Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to Kill Flynn Investigation

a reply to: UKTruth

I wish I could, but it was an opinion piece, so far the NY only have the content of the memo but do not have the memos in physical form.

That alone makes it very suspicious and fake

But the memos will be subpoena.

a reply to: UKTruth

en.wikipedia.org...

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case" (418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Not the be all end all answer, but a good place to start.

The "russia" problem is all about national security, is it not?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

We should get to the bottom of things within a couple weeks..

until trump learns the 2 words most 20th century presidents rely on in a scandal

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

That doesn't work to stop impeachment. Still, there is nothing close to grounds for impeachment, unless the US is going to collapse into a state of removing Presidents on the say so of one man (not even appointed by the President and then fired by him).

Of course not...Congress will interview WH and FBI Staff UNDER OATH..

They have already requested the Memo's from FBI and Audio Tapes from the WH and are prepared to issue subpoenas for either if need be.

And Flynn is on the verge of formal charges, grand jury subpoenas went out last week..so eventually he is going to be talking. Hell he asked for immunity and they didn't give it to him...what does that tell you about what they got.

Hopefully they take their time..would rather not have a Pres. Pence..But country first.

a reply to: Indigo5

Sorry I forgot you work for the FBI because you know everything

Darn you got it all figure out.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

Burr was not impressed by the sourcing. "I could write something and I could read it over the phone and tell them that it came from [Comey]," he told reporters. "I think the burden is on the New York Times, if they're reporting it and they've got somebody that's got the document, they need to get the document and get it released." Burr noted that he met with Comey the day before Trump fired him. "The director of the FBI shared more information with Sen. Warner and myself than any director has ever shared," he said. "I think something as material as that probably would have been something he would have shared, had it happened," he said.

LOL...

You cut the rest that statement:

“But, given that we were the last to meet with him before his departure, the last thing I think Director Comey was thinking about Monday afternoon at 4 o’clock when we met with him was that the next day he was going to get fired.”

www.pbs.org...

So much crazy and lies around here..

That point is irrelevant to what Burr was saying.

How?..It actually seems to completely contradict what you claimed his statement inferred.

No one denies that Comey was surprised to be fired.
It does not negate the fact that Comey failed to mention this to the Senate Intelligence Committee just a day before he was fired.

Which is it? He knew it was his last day, so should have mentioned this to the Committee the day before? Or he was surprised to be fired, so of course he didn't summarize his concerns of the last 5 months of Trump?

Bottom line - Burr is sceptical that there is anything here and the onus is on the NYT to produce their evidence.

Why? The NYT doesn't have the memos ...They are OFFICIAL, DOCUMENTED, ATTESTED TO and SHARED at the time...aka Memorialized contemporaneously evidence.

No worries though!

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz asks the FBI for records on communications between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey

www.cnbc.com...

These memos will be discussed in open hearing in the next couple weeks.

Comey was unaware he'd be fired, of course. Again, totally irrelevant to the fact that he did not mention the meeting with Trump to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
All very very clear.

Yes, the NYT have published with zero evidence, just some source reading over a telephone. That shows just how badly their standards have dropped.

If there are memos (I think there are) then my bet is they will show nothing much untoward, which is why Comey never felt the need to mention them to the House Intelligence Committee - Burr's point.

a reply to: Indigo5

I guess the same bias media you are drinking from, so we are even, right?

WTF, really, that is what you have?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: UKTruth

I wish I could, but it was an opinion peace, so far the NY only have the content of the memo but do not have the memos in physical form.

That alone makes it very suspicious and fake

But the memos will be subpoena.

LOL

In a letter to acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Chaffetz requested "all memoranda, notes, summaries and recordings referring or relating to" communications between Comey and Trump by May 24. He wrote that the reports Tuesday "raise questions as to whether the president attempted to influence or impede the FBI's investigation" related to Flynn.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

We should get to the bottom of things within a couple weeks..

until trump learns the 2 words most 20th century presidents rely on in a scandal

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

That doesn't work to stop impeachment. Still, there is nothing close to grounds for impeachment, unless the US is going to collapse into a state of removing Presidents on the say so of one man (not even appointed by the President and then fired by him).

Of course not...Congress will interview WH and FBI Staff UNDER OATH..

They have already requested the Memo's from FBI and Audio Tapes from the WH and are prepared to issue subpoenas for either if need be.

And Flynn is on the verge of formal charges, grand jury subpoenas went out last week..so eventually he is going to be talking. Hell he asked for immunity and they didn't give it to him...what does that tell you about what they got.

Hopefully they take their time..would rather not have a Pres. Pence..But country first.

More evidence should be sought - we agree on that.
Until then there is still nothing to be overly excited about. I understand why you are though.. just don't let it affect you as much as the election if it doesn't fall your way. I am not sure you could take such another loss... I worry about your mental health.

If it DOES fall your way, then good luck with Pence.. he is far right.

