Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

It doesn't matter if they were classified although the fact they discussed a counter-intelligence investigation would make them so they are government documents over which he had to abide by the law and taking them and leaking them is a probable violation of the law. Unfortunately the Special Council has a conflict of interest with Comey and this should be turned over to another one who should be assigned to specifically look into these leaks and who, including Comey, was leaking such information.

And again why wasn't the fact that Trump was NOT being investigated leaked other than the leaders were doing so for political purposes. Comey appears to be vindictive over his firing.

 

I hope they get this nonsense over with and if anyone violated the law to point a prosecution is necessary then prosecute them and get the cloud over everyone else removed. Trump had just fired Flynn, Flynn no longer has his security clearance and can never work for the government again. He apparently things that should suffice for his not reporting the income from the TV show on which he appeared or the money he made helping the government of Turkey increase trade here.

 

Just a few weeks ago there were reports that Trump wants Flynn back into his government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...se-return-come-back-latest-news-a7743836.html

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-wants-michael-flynn-back-white-house-611847

 

I have no strong feelings on this as I don't know Flynn and his testimony has still to be heard. As you know Trump said he was a good man and hoped nothing would come of it. If Trump wanted the investigation to stop he could have done that, but didn't. He showed a loyalty to Flynn that was , perhaps, unwarranted. Putting in a good word for someone is not an obstruction, in fact justice in any direction has yet to be done.

As US President he can have private conversations with whomever he wants. If we were to get excited and suspicious every time this happened we'd wear ourselves out in no time.

It's clear the pressure is off Trump, apart from the usual suspects, but Flynn has yet to be heard. I'm more curious where this Loretta Lynch revelation will lead, as well as more corruption in the DOJ under Holder and what he has mentioned about Hillary Clinton. That's likely where we'll discover legitimate cases of obstruction of justice. Neither Lynch, Holder, Clinton (both of them), or even Obama, is out of the woods yet.

 

Comey: A six-foot, eight-inch Pajama Boy. It's clear from yesterday's dog and pony show that the former FBI director does not have the temperament for the job and that Trump picked up on this, and very wisely fired him.

 

Excuse me...but isn't the president, in actual fact, the chief prosecutor? Just when did a president lose his authority as the chief executive of this country to insert his input, his opinion, his direct orders into a federal legal investigation?

Donald Trump was really and truly James Comey's boss. The media and the urban elites seem perfectly happy to grant James Comey and the federal attorney general the unlimited power of making a determination of prosecution for any suspected federal wrongdoing. If a high-profile case gets killed in Comey's office or the attorney general's office, there may be some blowback in the media and the general population, but no one ever challenges the legal authority of either the director of the FBI or the attorney general to make such prosecutorial decisions.

Think about that: the media are willing to grant these two presidentially appointed individuals this virtually unlimited power of prosecutorial discretion, yet when it comes to their boss, the man with hiring and firing powers over them, the liberal media contend that he has no such rights. According to them, he can't voice a single concern about how a particular case is proceeding or express discomfort that a loyal friend may be wrongly prosecuted. He, as the boss of these two government officials who exercise this virtually limitless discretionary power of prosecution, must remain haplessly mute. The liberal media and the Democrats say he has no legal means of intervention to suggest to his employees that he may possess information, or simply an understanding of the situation that they do not, that leads him as chief executive and chief legal officer, as their boss, to believe that further investigation is unwarranted.

The question begging to be asked here is, just when did a president lose his authority as the chief executive of this country to insert his input, his opinion, his direct orders, in fact, into a federal legal investigation? I would suggest that, in the eyes of the media, that long established power mysteriously disappeared the moment a Republican became president. I would further suggest that this whole Russia business is a concerted plan by the dirty-tricks Democrats to keep President Trump and his administration preoccupied and off-balance so that he is unable to enact the political changes he promised those who elected him. Their hope is to make him look like an ineffectual and failed president, vulnerable to losing the election for his party in 2018.

Hoping for a high-ranking insider who could give Trump a shiner, they instead got their more typical Democrat whiner, a larger than normal guy whose drama-queen testimony left a large part of the nation shaking their heads in hopeless wonder that he was in charge of our national Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._fact_the_chief_prosecutor.html#ixzz4jWUGC57M

 

Well, the way one finds out if someone violated the law/should be prosecuted is by investigating, no? For the President to hope the FBI drops their investigation into Flynn means that the President doesn't need the truth of what happened, but rather would just like to see the whole thing go away.

 

The President did not want the investigation into Flynn to continue, but did not want to be seen as ordering that, so he openly mused to the FBI director about what he hoped would happen. 'This is what I'm hoping happens'. Surprise, his hopes were not realized and he fired FBI director shortly thereafter.

But it was unrelated... right?

I have no issue with that statement. Of course they can.

I guess we prioritize things differently. I am disturbed that the Lynch told Comey to call his investigation a 'matter' for clear political reasons, and she should be held accountable for that. But the more substantive matter is that we already know the fruits of that investigation; what they called it, in hindsight, is not window dressing.

There is a special prosecutor actively investigating the President of the United States' campaign to see if anyone actively colluded with Russian intelligence. That, to me, is far more substantively important, than what the Hillary email investigation was called - even though it's clear there was impropriety there as well.

