Liberal Forum

Misty » 13 May 2017 11:50 am » wrote:

This Tweet was clearly meant to intimidate Comey into remaining silent about what was said when he had dinner at the WH.

Comey will still be called to testify before Congress, and now as a private citizen, he becomes a witness.

Surely as a witness, he will be asked about what was said at that dinner, and in any subsequent contacts he had with the POTUS.

I believe they have a term for that when someone tries to intimidate a witness into remaining silent.

Oh yeah. It's called 'intimidating a witness.'

Next time Comey testifies before Congress, don't be surprised if you see his brother Shemus brought in from Ireland, sitting in the hearing room.




"I never had dinner at the White House.
I got my own food, Senator."

And there are those who took as just a bit of a humor, a jab at the twitter twits who go into a frenzy whenever trump tweets (it accomplished that job) and weak warning to be honest.

He is already fired so exactly what is the threat or intimidation?

Misty » 12 May 2017 8:24 am » wrote:I guess you only expect an AG to be independent when they are appointed by a Democrat.

I don't expect any AG to defy an EO that was approved by the White House Counsel's Office unless that AG resigns.

That's the way it's supposed to work. She betrayed the president of the country and the American people.

Termin8tor » 13 May 2017 1:11 pm » wrote:What is the explicit implied threat, psycho?
Indictment? Physical assault?
Where's the beef, psycho?

Anyone with a functioning brain (which leaves you out) can see that the Tweet clearly was an attempt to intimidate Comey into remaining silent about what was said during his dinner at the WH.

Like I said in a previous post, Comey now becomes a witness.
45 was intimidating a witness into remaining silent.

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:26 pm » wrote:Anyone with a functioning brain (which leaves you out) can see that the Tweet clearly was an attempt to intimidate Comey into remaining silent about what was said during his dinner at the WH.

Like I said in a previous post, Comey now becomes a witness.
45 was intimidating a witness into remaining silent.

Bulls***. If you believe that, you're mentally ill, although we already know that.

Trump specifically warned that Comey should be honest if he leaks.

And I asked you questions. Got answer or your usual stonewalling?

What is the explicit implied threat?

Indictment? Physical assault?

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:26 pm » wrote: Anyone with a functioning brain (which leaves you out).....

You can't even tell believable lies.

Huey » 13 May 2017 1:22 pm » wrote:And there are those who took as just a bit of a humor, a jab at the twitter twits who go into a frenzy whenever trump tweets (it accomplished that job) and weak warning to be honest.

A 'weak warning' to be honest.

Gotta love it.

45 warning somebody else to be honest is the height of irony.

He said in his interview with Jeanine Pirro that he just wants Comey to be honest.
That's the last thing he wants. Believe me.

I'm glad that you find it amusing that our president is a Twitter Troll.

Huey » 13 May 2017 1:22 pm » wrote:He is already fired so exactly what is the threat or intimidation?

I already answered that.
He will still be called as a witness in Congressional hearings, and undoubtedly be asked about his conversations with 45.
This was 45's way of intimidating him into not contradicting what he said in his interview with Lester Holt.

Termin8tor » 13 May 2017 1:30 pm » wrote: You can't even tell believable lies.

That's why I tell the truth.

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:34 pm » wrote: A 'weak warning' to be honest.

Gotta love it.

45 warning somebody else to be honest is the height of irony.

He said in his interview with Jeanine Pirro that he just wants Comey to be honest.
That's the last thing he wants. Believe me.

I'm glad that you find it amusing that our president is a Twitter Troll.
I already answered that.
He will still be called as a witness in Congressional hearings, and undoubtedly be asked about his conversations with 45.
This was 45's way of intimidating him into not contradicting what he said in his interview with Lester Holt.

What is there too warn he is a,ready fired. I find it amusing that he is more than liking jerking your chain. Just as I did the other day with that thread.

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:35 pm » wrote: That's why I tell the truth.

You claimed that Trump is trying to intimidate Comey into not testifying. That's a felony, psycho.

So you think that Trump tweeted evidence of a felony in front of the entire country?

Not even you are so wacked as to believe that.

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:35 pm » wrote: That's why I tell the truth.

Really?

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:34 pm » wrote:He said in his interview with Jeanine Pirro that he just wants Comey to be honest.
That's the last thing he wants. Believe me.

We wouldn't believe you with the time of day, psycho.

He will still be called as a witness in Congressional hearings, and undoubtedly be asked about his conversations with 45.
This was 45's way of intimidating him into not contradicting what he said in his interview with Lester Holt.

There is no threat without a consequence.

What is the explicit implied consequence?
Indictment? Physical assault?


Saying mean things about him in a tweet?

Huey » 13 May 2017 1:47 pm » wrote:

Really?

It's for moments like this that I want the thread to remain unlocked.

Termin8tor » 13 May 2017 1:49 pm » wrote: It's for moments like this that I want the thread to remain unlocked.

Yeah, so let's just address her alleged factual comments. Plus, she has peanut gallery turned on.

SHE ALSO CHANGED THE NAME.

Huey » 13 May 2017 1:50 pm » wrote:Yeah, so let's just address her alleged factual comments.

If she's correct, Trump has committed a felony; intimidating a witness!

I'm sure that there will be calls for his immediate impeachment, because she never lies!

Plus, she has peanut gallery turned on.

