Nothing Burger

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-intel-community-officials-deny-that-trump-pressured-them-on-russia-probe/

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Coats told associates on March 22 that Trump asked him to intervene with former FBI Director James Comey to push back against the Russia investigation.  

“In my time of service … I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure, to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats testified Wednesday.  

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/07/i-need-loyalty-james-comeys-riveting-prepared-testimony-about-what-trump-asked-him-annotated/

In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, 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 warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on PresidentElect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

January 27
During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

February 14
The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.

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.”

PkrBum wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-intel-community-officials-deny-that-trump-pressured-them-on-russia-probe/

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Coats told associates on March 22 that Trump asked him to intervene with former FBI Director James Comey to push back against the Russia investigation.  

“In my time of service … I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure, to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats testified Wednesday.  

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers

And YET, when Coats and Rogers were each pressed to say -- regardless of their FEELINGS -- whether or not Trump had ever asked either one to back off the investigations, they both declined to answer, giving a line of total B.S. about not considering it "appropriate" to discuss conversations with the president.

As one interviewer pointed out, it would've been a simple enough thing to just answer the question with a "No, he didn't" -- but they both refused to do so.  

So transparent as to be laughable, if it weren't so much obstructionist gall, and, again according to one interviewer, their non-answers speak volumes. Absolutely they do.

Pkr, use your common sense for a change!

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-intel-community-officials-deny-that-trump-pressured-them-on-russia-probe/

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Coats told associates on March 22 that Trump asked him to intervene with former FBI Director James Comey to push back against the Russia investigation.  

“In my time of service … I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure, to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats testified Wednesday.  

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers

And YET, when Coats and Rogers were each pressed to say -- regardless of their FEELINGS -- whether or not Trump had ever asked either one to back off the investigations, they both declined to answer, giving a line of total B.S. about not considering it "appropriate" to discuss conversations with the president.

As one interviewer pointed out, it would've been a simple enough thing to just answer the question with a "No, he didn't" -- but they both refused to do so.  

So transparent as to be laughable, if it weren't so much obstructionist gall, and, again according to one interviewer, their non-answers speak volumes. Absolutely they do.

Pkr, use your common sense for a change!

Read their statements... it can't be made any clearer. Unless you're watching cnn or msnbc.

This also proves the wapo article to be fake news... clearly.

Rogers and Coates did a lot of ducking and dodging. When you get a lot of "I'd rather not answer" there's a reason for that.

What Comey said already would constitute obstruction of justice on Trump's part, so saying this all amounts to "nothing" is more than a little wishful thinking.

What's going to be interesting is if The Great Pumpkin makes good on his threat to live-tweet the Comey testimony. There's no way that wouldn't be a disaster. I'm betting there are a lot of people in the White House right now trying to lure him away from his phone with shiny objects and Funyuns before he can things worse for himself.

It is not a nothing burger. At best it shows an inappropriate attempt to stop an active investigation into Flynn who lied to the FBI which was a crime. One day after President Trump fired Yates, President Trump calls this one on one dinner with Comey. Motive and time line matter. Requesting an FBI director's loyalty to the President is not a nothing burger. It is a horrible abuse of power at best and a crime of obstruction of justice at its worse. I am waiting for his testimony, but the admiral put on a show to keep his job. It will be interesting if they call both men into closed session, but the use of directed would require in the military sense a direct order. President Trump who is a proven liar and manipulator is smart enough to have never directed or ordered the admiral to not do something or to do something, but there is a big difference between suggesting something and directing something. I hope that in closed session they can speak freely, but in my opinion the admiral's response was indicative that there is in fact a whole lot of condiments on that nothing burger.

Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order. Sooo... the issue can be intent... if that's the your triggered talkingpoint. Good luck with that. If Hillary can get a special pass over her perceived intent... so will trump. I think the fair and just action is to assign a grand jury... especially if the ag is recused... which is true in both cases. Lastly... it's completely hypocritical to benefit Hillary with no malicious intent... yet demand it's malicious with trump. Partisanship is a tool foisted upon the weak for control.

