Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

The investigation AG Lynch told the director of the FBI to downplay after she had a secret meeting with the spouse of the lead person of interest? What message do you think that sent to the agents doing the investigation DON'T CALL IT AN INVESTIGATION!!!!

We know they tried, like they have done for decades, but we have no evidence of success or any effects on the elections.

We know some stupid people at the DNC gave someone their login information and emails were stolen and TRUTHFUL information in them was leaked.

So what, business with Russia was being promoted, the Obama administration was promoting trade and a new relationship with Russia. That "reset" thingy.

What's your probably cause for a federal investigation? You know we're not suppose to put private citizens under investigations for simple machinations.

It's more so than any "collusion" we have heard of about the Trump administration of campaign.

 

Comey during testimony bounced back and forth between counter intelligence & criminal investigations. Trump may have never been informed of the nature of Flynns investigation. Meaning, without Comey informing Trump, he may have assumed it was an ethics case, or non disclosure case. Either one would have only resulted in Flynns firing. Flynn had resigned. Why further humiliate the guy? Comey is too cryptic. Cloak & dagger all the time.

 

Well first off, one is illegal and one is not. What Obama said was not illegal, just perhaps politically embarrassing and damaging to his credibility as tough on Russia. If, and this is a big if, the Trump campaign, or simply members of the Trump campaign on their accord, coordinated with Russian hackers, whether they were Russian intelligence or not, with the purpose of hacking the DNC or Hillary's campaign to release damaging information on her to win an election, laws were broken and people will go to jail.

But you are right that we have proof that Obama said that, it was right on the television for all of us to see. Whereas with Trump and his campaign? We only have circumstantial evidence - i.e. the hacking and Russian interference in our election was at Hillary's expense, Flynn and Manafort have ties to Russia, and The Steele Dossier (which has yet to be corroborated, but both the previous President and the President Elect were both briefed on by our own intelligence services).

So yes, the Obama comment is as clear as day whereas the Russia/Trump connections are yet to be proven - but it's not like there's nothing to investigate... there is smoke. We'll see if there's a fire, it's too early to say.

We don't want to know why he was compromised or to what degree? Is everything about punishment and nothing about preventing this in the future? To what extent was his involvement with Russians and is that punishment enough?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but whether I'm President or simply just the average American that I am, I'd like to know.

 

Yes we do, the Acting Director of the Justice Department told Trump exactly what it was. He was fired for it. THEN we found out he got paid to appear on a TV show and to assist Turkey in growing trade with us and did not report that as required due to his status. He may be prosecuted for that or will plea bargain it.

What probable cause do you have for something else? And not conjecture and supposition.

 

I'm not arguing her innocence, nor am I arguing Lynch shouldn't bear the legal consequences of her actions. But if you believe Comey there, why do you not believe the rest of his testimony when he says Trump tried to have a patronage relationship with him, the FBI director or that President is so prone to bending the truth that he felt compelled to make contemporaneous memos about every conversation?

How can we know what success they did or did not have without an investigation?

Same article;

Probable cause good enough for an investigation now? I'm not saying he's guilty; nor am I saying anyone in his campaign is - but I'm also not going to ignore the smoke. I want to see what Mueller finds.

 

We know that the DNC was hacked. As far as 'financial relationships with Russia' is concerned we know Hillary Clinton had those too,. What does it really mean?

And what are we getting excited about? With all we know, and even with what you assumed, there is no sign that any laws have been broken.

\Right. It's actually worse. What do you think Obama meant? And you don't know who these 'foreign actors' are nor if they swayed an election.

Let's stop for a moment to consider what the most serious problem in the world is today. Is it really Michael Flynn? Paul Manafort? The real issue in the world today is the rise of international Islamism and how it might be combated by the free world. But instead of that happening we have the America left reversing their decades old support of Russia and are now fighting against them. Europe is now growing more anti American and Russia and Europe are at odds as well.

Don't you ever feel that maybe, just maybe, this might be a case of mass hysteria and you're being manipulated? That's a far better conspiracy than whatever went on with Flynn or Manafort.

 

Comey is a liar:

COMEY CLOWN SHOW CONTINUES:

 

I already made my position clear.

Hillary Clinton's campaign staff had just as many meetings with the Russians as anyone in Trumps. If you're going to investigate one then you must investigate both. If not then it's just a hypocritical double standard.

In order to rise to Obstruction he would have had to add a "bribe, threat or force" directly to Comey to the "hope", he didn't.

It's going nowhere. Do you really thing a savvy prosecutor like Muller would let his star witness testify in public and jeopardize the case if there was anything there?

 

That's probably why they're going after Jeff Sessions now, in order to discredit whatever turns up during any investigation of Loretta Lynch and her connection with the Clintons.

 

LMAO, weak spin...............Sessions is Russia dirty as well.

 

"Russia dirty"? What new Leftspeak is that?

 

Google will help you figure out your confusion.

