Trump Fires Comey

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Trump Fires Comey

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri May 12, 2017 7:31 am

Recused And Accused: Critics Say Sessions Should Have Stayed Out Of Comey
May 12, 2017By Scott HorsleyShare
Attorney General Jeff Sessions at a speech in April.closemore
President Trump now says he made the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey on his own.

That's a shift from the original White House statement, which said the president acted on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Sessions' role in Comey's firing has raised eyebrows, since the attorney general promised months ago that he would steer clear of any investigation related to the presidential campaign.

"Attorney General Sessions should not have had any involvement in this decision at all," said Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. "He recused himself. And yet he inserted himself in this firing."

Sessions's recusal came back in March, after it was revealed that he'd misled senators, including Franken, about his contacts with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. Sessions insisted those contacts were innocent. But with the FBI investigating Russian meddling in last year's election and possible ties to the Trump campaign, Sessions promised to keep his distance.

"I have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States," Sessions said.

Legal experts say that recusal was appropriate, given Justice Department rules against taking part in an investigation involving close associates.

"Because he was an early supporter of President Trump, obviously he was nominated to the office he holds by President Trump, he has the kind of personal and political relationship that the recusal regulation does pertain to," said John Q. Barrett, a law professor at St. John's University.

A Justice Department spokesman argues that recusal did not bar Sessions from weighing in on the decision to fire Comey.

"The recommendation to remove Director Comey was a personnel decision based on concerns about the effectiveness of his leadership," spokesman Ian Prior wrote in an email. "The recommendation had nothing to do with the substance of any investigation."

That argument doesn't sway Barrett, a former Justice Department lawyer who served as associate counsel in the Iran Contra investigation.

"The problem is you can't sort of say, 'I'm changing the Director of the FBI for B through Z' and pretend there's no A involved here. A is this investigation," Barrett said.

He argues Sessions should not be involved in choosing a new director for the FBI, and suggests the safest course might be to leave Acting Director Andrew McCabe in place until the campaign probe is completed.

Other legal experts disagree.

"The question of Mr. Comey's ability to lead the FBI going forward and to maintain public confidence is not the same as the question of how the existing and future investigations of the presidential campaigns should be conducted," wrote Bruce Green of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University Law School. "The [attorney general's] recusal did not explicitly cover this and, in any event, it was up to the AG to interpret the scope of his own recusal."

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders made a similar case.

"Look, the FBI is doing a whole lot more than the Russia investigation," Sanders said. "That's probably one of the smallest things that they've got going on their plate."
http://www.wbur.org/npr/528003690/recus ... mey-firing


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trump Fires Comey

Postby 0_0 » Sun May 14, 2017 2:53 pm

playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trump Fires Comey

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed May 17, 2017 11:33 am

Wake Up: Kushner’s a Baddie Too
Alex Brandon/AP
By JOSH MARSHALL Published MAY 17, 2017 9:50 AM
Image
The very latest reports out this morning have it that Jared Kushner was a major voice pushing to fire James Comey. And the President is “angry” over the backlash to his decision. A shadow of uncertainty must hang over every report like this. We’re hearing these details through interested parties, a yacht basin Lord of the Flies, with different faction leaders gouging each others’ eyes out as the executive branch descends into chaos.

What I want to focus on for this moment, however, is the recurring insistence on treating these decisions as matters of inexperience or flawed press strategies or – somewhat more credibly – impulse control. No one is so inexperienced or naive as to fail to understand that when you fire someone who might discover your crimes or misdeeds that you’re doing something wrong. I read in one of the seemingly limitless number of reports that Trump’s immediate reaction to the Comey backlash was anger at his communications staff for allowing the story to go wrong.

There are so many levels on which we can understand this: the helpless, hapless and ridiculous White House communications staff, the fact that the White House is openly interviewing possible replacements for Spicer and having those replacements talk to the press, this 70 year old man’s complete inability to take responsibility for his own actions. The major thing though is a simple misunderstanding of what a communications staff is or can possibly do. There was no communications strategy, no preparation that could have prevented the massive backlash at Comey’s firing because the act itself was an abuse of power of the highest order. Preparation could have made the press strategy less comical; it could not have made it more effective. But the President, at some essential level, appears not to be the only one who fails to realize this.