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order. Sooo... the issue can be intent... if that's the your triggered talkingpoint. Good luck with that. If Hillary can get a special pass over her perceived intent... so will trump. I think the fair and just action is to assign a grand jury... especially if the ag is recused... which is true in both cases. Lastly... it's completely hypocritical to benefit Hillary with no malicious intent... yet demand it's malicious with trump. Partisanship is a tool foisted upon the weak for control.

This very obvious attempt to subvert justice is a "nothing burger", but a gun-running investigation from 2012 is all substance? Got it. You have no common sense.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order. Sooo... the issue can be intent... if that's the your triggered talkingpoint. Good luck with that. If Hillary can get a special pass over her perceived intent... so will trump. I think the fair and just action is to assign a grand jury... especially if the ag is recused... which is true in both cases. Lastly... it's completely hypocritical to benefit Hillary with no malicious intent... yet demand it's malicious with trump. Partisanship is a tool foisted upon the weak for control.

This very obvious attempt to subvert justice is a "nothing burger", but a gun-running investigation from 2012 is all substance?  Got it.  You have no common sense.

The gun running was a serious issue... one that every principled American should've agreed on.

Remind me again... what was your position?

But now you want process? Lol... prepare to be disappointed. Your demands now are moot because of your complicity before. I really wish y'all could figure this out... it's not a difficult pattern to recognize.

There's a pattern here all right; it's your continued reliance on sites like the Daily Caller and belief in everything that comes from Judicial Watch.

VectorMan wrote:Libtard heads are exploding all across the country. LOL Brought it on yourselves.

If you really believe that, that's one hell of a comfy-ass bubble you're living in, because I'm seeing lefties pretty freakin' happy right now. Comey stated he interpreted Trump's demand to lay off Flynn as an order, and that Trump fired him to block the Russia investigation -- that's obstruction of justice. Trump came across as totally unreliable and abusive of power, and Pence and Sessions were party to it, so they're implicated. Plus Comey confirmed that the Steele dossier may have some legs to it: he can't discuss it because the FBI also uncovered some of the same information.

Plus there's a lot of stuff that Comey said would have to be saved for a closed session. That's ominious as hell for Trump.

If this is the kind of stuff that's supposed to make our heads explode, I can't wait for more brain-explosives.

Wrong... even if the president told comey stop the investigation. The potus has that constitutional authority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Y'all are being played by the dnc and the media.

Not that you mind... I'm sure.

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order.

Total and complete B.S.     As Comey stated -- and I challenge you to assert you wouldn't have felt the same in his position -- when the president of the United States sends everyone else out of the room and then tells you he hopes you'll do something, you will damned well take it seriously -- i.e., it may as well have been an order.  

If you deny that, Pkr, I've forever lost it for you -  you're obviously living in a state of complete and utter denial.

The potus is in charge of the executive branch. He can do pretty much what he pleases with it.

Exerting pressure and even ordering an investigation ended or begun is within his job. He can even pardon to end it if he wanted to... no questions asked. All of these were the rights of Obama too. And he used them.

Under title 18 there are various code sections which deal with obstruction of justice. There are three key elements which must be proved:

“1) there must have been a pending federal investigation or proceeding;
2) the defendant must have known about it; and
3) the defendant must have corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the investigation or proceeding.”

Now the special prosecutor has the right to convey a grand jury. He only needs to prove a prima facia case concerning the elements.

So let us discuss item 1. General Flynn is being investigated criminally for lying to the FBI. It was a federal investigation and it was pending. The first element of a prima facia case is met.

The second element appears that President Trump knew about the criminal inquiry. This element was met by Yates informing the President that the FBI was investigating General Flynn. Donald Trump had knowledge of the investigation.

The third element, "the defendant must have corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the investigation or proceeding.” This element uses the element of corruptly. The definition of corrupt is:

dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power

I am afraid this element has been met. When President Trump asked the AG and his SIL to leave when he was asking the FBI director to shut it down, this was an intentional dishonest move, because if it was not intended to by fraudulent, there was absolutely NO reason for the AG who actually will prosecute Flynn to leave the room. The complicity is obvious, and the dishonesty is obvious as President Trump has repeatedly lied about Comey, and has made a spontaneous declaration that his intent was to stop the Russian investigation. This self declaration will get this before a grand jury. It is an admission.

I would say when you sift out the politics, this has about a 60/40 chance of going before the grand jury. It could be higher if there is a direct link to the administration or their campaign team. It could be lower if there is no member who is charged criminally. However, the special prosecutor holds those cards.