 

Do you ever feed your mind something objectective other than far, far alt-right bloggers nonsense? Post from a credible source that has been around for decades and has developed standards of reporting and ethics. Comey laid out his case, time for Trump to produce tapes that prove Comey wrong.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...rump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318

 

So the president has complete control over any, and all, federal investigations? Sorta like a king maybe?

 

It's called...

juxtaposition noun

(formal) the juxtaposition of two contrasting objects, images, or ideas is the fact that they are placed together or described together, so that the differences between them are emphasized

Juxtaposition is a perfectly fair debate tool.

He "asked" without threats or qualifications and even Comey admitted that. Besides all Trump would have had to do was pardon Flynn and the investigations over anyway.

 

juxtaposition noun

(formal) the juxtaposition of two contrasting objects, images, or ideas is the fact that they are placed together or described together, so that the differences between them are emphasized.

Juxtaposition is a perfectly fair debate tool.

Now on to Trump, Flynn and Comey. This whole thing is just tomfoolery that will cost the Democrats a lion's share of the 10 Senate seats in the 2018 mid-term they hold in states that voted for Trump in 2016. All of this can be summed up in one short sentence....If Trump wanted to shut down the investigation all he had to do was pardon Flynn and the investigations over. So all these shenanigans will only serve to hurt the Democrat party, so I say carry on.

 

That's right. As soon as Comey mentioned her name she became part of the investigation. The Dems have been blindsided with all of this and have been on a downward trend since BHO was elected.

 

I understand what a juxtaposition is; but your first response included only a juxtaposition and no response to a direct question. I'm happy you've ventured a response now:

Whether it was obstruction of justice or not; and Comey chose not explicitly weigh in on that when asked directly (seems like most people are just hearing what they want), it seems as if you believe it's not worth investigating the nature of Flynn's relationship with the Russians because Trump was going to pardon him anyway? Don't we want to know how/why our National Security advisor was potentially compromised to at least prevent it in the future?

Perhaps the President did not want to officially/publicly cease the investigation into (or simply pardon) Flynn, even if he had the legal right to do so, because it would likely look to most people like a sign there's something to hide or at the very least, an admission that Flynn did something more serious than simply lie to the Vice President. It appears Trump wanted to end that investigation quietly, without giving direct orders as to protect himself legally and politically. Then when the FBI director did not conform to the same hopes as the President, he was fired.

It's a complicated situation; one that's far from over. Yesterday largely just the opening to what will be a grueling process by the Special Counsel and various Congressional committees.

 

It seems so.

What were those fruits? As far as we can tell no crime has been committed yet some still want an investigation. That makes little sense unless there is clear evidence of a crime and then charge someone with it. But we tend not to throw blind investigations hoping something will turn up.

But, yet again, there is no evidence that any crime was committed and, more importantly, that no connection exists between Trump and any investigation. It's a political sideshow and if it was the intention of the Russians to disrupt US politics they've succeeded beyond whatever they may have hoped for.

This is where they should be looking.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...message-putin-after-my-election-ill-have-more

 

The warning signs of fake crapola news

The Daily Beast has learned.

A third source with direct knowledge

Several sources close to Flynn and to the administration tell

Those sources said

All of the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity

One former FBI official and a second government official said

confirmed by multiple White House and administration sources.

One person close to Flynn say

A White House staffer recalled hearing

http://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-talked-michael-flynn-into-white-house-job

The daily beast was the source for the Newsweek article you cited. This the easiest way to spot a steaming pile of dung.

 

Well, agree to disagree - and wait for the special counsel to give us a clear answer.

I was speaking about the fruits of the Hillary investigation, of which it was said there was nothing worthy of prosecution but her judgment was extremely poor, and she should know better.

And as far as this situation presently, we know this:

We know the Russians interfered in our election. We know the DNC was hacked and damaging information released. We know Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn have had direct financial relationships with Russians in the past, and both were prominent members of the Trump campaign.

Do we know if any of those things are related? Is there any wrongdoing on the part of anyone involved that we know of yet? No, we don't. But that's what we're going to find out, and that's why Mueller was appointed Special Counsel.

An incumbent saying they'll have more room to negotiate with a foreign leader after an upcoming election is not the same as potential collusion with foreign actors to sway an election. And that's why there was broad, bipartisan effort to appoint an independent special counsel to look into possible collusion.

 

Oh Yeah! Comey has him right were he wants him!

Trump targets illegals given reprieve by Obama...

Time to make America Great Again!

 

Big difference. ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ONE, ZERO PROOF OF THE OTHER.

 

HE FIRED HIM!!!!!!!!!!!! He lost his security clearance and can never work for the government again. What more penalty should he face?

 

Comey didn't lay out a case for anything and under oath said he didn't know if a crime was committed. Scroll back where I posted Prof. Jonathan Turley's opinion and you can search out Prof. Dershowitz's on your then present an intellectual rebuttal to their legal opinions.

 

Do they come under the Executive Branch? Do you believe we should have Justice Departments and police agencies who do not report to our elected officials? Especially when we see what a political FBI Director can engage in with a Political Attorney General? Yes they report to the President who even has to power to just issue a pardon to the person they are investigating and end the whole matter.

 

Yes I would love to the the OSC announce they were going to investigate that meeting and whether there was obstruction of justice.

 

If he was compromised, and I don't accept that premise, we know how and he was fired for it, what is there to further investigate?

Maybe he thought being fired, losing his security clearance and never working for or with the government was pretty severe punishment already.