James Comey testified today in a very highly anticipated senate hearing.
What did you think when you watched it?
Do you believe Comey?
Please share your vote.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2017-06-08 14:03:332021-01-18 15:37:31Vote: James Comey Testimony
He is passive-aggressive. I think he’s a narcissist, the bad kind. I don’t believe him whatsoever. He’s a monster. He was enjoying himself far more than the occasion warranted. For the first time I understand why he was fired. I would never hire him in any capacity. He would only bring chaos to any organization and could not be trusted for anything other than self-aggrandizement.
hiphipporay says:
You’re talking about the President, right?
Doux says:
I have to disagree. He knows what decency is. He IS a hair splitter, but he HAS to be a hair splitter being surrounded by that many lawyers, that many people who both cling to and seek power, and the rest of the social wolves. I would walk very circumspectly if I was in his position, too. You have people looking to jockey for position in every direction? He’s basically in a small space with lots of bullets flying. He’s smarter than I thought he was, more honest, and
more capable in being painfully exacting than I figured. I am betting Trump found himself surprised with that as well. Comey is smart enough to always keep some cards in his back pocket. I would feel compelled to do that same thing, play my cards close and covertly.
I don’t know what you think passive-aggressive means.
delruel says:
You realize you’re describing Trump, right?
Sookie1984 says:
Wow, we must have been watching two different things! To call him a monster from seeing this testimony seems a bit of an over-reaction. Perhaps you are responding to politics rather than the case at hand, especially since you are mouthing the trump party line. Sounds really disproportionate when applied to reality. You need to practice your lie detecting – first of all, put aside your prejudices.
Jennifer Kindschi says:
I believe he is sincere. Particularly because in this clip he did not go into a lot of detailed information, so there wouldn’t be need for him to lie. I think he has more information and I hope he discloses it.
Tracker says:
You can definitely say this about the election and presidency in general, but more than anything this whole Russia collusion conspiracy “investigation” is the most amazing display of cognitive dissonance on a mass scale I’ve ever seen. No one, including everyone reading these words and myself, is immune. If you want to believe his testimony totally vindicated Trump there’s enough there to believe that. If you want to believe it totally indicted Trump you can believe that. So yeah Comey was being honest, but perhaps not truthful.
delruel says:
How does that happen? Being honest yet not truthful?
wttdl says:
How about exclaiming in the year 500 B.C. “the world is flat”
… you’re being honest, but not truthful?
delruel says:
How about science in 2017?
Tracker says:
When I was 4 years old I honestly believed Santa Clause came down our chimney and left presents for everyone. But that’s not what truly happened.
delruel says:
But you were 4. Most adults have the emotional and mental health to know the difference. However, there is denial. Something not evident in Comey’s testimony. People in denial usually aren’t open-minded to say “I could be wrong, but….” They’re often defiant and/or defensive.
clownfish says:
No idea! This lie detection business ain’t for all of us! Oh but I want to say that maybe he seems very political. Crafty. I don’t know about him being dishonest but definitely lots of thinking carefully. Strategic. Please share your thoughts!
He’s a former prosecutor. Of course he thinks strategically. Of course he thinks carefully about his answers. I believe him. I watched all of his testimony, much of it twice. He was nervous at first, not about his testimony, but about the weight of what he was doing. He was careful to turn his body to face every person who questioned him. He was at first confused by McCain, but then when he realized McCain was playing confused grandpa, he was angry at McCain’s attempt to manipulate his testimony and to try to appear dumb. He has a quick and analytical mind, which I saw from watching him listen to the questions. He knew most of them ahead of time, and he frequently answered quickly and briefly because he was answering honestly. His integrity is incredibly important to him, as is the integrity of the FBI. His most emotional moment was when he talked about Trump defaming him and the FBI. That gets him at the core. He was also angry about the Lynch/Clinton conversation. He had a similar demeanor discussing that as he had when listening to and answering McCain.
clownfish says:
Oh I heard about McCain’s confusion. I didn’t get to see it I will take a look.
clownfish says:
I just saw it. Wow! That was something.
clownfish says:
About his quick mind it almost looks like he is quick because everything is in place due to being very deliberate and foreseeing steps.
He would have had most of the questions ahead of time. He would have been briefed by his stellar lawyers about exactly what he would be asked. But you don’t become director of the FBI without being smart and quick.
Russ Conte says:
I only watched the short 3 minute video clip. His presentation appears truthful, but I have a huge amount of uncertainty about that simply because he is reading a prepared statement. It’s not totally spontaneous. However, his body language does match his words which match the emotions of the message. Also, I did not see any deception leakage in the short video clip.
