James Comey Lays Out the Case That President Trump Obstructed Justice

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If there was a there there... we'd know.

Everything was leaked except for the fact that trump wasn't under investigation.  Odd huh?

Timeline: What we know about Trump’s campaign, Russia and the investigation of the two

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/30/timeline-what-we-know-about-trumps-campaign-russia-and-the-investigation-of-the-two/?utm_term=.e098103e2038

What you "think" you know is debunked bs. Although I'm sure it won't matter.

"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.


“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

None of that is relevant to proving intent. Trump's admissions simply trump all the irrelevant things people want to post to distract from the simple truth. Trump admitted that he fired Comey to impede the Russian investigation.

He could've fired him for any reason... literally any. See: civics for dummies.

This particular timeline was from the WaPo, not NYT.

And there's this:



Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html

Washington (CNN) "President Donald Trump asked two of the government's top intelligence chiefs to publicly deny evidence of cooperation between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, multiple current and former US officials confirmed to CNN Monday.

The revelations, first reported by The Washington Post, deepen the intrigue over alleged links between Trump's campaign and Russia. They follow the President's firing of FBI Director James Comey and subsequent statement he sacked Comey because of the Russia probe.

Trump, on his first major trip abroad as President, has sought to shake off the damaging political blowback from the drama, exacerbated by the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller last week.

The President's treatment of Comey has raised questions about whether he abused his powers by seeking to discredit the FBI investigation or risked giving the impression that he was obstructing justice, a debate now given new life by the latest revelations.

Trump spoke to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers after Comey revealed in March that the bureau had launched a probe into alleged collusion. Both Coats and Rogers were uncomfortable with the nature of the President's request and refused to comply, the sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN..."

PkrBum wrote:He could've fired him for any reason... literally any.  See: civics for dummies.

See COMPREHENSION FOR DUMMIES.

He admitted it in an interview with Lester Holt on live TeeVee. He had the Russians in the Oval Office the next day, with no US press, but plenty of coverage by the Russians, where he said that he had taken care of the FBI problem. He asked Comey, not once, but 3 times, whether he was being investigated. His son as much as corroborated...in an interview with who else but Fox, he said (paraphrasing). You know my father. He wouldn't have said that he hoped...he would have made it an order. The apple...

2seaoat wrote:The Justice department is not going to give immunity when they have a locked down conviction of Flynn for lying.   So why would they give immunity for a political hearing in the senate which has NOTHING to do with the criminal charges?   Now in regard to the timing of a pardon, it is usually given after a conviction.  Nixon was the exception, and not the rule.  So the reason President Trump would not waste any capital on a pardon now, is that contrary to the logic which has been used here, once pardoned General Flynn could sing like a canary, and once pardoned President Trump will get political backlash.  The Justice department knows and understands the variables.  There will never be an offer of immunity for testimony at a political hearing.  President Trump will only offer the use of a pardon if he is convicted and threatens to talk, but those advisors understand that once pardoned or convicted he could sing.

Where you might get a deal is post conviction, and only if he cooperates with investigators, and certainly not at a political hearing in the senate.  Sentencing guidelines might allow him to avoid prison time, and allow him to write a book and make millions.  The AG if they were not puppets would take the deal.

Good grief Oatie! Do you think they will pass up a chance to get a president for collusion rather than a general who lied? If Flynn can implicate Trump they will give him immunity. I have no doubt about that.

Floridatexan wrote:This particular timeline was from the WaPo, not NYT.

And there's this:



Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html

Washington (CNN)  "President Donald Trump asked two of the government's top intelligence chiefs to publicly deny evidence of cooperation between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, multiple current and former US officials confirmed to CNN Monday.

The revelations, first reported by The Washington Post, deepen the intrigue over alleged links between Trump's campaign and Russia. They follow the President's firing of FBI Director James Comey and subsequent statement he sacked Comey because of the Russia probe.

