxic leader to protect the integrity of mission, to protect the institutions of the US military. But I am at the end of processing all that knowledge now after being surrounded by it for 3 yrs. And I wait before bringing it up while everyone dresses the perfect paradigm. Then all I have to say is great, and you've all accomplished the promotion of another Flynn. Because you all bent over in pain to be functional you make it look like toxic leadership is successful and get those leaders promoted.

    You really can't call toxic military authority out when you are in uniform without suffering yourself. I get it that the head of the FBI can't call out a toxic President either without suffering themselves. He was going to suffer one way or the other. So I wish that on the 3rd pressuring he could have documented that he told the President the conversation was inappropriate....and then been fired!


    seen War Machine? (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    full of OMG did i just laugh at that moments.

    Oh Yes (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    The entire post ran home on the 26th and watched it. We had a dinner party and everyone said Brad Pitt should win some kind of award but civilians probably won't know this. A person at the party who worked for Flynn said Anthony Michael Hall nailed Flynn in uniform. They all roared when "McChrystal" said to the old SEAL, "God damn it why are you fat?". Because SEALs just want to lift weights and bathe in creatine, they get fluffy as they age. Rangers and Delta run every morning, they think cardio is most important. And they age into rusty barbed wire. They all loved when everyone was telling the General his wife's room number so nobody could be understood and he shuts up everyone, points to one person and says go. They said this happens all the time. And I think most spouses cried at the satirical value the General's wife provided in really having no true marriage since 9/11, and babysitting people that are seemingly out of their minds at times.

    My husband was there for the McChrystal speech that he gave for how insurgents multiply when you kill them. He said the power point of COIN interaction that was behind McChrystal was worse in real life. He was there for the uniting of the clans when they put everyone in the same room. He made life long friends with the Belgium officers...and I don't know. They just stuck to each other.


    "Fluffy as they age" (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    Interesting and funny.

    I should not say this, but eff it (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    McRaven ran the ops. So my spouse exposure to McChrystal was minimal. He had minimal exposure to the Stanimal. Stan was out there trying to win NATO.

    The ops though. Obama had everyone under one umbrella so Delta and Ranger operators worked some  ops and SEAL operators worked some ops. But one command point under Obama.. Obama wasn't having anymore of this bull$hit where Marines were asking for fire support and the Army denied them, or the Army was asking for support and Marines or Air Force were denying them (like Mattis did to the Rangers/Delta that the Air Force ended up rescuing). Obama was having none of this death by title 10 bull$h*t. So on some nights everyone on the desk would make bets when the SEALs would call their mission off if they had to walk in more than 3 miles. And they don't fill their camelback. They carry bottled water in their cargo pockets. This really pisses Delta off when they have to team with SEALs and SEALs show up with 2 bottles of water and no protein on them.

    And someone cracked that joke at dinner, and then everyone remembered what happened in Yemen. Walked in 5 miles, ended up killing everyone and SEALs all shot up. It was funny for half a second.

    Anyhow, SEALs, get on that cardio.


    Marines: Cardio & Running (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 07:51:30 PM EST
    My gym is on the border of Camp Pendleton.  So, a number of Marines go there.  And, no surprise, they are strong and have muscles.

    But the Marines are not like the body builders (we have more than a couple of professionals) or the more than a few guys who  are big and "cut."  Show muscles, I have heard athlete call it.

    The Marines are not "cut" with well defined muscles.....But they look quicker and as if they could run up a hill with 60lbs of gear, without much trouble.

    One Marine at the gym, who was 6'3" and about 250 and looked like he could have been a budding body builder with well-defined muscles, was saying he only recently was able to put on lower body muscle because they ran them so much.


    Infantry Marines sure (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    Though my cousin is a Marine with an MBA and he got fluffy quickly. We are talking specifically SEALs, Rangers, and Delta and the "professional" beliefs around their physical fitness when they are upper echelon.

