monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Comey's Statement for the Record - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

January 6 Briefing

I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances...

During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

February 14 Oval Office Meeting

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign.

March 30 Phone Call

He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country....He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him....

The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.”

Nuances just go way over your head, do they not?

The ones that allow you to interpret what someone says to fit your partisanship?

Quote:

By my reading, The Barbary pirates or Corsairs, were eliminated as a threat in 1830 during the French conquest of Algiers. Long before Samuel Clemens' time. (As if Clemens would have been a hater of Muslims in the first place) You should have read the wiki link you posted.

Quote:

Samuel Clemens, who died in 1910, long before we were in any active conflict with Muslims, "ya know"?

You were implying that we had no conflict with Muslims until after Clemens had died. The First and Second Barbary wars refute this, we have had conflicts with Muslims since our nation was founded.

I was responding to Layman's FALSE SPURIOUS DISINGENUOUS implication that Mark Twain would have approved of the Muslim hatred.

Layman's post was a joke.

You've lost your sense of humor.

If it was always meant as a joke, the ever so fast-on-the-draw layman would not have missed an opportunity to point out that I stupidly had let it fly over my head. He didn't - because it wasn't. Damn Finn, can't you at least have the grace to cover up just your own lies

...Mark Twain would have approved of the Muslim hatred.

God, it's like talking into a swirling drain. I was responding to Layman's FALSE SPURIOUS DISINGENUOUS implication that Mark Twain would have approved of the Muslim hatred.

1) we were involved in an active conflict with Muslims during Clemens' adult years (about 1853-1910), AND
2) Clemens had, or would have had any interest WHATSOEVER in spouting anti-Muslim propaganda related to those conflicts,

Then kindly take your red herrings, strawmen and non sequiturs and STFU.