Donald Trump

Comey to Testify that Trump Tried to Shut Down Flynn Investigation

The Senate Intelligence Committee releases Comey's prepared statement in advance of tomorrow's hearing.

|

Trump and Comey
MICHAEL REYNOLDS/SHAWN THEW/EPA/Newscom

Fired FBI director James Comey will testify openly to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he believed President Donald Trump was specifically attempting to influence him into ending the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn's possible ties to Russia.

Comey's testimony is not until tomorrow, but the advance written version of his prepared statements is now available through the Senate Intelligence Committee's site. And what it shows affirms what has been leaked through sources to the media for several weeks: Comey believed that Trump was unduly attempting to influence an investigation, that he wanted Comey's "loyalty," and that he wanted Comey to somehow clear the Russia discussion off the table.

The full seven-page document may be read here. But below are some pivotal highlights.

Comey establishes early on that didn't ever feel compelled to document private conversations with President Barack Obama because there were only ever two:

I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone)—once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months—three in person and six on the phone.

Trump and Comey's first one-on-one meeting was at a dinner in the Green Room in the White House. Here is where Comey claims that Trump demanded Comey's loyalty. The president didn't seem to grasp that the FBI is supposed to maintain a level of independence from the White House:

I added that I was not "reliable" in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody's side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty." I didn't move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

Again Trump said he wanted loyalty. Comey responded that he would offer honesty. Trump apparently decided to combine the words and say that he wanted "honest loyalty." Comey let that sit without correcting further. Trump also asked Comey to consider investigating the whole "Russian hookers" story to prove it didn't happen. Comey pointed out that the result would be creating a narrative that the FBI was investigating Trump personally, which was something Trump was trying to avoid.

In February, Trump took Comey aside to ask him to try to get the Flynn investigation dropped:

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."

Comey then prepared a memo that explained wto the FBI leadership what had happened:

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.

They decided not to tell the investigative team and the Department of Justice lawyers working with them about the president's request, concerned that it might "infect" the investigation. Comey did (as was reported yesterday evening) ask Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prevent the president from attempting to communicate directly with him. Comey says Sessions didn't respond. He did not tell Sessions about Trump's request to drop the investigation.

In March, Trump called Comey and makes it clear he was very agitated that all the discussion about Russia's influence won't go away:

He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. 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.

He wanted Comey to "get that fact out" that Trump himself was not under investigation. (That's a recurring theme in Comey's testimony.) Comey did, in fact, tell Trump multiple times that he was not personally under investigation. Trump definitely remembered that detail when he ultimately fired Comey. But Comey also notes that the Justice Department didn't want to make public statements to that effect in the event that circumstances changed and they did have to investigate Trump, because then they'd have to make another public statement.

And then there's their final phone call, dated April 11 (Comey was fired on May 9):

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I "get out" that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that "the cloud" was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know." I did not reply or ask him what he meant by "that thing." I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

More, obviously, to come.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump's Pick for 'Regulatory Czar' Ain't Bad

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the influencing of federal investigations, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

    1. Only Dems get that kind of “support”.

      1. “I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically”

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.webcash10.com

    2. guilty or not, it would appear that a federal bureaucrat is distancing himself from personal involvement of a high politician. that would be the right thing to do.

      Would love to know, over the course of 8 years of Obama cocksucking, how many federal bureaucrats did the right thing with respect to ethics, political influence, threats, and favoritism towards political friends.

      Anyone who does not assume, with absolute certainty, that the Obama admin regularly did this stuff and had the protection of the media and his fellow deep staters is a god damn brain dead zombie.

      That said, all of this lends more obvious need for smaller government and less federal offices to manipulate and coerce. The answer is not more appointments, commissions, and money spent proving that politicians posses to much power through government largesse. And in the end, no law has been broken even though I could give a shit about trump.

      1. Well, Gates offered Obama a promise of loyalty.

        So, for something that has never been expected before Trump…it sure happened pre-Trump.

    3. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the influencing of federal investigations, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

      This very statement is what I have related to individuals when attempting to explain that there are at least two classes of individuals in the United States: Those who will be held accountable to the laws and those who will not be.

      If former F.B.I. Director Comey “goes libertarian” for his own reasons and thus helps expose the manifold problems with individuals being held unaccountable, then perhaps we can hope for him to continue away from the path toward authoritarianism.

      Note that I wrote “hope” in this regard.

      1. The president is clearly in a different class there: no prosecutor could bring such a case (even if it were warranted).

