https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bii0p9AnBEE

If anyone wants to watch it

Comey doesn't exonerate Trump for obstruction, but that he wasn't under investigation then. The way Comey leaked information was designed to get Trump investigated by a special consul and if Trump recorded the conversation he might make the Nixon tapes look innocent.

Comey repeatedly called Trump a liar and there are enough recordings of Trump denying recorded statements to make Comey credible.

"if Trump recorded the conversation"

lol, It's Comey who's saying he recorded his conversations with Trump, not the other way around.

All Comey basically admitted to was that he was a coward, Trump never ordered him to do anything, Trump was not under investigation, and that the Obama Administration basically forced him to use Clinton campaign language in his statements about the Clinton email "INVESTIGATION". Biggest surprise was that he discussed the Obama-Clinton campaign collusion and their efforts to interfere in FBI investigation into Clinton's emails and that he was the source of a memo leak.

The Republicans should immediately form a new committee to investigate the Obama-Clinton attempts to interfere with Comey and the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

10/10 trolling

what your comment above? Have you even watched the testimony?

@leon1122 - Trumped tweeted a warning to Comey that he might have recorded the conversation. People that have done business with Trump have stated that Trump does record some conversations and one was used in a court case.

recording a conversation is not a crime Rando

ND:
I would have to disagree on the nature of whether or not Comey was directed by Trump to do anything. The Flynn investigation it is very easy to see how that is direction when context is considered.

If your father, for example, told you "I hope you'll be able to mow the lawn this afternoon," then you bet you're being directed to mow the lawn in the afternoon. Trump, similarly, is an authority figure, as I'm sure you can agree. Whether or not it would be obstruction of justice is left in the air.

But you are correct if we are talking about the Russia investigation. Trump didn't ask Comey to drop the investigation, he wanted Comey to make it clear Trump himself was not under investigation, but Comey was not going to do that publicly because he didn't want the potential duty to correct or create a slippery slope for the basis of stopping the investigation in total.

A lot of my friends are starting to question whether or not a lot of this that deals with Trump is actually him just being resoundingly incompetent, which Ryan's statement seemed to suggest. Either way, if this is considered a victory for Trump, Trump must have a pretty low bar for victory.

Lordy I hope there are tapes.

ND: Technically it's a crime if Comey was unaware he was being recorded, but he seems to be hoping for that now so that he can have details corroborated.

@ND:
Trump: "I really hope this whole investigation goes away (wink wink)."
Comey: umm. awkward
...
Comey: let's keep this investigation into the extremely likely possibility that the Russian government and its agents attempted to influence the presidential election in the United States.
Trump: "You're fired."
...
Does that about sum it up?

There was a complete FBI investigation on the Clinton emails, and Comey indicated that there was no basis for prosecution. Period. So that's done.

Now, back to a foreign government attempting to (and possibly actually doing so) influence a democratic election ... investigation ongoing.

@leon1122 - what are you talking about? Trump suggested he recorded their conversations. Comey took copious notes of conversations after the fact, and has now shared them with a Congressional committee. During the testimony today, he expressed hope that Trump HAD recorded the conversations, so that his word could be corroborated.

@ ND - I get it, you are a Trump supporter. Fine. But there is something to be said for attempting to look at both sides of an issue. I have yet to see a single comment from you on any of myriad forum threads that suggests you can do so. You appear to have put on blinders, and are staring down one conspiracy-theory-laden path along which everything anyone who is NOT Trump is a liar, a cheat or out to get him, while Trump is a blameless angel.

How you came to that conclusion, I am not sure. At best, he is a middling businessman (and that is questionable). He is a terrible politician, has been proven a compulsive liar, has a total lack of self-control and is an apologist for THE RUSSIANS.

All the rest aside, what is that last bit about?! I mean, that is totally bonkers. Russia is an autocratic regime literally diametrically opposed in every way to everything that the United States stands for. Stand by your man Trump if you want, but why would you NOT want to get to the bottom of what the Russians actually did? Do you think that is some far-fetched conspiracy theory? It is the consensus among 17 US intelligence agencies that the Russians DID attempt to influence the election.