Reporters sometimes have a difficult time looking beyond the procedural realities of government, if only because the procedural realities are less charged than the substantive ones when the substantive ones get this bad. But it’s not just press strategies versus the facts of what actually happened. It’s also this matter of “inexperience” – particularly with people like Jared Kushner. As I said above, no one is that experienced. When you do things to cover up your wrongdoing or crimes, you do it because you are aware of your wrongdoing and crimes and want to evade exposure or punishment. When I saw this report about Kushner this morning even I mocked his reputation as a ‘moderating influence’ on the President. But that doesn’t really cut it. We can’t be certain of the accuracy of this particular report. But assuming it is true and – more importantly – because we have numerous other confirmed reports of similar behavior, we should draw the obvious conclusion: Kushner himself is a bad actor, performing the same abuses of power by proxy.

My only uncertainty is whether Kushner is committing these bad acts to cover up his own wrongdoing along with his father-in-law’s or whether it is only his father-in-law’s. In practice, I suspect that both on the political and business front they are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. Of course, people are innocent until proven guilty. There is also a huge amount of factual information we don’t have yet. But in any other case, we would interpret these kinds of actions as showing consciousness of guilt and constituting prima facie evidence of bad acts. That should be the default assumption – backed up, let’s not forget by a good deal of factual information as well – in this case too.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wak ... baddie-too


Dem Senators Ask DOJ Inspector General To Probe Sessions’ Role In Comey Firing
Bill Clark/CQPHO
By ESME CRIBB Published MAY 17, 2017 11:09 AM
Eleven Democratic senators on Tuesday asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey violated his pledge to recuse himself from the investigation into ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

“It is clear that Attorney General Sessions had an active role in the termination of Director Comey,” the letter read.

Trump cited recommendations from Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in his letter dismissing Comey, and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the President “acted based on the clear recommendations” of both.

The letter from Democrats asserted that Sessions’ actions seem “to be a clear violation” of his promise to recuse himself, “and can only be construed as an attempt to influence an ongoing investigation that threatens to examine his own role in the 2016 presidential campaign, as well as other elements of President Trump’s campaign and administration.”

Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Edward Markey (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) signed the letter.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/d ... mey-firing
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trump Fires Comey

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu May 18, 2017 9:09 pm

Comey, Unsettled by Trump, Is Said to Have Wanted Him Kept at a Distance
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMAY 18, 2017

James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, after being called on by President Trump at a White House ceremony in January. Mr. Comey told a friend that he had hoped Mr. Trump would not spot him at the event. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump called the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, weeks after he took office and asked him when federal authorities were going to put out word that Mr. Trump was not personally under investigation, according to two people briefed on the call.

Mr. Comey told the president that if he wanted to know details about the bureau’s investigations, he should not contact him directly but instead follow the proper procedures and have the White House counsel send any inquiries to the Justice Department, according to those people.

After explaining to Mr. Trump how communications with the F.B.I. should work, Mr. Comey believed he had effectively drawn the line after a series of encounters he had with the president and other White House officials that he felt jeopardized the F.B.I.’s independence. At the time, Mr. Comey was overseeing the investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Those interactions included a dinner in which associates of Mr. Comey say Mr. Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty and a meeting in the Oval Office at which Mr. Trump told him he hoped Mr. Comey would shut down an investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Trump has denied making the request.

The day after the Flynn conversation, Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, asked Mr. Comey to help push back on reports in the news media that Mr. Trump’s associates had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign.

What Is Obstruction of Justice? An Often-Murky Crime, Explained

A look at what qualifies as obstructing justice, and whether the accusations against President Trump could fit in that definition.
Mr. Comey described all of his contacts with the president and the White House — including the phone call from Mr. Trump — in detailed memos he wrote at the time and gave to his aides. Congressional investigators have requested copies of the memos, which, according to two people who have read them, provide snapshots of a fraught relationship between a president trying to win over and influence an F.B.I. director, and someone who had built his reputation on asserting his independence, sometimes in a dramatic way.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said in a statement on Thursday that “the sworn testimony” of both Mr. Comey and Andrew G. McCabe, the F.B.I.’s acting director, “make clear that there was never any attempt to interfere in this investigation. As the president previously stated, he respects the ongoing investigations and will continue working to fulfill his promises to the American people.”

