Comey's opening statement is out.

[*michaelsean*]

Says he did tell Trump he was not a target. Repeats the thing about what Trump said about Michael Flynn. Despite us being told Comey's memo keeping is something he always does, he says he never did with Obama. Trump asked him several times to get out that he isn't a target. And Trump demanded loyalty, and Comey said that's not how it works.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/07/ex-fbi-director-james-comey-statement-for-record-to-senate-intelligence-committee.html

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2017, 03:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Says he did tell Trump he was not a target. Repeats the thing about what Trump said about Michael Flynn. Despite us being told Comey's memo keeping is something he always does, he says he never did with Obama. Trump asked him several times to get out that he isn't a target. And Trump demanded loyalty, and Comey said that's not how it works.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/07/ex-fbi-director-james-comey-statement-for-record-to-senate-intelligence-committee.html

I actually have no doubt Trump wasn't a target of the investigation, it was the people around him that were.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually have no doubt Trump wasn't a target of the investigation, it was the people around him that were.

And that makes his suggestion about Flynn far less damning. (Not that it was very damning to begin with.)  The President is allowed to comment and give opinion on investigations.  

[JustWinBaby]

(06-07-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually have no doubt Trump wasn't a target of the investigation, it was the people around him that were.

That has been fairly widely reported but, shall we say, "the lede is buried"?  I would guess most of America does not realize that Trump is not a target.  Fewer still probably understand this is a counter intelligence investigation, not criminal...because that doesn't play too well with the collusion narrative.

I'm just tired of the "non-news" aspect of this story dominating the news, and kneecapping Washington even relative to the low bar that has been set.

But I stand by a do-nothing Congress seems to do less damage through not acting.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-07-2017, 04:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The President is allowed to comment and give opinion on investigations.  

Publicly, sure, but in private to the head of the FBI?!?

The Flynn comment is actually the worse thing in all that.  He violated the Logan Act - that's a crime no matter how innocent or innocuous, in this case.  You can't just tell Comey to "let that go".

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2017, 04:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And that makes his suggestion about Flynn far less damning. (Not that it was very damning to begin with.)  The President is allowed to comment and give opinion on investigations.  

How so? I mean, we don't have the full details as of right now so I make no judgment on that, I'm just curious how this makes the Flynn comment less damning. It seems to me like, from the document, Trump was attempting to have Comey drop the Flynn case. Whether him doing so was illegal or just unethical, that I don't know.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2017, 04:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That has been fairly widely reported but, shall we say, "the lede is buried"?  I would guess most of America does not realize that Trump is not a target.  Fewer still probably understand this is a counter intelligence investigation, not criminal...because that doesn't play too well with the collusion narrative.

I'm just tired of the "non-news" aspect of this story dominating the news, and kneecapping Washington even relative to the low bar that has been set.

But I stand by a do-nothing Congress seems to do less damage through not acting.

Yeah, I've been pretty irritated with the misinformation about that. If you ask many people on the left, Trump himself is guilty of treason. If you ask many people on the right, nothing questionable at all took place. The facts point to something in the middle of all of that, it's just a lot of middle ground that exists there and it will be nice when we can figure out where it is and move on.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2017, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How so? I mean, we don't have the full details as of right now so I make no judgment on that, I'm just curious how this makes the Flynn comment less damning. It seems to me like, from the document, Trump was attempting to have Comey drop the Flynn case. Whether him doing so was illegal or just unethical, that I don't know.

He's not involved so you can't just claim he was trying to protect himself.  There is no Quid pro quo, demand,  nor any coercion here.  He is in fact in charge of the FBI, and has every right to comment on their investigations, and one as benign as this is no evidence of anything.

[*michaelsean*]

Not trying to be obtuse, Dino, but what are you trying to point out? Wait I swear Dino had a post.