Thus I would say his testimony was truthful, although it was very rehearsed, and that could throw the conclusions about honesty totally off.
All testimony in important cases is rehearsed. A person would be a fool to go into such a momentous proceeding unprepared. And James Comey is not a fool, nor are his associates and friends. They call them the “intelligence community” for a reason.
Which I now realize is exactly what you said. Oops.
Peggy Barta Currid says:
I watched all of his testimony, too, and believe him to a T. He was forthright and honest. He didn’t go out of his way to ‘flower’ up his testimony…just straight from the gut.
I saw several segments of Comey talking, but I did not watch his entire testimony. I saw him talk about if Trump had tapes, that he would welcome them to be played, if they exist and he was truthful. In the segments I saw, Comey was being honest.
Ray Finn says:
Guy is really angry, and the best thing is, the more he tries to hide it, the more I see it
Pingy says:
The word “honest” and “angry” have no correlation. Being truthful is all that counts. I believe Jim Comey is both truthful and angry.
Sophia F says:
you’ve destroyed your credibility with all of your political posts. Sad!
I don’t believe my ability has changed, but clearly your opinion has because you no longer see what I see. I find it fascinating how my ability depends on if you agree with me. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but I must remain true to what I do, and who I am. I cannot live a lie to satisfy people who don’t want to see the truth.
Tracker says:
Why can’t you see the truth that the whole Russia collusion conspiracy theory is a farce? The only thing that might come out of it is Flynn might lose his pension over a FARA paperwork error, something that happens near daily in DC.
The claim that Trump or anyone associated with him had anything to do with the hacking of the DNC emails or the release of the emails to Wikileaks is an extraordinary claim. Usually extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, but there is no evidence. It’s not illegal or unusual for a POTUS campaign, transition, or administration to have contacts with foreign nationals. In fact it would be unusual for that not to be the case. So what’s left? Just a bunch of hurt feelings over how the election turned out. As far as I know this is the first time a special prosecutor has been assigned with no underlying crime.
MsInformed says:
The “extraordinary claim” just became more apparent with the Peter Smith stories in the WSJ.
Your claim that “it’s not illegal or unusual for a POTUS campaign, transition, or administration to have contacts with foreign nationals” is demonstrably false. Just ask any other campaigns. Ask Mike McFaul who advised Obama’s campaign and then went on to serve as ambassador to Russia. He never met with any Russians for campaign reasons.
It IS illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign nationals and that would include “in kind” donations of research and data work.
What is unusual is to have at least 5 people connected with the campaign lie about Russian contacts and 3 of those went on to join the administration and failed to fill out their security disclosures properly, which is a felony, and I have been told the forms clearly state that repeatedly.
I think soon you will owe “eyes” an apology.
Tracker says:
Hillary’s campaign had Russian ties. Is one of the three you’re referring to Jeff Sessions? Because that’s a lie. Being under the same roof at a speech is not a meeting, a meeting set up by an Obama staffer for official senate business is not a meeting in a capacity of a Trump surrogate. I don’t know the particulars of the other 2 or 4, but I do know that as evidence of Russian collusion it’s completely bogus. Roger Stone tweeting at Guccifer is not evidence of a conspiracy, Kushner transferring a call or scheduling a meeting is not evidence of a conspiracy. Trump selling a property 10 years ago is not evidence of a conspiracy.
“I think soon you will owe “eyes” an apology.” – no, this is all fake news. Eyes is usually pretty sharp with these things, but the misinformation campaign has been so effective she got fooled too.
You don’t think these things are evidence of collusion, fine. We’ll see what they are evidence of. They’re not evidence honesty or patriotism. You are an apologist for things that you may or may not know about. Does not mean you are correct.
p3cop says:
But do you ever question your motives? After all, there were plenty of Democratic scandals happening with both President Obama and Hillary Clinton (not to mention Bill) but you ignored those in your columns. When Hillary said, “What difference does it make at this point?” to four dead Americans, that was a classic liar’s deflection. It was only when Trump was elected that you started posting. You say it’s because of the “grave threat” Trump is to the nation but that is a subjective opinion, not objective truth. I’ve lived through 11 Presidents and none of them destroyed the Republic and neither will Trump. So I’m not doubting your ability, I’m doubting your application of it. Why is it so one-sided? Do you feel that only Conservatives lie?
You are discrediting the seriousness of Trump’s actions. I have not dissected any politicians on the blog, outside of Trump and there is a reason. I’m sorry you can’t see it.
p3cop says:
I can see it very clearly. You have a bias and it influences your postings. Welcome to the human race.
