Comey testimony: The liberal media ignores big questions about Obama's Justice Dept

[james_1957]

If the media weren’t so desperate to beat their anti-Trump drum, the only headlines we’d see today would deliver harsh indictments of the Obama Justice Department.

In his testimony yesterday, former FBI Director James Comey dropped the bombshell that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to publicly lie to the American people about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Yet Democrats and liberal talking heads are solely focused on twisting Comey’s testimony to impose their own negative narrative when the facts that just don’t support them. Despite the huge disappointment to the liberal media machine, the testimony Thursday reaffirmed exactly what we already knew: at no point has there been any evidence of the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian actors, nor any effort to impede the FBI investigation into the matter.

In a political atmosphere driven by unsubstantiated leaks it is often hard to cut through the constant, deafening din of unsourced rumors often reported as facts. The only way to cut through the noise was to have Comey himself to speak openly about the facts of the case. President Trump knew this, which is why he didn’t invoke executive privilege and members of the administration encouraged Comey’s testimony.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...uestions-about-obamas-justice-department.html

 

[water505]

Of course they ignore it. They invent their own news.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Back in 2001 the media rode Dubya's ass till 9/11; its what they do.

 

[FGB]

Hell, Why stop now?

 

[Rightguide]

Let's hope a grand jury will be looking into this revelation soon. A wonderful irony here would be the Democrat attack on Trump winds up putting Democrats in legal jeopardy.

 

[sr71plt]

Interesting. Every commentary treatment I saw in the media of the Comey testimony gave air time to the Loretta Lynch "don't call it an investigation" comment as well as mentioning again the impropriety of the Bill Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting. I take it that James_1957 and Fox News only watch Fox News.

 

[james_1957]

Let's hope a grand jury will be looking into this revelation soon. A wonderful irony here would be the Democrat attack on Trump winds up putting Democrats in legal jeopardy.

Loretta Lynch's loyalty is to the Clintons, not to Obama.

It'll be interesting to see what path she chooses to follow.

 

[Rightguide]

Loretta Lynch's loyalty is to the Clintons, not to Obama.

It'll be interesting to see what path she chooses to follow.

If she didn't have a full-blown allegiance to Obama she would have initiated legal proceedings to stop his felonious cash transfer to Iran instead of just registering a warning that it was illegal. Don't forget Obama backed the election of Hillary Clinton. Hillary, if elected, would have continued down Obama's path.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Let's hope a grand jury will be looking into this revelation soon. A wonderful irony here would be the Democrat attack on Trump winds up putting Democrats in legal jeopardy.

Which Democrats and for what? Calling an investigation something other than an investigation?

Trump opponents are sparing no laborious efforts to stretch the clear meaning of the laws in an attempt ensnare the President. That's "deplorable." The President himself seems determined to assist them in every way possible by affecting the course of investigations with actions and language that give at least the quasi-appearance of illegality. That's uncommonly stupid.

The most partisan supporters of the President would be best advised not to replicate either of the above faults.

 

[HisArpy]

Which Democrats and for what?

I think he's referring to Mueller's investigation. It can go anywhere for any reason.

• Lynch's notice that the cash transfer to Iran was possibly illegal is right there in the open.

• Hillary's server/email thing is still there and viable.

• Obama's admin (MAYBE it was Susan Rice but certainly someone in the admin did it) leaking Flynn's name is a crime.

• The DNC emails showing that they attempted to rig the election and disenfranchise voters.

• The Clinton Foundation's connection to the Hillary campaign.

There are a few other things that happened which Mueller can investigate and refer charges on if he finds evidence of criminal activity. Most of those things involve Democrats and it would be ironic if the thing they wished for was in reality their downfall. I anticipate that within a year, the Dem's will be requesting that the DOJ dismiss Mueller and stop his investigation. Sooner if he starts to look like he is headed in their direction.

 

[hashtag69]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...uestions-about-obamas-justice-department.html

Time for a new routine, asshole.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I think he's referring to Mueller's investigation. It can go anywhere for any reason.

• Lynch's notice that the cash transfer to Iran was possibly illegal is right there in the open.

• Hillary's server/email thing is still there and viable.

• Obama's admin (MAYBE it was Susan Rice but certainly someone in the admin did it) leaking Flynn's name is a crime.

• The DNC emails showing that they attempted to rig the election and disenfranchise voters.

• The Clinton Foundation's connection to the Hillary campaign.

There are a few other things that happened which Mueller can investigate and refer charges on if he finds evidence of criminal activity. Most of those things involve Democrats and it would be ironic if the thing they wished for was in reality their downfall. I anticipate that within a year, the Dem's will be requesting that the DOJ dismiss Mueller and stop his investigation. Sooner if he starts to look like he is headed in their direction.

Fair enough, but I think most of those are pretty thin, and some will likely die of old age, if they aren't effectively dead already.

 

[HisArpy]

True. However, there is a risk that if the Dem's nominate someone in the next election cycle who is connected even peripherally to any of those things, they could return in a political zombie apocalypse.

Which is why I think that the Dem's will be asking for Mueller's dismissal soon. They don't have anyone in the wings who is qualified to take over. So they'll have to run someone who is involved in some fashion.

Unless they think that bitch Kamala Harris can get elected after a national campaign Good luck with dat.

 

[Rightguide]

Which Democrats and for what? Calling an investigation something other than an investigation?

Trump opponents are sparing no laborious efforts to stretch the clear meaning of the laws in an attempt ensnare the President. That's "deplorable." The President himself seems determined to assist them in every way possible by affecting the course of investigations with actions and language that give at least the quasi-appearance of illegality. That's uncommonly stupid.

The most partisan supporters of the President would be best advised not to replicate either of the above faults.

For openers, calling for an investigation into the actions of Loretta lynch to turn the DOJ into an arm of the Clinton campaign by hindering an FBi criminal investigation into the security breaches committed by Clinton, her associates, and President Obama.

The FBI has emails that show Lynch was behind the strategy that intentionally misstated the law in 18 USC 793 f that inserted "intent" as necessary to prove negligence in the Clinton case of mishandling classified information.

Investigate whether or not her meeting with former President Bill Clinton was intentionally staged in order to create a circumstance for her to set aside and allow Comey to go before Congress to outline the findings of the FBi while inserting the Lynch narrative of "Intent" to justify shutting down any further action that might harm her presidential campaign.

Investigate as well whether or not the "Gang Of Eight" had guilty knowledge of illegal leaks and illegal unmasking for political reasons of Trump campaign figures by the use of polygraph tests. Putting them on the box is the only way to get at the truth. Their security clearances require acceptance of such tests upon demand.

Yes Colonel, the President can be his own worst enemy but that doesn't excuse illegal action by opposing government employees to subvert his agenda, undermine his administration, and endanger the national security. I believe the previous administration committed many illegal acts that warrant investigation. I have yet to "evidence" the Trump administration has done anything to warrant such investigation. When I do, I will be the first to demand the same.

 

[Rightguide]

Fair enough, but I think most of those are pretty thin, and some will likely die of old age, if they aren't effectively dead already.

Effectively dead by inaction and political expediency, but demonstrably illegal nonetheless.

 

[Libsam]

Typo in thread title. It should read Clinton's Justice Dept.

Comey said he talked to Obama twice, one of those times was a goodbye at the end of his term. Hello Puppet.

 

[Rightguide]

The Senate wants Comey's notes but guess what, he gave the only copy to the NYTs. Maybe US Marshals should be tossing his house right now.