[GMDino]

(06-07-2017, 04:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He's not involved so you can't just claim he was trying to protect himself.  There is no Quid pro quo, demand,  nor any coercion here.  He is in fact in charge of the FBI, and has every right to comment on their investigations, and one as benign as this is no evidence of anything.

So the POTUS fires the head of the FBI.

His mouthpieces lie about why.  

Then a day later he admits his spokespersons were false.

He fired the head of the FBI because he was upset about the "Russian thing".

But since he wasn't under investigation (at least not when he was told he wasn't) you think there's no coercion? Even if he did it when the investigation wasn't over?

Even if in his small, muddled mind he was just trying to end it so he could "get something done" he still interfered in the investigation to help people in his administration.

Sidenote:  I almost wish this was Clinton doing it.  Just to watch y'all show how this proved how crooked she is.  I mean her husband met with the AG on a plane and the right wing echo chamber exploded with conspiracy theories.

Anything to protect your boy I guess.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2017, 04:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He's not involved so you can't just claim he was trying to protect himself.  There is no Quid pro quo, demand,  nor any coercion here.  He is in fact in charge of the FBI, and has every right to comment on their investigations, and one as benign as this is no evidence of anything.

An argument could easily be made that he is involved, even if it isn't an investigation into himself. If Flynn goes down it will be a black mark on the Trump presidency, even if Flynn acted of his own accord. The biggest reason for this is the politics of it all, but it is also because of the warnings Trump received but did not heed and of course Trump saying Flynn's contacts with Russia were not in the wrong, only him lying to Pence. With Trump saying that, if the contacts were in fact in the wrong, then it will be a big issue for the administration.

There is a potential case that can be made for obstruction of justice, here. His conversation with Comey about Flynn is the least benign thing out there on Trump right now.

[Benton]

(06-07-2017, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I've been pretty irritated with the misinformation about that. If you ask many people on the left, Trump himself is guilty of treason. If you ask many people on the right, nothing questionable at all took place. The facts point to something in the middle of all of that, it's just a lot of middle ground that exists there and it will be nice when we can figure out where it is and move on.

From the sound of the link, Trump didn't do much out of line, other than not going through the proper steps (namely, speaking to Comey without Sessions, which isn't anything serious, just not a good practice). Which isn't a big shock. I agree with the bold, though, that it will be nice once it's done with.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2017, 04:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: An argument could easily be made that he is involved, even if it isn't an investigation into himself. If Flynn goes down it will be a black mark on the Trump presidency, even if Flynn acted of his own accord. The biggest reason for this is the politics of it all, but it is also because of the warnings Trump received but did not heed and of course Trump saying Flynn's contacts with Russia were not in the wrong, only him lying to Pence. With Trump saying that, if the contacts were in fact in the wrong, then it will be a big issue for the administration.

There is a potential case that can be made for obstruction of justice, here. His conversation with Comey about Flynn is the least benign thing out there on Trump right now.

It is completely benign.  There is zero law saying he can't do this.  THE DOJ has its own guidelines about this kind of communication so they may decide to step out of a conversation.  We had Rogers and Coats both testify they they were not pressured.    This was a counter-intelligence investigation, and not a criminal one so there is no obstruction of justice even if you believed he was interfering.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2017, 04:50 PM)Benton Wrote: From the sound of the link, Trump didn't do much out of line, other than not going through the proper steps (namely, speaking to Comey without Sessions, which isn't anything serious, just not a good practice). Which isn't a big shock. I agree with the bold, though, that it will be nice once it's done with.

I read the entire contents of Comey's memos as released.  Comey flat out states he did not feel pressured to "ease off" of Flynn and took Trump's meaning regarding giving Flynn a break to be related to the recent activity and not the Russian investigation.  Trump's conversations with Comey are untoward but I don't see anything obstructionist and certainly nothing worthy of impeachment.  It seems this is going to end up being a non-story.  I kind of feel bad for the people having Comey parties though, it's going to be a mini election night for them.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-07-2017, 04:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He's not involved so you can't just claim he was trying to protect himself.  There is no Quid pro quo, demand,  nor any coercion here.  He is in fact in charge of the FBI, and has every right to comment on their investigations, and one as benign as this is no evidence of anything.