    My sister-in-law was a fitness trainer for the Air Force for awhile and she said that  the Air Force pilots were developing a similar problem to SEALs, everyone wanted to lift weights after 30, nobody wanted to run after 30. It was really chapping her. The Army runs though. My husband is 48, and still running, his time is slower sure, but he runs.


    Read that Rangers (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 10:42:25 PM EST
    since the drawdown in Afghanistan may not be deployed as much in terrorism related duty. And also that more SEALs are being trained. So SEALs and not Rangers to be Special Operators of the future?

    True story: A secretary told me she had been out at bars and met someone who said they were a SEAL. Not knowing what that was, she asked him if we worked at Sea World.


    A cute story! (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 11:35:23 PM EST
    Better than me parking in the General's parking place because I thought general officer meant all other officers in general.

    I have not heard about the Army operators  being sidelined. But spouse works in a much different realm at this time.

    Given that the President has so much say in this area and Trump is working hard to impress Prince/DeVos family, it would not surprise me since Prince is a past SEAL.

    Still puzzled about the Yemen failed raid where SEAL team 6 walked in like that with Erik Prince's commandos from the UAE. That was unheard of under Obama. There are lesser SEAL team groups who would pair up with other operators and troops. But not SEAL team 6 members. And Trump can whine about leaks but whatever went down there, still nobody talking yet.


    I love it (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 10:29:39 AM EST
    Pops is retired officer and I drive him to Camp Pendleton every once in a while to buy groceries and stuff on base.  

    I do see those parking spots up front reserved for "General Officers."  What a great excuse for taking that spot!


    My husband just about passed out when he (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    Found out. He said only a Liberal could interpret that sign that way. I wouldn't shop at the commissary either at Fort Carson when they put arrows on the floor and said everyone could only move in one direction in the aisles. I was so pissed. How you can read labels when traffic is backing up behind you? People were about to start making horn honking sounds. I wasn't the only one angry, they removed the arrows, said they wouldn't MAKE US shop that way. Kiss My A$$ Forever!!! King Soopers gets my money forever you crazed insane losers!

    I read labels (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    and it drives my husband batty. He and I cannot go grocery shopping together and the whole arrow thing would have driven me crazy too. I completely understand. I'm always having to go back down an aisle because I forgot something and I'm sure I would be disobeying those arrows.

    I guess (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 10:43:56 PM EST
    SEALs think they'll always be choppered in.

    At the very least (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 11:50:38 PM EST
    There was a segment of War Machine where the Marines land in a Blackhawk. I guess Marines don't travel in Blackhawks, had to hear about that for what felt like forever. Did you know when directors make those kinds of inaccuracies they LOSE THEIR MILITARY AUDIENCE? Yeah, me neither cuz they all watched it to the end.

    I know a spouse of an Osprey pilot who was backup in the Yemen raid. She asked for prayers that night and the following day said everyone was in shock and to not expect anyone would speak of it.

    I have no idea what happened, not a clue.


    The war on cardio (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    The trendy thing is to diss cardio.  Many of fitness magazines and body builders hate, hate cardio.

    Takes too long, is boring, and worst sin of all breaks down muscle.  10 40 yard dashes is better than 30 minutes of cardio.  High Intensity Interval Training ("HIIT") they call it.  Gets the metabolism up, etc.

    The goal is to build muscle and lose fat.....But, what about general conditioning? This attitude appears to have carried over to the SEALS who are about the quick fight and building muscles.

    I still think if you are fit, you should be able to run 5 or  6 miles and be okay.  These muscle guys, I am not so sure they move all that well or are really that athletic.

    Infantry don't give a rat's patooty about six pack abs....But you better be able to carry 60-80 lbs of gear on a 20 mile march and do it damn quick.  Old school.  


    You should hear what Margaret Cho (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 12, 2017 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    says about sixpack abs.

    Put it this way, after she says it, the guys in the audience puff their bellies out.


    Well, according to Comey (none / 0) (#105)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    Trump was unable to have any effect on the investigation.  So Comey probably figured he could still work on it and make progress, something he couldn't do if he was fired.