By the way, there can be as many interviews as you like and as many documents subpoenaed as you like... I assume you don't think Trump was systematically telling everyone he was asking Comey to stop the investigation and writing it down? If he DID do this then he SHOULD go, for being that naive, but I doubt it. He asked people to leave the room when he raised this with Comey, allegedly. You might be coming up blank again, leaving this as Comey's word only - which is not going to lead to impeachment.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Indigo5

I guess the same bias media you are drinking from, so we are even, right?

WTF, really, that is what you have?

I am dealing with reporting...

You invented a bunch of non-existent Alternative facts?

The NYT's made it clear in their original story they did not have the memo's..

But you claimed they did have the memos and congress was demanding the NYTs turn them over?

That was not remotely real..

a reply to: Indigo5

The content will be a big disappointment for you, after the media have spend too much time sensationalizing them.

Sadly I stand by this one.

I hope you have some antidepressant in case your disappointment makes you speechless.

a reply to: marg6043

HA

What legal expert said Flynn was cleared by the FBI?

That has not happened.
He just asked for immunity last month remember?
They are still collecting evidence against him with the subpoenas for his business records which were JUST ISSUED.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

We should get to the bottom of things within a couple weeks..

until trump learns the 2 words most 20th century presidents rely on in a scandal

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

That doesn't work to stop impeachment. Still, there is nothing close to grounds for impeachment, unless the US is going to collapse into a state of removing Presidents on the say so of one man (not even appointed by the President and then fired by him).

Of course not...Congress will interview WH and FBI Staff UNDER OATH..

They have already requested the Memo's from FBI and Audio Tapes from the WH and are prepared to issue subpoenas for either if need be.

And Flynn is on the verge of formal charges, grand jury subpoenas went out last week..so eventually he is going to be talking. Hell he asked for immunity and they didn't give it to him...what does that tell you about what they got.

Hopefully they take their time..would rather not have a Pres. Pence..But country first.

If it DOES fall your way, then good luck with Pence.. he is far right.

Pence does suck..but "My Way"...is the USA and the country our founding fathers built...Country first. I will accept a less controversial and disturbingly more effect right wing President in place of an incompetent, corrupt POTUS who is antagonistic toward democracy itself.

a reply to: Indigo5

You live for alternative fake news, sensationalism and bias information, then you want to point out me? because I posted an opinion piece.

Really, Indigo, Really.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: marg6043

HA

What legal expert said Flynn was cleared by the FBI?

That has not happened.
He just asked for immunity last month remember?
They are still collecting evidence against him with the subpoenas for his business records which were JUST ISSUED.

The FBI cleared him of any wrong doing regarding the content of the 'wire-tapped' calls they had. There are other things relating to Flynn being investigated as part of the wider probe into Russia.

Is no one here old enough to remember 'Deepthroat' during the Nixon/Watergate debacle? He was an 'unnamed' source (for 30 years) yet the information he provided (no documents or pictures) was good enough for Woodward and Bernstein --- yes, of WaPo, to blow open the Nixon Administration. DeepThroat was, in fact, FBI Associate Director, Mark Felt.

Point being, what's going on today isn't far removed from what happened during Nixon's era. Other than the fact that there was no 'Nixon Cult' as there seems to be with Trump today.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

We should get to the bottom of things within a couple weeks..

until trump learns the 2 words most 20th century presidents rely on in a scandal

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

That doesn't work to stop impeachment. Still, there is nothing close to grounds for impeachment, unless the US is going to collapse into a state of removing Presidents on the say so of one man (not even appointed by the President and then fired by him).

Of course not...Congress will interview WH and FBI Staff UNDER OATH..

They have already requested the Memo's from FBI and Audio Tapes from the WH and are prepared to issue subpoenas for either if need be.

And Flynn is on the verge of formal charges, grand jury subpoenas went out last week..so eventually he is going to be talking. Hell he asked for immunity and they didn't give it to him...what does that tell you about what they got.

Hopefully they take their time..would rather not have a Pres. Pence..But country first.

If it DOES fall your way, then good luck with Pence.. he is far right.

Pence does suck..but "My Way"...is the USA and the country our founding fathers built...Country first. I will accept a less controversial and disturbingly more effect right wing President in place of an incompetent, corrupt POTUS who is antagonistic toward democracy itself.

The only people who I see being antagonistic towards democracy are those trying everything and anything to undo the results of a democratic election. That would apply to you too. So maybe stop being the very thing you seem to despise.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jordan77
a reply to: allsee4eye

He didnt have to order Comey for it to be improper. The mere suggestion of attempting to influence the investigation would be enough.

Incorrect.
For obstruction of justice to be claimed, the intent to corrupt the investigation has to be proven.

Impeachment though doesn't necessarily require criminality though. So even if his intent can't be proven legally, there's still enough to make an argument he is unfit. I don't expect partisan republicans to go along with it without some criminal charge though. But a criminal charge is not necessarily required.

Impeachment would require lawmakers to believe that Trump tried to obstruct justice in this case. If any such impeachment hearing was brought, there would need to be some clear evidence to convict. Much more than a memo will be required.

