... here are some of the questions I would have asked James Comey in his recent Senate hearing:
- You say that your memos to the files where written contemporaneously after your conversations with Trump. Have you gone back and revised in any way these memos since your first drafts?
- After Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona and then told you to call the Hillary Clinton investigation a "matter" did you start to memorialize your conversations with her?
- Why did you allow Hillary's aide, Cheryl Mills to destroy her laptop computer after her testimony at the FBI? Why did you allow her to act as Hillary's attorney during her testimony when she clearly wasn't?
- Hillary Clinton had her e-mail server, her cell phones, her PDAs, and 30,000 e-mails destroyed. Was this obstruction of justice?
- The purpose of your media leaks was to get a Special Counsel appointed. This has now occurred with Robert Mueller being so named. Now Mr. Mueller is a long-time friend and mentor of yours. Have you had any private conversation with him wherein you have attempted to steer his Trump investigation?
- It is now becoming increasingly clear that there was no collusion between at least the Trump inner circle and Russia. How can there be a cover-up if there was no crime or even misdeeds?
- Mr. Comey, have you ever lied in this matter? Last Fall you testified under oath that there were "hundreds of thousands" of Hillary's e-mails found on Anthony Weiner's computer ... the reason you used for reopening the investigation into her case right before the election. Now we know it was but a few dozen e-mails. Why did you wait until recently to correct this serious and consequential misstatement?
- You have previously testified under oath that you neither leaked FBI info to the media nor authorized anyone to do so. How does this comport to your recent admission that you did leak, through your professor friend, one or more of your memos that memorized your meetings with President Trump?
- You have called President Trump a liar. What objective facts or tangible proof, other than your subjective opinion, do you have to support this contention?
- Why are you such a snake in the grass?
3 comments:
I believe your last question is an example of argumentum ad hominem. Is it "leaks" when a private citizen relates the substance of a discussion about non classified information? Whistleblower, at worst -- and protected. He proved that the statements that were made by the white house about why he was fired could not all be true. Ergo=Lies.
Pennsylvania Dutch big pretzel logic. Because he said it, it must be true? I am afraid that a jury would need more that this Mr. Plain and Fancy.
I'm totally vindicated, because I say so.
Post a Comment