It is not clear whether in all their interactions Mr. Comey answered Mr. Trump’s question or if he ever told him whether he was under investigation. In the letter Mr. Trump sent to Mr. Comey last week in which he informed him that he had been fired, Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”

The F.B.I.’s longest-running director, J. Edgar Hoover, had close relationships with several presidents. But in the modern F.B.I., directors have sought an arm’s length relationship with the presidents they serve and have followed Justice Department guidelines outlining how the White House should have limited contact with the F.B.I.

Those guidelines, which also cover the F.B.I., prohibit conversations with the White House about active criminal investigations unless they are “important for the performance of the president’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.” When such conversations are necessary, only the attorney general or the deputy attorney general can initiate those discussions.

Mr. Comey has spoken privately of his concerns that the contacts from Mr. Trump and his aides were inappropriate, and how he felt compelled to resist them.

“He had to throw some brushback pitches to the administration,” Benjamin Wittes, a friend of Mr. Comey’s, said in interviews.

Mr. Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, recalls a lunch he had with Mr. Comey in March at which Mr. Comey told him he had spent the first two months of Mr. Trump’s administration trying to preserve distance between the F.B.I. and the White House and educating it on the proper way to interact with the bureau.

Mr. Wittes said he never intended to publicly discuss his conversations with Mr. Comey. But after The New York Times reported earlier this month that shortly after his inauguration Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey for a loyalty pledge, Mr. Wittes said he saw Mr. Trump’s behavior in a “more menacing light” and decided to speak out.

Mr. Wittes said that Mr. Comey told him that despite Mr. Trump’s attempts to build a personal relationship, he did not want to be friendly with the president and thought any conversation with him or personal contact was inappropriate.

Their conversation took place after Mr. Comey’s phone call with the president, Mr. Wittes said, and Mr. Comey told him that his relationship with the president and the White House staff was now in the right place.

“‘I think we’ve kind of got them trained,’” Mr. Wittes said, paraphrasing what Mr. Comey told him.

But he said Mr. Comey had also described other encounters with the president that had troubled him.

One of those occurred at the White House on Jan. 22, just two days after Mr. Trump was sworn in. That day, Mr. Trump hosted a ceremony to honor law enforcement officials who had provided security for the inauguration.

Mr. Wittes said that Mr. Comey told him that he initially did not want to go to the meeting because the F.B.I. director should not have too close a relationship with the White House. But Mr. Comey went because he wanted to represent the bureau.

The ceremony occurred in the Blue Room of the White House, where many senior law enforcement officials — including the Secret Service director — had gathered. Mr. Comey — who is 6 feet 8 inches tall and was wearing a dark blue suit that day – told Mr. Wittes that he tried to blend in with the blue curtains in the back of the room, in the hopes that Mr. Trump would not spot him and call him out.

“He thought he had gotten through and not been noticed or singled out and that he was going to get away without an individual interaction,” Mr. Wittes said Mr. Comey told him.

But Mr. Trump spotted Mr. Comey and called him out.

“Oh and there’s Jim,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s become more famous than me.”

With an abashed look on his face, Mr. Comey walked up to Mr. Trump.

“Comey said that as he was walking across the room he was determined that there wasn’t going to be a hug,” Mr. Wittes said. “It was bad enough there was going to be a handshake. And Comey has long arms so Comey said he pre-emptively reached out for a handshake and grabbed the president’s hand. But Trump pulled him into an embrace and Comey didn’t reciprocate. If you look at the video, it’s one person shaking hands and another hugging.”


Trump Greets FBI Director James Comey at White House in January Video by ABC News
Mr. Comey told Mr. Wittes of another encounter, on March 1, that also troubled him.

Mr. Wittes said that Mr. Comey said that he received a call from the White House and was told that “the president needs to talk to you urgently.”

GRAPHIC
Why It’s Hard to Have an Independent Russia Investigation
A special counsel does not ensure that the F.B.I. investigation will be free from political interference.
“He’s about to get on the helicopter, so he doesn’t get on the helicopter,” Mr. Wittes said. “And then when the president gets on he just wants to chitchat.”

Mr. Wittes said that Mr. Comey told him that he perceived the call as Mr. Trump still “trying to get him on the team and he saw it in light of his refusal to give him his loyalty.”

“Trump was still trying to get him on board,” Mr. Wittes said.