  2. The president didn’t seem to grasp that the FBI is supposed to maintain a level of independence from the White House

    Elect a game show host, get a game show host’s level of intelligence

    1. Look, do you want an outsider or not?

    2. The FBI has not maintained a respectable level of independence from the White House since its creation.

      You people think there is a separation of powers or something.

      Comey is a big boy. If I felt that my agency should be independent from the White House I would actually make it independent as possible. In other words, not take meetings with Presidents who had/have a staff member under investigation.

      That means that Comey should not have met with Obama nor Trump.

      1. You people think there is a separation of powers or something.

        Separation of powers refers to separation of the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

        The FBI is an agency of the executive branch, which is run by the President. There is no constitutional “separation of powers” between any executive branch agency and the President.

        1. “There is no constitutional “separation of powers” between any executive branch agency and the President.”

          Exactly. Yet some people persist with the pseudo longbeard chin tugging “the FBI is supposed to maintain a level of independence from the White House.”

          And, frankly, I have no idea why. It makes them look either politically ignorant, singularly partisan, or both.

  3. You took a few liberties with that headline. This has been a Rohrabacher Test of bias, since other publications are not reporting it as Trump attempting to ‘shut down the investigation’ (including the WSJ). If your only reading the Washington Post, you get this headline, it would appear.

    1. In what way is this:

      Comey to Testify that Trump Tried to Shut Down Flynn Investigation

      Not supported by this?

      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.

      Gonna clutch your pearls over the use of “shut down” over “drop”?

      1. I’m not voicing an opinion. I’m just saying that maybe you should read how other publications are interpreting Comey’s statements. I haven’t seen anyone else classify this as him trying to ‘shut down’ the investigation. Shackford is good, but his reporting on Russia and Trump has been a little wayward.

        1. CNN: “James Comey testimony: Trump asked me to let Flynn investigation go”
          NYT: “Comey Set to Detail Pressure From Trump on Russia Inquiry” (hint: the pressure was to drop/shut down the inquiry)
          BBC: “Comey to testify Trump told him: ‘I expect loyalty'” (but then the first sentence of the article is: “According to his opening statement, Mr Comey will also say the president asked him to drop an inquiry into fired National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.”)

          You’re right that Fox News conspicuously whitewashed everything related to the investigation-tampering from their headlines, so maybe it was a Rosrchach test, just not in the way you were implying.

          1. Ok, man. You go with that.

          2. If the New York Times says it, it must be Holy Writ!

      2. Eh, it’s a little biased. Tried to shut down sounds way worse than “requesting that we drop”. The former sounds authoritarian, the latter sounds like he recognizes it’s the FBI’s call.

        1. They sound like two ways to say exactly the same thing to me. I think people are putting a bit too much significance in the word choices here.

          1. If Trump had literally said to Comey “I would like to abuse the power of my office to interfere in this investigation” there would still be people saying it’s no big deal and everyone else just has TDS for thinking there’s something shady here.

            1. If Trump had literally said to Comey “I would like to abuse the power of my office to interfere in this investigation” there would still be people saying it’s no big deal and everyone else just has TDS for thinking there’s something shady here.

              I realize that you exaggerated to make your point, yet I acknowledge the seemingly reflexive response of some of our fellow commentators on H&R (and the responses of those elsewhere).

          2. Of course they sound the same to you…the bias test is appropriately configured.

            1. So, what does this reveal about my bias? I have no idea what really happened and I’m not sure if it’s actually important or interesting, so it would be good to know.

              1. Maybe you just lack nuance…I shouldn’t assume malice where simpler explanations lie.

            1. Yes, and sometimes there are different ways to say the same thing.

              1. This does not appear to be one of those times.

                Without wild-eyed speculation built upon guided interpretation built upon predetermined conclusions, this story basically does not exist.

          3. So you hope people understand the significance of the word choice?

            I hope those same people question why so many ‘news’ sources lead with characterizations of Trump’s statement rather than using, you know, an actual quote.

        2. If he hadn’t fired Comey, it wouldn’t look so bad. As it is, the following doesn’t look good:

          “I hope you can drop this.”
          “I can’t.”
          “I really wish you would try.”
          “I can’t.”
          “I expect loyalty from you.”
          “Honesty is my job.”
          “I expect honest loyalty from you.”
          *silence*
          “So did you drop this like I asked? Remember we had that thing . . .”
          *silence*
          “You’re fired.”