Trump, on his first major trip abroad as President, has sought to shake off the damaging political blowback from the drama, exacerbated by the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller last week.

The President's treatment of Comey has raised questions about whether he abused his powers by seeking to discredit the FBI investigation or risked giving the impression that he was obstructing justice, a debate now given new life by the latest revelations.

Trump spoke to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers after Comey revealed in March that the bureau had launched a probe into alleged collusion. Both Coats and Rogers were uncomfortable with the nature of the President's request and refused to comply, the sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN..."

Fake news based off of fake news... lol. Btw... coats and Rogers answered those fake leaks. Again:


“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

Y'all are so triggered that you can't think straight.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:This particular timeline was from the WaPo, not NYT.

And there's this:



Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html

Washington (CNN)  "President Donald Trump asked two of the government's top intelligence chiefs to publicly deny evidence of cooperation between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, multiple current and former US officials confirmed to CNN Monday.

The revelations, first reported by The Washington Post, deepen the intrigue over alleged links between Trump's campaign and Russia. They follow the President's firing of FBI Director James Comey and subsequent statement he sacked Comey because of the Russia probe.

Trump, on his first major trip abroad as President, has sought to shake off the damaging political blowback from the drama, exacerbated by the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller last week.

The President's treatment of Comey has raised questions about whether he abused his powers by seeking to discredit the FBI investigation or risked giving the impression that he was obstructing justice, a debate now given new life by the latest revelations.

Trump spoke to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers after Comey revealed in March that the bureau had launched a probe into alleged collusion. Both Coats and Rogers were uncomfortable with the nature of the President's request and refused to comply, the sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN..."

Fake news based off of fake news... lol. Btw... coats and Rogers answered those fake leaks. Again:


“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

Y'all are so triggered that you can't think straight.

Both of them caved...gave in to the pressure...wanted to keep their jobs. Not only did Trump tell Lester Holt, in direct contradiction to his laughable spokesperson of the day, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, but he held a conference with the Russians the next day, wherein he admitted that he had fired Comey, so that was no longer a problem. WTH kind of drugs are you on?

Both of them refused during the committee questioning to discuss any conversations w/ the President, if I remember correctly. It was the instance Sen. Angus King got mad and told them he didn't care if they thought it was appropriate. I think they are deflecting Trump saying that he pressured them by not acknowledging it as pressure.

Vikingwoman wrote:Both of them refused during the committee questioning to discuss any conversations w/ the President, if I remember correctly. It was the instance Sen. Angus King got mad and told them he didn't care if they thought it was appropriate. I think they are deflecting Trump saying that he pressured them by not acknowledging it as pressure.

Official conversations with the president are confidential and privileged... just like they were w Obama.

Coats and Rogers answered the broad scoping question and made clear that nothing improper happened.

Here it is again... sigh:

“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

@2:50...

Official conversations with the president are confidential and privileged

That legal conclusion is incorrect.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1974’s U.S. v. Nixon that the privilege for presidential communications is qualified. The justices held the privilege can be overcome, for instance, when the communications are evidence in a criminal investigation,

2seaoat wrote:Official conversations with the president are confidential and privileged

That legal conclusion is incorrect.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag31_user.html

Article II -- Table of Contents Prev | Next
Prosecutorial and Grand Jury Access to Presidential Documents.— Rarely will there be situations when federal prosecutors or grand juries seek information under the control of the President, since he has ultimate direction of federal prosecuting agencies, but the Watergate Special Prosecutor, being in a unique legal situation, was held able to take the President to court to enforce subpoenas for tape recordings of presidential conversations and other documents relating to the commission of criminal actions.557 While holding that the subpoenas were valid and should be obeyed, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional status of execu[p.536]tive privilege, insofar as the assertion of that privilege relates to presidential conversations and indirectly to other areas as well.