Nixon actually refused a subpoena for the full tapes. Clinton was proven to have lied under oath.

Your idea of 'enough' simply isn't enough. Think about the consequences of bringing an impeachment trial based on what someone wrote. Any President would then be dancing on egg shells in any meeting with his staff, worried that one of them would just make something up and put it in an official memo. Worse, a member of the cabinet could be bribed (or blackmailed) into writing memo's alleging anything they wanted. ALL the President's power would be effectively removed with an easy method for just a handful of people to get rid of him. Think things through before jumping on the propaganda train.

None of that is plausible.

Presidents wouldn't be afraid to talk because most of them know the deal. And they engender trust and faith from their staff, unlike this guy. It's Trump that's oblivious and thinks trying to get the FBI director to shut down investigations is a good idea.

Your theory seems based around the premise that Comey made up this memo, which is highly dubious.

And you're talking about cabinet members being bribed or blackmailed like that's a thing outside of Michael Flynn.

Any President wouldnt be worried about any of this, just this clown.

When the Russia investigation finishes up (whenever that is), I'm confident there will be plenty to take this guy down. Because by then, there'll surely be another dozen scandals or episodes of misconduct he will have gotten himself into. Just keep giving him rope.

Then even Trump sycophants will they up their hands and tap out.

You entirely missed the point, which shows you are not thinking.
If you rely on written memo's, the route to removing a President becomes as simple as getting someone in a position of influence who meets with the President regularly to lie about what the President said/asked them to do. That would be it. Nothing more required. The American system of govt can not survive that kind of process, especially in the current environment. There has to be more than one persons say so. Pretty obvious really, which goes back to the point where you were initially incorrect. There is certainly not enough right now to impeach.

The memo is just a piece to the overall puzzle.

originally posted by: jtma508
Is no one here old enough to remember 'Deepthroat' during the Nixon/Watergate debacle? He was an 'unnamed' source (for 30 years) yet the information he provided (no documents or pictures) was good enough for Woodward and Bernstein --- yes, of WaPo, to blow open the Nixon Administration. DeepThroat was, in fact, FBI Associate Director, Mark Felt.

Point being, what's going on today isn't far removed from what happened during Nixon's era. Other than the fact that there was no 'Nixon Cult' as there seems to be with Trump today.

Quite different. NIxon was not impeached because of what 'deepthroat' said.

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jordan77
a reply to: allsee4eye

He didnt have to order Comey for it to be improper. The mere suggestion of attempting to influence the investigation would be enough.

Incorrect.
For obstruction of justice to be claimed, the intent to corrupt the investigation has to be proven.

Impeachment though doesn't necessarily require criminality though. So even if his intent can't be proven legally, there's still enough to make an argument he is unfit. I don't expect partisan republicans to go along with it without some criminal charge though. But a criminal charge is not necessarily required.

Impeachment would require lawmakers to believe that Trump tried to obstruct justice in this case. If any such impeachment hearing was brought, there would need to be some clear evidence to convict. Much more than a memo will be required.

Nixon actually refused a subpoena for the full tapes. Clinton was proven to have lied under oath.

Your idea of 'enough' simply isn't enough. Think about the consequences of bringing an impeachment trial based on what someone wrote. Any President would then be dancing on egg shells in any meeting with his staff, worried that one of them would just make something up and put it in an official memo. Worse, a member of the cabinet could be bribed (or blackmailed) into writing memo's alleging anything they wanted. ALL the President's power would be effectively removed with an easy method for just a handful of people to get rid of him. Think things through before jumping on the propaganda train.

None of that is plausible.

Presidents wouldn't be afraid to talk because most of them know the deal. And they engender trust and faith from their staff, unlike this guy. It's Trump that's oblivious and thinks trying to get the FBI director to shut down investigations is a good idea.

Your theory seems based around the premise that Comey made up this memo, which is highly dubious.

And you're talking about cabinet members being bribed or blackmailed like that's a thing outside of Michael Flynn.

Any President wouldnt be worried about any of this, just this clown.

When the Russia investigation finishes up (whenever that is), I'm confident there will be plenty to take this guy down. Because by then, there'll surely be another dozen scandals or episodes of misconduct he will have gotten himself into. Just keep giving him rope.

Then even Trump sycophants will they up their hands and tap out.

You entirely missed the point, which shows you are not thinking.
If you rely on written memo's, the route to removing a President becomes as simple as getting someone in a position of influence who meets with the President regularly to lie about what the President said/asked them to do. That would be it. Nothing more required. The American system of govt can not survive that kind of process, especially in the current environment. There has to be more than one persons say so. Pretty obvious really, which goes back to the point where you were initially incorrect. There is certainly not enough right now to impeach.

The memo is just a piece to the overall puzzle.

Quite. Which is why your original statement that there is already "enough" was wrong. Many more pieces have to fall into place for there to be enough.

a reply to: Sillyolme

FBI clears Michael Flynn in probe linking him to Russia

nypost.com...