Mr. Wittes said that in another conversation he told Mr. Comey he was encouraged by the fact that the Senate was likely to confirm Rod J. Rosenstein, a longtime federal prosecutor, as the deputy attorney general.

To Mr. Wittes’s surprise, Mr. Comey did not completely agree with him.

“He said, ‘I don’t know. I have some concerns. He’s good, he’s solid but he’s also a survivor and you don’t survive that long without making some compromises and I’m concerned about that.’”

Weeks after his confirmation, Mr. Rosenstein wrote a memo that Mr. Trump initially cited as the justification for firing Mr. Comey. Mr. Rosenstein told members of the Senate on Thursday that Mr. Trump had already decided to fire him when he wrote it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/p ... trump.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trump Fires Comey

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri May 19, 2017 8:27 am

What James Comey Told Me About Donald Trump

By Benjamin Wittes Thursday, May 18, 2017, 8:02 PM

The New York Times is reporting tonight:

President Trump called the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, weeks after he took office and asked him when federal authorities were going to put out word that Mr. Trump was not personally under investigation, according to two people briefed on the call.

Mr. Comey told the president that if he wanted to know details about the bureau’s investigations, he should not contact him directly but instead follow the proper procedures and have the White House counsel send any inquires to the Justice Department, according to those people.

After explaining to Mr. Trump how communications with the F.B.I. should work, Mr. Comey believed he had effectively drawn the line after a series of encounters he had with the president and other White House officials that he felt jeopardized the F.B.I.’s independence. At the time, Mr. Comey was overseeing the investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
I did not know this particular fact, but it doesn't surprise me at all. The principal source for the rest of this story is, well, me—specifically a long interview I gave to reporter Michael Schmidt on Friday about my conversations with FBI Director James Comey over the last few months, and particularly about one such conversation that took place on March 27 over lunch in Comey’s FBI office.

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
This story breaks hard on the heels of this week’s revelation—also by the Times—that Trump had asked Comey to bury the investigation of Gen. Michael Flynn. A few words of elaboration are in order.

I called Schmidt Friday morning after reading his earlier story, which ran the previous evening, about Comey’s dinner with President Trump and the President’s demands at that dinner for a vow of loyalty. Schmidt had reported that Trump requested that Comey commit to personal loyalty to the President, and that Comey declined, telling the President that he would always have Comey’s “honesty.” When I read Schmidt’s account, I immediately understood certain things Comey had said to me over the previous few months in a different, and frankly more menacing, light. While I am not in the habit of discussing with reporters my confidential communications with friends, I decided that the things Comey had told me needed to be made public.

As I told Schmidt, I did not act in any sense at Comey’s request. The information I provided, however, dovetails neatly with the Times's subsequent discovery of the personal confrontation described above between Comey and the President over investigative inquiries and inquiries directly to the Bureau from the White House.


I did this interview on the record because the President that morning was already issuing threatening tweets suggesting that Comey was leaking things, and I didn’t want any room for misunderstanding that any kind of leak had taken place with respect to the information I was providing. There was no leak from Comey, no leak from anyone else at the FBI, and no leak from anyone outside of the bureau either—just conversations between friends, the contents of which one friend is now disclosing. For the same reason, I insisted that Schmidt record the conversation and give me a copy of the recording, so that we had a good record of what was said: both what was said by Comey as reported by me, and what was said by me about the conversation. Schmidt and I have had a few clarifying phone calls since then that were not recorded.

Before I go on, let me pause briefly to explain my relationship with Comey, which has been the subject of a lot of misinformation since I disclosed that we are friends in a piece in his defense a few months back. Ever since then, and particularly since Gizmodo used me as forensic evidence in its weird effort to out a supposed Comey Twitter account, people have developed this idea that Comey and I are especially close. Some people have even started following me on Twitter because they think I’m channeling Comey or am some secret line into his thinking. The truth is rather more pedestrian: We’re friends. We communicate regularly, but I am not among his close intimates or advisers. I know nothing about the Russia investigation that isn’t public. Comey has never talked to me about a live investigative matter—and I’ve never asked him to.

That said, sometimes, as friends do, we have lunch, and when we do so, we talk about things of mutual interest, like how Lawfare is going or how life running the FBI is going. And those latter conversations necessarily involve President Trump—and President Obama before him.