 

I'm happy that you cite President Putin's spokesman (Dmitry Peskov) as your source - a guy who did not name specific people or meetings about Hillary or her campaign, plus we know from the National Review article I posted above, that the Russians are actively trying to 'muddy the waters' with fake or misleading stories. So I'm taking that gentleman's claim with a grain of salt considering only the Democrats were hacked and we know of at least four specific people in Trump's campaign that had Russian contacts. If Dmitry Peskov produces names, we can investigate.

Maybe the semantics of that conversation are not obstruction, and legally Trump is in the clear, but the intent of the conversation was to get the FBI to back off Flynn. And that's what I find disturbing.

Comey said he leaked his memos to the press to prompt the appointment of a special counsel. Essentially he's saying, he got the ball rolling - we'll see where it ends up. Comey might just be the opening shot, not the star witness.

 

I believe Trump hoped that with the firing of Flynn that would be enough and that that does not rise to an obstruction of justice as I have cited Prof. Turley. I also believe Lynch instructing Comey to a direct action that was tied to the Clinton campaign was.

So you are saying we know of none and the article you presented is speculation and supposition. Russia TV influenced the election? How many people watch RT? The emails influenced the election? How, were they false, were they forged? Had the NYT got them through their own source and released them would they have had this same effect? What confusion did they sow how did it manifest itself? And we do the same in their country and elsewhere.

Hardly, someone doing business with Russia/Russians is not probable cause of a crime. The Obama administration was trying to open trade with Russia was encouraging it in fact. And why not have people well versed in doing international business including Russia on your team?

And let's not forget Comey's statement about all these stories based on leaks that have appeared, that they were not very truthful.

 

Trump is BLOTUS..............he showed "consciousness of guilty" by "insisting" (more than once) he (The Boss) and Comey be left alone. Why not defend that? Also, why has Trump never once brought up with Comey the national security issue re the Russia interference that co-opted America's National Security?

 

JONATHAN TURLEY LAYS OUT The Damaging Case Against James Comey.

The testimony of James Comey proved long on atmospherics and short on ethics. While many were riveted by Comey’s discussion of his discomfort in meetings with President Trump, most seemed to miss the fact that Comey was describing his own conduct in strikingly unethical terms. The greatest irony is that Trump succeeded in baiting Comey to a degree that even Trump could not have imagined. After calling Comey a “showboat” and poor director, Comey proceeded to commit an unethical and unprofessional act in leaking damaging memos against Trump.

Comey described a series of ethical challenges during his term as FBI director. Yet, he almost uniformly avoided taking a firm stand in support of the professional standards of the FBI. During the Obama administration, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave Comey a direct order to mislead the public by calling the ongoing investigation a mere “matter.” Rather than standing firm on the integrity of his department and refusing to adopt such a meaningless and misleading term, Comey yielded to Lynch while now claiming discomfort over carrying out the order.

When Trump allegedly asked for Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn or pledge loyalty, Comey did not tell the president that he was engaging in wildly inappropriate conduct. He instead wrote a memo to file and told close aides. He now says that he wishes he had the courage or foresight to have taken a stand with the president.

However, the clearest violation came in the days following his termination. Comey admits that he gave the damaging memos to a friend at Columbia Law School with the full knowledge that the information would be given to the media. It was a particularly curious moment for a former director who was asked by the president to fight the leakers in the government. He proceeded in becoming one of the most consequential leakers against Trump.

Comey said that he took these actions days after his termination, when he said that he woke up in the middle of the night and realized suddenly that the memos could be used to contradict Trump. It was a bizarrely casual treatment of material that would be viewed by many as clearly FBI information. He did not confer with the FBI or the Justice Department. He did not ask for any classification review despite one of the parties described being the president of the United States. He simply sent the memos to a law professor to serve as a conduit to the media.

Trump has done a lot to expose just how petty and inept most of our governing class is.

Comey is lower than tick's ****.

 

Russian government thought they owned 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets, but they can't. After they donated $2.3 million through their Canadian company. I think Trump and the Russians is a false flag to cover that the Russians interference was to try to make sure Clinton didn't become President no matter who won the Republican nomination. Mueller will find out if that's true.

I find this far more disturbing......

By doing that he may very well end up as a defendant instead of Trump. Try not to be too disappointed.

 

First off, I have no interest in defending Hillary Clinton, nor is that what this thread is about, Professor Juxtaposition. Here is a more recent Snopes article about the subject if you have interest in reading it, but I'm not interested in defending her or the Clinton foundation because I think they're both shady - and if someone wants to investigate that, I'm all for it.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Again, I'm happy to investigate both, nor do I have any love for Podesta or really any major player in the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Really it sounds a lot similar to what Flynn did - not divulging ties to Russian oligarchs that are either directly or indirectly Putin's puppets.

But of course, that shouldn't mean this investigation, the one we're talking in this thread, with regards to Trump (his campaign,Russian connections, and desire for the investigations into them to disappear), is illegitimate simply because Hillary and her cohorts were shady too.

I hope you'll accept the findings of the Special Counsel when they are announced, and the consequences that go along with them, if/when the hammer drops. Simply because you hope for more investigations, shouldn't make this one illegitimate.

I don't have any stake in what happens to Comey.

I'm more interested in the truth than loyalty to a public figure, party or ideology. And in this thread, you don't sound like you have that same inclination.