          1. I think Trump looks really bad, regardless of Flynn. Doesn’t mean the headline isn’t biased and jumping to a conclusion.

          2. If he hadn’t fired Comey, it wouldn’t look so bad.

            He really shot himself in the dick with that. If he had waited until the FBI had concluded its Russia investigation and then fired Comey it wouldn’t have been a very big deal at all (unless the FBI investigation actually found evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians – then it would look like retalliation). But firing Comey in the middle of the investigation, after allegedly asking Comey to stop the investigation, looks like he fired him because he refused to shut down the investigation. Whether true or not, it’s bad optics.

            1. It’s also bad optics to have a subordinate running around hinting at maybe possible allegations but not really while his underlings leak the investigation details like a sieve to WaPo every 48 hours. I can see how Trump is too stupid to know he shouldn’t have even met with Comey but I can also see how he’d get tired of the drip drip drip that amounts to nothing in the daily papers being reported as Watergate II.

              1. Yeah, this ain’t the Nixon tapes. What we’re left with is a disgruntled former employee in a pissing match with his former boss. The only evidence we have are his own memos which he’s been leaking to the press for weeks, attempting to create an aura of credibility. It’s entirely possible that everything reported to date is absolutely accurate. It’s also possible that Comey’s motivations are not public service but the servicing of his own ego. It’s also possible that both are true. Or not.

            2. Technically, Trump asked Comey to stop the Flynn investigation early on. Beyond that, Turmp just kept foolishly asking that Comey come out publicly to say that Trump himself wasn’t under investigation. He didn’t ask him to drop the overall investigation.

              In his remarks, Comey provides a pretty solid reason why he didn’t publicly profess that Trump wasn’t under investigation: if Trump ever ended up being under investigation (even for something minor or just to investigate a wild accusation), then Comey would have to publicly announce that Trump was under investigation…which would cause all sorts of issues. Comey does admit, however, that he didn’t share that analysis with the President…

              1. I have to wonder what kind of advice Trump is getting, who from, and if he’s listening.

              2. Beyond that, Turmp just kept foolishly asking that Comey come out publicly to say that Trump himself wasn’t under investigation.

                Comey is, reportedly, going to testify that he told Trump at least 3 time that he wasn’t under investigation.

                I’d ask why they couldn’t be mentioned, since the press was reporting that he basically was the entire time.

            3. It’s yet another blow to the belief that Trump is hiding a brilliant, Machiavellian intellect underneath his monosyllabic, brutish exterior. Definitely ain’t 5D chess here

              Of course the left also requires him to be a diabolical genius to make their Russia conspiracies plausible in the first place…

              1. Hillary, on the other hand, is a diabolical genius, which is why many sane people preferred incompetent Trump to conniving Hillary

            4. He really shot himself in the dick with that. If he had waited until the FBI had concluded its Russia investigation and then fired Comey it wouldn’t have been a very big deal at all

              Assuming Comey would ever end said investigation.

              For such a taker of memos of conversations, it has been reported that he didn’t take memos of conversations with Obama.

              Doesn’t that kind of make Comey look strange?

            5. ” If he had waited until the FBI had concluded its Russia investigation…”

              Coming from a Cynical Asshole that’s rich.

              Are you honestly telling us you believed there was ever going to be an end to the ‘investigation’ so long as Trump was still in office? Are you that gullible, or do you think us that naive?

            6. Trump’s strategy might have been to fire Comey in order to instill doubt in his testimony. What recently fired person wouldn’t tend to exaggerate his former boss’s words?

              Then again, Comey might be exaggeration his former boss’s words? He was, after all, recently fired.

              The point is, that without some corroborating testimony, this is merely going to come down to one man’s word against the other. The side you choose to believe is likely to be biased based on whether you root for team blue or team red.

              1. “The point is, that without some corroborating testimony […]”
                So far, the “corroborating testimony” has been Trump. He’s denied the characterization of the conversations, but he hasn’t denied any of the specific details.

      3. Eh, it’s a little biased. Tried to shut down sounds way worse than “requesting that we drop”. The former sounds authoritarian, the latter sounds like he recognizes it’s the FBI’s call.

        1. And I can’t believe I just suggested that Trump isn’t an authoritarian. Twice.

      4. I dunno, seems pretty thin gruel. Note that the testimony is not ‘Trump told me to’ or ‘Trump requested I’ but ‘I understood the President to be requesting’. Seems pretty weasely.