Why don’t you just enjoy the topics posted and not make it political? I try to share valuable material in each post and that has always been true. I’m sorry you have the need to insult me.
p3cop says:
Not an insult. Everyone has biases, including me. There is no such thing as an unbiased person and anyone who pretends otherwise is deluded. And please note: You opened the ball on politics yourself. It ain’t MY blog!
MsInformed says:
It really doesn’t take an expert to tell Trump lies all the time.
He’s a grifter.
I will never accept the propaganda that the word “truth” has no meaning. Authoritarian leaders need people to believe that so they can become the only source of “truth” for the people.
disqus_tIyJXz3xh9 says:
I have to say, I’m a bit confused about the partisan entry into politics when you didn’t dare say what you actually thought about Darren Wilson, for instance. We both know you thought he was telling the truth but you didn’t offer your opinion because you risked making people upset who were already sold on an idea.
I’m not saying I don’t like your analysis, I wish you would do more of them in fact, just be consistently honest instead of selectively. Will you do Sessions as well?
I have been talking about the Trump case, not because of politics, but because I feel our country is under attack, and I feel its my civic duty to share it. I believe in my country and want people to see the grave threats! I didn’t share my thoughts on Darren Wilson because it was a heated topic and I wasn’t up for it at the time. I did not believe Darren Wilson nor do I believe Sessions.
Jessica Lewis says:
I usually get these “wrong” but I felt Comey was truthful and Sessions was incredibly dishonest. It seemed to me that, at times, the few time he actually answered, he would answer in the positive, but shake his head and vice versa.
Donald Trump accidentally told a reporter on camera that Comey told the truth. When he said that he had not made any tapes and that he didn’t have any tapes, then the reporter said it was a smart way to keep Comey honest, Trump replied that it “wasn’t not stupid” or something weirdly double negative like that in his typical simple-minded syntax. It’s like he’d forgotten he’d previously said Comey was a liar, similar to when his son went on TV and confirmed Trump said what Comey said he said (he just didn’t mean it “that way”) in complete contradiction of his dad’s claim that he never said any of those things to Comey.
I also find Trump’s statement about the tapes interesting to consider. He did not say tapes do not exist. He said that HE did not make them and that HE does not HAVE them, not that there aren’t tapes. It would be easy to simply say “there are no tapes.” I listened to him talking to a reporter with Melania standing there, and he went into a long-winded monologue about surveillance, Obama, “unmasking,” and such, then finally said that thing about not making and not having any tapes. Honest people just answer questions: “Yes.” “No.” “I don’t know.” Like Comey did under oath.
He is passive-aggressive. I think he’s a narcissist, the bad kind. I don’t believe him whatsoever. He’s a monster. He was enjoying himself far more than the occasion warranted. For the first time I understand why he was fired. I would never hire him in any capacity. He would only bring chaos to any organization and could not be trusted for anything other than self-aggrandizement.
You’re talking about the President, right?
I have to disagree. He knows what decency is. He IS a hair splitter, but he HAS to be a hair splitter being surrounded by that many lawyers, that many people who both cling to and seek power, and the rest of the social wolves. I would walk very circumspectly if I was in his position, too. You have people looking to jockey for position in every direction? He’s basically in a small space with lots of bullets flying. He’s smarter than I thought he was, more honest, and
more capable in being painfully exacting than I figured. I am betting Trump found himself surprised with that as well. Comey is smart enough to always keep some cards in his back pocket. I would feel compelled to do that same thing, play my cards close and covertly.
I don’t know what you think passive-aggressive means.
You realize you’re describing Trump, right?
Wow, we must have been watching two different things! To call him a monster from seeing this testimony seems a bit of an over-reaction. Perhaps you are responding to politics rather than the case at hand, especially since you are mouthing the trump party line. Sounds really disproportionate when applied to reality. You need to practice your lie detecting – first of all, put aside your prejudices.
I believe he is sincere. Particularly because in this clip he did not go into a lot of detailed information, so there wouldn’t be need for him to lie. I think he has more information and I hope he discloses it.
You can definitely say this about the election and presidency in general, but more than anything this whole Russia collusion conspiracy “investigation” is the most amazing display of cognitive dissonance on a mass scale I’ve ever seen. No one, including everyone reading these words and myself, is immune. If you want to believe his testimony totally vindicated Trump there’s enough there to believe that. If you want to believe it totally indicted Trump you can believe that. So yeah Comey was being honest, but perhaps not truthful.
How does that happen? Being honest yet not truthful?
How about exclaiming in the year 500 B.C. “the world is flat”
… you’re being honest, but not truthful?