@ ND: recording a conversation without the other party's consent can be a crime. FYI.

I would also like everyone, whether Trump supporter or detractor, to keep in mind a lot of relevant information is classified, which means we might never get those pieces of the full picture.

Recording a conversation depends upon state law. From what I understand it was legal there. Some states require only one person needs to know and others require all people have to know.

However all recordings of White House business are considered to be government records and can't be destroyed. If Trump did record anything and there is a legal request for it, then he can face obstruction charges for withholding it. It's the same as for the Nixon tapes during Watergate.

It appears D.C. has one-party consent so yes it would be legal.

If there were recordings in the white house it falls under federal law as the district of Columbia is outside of any state

Or did you 'sea lawyers' forget that fact.

Technically not really. It's governed by itself in some degree, and Congress can also make particular laws to govern the District in particular.

Exactly, it was not illegal if Trump recorded the conversations, but if he destroyed it then it would be the destruction of government property and that is a crime. There is no evidence for that though.

Last I checked Trump was not Comey's father. Trump never ordered Comey to 'drop' the Flynn investigation (he could have done so as he is Comey's boss). Comey could have resigned if Trump gave him an order that he felt was out of line. He did not. Trump has a certain set of mannerism's and essentially a non-Washington dialect. It is certainly possible that Comey misconstrued what Trump was saying. I believe Trump was simply telling Comey that Flynn was a good guy. It isn't a big deal. Period.

Also, as to the Russia investigation. I think it is a hoax. I have yet to see any published and verified reports from any of the "17" intelligence agencies outlining how Russia influenced the election. All I have seen is a few hacks from the Obama Admin get up on tv and say that the Russians did it. Show me the proof and the evidence. Until then it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Was Trump an authority figure over Comey? Is the role of president one that takes some authority over the role of FBI Director?

Absolutely. So it is the same as the father-son analogy.

Also keep in mind Trump is in fact a father and has been an authority figure for a large portion of his own life, so such the same statement of "I hope you will do this" is something he himself should know the power of.

"I have yet to see any published and verified reports from any of the "17" intelligence agencies outlining how Russia influenced the election."

And you won't. It's classified. Because it poses an inherent safety risk.

It's the relationship between a boss and a subordinate and the boss in this situation did not give the subordinate a direct order. He could have and he didn't.

Right, it's 'classified' lol. Sure. Good way to never have to explain it or show the evidence.

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
It doesn't have to be phrased as "Go do X" to be a direction. I have a friend who is a veteran from the Air Force, and he said his commanders would frequently give him directions by saying "I hope you will solve this issue."
If your own boss said "I hope you get this work done," will you tell him you won't get that work done?

And yes it's classified. Comey frequently answered "I can't answer that in an open setting" on issues that directly pertain to the investigation because making them public is an issue of national security. The Senate Committee literally set time aside immediately after so that they could receive answers to questions in regard to that issue.

No. If I was the FBI Director and the President said he hoped I would let some investigation go I would ask if that was a direct order. If he said yes then I would resign.

As for the other point, sure. I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh ND you cannot be that naive, that's how a "boss" gets himself "plausible deniability" when a clear direction to act in an illegal way has unpleasant consequences for the "boss". He expresses to a servant/ subordinate a desire that something happen, and employs "servants" who are clever at interpreting his "expressed desires.
Rupert Murdoch doesn't have to give clear directions that his editors engage in illegal phone tapping, he can simply praise stories based on material from illegally obtained, and never question the expenditures of monies involved...and anyone who thinks Rupert doesn't pay very close attention to "costs" and minimise them wherever possible is even more naive than is credible.

That's your opinion Major M&M

@ND - maybe not everyone is willing to throw away their job that quickly. And if he said yes, you mean you would prosecute him for obstruction of justice and then resign, or resign and report it to the Senate immediately, no?

Also, you can admit that the way he phrased it gave him plausible deniability, no?