        1. Seems pretty weasely.

          Isn’t that how Washington operates?

          1. Vague requests and implied threats?

            You must be thinking of some other industry.

        2. And Trump’s spinners will say that Comey misunderstood him, that he was expressing a desire to not see Flynn hurt but in no way was demanding a course of action.

          I don’t even think this ends in a censure. A lot of hot air and triggered leftists, but nothing more.

    2. These are Comey’s words:

      “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”

  4. Very juicy and entertaining. However, legally, isn’t this a he-said he-said situation? So, Comey has notes; anybody can write notes to tell a story.

    I’m thinking Comey is on the up and up. The political cost to Trump will be high. But it seems like this will be easy to swat away legally.

    1. No shit. This is all such distraction. As usual.

      $20 trillion in debt and still spending.

    2. However, legally, isn’t this a he-said he-said situation? So, Comey has notes; anybody can write notes to tell a story.

      Depending on how conclusively Comey can show that he did in fact make the notes immediately after the meeting, yes, they can carry force.

      1. Can they carbon date the age of the ink drying date.?

        It does sound like incredibly silly he-said he said.

        1. Something tells me that regardless of what you think of Comey’s tenure at the FBI, he comes across as a more credible witness than Trump.

        2. Can they carbon date the age of the ink drying date.?

          I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting.

          Assuming he kept the other notes of his other 8 meetings/ phone conversations with Trump on his computer, the files will be timestamped. Shouldn’t be too hard to match the timestamps up to show that they were created shortly after the various meetings and phone calls. Assuming there’s records somewhere (Outlook calendar appointments or something similar) of the face to face meetings, and phone records will show the time of the phone calls..

          1. Odd that Comey felt compelled to write those memo’s, yet did not feel compelled to report Trump to his superiors for obstruction of justice as the law requires. Maybe Comey seems like a more credible witness, but at the moment it seems like it’s a cripple fight to me.

            Of course, maybe the new FBI director will outline their case against Trump and just say that no prosecutor would take the case since it’s credible that Trump didn’t know it was wrong. You know, the Hillary defense? It’s worked before, why not again?

            1. Odd that Comey felt compelled to write those memo’s, yet did not feel compelled to report Trump to his superiors for obstruction of justice as the law requires.

              If I had to guess it’s because in all likelihood Trump didn’t come right out and demand that Comey stop the investigation, but instead was always careful to phrase it as a request or a favor:

              “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

              But who knows, really. Maybe at tomorrow’s Senate hearing Kabuki Theater show one of the Senators will ask him that question, but I’m not gonna hold my breathe.

              1. Also, as stated upthread, it’s a lot of “he-said, he-said.”

              2. “If I had to guess it’s because in all likelihood Trump didn’t come right out and demand that Comey stop the investigation”

                Which means that Shackford’s headline is bullshit on stilts.

            2. I don’t think Comey considered it straight obstruction. Writing down and sharing that the President requested everything be dropped was necessary to ensure that, in the event that no charges were brought against Flynn, Comey wouldn’t come off looking he was Trump’s patsy.

              I think Comey was smart do so, not only for the integrity of the investigation, but also as a CYA. Trump’s an idiot, and you don’t want to be close to that boat when it sinks.

              1. I think Comey was smart do so, not only for the integrity of the investigation, but also as a CYA.

                It’s probably a good idea to always keep notes of every conversation when dealing with pretty much any elected official.

                1. It’s probably a good idea to always keep notes of every conversation when dealing with pretty much any elected official.

                  And record the unelected ones with your phones…until they illegally confiscate them.

            3. Odd that Comey felt compelled to write those memo’s, yet did not feel compelled to report Trump to his superiors for obstruction of justice as the law requires.

              Yeah – it’s hard to see how this can be pushed into the realm of actual criminal behavior on Trump’s part without Comey implicating himself as well.

              1. That’s the thing, of course. Now, I suspect that Comey will end up with a lil’ of that there immunity if he comes out and says that ‘Trump tried to torpedo the investigation’ but that’s just me. The only thing that’s stopping that from happening is:

                A) A lack of proof.

                B) Comey’s own sense of ethics.

                C) Questions about Comey’s integrity overall.

                I know that plenty will say that B is laughable, and maybe it is, but one can at least hope that he’ll find outright lying in order to depose a sitting President might be a little unethical (not to mention that, even if it were true, he’s lost a lot of credibility since last year).