Interference is interference (though it appears he stopped short of going that far).  There's no line or criteria that makes it ok for the POTUS to comment or direct an FBI investigation....and for good reason.

I hope everything is made public at some point.  I'm especially concerned to learn how and why a number of Trump associates became subjects in a counter-intelligence investigation.  I'm afraid we may never know because the intel will remain classified. 

Transition teams, certainly, but even campaigns have contacts and interactions with foreign governments - so how was it determined there was too frequent contact and/or inappropriate contact?  If we find out that Dossier was the justification to initiate surveillance, then Act II of this debacle is going to be one heck of a show.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2017, 05:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It is completely benign.  There is zero law saying he can't do this.  THE DOJ has its own guidelines about this kind of communication so they may decide to step out of a conversation.  We had Rogers and Coats both testify they they were not pressured.    This was a counter-intelligence investigation, and not a criminal one so there is no obstruction of justice even if you believed he was interfering.

Is the Flynn investigation purely a counter-intelligence one? I hadn't seen that. Aside from that, there does not need to be pressure for there to be obstruction. There are several different codes regarding obstruction, and not all of them require pressure, violence, threats, or anything of the like. Just an attempt to influence the investigative proceeding of Congress or an administration. Granted, this is just my understanding of this from reading the CRS report on obstruction.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-07-2017, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I kind of feel bad for the people having Comey parties though, it's going to be a mini election night for them.

Just another in a long, tiring line of a sensational scoop/leak firing up the rage machine that turns quietly into a dud.

You have to admit, though....Trump the candidate was fantastic for the news media, but President Trump is on an entirely different level.

LOL, you have to assume the media dreams every night he does a full 8 years.  I'd even bet Dems don't really want to impeach, either, because that could backfire spectacularly with a President Pence serving nearly 10 years.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2017, 05:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Interference is interference (though it appears he stopped short of going that far).  There's no line or criteria that makes it ok for the POTUS to comment or direct an FBI investigation....and for good reason.

I hope everything is made public at some point.  I'm especially concerned to learn how and why a number of Trump associates became subjects in a counter-intelligence investigation.  I'm afraid we may never know because the intel will remain classified. 

Transition teams, certainly, but even campaigns have contacts and interactions with foreign governments - so how was it determined there was too frequent contact and/or inappropriate contact?  If we find out that Dossier was the justification to initiate surveillance, then Act II of this debacle is going to be one heck of a show.

 
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447801/president-trump-prosecutorial-discretion-obstruction-justice-fbi-director-james-comey-criminal-justice-system

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2017, 05:13 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Just another in a long, tiring line of a sensational scoop/leak firing up the rage machine that turns quietly into a dud.

You have to admit, though....Trump the candidate was fantastic for the news media, but President Trump is on an entirely different level.

LOL, you have to assume the media dreams every night he does a full 8 years.  I'd even bet Dems don't really want to impeach, either, because that could backfire spectacularly with a President Pence serving nearly 10 years.

Just survive 2 years and a day, Don.

[GMDino]

(06-07-2017, 05:13 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Just another in a long, tiring line of a sensational scoop/leak firing up the rage machine that turns quietly into a dud.

You have to admit, though....Trump the candidate was fantastic for the news media, but President Trump is on an entirely different level.

LOL, you have to assume the media dreams every night he does a full 8 years.  I'd even bet Dems don't really want to impeach, either, because that could backfire spectacularly with a President Pence serving nearly 10 years.

Believe it or not I'm on the side of "get it all out and get it over with".  I already know Trump is a POS...I just want to clear up if he's dumb enough to do something that would be punishable.

If he's not then we can get back to focusing on his lack of getting any policy through and his frequent missteps that no one will admit are missteps at all.