Now to call this a nothing burger, and then in the same breath state that Hillary Clinton knowingly transferred classified documents to a third party for a quid pro quo which would meet the elements of that crime is bone chilling stupid, and once again negligence is not the standard.....she had to give classified documents to a third party in a quid pro quo paradigm. The FBI correctly concluded that did not happen. Please take your time and understand that simply taking something before a grand jury will not result in an indictment, and if President Trump simply STFU, they NEVER could have proven his intent, but like his Muslim ban, his admissions are not swept under the carpet in our legal system.

2seaoat wrote:Under title 18 there are various code sections which deal with obstruction of justice.   There are three key elements which must be proved:

“1) there must have been a pending federal investigation or proceeding;
2) the defendant must have known about it; and
3) the defendant must have corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the investigation or proceeding.”

Now the special prosecutor has the right to convey a grand jury.  He only needs to prove a prima facia case concerning the elements.

So let us discuss item 1.  General Flynn is being investigated criminally for lying to the FBI.  It was a federal investigation and it was pending.   The first element of a prima facia case is met.

The second element appears that President Trump knew about the criminal inquiry.   This element was met by Yates informing the President that the FBI was investigating General Flynn.  Donald Trump had knowledge of the investigation.

The third element, "the defendant must have corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the investigation or proceeding.”   This element uses the element of corruptly.  The definition of corrupt is:

dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power

I am afraid this element has been met.   When President Trump asked the AG and his SIL to leave when he was asking the FBI director to shut it down, this was an intentional dishonest move, because if it was not intended to by fraudulent, there was absolutely NO reason for the AG who actually will prosecute Flynn to leave the room.   The complicity is obvious, and the dishonesty is obvious as President Trump has repeatedly lied about Comey, and has made a spontaneous declaration that his intent was to stop the Russian investigation.  This self declaration will get this before a grand jury.  It is an admission.

I would say when you sift out the politics, this has about a 60/40 chance of going before the grand jury.   It could be higher if there is a direct link to the administration or their campaign team.   It could be lower if there is no member who is charged criminally.  However, the special prosecutor holds those cards.  

Now to call this a nothing burger, and then in the same breath state that Hillary Clinton knowingly transferred classified documents to a third party for a quid pro quo which would meet the elements of that crime is bone chilling stupid, and once again negligence is not the standard.....she had to give classified documents to a third party in a quid pro quo paradigm.   The FBI correctly concluded that did not happen.   Please take your time and understand that simply taking something before a grand jury will not result in an indictment, and if President Trump simply STFU, they NEVER could have proven his intent, but like his Muslim ban, his admissions are not swept under the carpet in our legal system.

It is a "nothing burger"--PkrBoy's use of that trite and over-used cliche is a demonstration of the paucity of his intelligence, he's too fucking dull-witted to come up with something original. But I digress--it is a "stupid cliche deleted" because he's a SITTING PRESIDENT AND CANNOT BE INDICTED.

But would the Constitution allow Mr. Mueller to indict Mr. Trump if he finds evidence of criminal conduct?

The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

Mueller's conveyance to a Grand Jury would have no purpose. DUH!

"The President never told me to alter or stop my investigation" -James Comey

"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong.' "

"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

COTTON: On February 14th, the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story, and you said, in the main. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?

COMEY: Yes.

PkrBum wrote:The potus is in charge of the executive branch. He can do pretty much what he pleases with it.

Exerting pressure and even ordering an investigation ended or begun is within his job. He can even pardon to end it if he wanted to... no questions asked. All of these were the rights of Obama too. And he used them.

Why do you insist on rehashing what Obama supposedly did when we're talking about Trump?  Is that your best defense??  Please try to stay focused on the subject at hand for once in your life.

Simply exerting pressure is beside the damn point, and you know it.   This was exerting pressure against an investigation that involved his own campaign, and, for all he knew, eventually himself. If that isn't corrupt behavior, I don't know what is.

Once more:  The fact that he ordered everyone out of the room, even his own son-in-law (or maybe ESPECIALLY his own son-in-law), is all the evidence any right-thinking, logical-minded individual needs as proof positive that Trump knew perfectly well that what he was about to do was shameful and wrong.  

