[SSS Two]

The only question is whether the leaks on the 11th involved the memos or not.

I'll take this as a concession that there is no evidence that the NYT article of May 11 was based on the leaked memo. It's just that you aren't smart enough to fully understand the implications of what you write.

[FredZarguna]

Of course there is evidence: Comey is, by his own admission, the kind of person who leaked privileged conversations with the President of the United States because he is weak (his words) and for his personal gain (his words.) He leaked the information to a "news outlet" that routinely prints false stories (his words.)

If one of the two alleged "associates" in the May 11th story is his "associate" at Columbia, or if the NYT claim that two "associates" are only really one "associate" the case on Comey's perjury is closed.

As for the ad hominem, you may conclude according to your own obvious bias, and your own capacity, but awarding yourself points doesn't improve your position.

[Thank You Rush]

I think that FReeper wants us to concede that he is the smartest FReeper ever or at least on this particular thread. If he’ll go away, let’s do it.