    Plus, taking an action you are quite sure will get you fired...?  A bit hard to actually go through with that, if you value your job.


    Like all leaders at the highest levels (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    In this democracy and having an absolute authority over them, they believe their own hubris.  All it takes is one toxic President.

    Comey was always going to be fired if he wasn't willing to be corrupted. But he believed all that Boy Scout BS. And I think you have to believe all that a bit to dedicate your life to those positions. But the truth is all it takes is one toxic President.

    Look at McMaster. Someone everyone thought was incorruptible. He wrote a best selling book on it. He is now living that book. If he refuses to be corrupted (he's already done some sleazy $h*t for Trump) and Trump survives, McMaster will be fired.


    Obstruction of justice (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    is something for Mueller to decide is my understanding.

    There were a few things you got from the testimony like Pence has definitely been lying through his teeth about his part in the Flynn situation.

    I caught the last half hour of the testimony. (none / 0) (#2)
    by vml68 on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    Question for anyone else that watched it...
    Is McCain losing it? Whom did he think he was going to convince with that shameful conflation of the Hillary email investigation with the Russia/Trump investigation? Pretending that it was a double standard that one investigation was finished while the other was ongoing?

    So, I don't know whether he did that on purpose. He appeared to me at that moment to be genuinely confused and struggling. He didn't sound that way at all last night while talking with reporters, and that concerns me.

    I don't watch much TV, so I have not seen/heard (none / 0) (#6)
    by vml68 on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    McCain speak in quite awhile. But, from some of the comments on the internet, it looks like quite a few people share your concerns.

    McCain kept (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    talking about an investigation of "Comey" meaning Trump.  It was really, really embarrassing.

    ststement (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    Leo Shane III ✔ @LeoShane
    .@SenJohnMcCain releases statement on his #Comey questions: "Maybe I shouldn't stay up late watching the Diamondbacks night games."
    1:38 PM - 8 Jun 2017



    That makes sense, if that's the case. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    He says he was tired, and it certainly showed.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    What the heck

    Just another day at the office after all.


    ... the most anticipated congressional public hearing in over a decade, one would think that that Sen. McGrumpy would be sure to get sufficient rest for the occasion. Instead, he says that he stayed up to watch a friggin' baseball game. Regardless, he then proceeded to make a public spectacle of himself the following morning in front of the entire nation.

    The full statement is pretty classic (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:28:00 PM EST

    "I get the sense from Twitter that my line of questioning today went over people's heads," McCain said in a statement Thursday afternoon. "Maybe going forward I shouldn't stay up late watching the Diamondbacks night games."

    "What I was trying to get at was whether Mr. Comey believes that any of his interactions with the President rise to the level of obstruction of justice," he continued. "In the case of Secretary Clinton's emails, Mr. Comey was willing to step beyond his role as an investigator and state his belief about what `no reasonable prosecutor' would conclude about the evidence. I wanted Mr. Comey to apply the same approach to the key question surrounding his interactions with President Trump--whether or not the President's conduct constitutes obstruction of justice."

    "While I missed an opportunity in today's hearing, I still believe this question is important, and I intend to submit it in writing to Mr. Comey for the record," McCain concluded.

    That was definitely the problem, it went over our heads


    Thanks for the full statement (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 09:14:53 PM EST
    Now we can see McCain's baloney.

    Comey was not investigating obstruction of justice by the President.

    Comey laid out all his interactions with Trump for McCain, the committee, and the rest of the world to come to their own conclusion.

    McCain was trying to nail Comey by getting him to stick his neck out.  Comey didn't bite.


    McCain's befuddled calculus (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:11:37 PM EST
    was exactly the same as Little Boots's always is: damn the torpedos and play strictly to the subrational republican base and the Infowars crowd.

    John McCain (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sherpa on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    Was he on drugs?  Seriously.  I'd guess even Republicans were shaking their heads at his repeated misunderstandings.