                I don’t think Comey is a monster, I just think he’s kind of a jerkoff bureaucrat as one would expect of a so-called ‘Supercop’. The Democratic machine, however, I do think is a monster and could conceivably convince Comey to go along with it through the proper allocation of carrots and sticks.

                1. I don’t think Comey is a monster, I just think he’s kind of a jerkoff bureaucrat as one would expect of a so-called ‘Supercop’.

                  I agree.

                  I think people often fail to recognize how deep the ability to rationalize one’s own behavior runs, and often mistake the behavior of people in positions of power as evil when really it’s just a blindness to one’s own flaws and weaknesses.

          2. Assuming he kept the other notes of his other 8 meetings/ phone conversations with Trump on his computer, the files will be timestamped. Shouldn’t be too hard to match the timestamps up to show that they were created shortly after the various meetings and phone calls.

            .

            ^ This.

            IANAL, but I’ve been in my fair share of legal disputes (probably more than my fair share), and these types of records do carry weight, especially in the absence of contrary records.

            1. The NSA should have metadata of the phone calls.

      2. FBI agents never record interviews. They take notes, and report and testify based on them. Which is absurd in 2017. They just assume they will win every he-said, he-said because they are the MoFo FBI.

        1. Recordings don’t give you a chance to bias the record in your favor the way notes do.

      3. But even at that, Comey’s notes are not a tape recording, or even a transcript. They are his interpretation. And still they far fall short of saying “The President asked me to do X in violation of Statute Y.”

        1. It would be really cool, if Trump has recordings.

        2. True – such notes are never iron-clad. It’s more of a “lacking anything else, we have these notes” sort-of-a-thing. And in fairness, my experience is with civil suits. A criminal case launched on such a basis would probably be pretty flimsy.

    3. He also didn’t take notes for his conversations with Obama, which makes his memos really suspect. It seems like a targeting job and the veracity of the memos could be called into question.

    4. Except that “legally” isn’t the standard.

      If this goes anywhere, it won’t be in the courts. It’ll be in (A) the court of public opinion, or (B) impeachment proceedings?.

      And “legally” isn’t the standard for either of those.
      ____________
      ?Lets be clear, impeachment is so unlikely. It may be a “first brick in the wall” or “tip of the iceburg”, but it won’t be the “final straw”.

  5. What are you trying to say about Alex Trebek?

    1. “I’ll take ‘The penis mightier’ for $1000!”

  6. If loyalty oaths are wrong, I don’t want to be right.

    1. You don’t usually have to worry about the latter, anyway…

  7. I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo.

    An FBI agent’s notes are gospel.

  8. As other bitches have pointed out – the headline is biased.

    WHY CAN’T REASON JUST GET ON THE TRUMP BANDWAGON?

  9. “Comey establishes early on that didn’t ever feel compelled to document private conversations with President Barack Obama because there were only ever two”

    Seems like a red herring to me.

    When Comey announced publicly that there would be no charges filed against Hillary Clinton in regards to her ridiculous server problems, wasn’t that decision necessarily made by Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama’s Attorney General. Comey never had the prerogative to bring charges or dismiss them–that is and was the responsibility of the Attorney General.

    At some point, Loretta Lynch must have discussed the email investigation and told Comey that she wasn’t going to pursue charges–otherwise Comey couldn’t have made the announcement.

    The question isn’t whether Comey was told by Obama to kill the email investigation; the question is whether Obama’s Attorney General told Comey to kill that investigation and whether Obama told Lynch to kill it.

    1. The biggest difference between Obama and Trump:

      Obama was always careful yo go through the proper channels when obstructing justice (that way there would always be a middle man to take the fall if need be).

      1. Obama was always careful yo go through the proper channels when obstructing justice (that way there would always be a middle man to take the fall if need be).

        ^ This.

        Comey pretty much said exactly this, in so many words.

      2. If by ‘proper channels’ you mean that he made sure all of his underlings were team players, then exactly.

        Trump’s major mistake was not firing Comey on inauguration day. Which, after what he did for the Clintons, should have been a no brainer.

  10. Funny how he took notes after this meeting, but not after say, while interrogating the former Sec of State about email practices. Either way, not much will come of this if this is all they got.

    1. Funny how he took notes after this meeting, but not after say, while interrogating the former Sec of State about email practices.

      I’m sure the agents actually conducting the investigation did. In fact I’d be shocked if it wasn’t recorded, at least on audio and probably video. If they didn’t, then that’s just further evidence of preferential treatment for one of our “betters” than any of us would have received in the same circumstances.