SHE ALSO CHANGED THE NAME.

Yeah, propaganda and leftist idiocy is now "news."

Termin8tor » 13 May 2017 1:07 pm » wrote:How has Trump violated the rule of law, Dim?

Does Charlie Sykes say that he violated the rule of law in that piece?
I know he talks about 'wholesale violations of the norms and traditions.'

Termin8tor » 13 May 2017 1:07 pm » wrote:What separation of powers "overt contempt?" Like any FBI Director, Comey serves at the pleasure of the President. It is his Constitutional right to fire him for obvious problems of competence and ethics.

Yes it is, but that's not why he fired him.
Thanks to his interview with Lester Holt, we know that the first reason the WH put out for the firing him was a bunch of ****.

HOLT: Did you ask for a recommendation?

TRUMP: What I did is I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not...

HOLT: You had made the decision before they came into your office (ph).

TRUMP: I -- I was going to fire Comey. I -- there's no good time to do it, by the way.
[...]
TRUMP: He had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it

And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.

It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won.

Every WH surrogate including the VP went out and said that Comey was fired solely on Deputy AG Rosenstein's 'recommendation.'

Every one of them used that 'recommendation' talking point over and over and over.

Then 45 does an interview and says that he had decided to fire Comey long before any 'recommendation' and in the same breath he mentions the 'Russia thing.'

BTW, the 'recommendation' (Rosenstein's memo to Sessions), Sessions letter to 45 and 45's letter to Comey were all written on the same day.

That was the day AFTER 45 met with Sessions and Rosenstein.

And like 45 told Lester Holt, he had already decided to fire Comey.

So the Deputy AG's 'recommendation' memo was just a smokescreen 45 cooked up to cover for the real reason that he wanted Comey gone.

Rosenstein has a good reputation, so I don't know why he went along with this.

Apparently he wasn't too happy about being made the scapegoat, and that's why the story as to why Comey was fired has now changed.

Open your eyes Puss.
This is how it went down.
45 wanted Comey gone.
He summons the AG and the brand new Deputy AG to the WH and orders them to come up with a reason.
And we get a ridiculous memo from Rosenstein that doesn't pass the smell test.

The fact that 45 is now considering several very partisan people to take over what should be a non-partisan job, tells me all I need to know about why 45 wanted Comey gone.
He wants someone who will pledge to be loyal to him in that position.
And Comey refused to make that pledge.

Misty » 13 May 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: Does Charlie Sykes say that he violated the rule of law in that piece?
I know he talks about 'wholesale violations of the norms and traditions.'

Here's what he wrote, psycho. What, you don't even read your own sources?

Not long ago, conservatives would have been horrified at wholesale violations of the norms and traditions of our political system, and would have been appalled by a president who showed overt contempt for the separation of powers.

So where's this supposed "contempt?"

Because he criticized horrendous judicial decisions by activist leftist Obama appointees?

Misty » 13 May 2017 2:22 pm » wrote: Yes it is, but that's not why he fired him.
Thanks to his interview with Lester Holt, we know that the first reason the WH put out for the firing him was a bunch of ****.

That he had additional reasons didn't make the first reasons given "****" in the slightest, liar.

It simply means he had a multitude of legitimate reasons, including Comey's refusal to investigate the only felonies we know of so far.

Open your eyes Puss.
This is how it went down.
45 wanted Comey gone.

Almost everyone wanted Comey gone, Dim.


When are you going to back up your claim that Trump threatened Comey?

What did Trump have to back up that threat? Indictment? Loss of, snicker, job?


Where's the beef?

Misty » 13 May 2017 2:22 pm » wrote:Open your eyes Puss.
This is how it went down..

You claimed that Trump threatened Comey in order to silence his testimony.


That's a felony, you imbecile, so if you're telling the truth, I'm sure you have lots and lots and lots of credible sources that back you up.


Where are they?

We all know you're lying, so why don't you just admit it?

Misty » 13 May 2017 11:50 am » wrote:This Tweet was clearly meant to intimidate Comey into remaining silent about what was said when he had dinner at the WH.

Comey will still be called to testify before Congress, and now as a private citizen, he becomes a witness.

Surely as a witness, he will be asked about what was said at that dinner, and in any subsequent contacts he had with the POTUS.

I believe they have a term for that when someone tries to intimidate a witness into remaining silent.

Oh yeah. It's called 'intimidating a witness.

That would be a felony, Dim.

Where's your source to back up your leftist lunacy?

Come on, put up or shut up.

Misty » 13 May 2017 1:20 pm » wrote: Says the idiot who uses far right wingnut sites as sources.

Almost every source I cite is highly respected and mainstream, liar.

Sorry, you don't get off that easy, Puss.
It's not an opinion piece.

The part of the timeline I posted was mostly taken directly from her testimony before Congress.
So what part of that do you dispute?

Do you think that Rolling Stone just made up a bunch of direct quotes?
Are you saying that Yates did not testify to those things in Congress?
What exactly are you saying?

Don't answer that.
It was rhetorical.
As usual you are saying nothing.
You are just closing your eyes to the truth.

It's not the quotes, Dim, it's the psychotic left conspiracy you and the leftist lunatics at Rolling Stone conclude from them.

There remains zero evidence against Trump and his officials.

Even as you turn a blind eye to actual evidence of Clinton felonies, about which you complained not at all.