Note that in the conversations I’m going to describe here, I was not interviewing Comey. There are any number of follow-up questions I would ask were I meeting him in a journalistic capacity that I did not ask. So in the conversations I’m about to relate, the answers to all questions about whether I followed up on this or that point is that I did not. I never expected to be giving a public account of his thinking during this period. I took no notes. What follows is just my recollection of things he told about his interactions with Trump that I now believe flesh out the relationship between the two men in the weeks after that dinner about which the New York Times reported and in the period in which Trump also apparently asked Comey to back off of Flynn—and in which I now learn that Comey also told the President to stop asking the FBI about investigative matters.

The first point is a general one: Comey was preoccupied throughout this period with the need to protect the FBI from these inquiries on investigative matters from the White House. Two incidents involving such inquiries have become public: the Flynn discussion and Reince Priebus’s query to Andrew McCabe about whether the then-Deputy FBI Director could publicly dispute the New York Times’ reporting regarding communications between Trump associates and Russian officials. Whether there were other such incidents I do not know, but I suspect there were. What I do know is that Comey spent a great deal of energy doing what he alternately described as “training” the White House that officials had to go through the Justice Department and “reestablishing” normal hands-off White House-Bureau relations.

Comey never said specifically that this policing was about the Russia matter, but I certainly assumed that it was—probably alongside other things. While I do not know how many incidents we’re talking about, how severe they were, or their particular character, I do know this: Comey understood Trump’s people as having neither knowledge of nor respect for the independence of the law enforcement function. And he saw it as an ongoing task on his part to protect the rest of the Bureau from improper contacts and interferences from a group of people he did not regard as honorable. This was a general preoccupation of Comey’s in the months he and Trump overlapped—and the difference between this relationship and his regard for Obama (which was deep) was profound and palpable.

Second, Comey described at least two incidents which he regarded as efforts on the part of the President personally to compromise him or implicate him with either shows of closeness or actual chumminess with the President.

The first incident he told me about was the infamous “hug” from Trump after the inauguration:


The hug took place at a White House meeting to which Trump had invited law enforcement leadership to thank them for their role in the inauguration. Comey described really not wanting to go to that meeting, for the same reason he later did not want to go to the private dinner with Trump: the FBI director should be always at arm’s length from the President, in his view. There was an additional sensitivity here too, because many Democrats blamed Comey for Trump’s election, so he didn’t want any shows of closeness between the two that might reinforce a perception that he had put a thumb on the scale in Trump’s favor. But he also felt that he could not refuse a presidential invitation, particularly not one that went to a broad array of law enforcement leadership. So he went. But as he told me the story, he tried hard to blend into the background and avoid any one-on-one interaction. He was wearing a blue blazer and noticed that the drapes were blue. So he stood in the back, right in front of the drapes, hoping Trump wouldn’t notice him camouflaged against the wall. If you look at the video, Comey is standing about as far from Trump as it is physically possible to be in that room.

And for a long time, he reported, Trump didn’t seem to notice him. The meeting was nearly over, he said, and he really thought he was going to get away without an individual interaction. But when you’re six foot, eight inches tall, it’s hard to blend in forever, and Trump ultimately singled him out—and did so with the most damning faint praise possible: “Oh, and there's Jim. He’s become more famous than me!”

Comey took the long walk across the room determined, he told me, that there was not going to be a hug. Bad enough that he was there; bad enough that there would be a handshake; he emphatically did not want any show of warmth.

Again, look at the video, and you’ll see Comey preemptively reaching out to shake hands. Trump grabs his hand and attempts an embrace. The embrace, however, is entirely one sided.

Comey was disgusted. He regarded the episode as a physical attempt to show closeness and warmth in a fashion calculated to compromise him before Democrats who already mistrusted him.

The loyalty dinner took place five days later.

Comey never told me the details of the dinner meeting; I don’t think I even knew that there had been a meeting over dinner until I learned it from the Times story. But he did tell me in general terms that early on, Trump had “asked for loyalty” and that Comey had promised him only honesty. He also told me that Trump was perceptibly uncomfortable with this answer. And he said that ever since, the President had been trying to be chummy in a fashion that Comey felt was designed to absorb him into Trump’s world—to make him part of the team. Comey was deeply uncomfortable with these episodes. He told me that Trump sometimes talked to him a fashion designed to implicate him in Trump’s way of thinking. While I was not sure quite what this meant, it clearly disquieted Comey. He felt that these conversations were efforts to probe how resistant he would be to becoming a loyalist. In light of the dramatic dinner meeting and the Flynn request, it’s easy to see why they would be upsetting and feel like attempts at pressure.