    Yes, McCain (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    seemed disoriented. He referred to Trump (twice) as President Comey, and did not appear to understand the difference between the two cases (email server v Russian interference).  Comey said he was confused by McCain's question and attempted, to no avail, to explain the differences.   McCain did not seem well.

    Yes, that is just what I saw (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    McCain (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    I think McCain misspoke (Comey = Trump) because he didn't even believe his own logic.

    My take: McCain was trying to discredit Comey by trying to say that Comey cleared Clinton of wrongdoing but wouldn't clear Trump, and then affected not to understand that the two investigations were apples and oranges.

    I think some GOP operative strategized and came up with that strategy for McCain.  He either didn't rehearse it enough or found it so morally distasteful that he got all mixed up in trying to carry it out.

    Isn't the smoking gun obstruction of justice? (none / 0) (#14)
    by beowulf888 on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    Under (18 U.S.C. 1512[b]), OoJ is defined as "obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception." Trump, by Comey's testimony attempted to persuade Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. That seems to me to be the smoking gun, but IANAL. I'd be curious what others the others on this thread think...

    Well the smoking gun (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lora on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Could be hard evidence of collusion with the Russians, if it exists...

    Trump's (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    obsession with the Steele dossier and hookers is very interesting.

    With respect to Flynn, Sally Yates said the concern was he could be blackmailed.  That the Russians do that as part of their routine playbook.

    So, could it be that simple that Trump is worried about hookers, and golden showers and hookers?


    everything else (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    in his life is golden

    Just watching your buddy (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    Clint so-and-so on MSNBC.....

    the glasses (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    work for me

    Makes me wonder (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    if Putin really does have tapes of hookers with Trump.

    Seems likely to me, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    but it would be hookers with full bladders.

    I guess the rationale (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    that the alleged germophobe Trump might use is that urine is supposedly sterile..

    Better than Megyn Kelly shooting blood on him like a stressed horned toad..

    Doesn't make him (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    look like the alpha male he likes to project....

    Impressions: "They're coming for America (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    and they will not be back."--the over-arching issue of Comey.  An issue greeted by Trump with incuriousity.

     The over-arching issue of Trump was for Comey to co-opt an investigation or otherwise encounter to call off the dogs.

    To achieve the latter, Trump seemed to deploy all the tricks of his trade, White House dinner for two, flattery (great job, hope you stay on), pledge of loyalty and sharing of that "thing" between them, "hope" that he would let great guy Flynn go, and a call to just see how he was doing as he boarded an FBI helicopter.

     The coup de gras was the invoking of the Tony Soprano business model: nice job you have there, shame if something happened to it. And, followed by Tony, Rosenstein's and Sessions' (despite recusal) response to the Becket call of "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest."  

    Comey was taken aback and memorialized encounters because of the subject matter, circumstances, and the nature of Trump--he was concerned that Trump would lie. "lies, plain and simple." Others in the Administration were problematic as well: Pence was aware of questions about Flynn, contrary to Flynn's statements; Even before recusal, Sessions was not told of the content of the meeting to which he was excluded (and did not ask about it) because he may have been enmeshed somehow in the investigation.

    The Republican senators took on a running defense of Trump, glomming onto Comey's statement that Trump was not under investigation, at the moment (leaving out, the at that moment part,  of an investigation of a campaign whose head was Trump); repeating previous questions (Susan Collins), and, of course, emails (Cornyn and McCain).

     Comey's release of some notes to a friend will be hailed as akin to actions of Reality Winner. The best of all, was the Republicans chiding of Comey for not standing up to Trump while they were all laying down for him.

    Comey made it clear that a special counsel was needed, and puts great faith in Mueller.   Comey also suggested that Trump may be under investigation for obstruction. And, the illustration of flipping using Flynn's criminal liability was, perhaps, not unintentional.

     If Coats and Rogers had answered the questions put to them, yesterday, and indicated that Trump did, in fact, "hope" that something could be done to remove this cloud, the nation would be further along at this point.

     And, while Rogers and Coats may yet provide answers to the questions in closed sessions, the public utterances of these officials, rather than second-hand, would be important to public understandings of the mess the country is in.