This cannot be ignored.  And while it's true that a sitting president can't be indicted, he sure as hell can be impeached, and then removed from office.  Stay tuned; this could take a while.

RealLindaL wrote:
This cannot be ignored.  And while it's true that a sitting president can't be indicted, he sure as hell can be impeached, and then removed from office.  Stay tuned; this could take a while.

Did you flunk Civics in High School or is the subject just to difficult for you to grasp?

The House has to vote Articles of Impeachment by a simple majority which is unlikely considering that the Republicans have solid control, 238 seats vs.193 for the Dems.

Even in the highly unlikely event that they DO vote in favor, the Senate has to convict by a two-thirds majority and the Republicans have 52 of the 100 seats in that house as well.

Do the math, girly.

The fact is, keeping Trump in office as long as possible is the BEST thing that could happen to the Democrats. He's laughably incompetent and will almost guarantee Democratic control of both houses and the Presidency in 2020.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order.

Total and complete B.S.     As Comey stated -- and I challenge you to assert you wouldn't have felt the same in his position -- when the president of the United States sends everyone else out of the room and then tells you he hopes you'll do something, you will damned well take it seriously -- i.e., it may as well have been an order.  

If you deny that, Pkr, I've forever lost it for you -  you're obviously living in a state of complete and utter denial.

Exactly. If your boss calls you into his office to discuss a way you've been dealing with invoices, and says, "I hope you won't handle invoices that way anymore," would anyone sane interpret that as "well, the boss was just expressing a wish but leaving it up to me"? The "or else" is implied.

And the fact that Trump fired the guy when the thing he hoped for was apparently not to be only confirms that it was an order.

Sometimes words and their interpretations can be parsed over, but it's desperately silly to do it in this situation.

zsomething wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order.

Total and complete B.S.     As Comey stated -- and I challenge you to assert you wouldn't have felt the same in his position -- when the president of the United States sends everyone else out of the room and then tells you he hopes you'll do something, you will damned well take it seriously -- i.e., it may as well have been an order.  

If you deny that, Pkr, I've forever lost it for you -  you're obviously living in a state of complete and utter denial.

Exactly.  If your boss calls you into his office to discuss a way you've been dealing with invoices, and says, "I hope you won't handle invoices that way anymore," would anyone sane interpret that as "well, the boss was just expressing a wish but leaving it up to me"?   The "or else" is implied.

And the fact that Trump fired the guy when the thing he hoped for was apparently not to be only confirms that it was an order.

Sometimes words and their interpretations can be parsed over, but it's desperately silly to do it in this situation.

Would that include Obama going on national television and saying there was no wrong doing while investigations are active? Like he did with fast and furious gunrunning... benghazi... irs targeting... Hillary emails... etc? Or Loretta lynch demanding a pc term for the Hillary investigation?


No... i didn't think so... lol.

PkrBum wrote:

zsomething wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order.

Total and complete B.S.     As Comey stated -- and I challenge you to assert you wouldn't have felt the same in his position -- when the president of the United States sends everyone else out of the room and then tells you he hopes you'll do something, you will damned well take it seriously -- i.e., it may as well have been an order.  

If you deny that, Pkr, I've forever lost it for you -  you're obviously living in a state of complete and utter denial.

Exactly.  If your boss calls you into his office to discuss a way you've been dealing with invoices, and says, "I hope you won't handle invoices that way anymore," would anyone sane interpret that as "well, the boss was just expressing a wish but leaving it up to me"?   The "or else" is implied.

And the fact that Trump fired the guy when the thing he hoped for was apparently not to be only confirms that it was an order.

Sometimes words and their interpretations can be parsed over, but it's desperately silly to do it in this situation.

Would that include Obama going on national television and saying there was no wrong doing while investigations are active? Like he did with fast and furious gunrunning... benghazi... irs targeting... Hillary emails... etc? Or Loretta lynch demanding a pc term for the Hillary investigation?


No... i didn't think so... lol.

How any of that in any way relates to the subject of interpretation of the word "hope" from the President escapes me. The things you mention - many of which are bullshit to begin with -- have no relation to the topic.

It's like we're discussing what kind of pie we like best and you jump in yelling, "Yeah, but FAX machines suck!" WTF?