Presidential communications, the Court said, have “a presumptive privilege.” “The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” The operation of government is furthered by the protection accorded communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their duties. “A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.” The separation–of–powers basis derives from the conferral upon each of the branches of the Federal Government of powers to be exercised by each of them in great measure independent of the other branches. The confidentiality of presidential conversations flows then from the effectuation of enumerated powers.558

Once again that legal conclusion is incorrect, and like all the talking heads before who ignore the Supreme Court's ruling on the same, a criminal investigation overcomes the privilege. If there was any doubt, a judge would hold an in camera review.

What criminal act? Be specific... not some word vomit revolving loosely about what hope means.

The potus runs the executive branch... right down to directing investigations if so chooses...

which he didn't.

2seaoat wrote:Once again that legal conclusion is incorrect, and like all the talking heads before who ignore the Supreme Court's ruling on the same, a criminal investigation overcomes the privilege.  If there was any doubt, a judge would hold an in camera review.

Half the "talking heads" are lawyers, arguing both side of the same case and the Supreme Court has reversed itself scores of times.

Apparently there's an inverse relationship between intelligence and egomania.

Now comey says he deleted the memos. Unable to comply w congress order to produce.

How convenient... lol. As if he's using his private laptop for official work... or that the fbi couldn't retrieve the documents. His laptop should be searched... pronto. I'm sick of this lame ass obstruction.

PkrBum wrote:Now comey says he deleted the memos. Unable to comply w congress order to produce.

How convenient... lol. As if he's using his private laptop for official work... or that the fbi couldn't retrieve the documents. His laptop should be searched... pronto. I'm sick of this lame ass obstruction.

Really? Where exactly is this being reported?

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Now comey says he deleted the memos. Unable to comply w congress order to produce.

How convenient... lol. As if he's using his private laptop for official work... or that the fbi couldn't retrieve the documents. His laptop should be searched... pronto. I'm sick of this lame ass obstruction.

Really?  Where exactly is this being reported?

Someone leaked it to me... so it has to be true. Amiright?

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Now comey says he deleted the memos. Unable to comply w congress order to produce.

How convenient... lol. As if he's using his private laptop for official work... or that the fbi couldn't retrieve the documents. His laptop should be searched... pronto. I'm sick of this lame ass obstruction.

Really?  Where exactly is this being reported?

Nowhere serious, only the dumbbell Reich-wing stuff.  Those fools will believe anything...        and then repeat it.

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Now comey says he deleted the memos. Unable to comply w congress order to produce.

How convenient... lol. As if he's using his private laptop for official work... or that the fbi couldn't retrieve the documents. His laptop should be searched... pronto. I'm sick of this lame ass obstruction.

Really?  Where exactly is this being reported?

Nowhere serious, only the dumbbell Reich-wing stuff.  Those fools will believe anything...        and then repeat it.

Lol... the leftist tears are really gonna flow when their nothing burger arrives. Govt justice is newspeak.

"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.

The Supreme Court uses criminal investigation, and not criminal act. It is illogical that one magically pulls out of the air a criminal act without first doing a criminal investigation, so to ask what criminal act is not logical. If after the investigation it is determined that there is insufficient evidence for a criminal indictment, the qualified privilege still allows a conversation with the President to have been reviewed.

PkrBum wrote:

del.capslock wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Now comey says he deleted the memos. Unable to comply w congress order to produce.

How convenient... lol. As if he's using his private laptop for official work... or that the fbi couldn't retrieve the documents. His laptop should be searched... pronto. I'm sick of this lame ass obstruction.

Really?  Where exactly is this being reported?

Nowhere serious, only the dumbbell Reich-wing stuff.  Those fools will believe anything...        and then repeat it.

Lol... the leftist tears are really gonna flow when their nothing burger arrives. Govt justice is newspeak.

"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.

So that's why Comey leaked the memos to get a special prosecutor because he thought nothing was going on? You really don't have too many good brain cells left,Pkr.