    I love "coup de gras" (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 10, 2017 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    a "hit of fat." (As in "foie gras" (fatty liver).) Not to be confused with a "coup de grâce" - the final bullet to the head of the executed prisoner or other mortally wounded person (or animal), as a matter of grace, to ensure s/he is dead and not suffering.

    The operative word in that statement ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    KeysDan: "The Republican senators took on a running defense of Trump, glomming onto Comey's statement that Trump was not under investigation[.]"

    ... being, of course, "was." Comey was loathe to make such a public pronouncement on Trump's behalf, because if Trump ever did eventually become a subject or target as the counterintelligence and criminal investigations progressed, the FBI would be placed in an awkward position of having to walk back a public statement.

    What do you think the odds are that Trump's a subject now?


    So true (none / 0) (#82)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    Comey's release of some notes to a friend will be hailed as akin to actions of Reality Winner.

    Agreeing with Donald from Hawaii, (none / 0) (#57)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    I noticed McCain was also breathing through his mouth during his strange questioning.  His confusion was very noticeable.

    When my gf Cindy Rizzuto had a stroke at my house, I noticed among other traits, she began breathing through her mouth.  Strokes can be difficult to recognize.  One doctor explained the severity of a stroke is measured by the deficit.  Cindy ultimately passed away due to complications from pneumonia.  65% of people suffering a stroke cannot swallow properly, but they don't realize it.  She aspirated a Pepsi cola that caused pneumonia and then sepsis.  

    So sorry fishcamp (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:44:07 PM EST
    Some Pepsi (none / 0) (#59)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:55:48 PM EST
    not all of it

    Keep hearing from the Trump defenders (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42 PM EST
    That stating you hope for a certain outcome is not directing someone, it indicates nothing sinister. It's as if they all forgot about Trump meeting with the Russians and bragging he fired that nutjob Comey to relieve his Russia pressure. Or tweeted threats about tapes to Comey if he "leaked" to the press.

    Is Jeff Sessions going down now? Can we get one less mafioso running the country?

    Laurence Tribe (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    Just said the president could probably indicted by a grand jury.  That it had never been tested.  But that the indictment would be handed to the House.

    Tribe really (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 10:58:20 PM EST
    put Dershowitz in his place.

    Dershowitz keeps saying that Trump had the power and authority to stop the Flynn investigation, or any investigation he wanted, because he was the head of the Executive.

    But, Tribe said, Dershowitz forgets that even if the President has the power, the issue is has he abused his power?


     Trump is Commander in Chief and has the authority and power to order an air strike.  But if he does do so to destroy the hotel of a competitor to advance his personal finances, then he has abused his power and committed an impeachable offense.


    When people are sitting in their (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:11:47 PM EST
    Living rooms stricken by the corruption that gets to dictate our lives, it cannot stand, we are not a dictatorship, this is a democracy and there must be a remedy even if we have never faced down such corruption before.

    Colbert made me laugh though tonight. Thank God!

    Do Republicans see what went down in the UK tonight?

    We have several Freeman Sheldon Syndrome friends in the UK now. One who is as much of an activist as he's capable of being. But the UK Freeman Sheldon families are exuberant....they were afraid to go to sleep lest they wake up again to May or Trump or Brexit again, but they finally made it to bed.

    I can't comprehend the evil vile dishonesty some Republicans are trying to spin tonight. I need a spa day.


    Well, they (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 08:10:47 AM EST
    actually woke up to May although a much weakened one for sure.

    By a hair (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    She kneecapped herself. I'm delighted. Please God, in 2018 let us be stuck with a mostly powerless May.

    I can't (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    believe the Tories are not going to force her out or something. Maybe they can't force her out but don't they have something in the UK called a vote of no confidence?

    If she can't form a government (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    She will be forced to leave. But she's going to test this Trump thing of no matter how bad it is, no matter how much everyone hates you, pretend like everything couldn't be better and refuse to step down until they drag you away kicking and screaming.

