Will the Comey testimony live up to the hype?
After reading the statement that was released prior it seems it won't live up to the hype. But one can hope.
I was in DC when Comey was fired... and screens were showing that news all over town. This seems far less dramatic. We pretty much know from the prepared statements that Comey's going to say, in various ways, that Trump hinted at and/or stated directly that he wanted the Russia investigation to go away.
Watching Comey get asked to say this in 27 different ways will get a bit tiresome. So will watching those in politics and newscasters dissect it and sometimes attempt to twist themselves into knots to defend that it's not as bad as it might seem.
I expect it to feel like this SNL spoof of the Lester Holt interview: "Wait, so, did I get him? Is it all over?" .... "Oh, no I didn't? Nothing matters. Absolutely nothing matters anymore."
While none of the stuff that is coming out of the testimony so far (10:30 am) is great. Does any of it rise to the level of impeachment?
Probably not.
So, all good to know but doesn't really do anything.
Maybe the closed session will reveal more information but we'll never know.
He's totally throwing Trump under the bus. There's at least that. I love it. The tweets that will be forthcoming should be interesting.
I'm sure all the Republicans on the committee will work in a question about Hillary's email server.
sprout said:
But now they're talking about 'the emails'. Why am I watching???
And the predictable twisting by the Republicans on how this is not obstruction: "I HOPE you can let this go".... (say's "hope" multiple times)... then concludes it's not a direct order.
He parried that well. The words, literally,are not an order but it was the prez of the U.S. and he clearly felt it as pressure to drop the investigation.
sprout said:
And the predictable twisting by the Republicans on how this is not obstruction: "I HOPE you can let this go".... (say's "hope" multiple times)... then concludes it's not a direct order.
What was the point of Rubio's questions? I learned nothing from them.
methinks the closed session will be FAR more interesting.
He's calm as a cucumber though, isn't he? He knows exactly what he wants to say and is very calm and poised.
Now the R's are focusing on the leaks...
It's all too predictable... that's it -- I'm going to get an early lunch.
Yeah, the open televised session was sort of silly given the level of classified information. We're not going to get any good info in a live public forum.
sprout said:
Now the R's are focusing on the leaks...
It's all too predictable... that's it -- I'm going to get an early lunch.
ElizMcCord said:
What was the point of Rubio's questions? I learned nothing from them.
From Charlie Savage, NYT Washington reporter:
Under questioning by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, Comey makes clear a very important point. In wanting “the cloud” lifted, Trump was asking him to make a public statement that Trump himself was not personally under investigation (as Comey had said privately) — not to drop the entire Russia investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
I'm on a bit of a delay but I loved the question about why he started keeping such detailed records of conversations and the response, in part, "the nature of the person"
It's getting a little boring and redundant. I thought the Democrats could have framed their questions a little better. Comey did the job for them: Trump is a liar, Comey sized him up early as someone who is untrustworthy, and the Prez inappropriately pressured him to drop an investigation. It's damaging. Good enough for me.
questions should have been coordinated so they weren't redundant.
Comey got to make a few good points during the Manchin (D-WV) questions.
Now the R's are going for getting Comey to confirm some things that were false in NYTimes articles. ... So, I predict this will lead to a 'Fake News' is confirmed!! headlines via Trump tweets and/or Fox.
Obstruction of justice, from Comey's testimony, is clear. Here's the law:
bub said:
embarrassed for McCain. He's clearly losing it.
Yep. Incoherent questions.
I think he can't decide if he's with or against Trump.. Perhaps he keeps losing his train of thought since he's trying to work without the R's talking points.... but the talking points have been force-fed for so long, it's a struggle.
My guess - no. Media is making this sound more like impeachment proceedings then testimony.