How about science in 2017?
When I was 4 years old I honestly believed Santa Clause came down our chimney and left presents for everyone. But that’s not what truly happened.
But you were 4. Most adults have the emotional and mental health to know the difference. However, there is denial. Something not evident in Comey’s testimony. People in denial usually aren’t open-minded to say “I could be wrong, but….” They’re often defiant and/or defensive.
No idea! This lie detection business ain’t for all of us! Oh but I want to say that maybe he seems very political. Crafty. I don’t know about him being dishonest but definitely lots of thinking carefully. Strategic. Please share your thoughts!
He’s a former prosecutor. Of course he thinks strategically. Of course he thinks carefully about his answers. I believe him. I watched all of his testimony, much of it twice. He was nervous at first, not about his testimony, but about the weight of what he was doing. He was careful to turn his body to face every person who questioned him. He was at first confused by McCain, but then when he realized McCain was playing confused grandpa, he was angry at McCain’s attempt to manipulate his testimony and to try to appear dumb. He has a quick and analytical mind, which I saw from watching him listen to the questions. He knew most of them ahead of time, and he frequently answered quickly and briefly because he was answering honestly. His integrity is incredibly important to him, as is the integrity of the FBI. His most emotional moment was when he talked about Trump defaming him and the FBI. That gets him at the core. He was also angry about the Lynch/Clinton conversation. He had a similar demeanor discussing that as he had when listening to and answering McCain.
Oh I heard about McCain’s confusion. I didn’t get to see it I will take a look.
I just saw it. Wow! That was something.
About his quick mind it almost looks like he is quick because everything is in place due to being very deliberate and foreseeing steps.
He would have had most of the questions ahead of time. He would have been briefed by his stellar lawyers about exactly what he would be asked. But you don’t become director of the FBI without being smart and quick.
I only watched the short 3 minute video clip. His presentation appears truthful, but I have a huge amount of uncertainty about that simply because he is reading a prepared statement. It’s not totally spontaneous. However, his body language does match his words which match the emotions of the message. Also, I did not see any deception leakage in the short video clip.
Thus I would say his testimony was truthful, although it was very rehearsed, and that could throw the conclusions about honesty totally off.
All testimony in important cases is rehearsed. A person would be a fool to go into such a momentous proceeding unprepared. And James Comey is not a fool, nor are his associates and friends. They call them the “intelligence community” for a reason.
Rehearsing lies doesn’t make them not appear. Just saying…
Probably doesn’t make them disappear either. Rehearsing is just rehearsing.
Which I now realize is exactly what you said. Oops.
I watched all of his testimony, too, and believe him to a T. He was forthright and honest. He didn’t go out of his way to ‘flower’ up his testimony…just straight from the gut.
I saw several segments of Comey talking, but I did not watch his entire testimony. I saw him talk about if Trump had tapes, that he would welcome them to be played, if they exist and he was truthful. In the segments I saw, Comey was being honest.
Guy is really angry, and the best thing is, the more he tries to hide it, the more I see it
The word “honest” and “angry” have no correlation. Being truthful is all that counts. I believe Jim Comey is both truthful and angry.
you’ve destroyed your credibility with all of your political posts. Sad!
I don’t believe my ability has changed, but clearly your opinion has because you no longer see what I see. I find it fascinating how my ability depends on if you agree with me. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but I must remain true to what I do, and who I am. I cannot live a lie to satisfy people who don’t want to see the truth.
Why can’t you see the truth that the whole Russia collusion conspiracy theory is a farce? The only thing that might come out of it is Flynn might lose his pension over a FARA paperwork error, something that happens near daily in DC.
The claim that Trump or anyone associated with him had anything to do with the hacking of the DNC emails or the release of the emails to Wikileaks is an extraordinary claim. Usually extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, but there is no evidence. It’s not illegal or unusual for a POTUS campaign, transition, or administration to have contacts with foreign nationals. In fact it would be unusual for that not to be the case. So what’s left? Just a bunch of hurt feelings over how the election turned out. As far as I know this is the first time a special prosecutor has been assigned with no underlying crime.
The “extraordinary claim” just became more apparent with the Peter Smith stories in the WSJ.
Your claim that “it’s not illegal or unusual for a POTUS campaign, transition, or administration to have contacts with foreign nationals” is demonstrably false. Just ask any other campaigns. Ask Mike McFaul who advised Obama’s campaign and then went on to serve as ambassador to Russia. He never met with any Russians for campaign reasons.
It IS illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign nationals and that would include “in kind” donations of research and data work.