    An actual vote of no confidence would ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    ... bring about the fall of the government and compel yet another round of national elections, which is the very last thing the Conservatives want right now given what happened yesterday. If anything would force Theresa May out of office at this juncture, it will likely be an internal Tory "palace coup" amongst her own ministers after she forms her new government. That's what sidelined Margaret Thatcher in late 1990, when she was undermined by her own Chancellor of the Exchequer, John Major, who subsequently succeeded her as prime minister.

    Had a guy try this argument (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    ... on me at the office this morning - "I hope" is not the same as ordering someone to do something.  At which point I pointed out the obvious context ...  Your boss invites you over, asks you if you want to keep your job, dismisses everyone else so he can talk to you alone, then says her "hopes" you will do something that - if given as a command - would be a crime.  Then, when you don't do what he "hopes" you will do, he fires you.  At which point he stammered for a few seconds and feel back on "Well, we don't know that's what happened.  There's no tape of the conversion."  

    "You sure about that?"  I really hope there is, but if these clowns want to put Trump's credibility/honesty against Comey, their fallback argument is even more idiotic than their "Hoping isn't an order" garbage.


    Yeah, I'm sick of it (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    As Armando tweeted, spineless Republican Senators chastising Comey for not standing up to Trump are hilarious.

    James Comey was supposed to have the sort of backbone with his boss that nobody else can muster.


    The legal (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by beowulf888 on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    I did a little digging yesterday and found a couple of cases where Circuit Courts upheld obstruction convictions or sentencing enhancements based on phrases with the word hope in them. I'm just a layman, so sorry for the crappy legal citation, but I provided the links to the cases.

    5th Circuit affirmed an obstruction of justice conviction based in part on "I'm just hoping" comment...

    US v. Bedoy, 2016 http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020160630191/U.S.%20v.%20BEDOY

    8th Circuit affirmed an obstruction of justice enhancement based partly on an "I hope" statement...

    US v. McDonald, 2008


    Per the statutes, obstruction of justice ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    "Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."
    - James Baldwin, author and social critic (1924-1987)

    ... can be accomplished via attempts at persuasion, and is not necessarily dependent upon the issuance of a direct order. The GOP's stance on "hope" is legally nonsensical but at this point, I'd offer that they're addressing their ignorant political base rather than a trial jury.



    Good for you! (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    The argument about "hope" was absurd on its face.

    The Idaho Senator advocating the "hope" argument kept implying that a strictly legal analysis would focus only on the words Trump spoke.  Not so, Mondo.

    The surrounding circumstances are almost always legally relevant in interpreting the actual words spoken or even written down.

    So, now that "legal analysis" has re-created the result common sense would tell you....


    "Tapes"!!! (none / 0) (#83)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 05:18:12 PM EST
    Investigators want White House recordings, if they exist.

    I am glad they are forcing Tr*mp to put up or shut up on his bu11sh!t about the tapes.

    Asked directly whether he was recording conversations in the Oval Office -- a claim he hinted at on Twitter last month -- Trump dodged. I am not hinting at anything. I will tell you about it over a very short period of time," Trump said, twice declining to elaborate.
    He later said reporters were "going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer."
    The noncommittal response leaves the door open to White House tapes, something that legal experts say would fall within the purview of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's 2016 election meddling and the Trump campaign's potential role.

    even right wingers are losing patients (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    Grassley rips Trump administration for blowing off certain oversight requests

    "To so fundamentally misunderstand and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectivity. Indeed, OLC appears to have utterly failed to live up to its own standards," Grassley added.

    "Members of Congress simply do not treat executive branch officials with such contempt and they do not deserve such treatment in return," Grassley wrote. "Unlike virtually all executive branch officials, Members are elected to constitutional positions. Instead, the executive branch should work to cooperate in good faith with all congressional requests to the fullest extent possible."

    they have asked for the "tapes" (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 at 06:08:24 PM EST
    by June 23rd

    which happens to be the date of the relase od the Smoking Gun Nixon Tape