So you’re back to my original comment.
S Pinch
11

So you agree with me, you just don’t like the way I phrase it. The only way Harris’s line of question makes any sense is if you believe Trump was threatening Comey in every single conversation. You are clear that you are of this belief.

Comey rebutted the story about contacts with Russian officials and rebutted stories implying or asserting Trump was ever under investigation. Harris doubled down on these theories as they were being contradicted in real time. The New York Times has not been in contact with their source since the testimony, their guesses are entirely meaningless. Comey called the article almost 100% inaccurate, it was not a minor quibble.

Finally, the ‘gist’ of his letter was that Comey acted inappropriately and breached protocol. It had NOTHING TO DO with Clinton’s innocence, nor does Comey letting her off justify his actions. Again, no matter how hard you believe, there is no contradiction in believing Clinton broke the law and that Comey breached protocol.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.