What is unusual is to have at least 5 people connected with the campaign lie about Russian contacts and 3 of those went on to join the administration and failed to fill out their security disclosures properly, which is a felony, and I have been told the forms clearly state that repeatedly.
I think soon you will owe “eyes” an apology.
Hillary’s campaign had Russian ties. Is one of the three you’re referring to Jeff Sessions? Because that’s a lie. Being under the same roof at a speech is not a meeting, a meeting set up by an Obama staffer for official senate business is not a meeting in a capacity of a Trump surrogate. I don’t know the particulars of the other 2 or 4, but I do know that as evidence of Russian collusion it’s completely bogus. Roger Stone tweeting at Guccifer is not evidence of a conspiracy, Kushner transferring a call or scheduling a meeting is not evidence of a conspiracy. Trump selling a property 10 years ago is not evidence of a conspiracy.
“I think soon you will owe “eyes” an apology.” – no, this is all fake news. Eyes is usually pretty sharp with these things, but the misinformation campaign has been so effective she got fooled too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9U5zxVyTqA
You don’t think these things are evidence of collusion, fine. We’ll see what they are evidence of. They’re not evidence honesty or patriotism. You are an apologist for things that you may or may not know about. Does not mean you are correct.
But do you ever question your motives? After all, there were plenty of Democratic scandals happening with both President Obama and Hillary Clinton (not to mention Bill) but you ignored those in your columns. When Hillary said, “What difference does it make at this point?” to four dead Americans, that was a classic liar’s deflection. It was only when Trump was elected that you started posting. You say it’s because of the “grave threat” Trump is to the nation but that is a subjective opinion, not objective truth. I’ve lived through 11 Presidents and none of them destroyed the Republic and neither will Trump. So I’m not doubting your ability, I’m doubting your application of it. Why is it so one-sided? Do you feel that only Conservatives lie?
You are discrediting the seriousness of Trump’s actions. I have not dissected any politicians on the blog, outside of Trump and there is a reason. I’m sorry you can’t see it.
I can see it very clearly. You have a bias and it influences your postings. Welcome to the human race.
Why don’t you just enjoy the topics posted and not make it political? I try to share valuable material in each post and that has always been true. I’m sorry you have the need to insult me.
Not an insult. Everyone has biases, including me. There is no such thing as an unbiased person and anyone who pretends otherwise is deluded. And please note: You opened the ball on politics yourself. It ain’t MY blog!
It really doesn’t take an expert to tell Trump lies all the time.
He’s a grifter.
Foolish.
I will never accept the propaganda that the word “truth” has no meaning. Authoritarian leaders need people to believe that so they can become the only source of “truth” for the people.
I have to say, I’m a bit confused about the partisan entry into politics when you didn’t dare say what you actually thought about Darren Wilson, for instance. We both know you thought he was telling the truth but you didn’t offer your opinion because you risked making people upset who were already sold on an idea.
I’m not saying I don’t like your analysis, I wish you would do more of them in fact, just be consistently honest instead of selectively. Will you do Sessions as well?
I have been talking about the Trump case, not because of politics, but because I feel our country is under attack, and I feel its my civic duty to share it. I believe in my country and want people to see the grave threats! I didn’t share my thoughts on Darren Wilson because it was a heated topic and I wasn’t up for it at the time. I did not believe Darren Wilson nor do I believe Sessions.
I usually get these “wrong” but I felt Comey was truthful and Sessions was incredibly dishonest. It seemed to me that, at times, the few time he actually answered, he would answer in the positive, but shake his head and vice versa.
Sessions manner came off as very condescending to Kamala Harris. He openly laughed at her when McCain and Burr interrupted her.
Donald Trump accidentally told a reporter on camera that Comey told the truth. When he said that he had not made any tapes and that he didn’t have any tapes, then the reporter said it was a smart way to keep Comey honest, Trump replied that it “wasn’t not stupid” or something weirdly double negative like that in his typical simple-minded syntax. It’s like he’d forgotten he’d previously said Comey was a liar, similar to when his son went on TV and confirmed Trump said what Comey said he said (he just didn’t mean it “that way”) in complete contradiction of his dad’s claim that he never said any of those things to Comey.
I also find Trump’s statement about the tapes interesting to consider. He did not say tapes do not exist. He said that HE did not make them and that HE does not HAVE them, not that there aren’t tapes. It would be easy to simply say “there are no tapes.” I listened to him talking to a reporter with Melania standing there, and he went into a long-winded monologue about surveillance, Obama, “unmasking,” and such, then finally said that thing about not making and not having any tapes. Honest people just answer questions: “Yes.” “No.” “I don’t know.” Like Comey did under oath.