The Comey thing is easily explained . . . .
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
I have a wildly speculative theory about James Comey:
1. From his history and prior work I think he was a solid director. His actions during the campaign were totally out of character for him.
2. He became the pawn in the 16' campaign because the Dems dug themselves a hole with the email scandal and found themselves scrambling against Trump's populist message.
3. In June Pres Obama openly endorsed HRC and joined the campaign. This was on June 9th, BEFORE the Comey press conference on July 5th. For POTUS to formally endorse HRC while the investigation of the emails was in process signaled that the email investigation was done, period. There is no way that he would endorse a candidate who had any chance of being indicted.
4. I believe POTUS, thinking that HRC was going to lose, directed the effort to end the investigation forcing Comey into a press conference that made no sense for an FBI Director to make.
5. Bill Clinton meets with Lynch on plane on June 27 th?? Bill Clinton, a very savvy politician, would NEVER have done anything to jeopardize his wife's situation unless he knew it was over.
6. Comey's message during his July 5th press conference was a backhanded way to tell the world that there was something fishy going on. The reason Obama didn't fire Comey at that point was because of the upheaval caused by Clinton-Lynch meeting.
7. I believe Comey knew HRC had violated the law(he basically laid it out during the July press conference.) so he continued to investigate it and threw out the bomb shell the week before the election.
Moving into 2017 was he fired by Trump because he was on to something with the Russian investigation? I don't know but I agree we need an independent investigation to find out.
1 Bruce1, Friday at 8:57 AM
1. From his history and prior work I think he was a solid director. His actions during the campaign were totally out of character for him.
2. He became the pawn in the 16' campaign because the Dems dug themselves a hole with the email scandal and found themselves scrambling against Trump's populist message.
3. In June Pres Obama openly endorsed HRC and joined the campaign. This was on June 9th, BEFORE the Comey press conference on July 5th. For POTUS to formally endorse HRC while the investigation of the emails was in process signaled that the email investigation was done, period. There is no way that he would endorse a candidate who had any chance of being indicted.
4. I believe POTUS, thinking that HRC was going to lose, directed the effort to end the investigation forcing Comey into a press conference that made no sense for an FBI Director to make.
5. Bill Clinton meets with Lynch on plane on June 27 th?? Bill Clinton, a very savvy politician, would NEVER have done anything to jeopardize his wife's situation unless he knew it was over.
6. Comey's message during his July 5th press conference was a backhanded way to tell the world that there was something fishy going on. The reason Obama didn't fire Comey at that point was because of the upheaval caused by Clinton-Lynch meeting.
7. I believe Comey knew HRC had violated the law(he basically laid it out during the July press conference.) so he continued to investigate it and threw out the bomb shell the week before the election.
Moving into 2017 was he fired by Trump because he was on to something with the Russian investigation? I don't know but I agree we need an independent investigation to find out.
1 Bruce1, Friday at 8:57 AM
They did what they do every day of the week 24/7. They attempted to cultivate people they could use to influence in one way or another, fair or foul, to gain whatever advantage they thought they could gain in any way, shape, or form. They've been the undisputed world champ at doing this since the mid-1930's. Which brings us to the question: If the Obama team actually thought Flynn had become a security risk then why did they approve his top level clearance during the election cycle. Lots of twists and turns to that answer...
Now what can anyone prove they did? Not much. As far as I can tell they can show that Manafort, Flynn and others have taken money from the Russians from business dealings.
IMO, Flynn was no where near as bright as many had been lead to believe and it's a true blessing he was dumped early on, Manafort is just a greedy fellow who do anything for a check (and probably is working for them at the contractor level) and that one other guy who no one in the campaign remembers and whose name escapes me, that guy strikes me as the sure thing Russian agent (too many layers of plausible deniability built in around that guy).
Can they prove any of that without giving up sources and methods? Evidently not, or all these questions would have been answered right before the election took place. Or, if you really want to go down the rabbit hole of conspiracies: Maybe the intelligence community hated Hillary just as much as myself and those in states that voted against her did..., and figured they can have the Donald impeached whenever it suits their purposes if they need to...
I'd be amazed if anyone ends up getting prosecuted over any of this...
They didn't. You're confusing two different criticisms of Flynn, and/or the relative timeline.
Flynns last security clearance (if CBS News sources are accurate) was January of 2016. Obama was still POTUS and Susan Rice was still National Sec. Adv. ; unless you prefer to embrace "alternative facts".
Be thankful Flynn was tripped up. He was a cracked major cog in the machine of state...
Be thankful Flynn was tripped up. He was a cracked major cog in the machine of state...
Similar threads