      1. Clinton’s interview was not recorded, and was not given under oath.

        http://thehill.com/policy/nati…..sworn-oath

        1. Plausible deniability sometimes requires maintaining distance.

  11. After reading this article on top of reports from various other sources, its obvious Comey is the new Nostradamus. Whatever he says will be interpreted to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

  12. Srsly, there’s nothing new here. It’s the same shit I’ve been reading for the past 2 months.

    I hope Trump keeps this shit going into 2018 election because this is how the Dems are screwed. The GOP will point to this bullshit as the only thing Dems accomplished, NOTHING. Keep it up.

  13. “Trump and Comey’s first one-on-one meeting was at a dinner in the Green Room in the White House.” Their first meeting was 1/6/17 at Trump Tower. If you meant “as President” you should indicate that.

  14. This: “In February, Trump took Comey aside to ask him to try to get the Flynn investigation dropped:”

    …was not followed by a question.

    This is “Reason”(dot)com, is it not?

  15. The nail in the coffin was Trump blabbing that he fired Comey because of dissatisfaction with the Russia investigation. That’s it. There’s nothing left to imagine or wonder. He pressured Comey to drop the investigation and then fired him when Comey didn’t give in.

    1. Based-on Comey’s statements, it seems Trump only applied pressure for Comey to state a fact – Trump “personally” was not under investigation.

    2. You mean an investigation that turned up nothing but leaked damaging and false info to the press for months?

      Cannot figure out why he’d be dissatisfied.

      There was, literally, zero obstruction of anything.

  16. It seems so clear that Mr. Comey failed at the most elementary level with the Clinton email investigation. Trump was not bright to wait so long to fire him. It should have been day one. But is always seems that Trump thinks he can bend people. Sick. It just let his enemies pile on inappropriate reasons for his having done what he c;ear;y should have on day one. .

    Comey presented an open-and-shut case against Mrs Clinton. I was stunned. Then he exited stage left, behind a preposterous statement that no reasonable prosecutor would go after her ….on his open and shut case. I was even more stunned. I have a JD degree from NU. A first-year law student should have been clear on her guilt, if his specified case was accurate. His subsequent testimony to Congress made it even more clear!

    But it is ….. gasp….. Hillary! Today, the Untouchables are not the Eliot Ness guys. They are the political vermin holding, or threatening to hold, powerful political office. The rule of law goes in the toilet.

    1. Calling what Comey did with the Clinton investigation a ‘failure’ is like calling what happened to Trotsky a mountaineering accident.

  17. Asking pretty much everyone who works for you to find a way to help you out of an investigation is exactly how someone like Trump obstructs justice. He grew up in a world where you’re smart enough to ask with a wink and a nod, because you’re smart enough to insulate yourself legally. It might look one way, but Trump has never worried about how it looks. And if the winks and nods don’t work, then he fires you. Let’s not pretend this was anything other than what it actually was, even if it wasn’t all that the resistance might hope.

    1. “Asking pretty much everyone who works for you to find a way to help you out of an investigation is exactly how someone like Trump obstructs justice.”

      You got a problem: Trump wasn’t under investigation.

  18. Let’s get Hil and Loretty and Holder all up on the stand. A mass bipartisan political hanging…..simply marvelous.

  19. Let’s get Hil and Loretty and Holder all up on the stand. A mass bipartisan political hanging…..simply marvelous.

  20. Here is what Comey is going to say. Not in so many words, but in ultimate effect.

    “The chief law enforcement officer of the United States confirmed with me that he was not active under investigation. He also suggested that I wrap up a tangential investigation that had not to date proven productive.”

    1. …not under active investigation…

  21. There was nothing to investigate.

    Nothing.

    Do you not remember the way this whole thing was created? We all sat and watched it. We pointed out that the incoming Trump administration was only doing what every other administration in the history of the country had done. That the totally farcical ‘Russian tampering’ they’d previously created was the thing they were connecting their claims of impropriety to.

    There is no real thing to investigate. It’s all made up. All if it. Trump did nothing wrong.

  22. I hate everyone involved in this whole thing, and I hate everyone who has a passionate opinion regarding it. If this story bothers you one way or the other, I loathe you.

    1. I am passionately convinced this is a nothingburger about nothing (other than Hillary losing to a gameshow host, that is.)

      If you find that offensive then feel free to GFY.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.