On March 27, he described one incident in particular that had bothered him. Comey was about to get on a helicopter when his phone rang. It was the White House saying that the President wanted to speak with him. Figuring there must be something urgent going on, he delayed his flight to take the call. To his surprise, the President just wanted to chitchat. He was trying to be social, Comey related; there was no agenda, much less an urgent one. Notably, since the President has claimed that Comey told him in two phone conversations that he was not under investigation, Comey said nothing to me about the subject coming up in this call. Indeed, he regarded the call as weird for how substanceless it was. What bothered Comey was twofold—the fact that the conversation happened at all (why was Trump calling him to exchange pleasantries?) and the fact that there was an undercurrent of Trump’s trying to get him to kiss the ring.

By the time we had lunch that day, Comey thought he had the situation under control. It had required a lot of work, he said, to train the White House that there were questions officials couldn’t ask and that all contacts had to go through the Justice Department. But he thought the work had been done. After reading the top few paragraphs of the Times story, I now have no doubt that he was referring among other things to the conversation with the President, which he did not mention specifically to me. He also thought that policing the lines he had established was going to require constant vigilance on his part in the future.

He said repeatedly that it was going to be a very long few years. And he joked that the hashtag I use on Twitter—#NotesFromUnderTrump, which identifies the particular day of the Trump presidency—was ticking very slowly.

He said one other thing that day that, in retrospect, stands out in my memory: he expressed wariness about the then-still-unconfirmed deputy attorney general nominee, Rod Rosenstein. This surprised me because I had always thought well of Rosenstein and had mentioned his impending confirmation as a good thing. But Comey did not seem enthusiastic. The DOJ does need Senate-confirmed leadership, he agreed, noting that Dana Boente had done a fine job as acting deputy but that having confirmed people to make important decisions was critical. And he agreed with me that Rosenstein had a good reputation as a solid career guy.

That said, his reservations were palpable. “Rod is a survivor,” he said. And you don’t get to survive that long across administrations without making compromises. “So I have concerns.”

In retrospect, I think I know what Comey must have been thinking at that moment. He had been asked to pledge loyalty by Trump. When he had declined, and even before, he had seen repeated efforts to—from his point of view—undermine his independence and probe the FBI’s defenses against political interference. He had been asked to drop an investigation. He had spent the last few months working to defend the normative lines that protect the FBI from the White House. And he had felt the need personally to make clear to the President that there were questions he couldn't ask about investigative matters. So he was asking himself, I suspect: What loyalty oath had Rosenstein been asked to swear, and what happened at whatever dinner that request took place?

I don’t want to make a unified field theory out of these incidents, which are pieces of a much larger mosaic—a mosaic that surely includes whatever Comey knew about the Russia investigation, among many other things. But I am confident that these incidents tell a story about Comey’s thinking over the months that he and Trump were in office together. And I think they also sketch a trajectory in which Trump kept Comey on board only as long as it took him to figure out that there was no way to make Comey part of the team. Once he realized that he couldn’t do that—and that the Russia matter was thus not going away—he pulled the trigger.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-james- ... nald-trump
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trump Fires Comey

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri May 19, 2017 3:52 pm

Who is the leaker?

The pissed off Russian camera gal? :P

Image

Trump told Russians firing 'nut job' Comey eased pressure
BY BEN KAMISAR - 05/19/17 03:06 PM EDT 689

President Trump told Russian officials his firing of FBI Director James Comey relieved “great pressure” on him, calling the former FBI chief a “nut job,” The New York Times reported Friday.

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said, according to a report based on a summary of the meeting obtained by the Times.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Trump in the White House on May 10, when the alleged conversation occurred.

The meeting took place one day after Trump's surprise firing of Comey, which prompted bipartisan outcry and ultimately led to the Justice Department appointing a special counsel to look into allegations of collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not dispute the Times' characterization, telling the newspaper Comey was causing problems in U.S.-Russia relations.

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer said.

“The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

Two unnamed White House officials confirmed the account to the Times, while a third government official said that the comments were a negotiating tactic used by Trump.

The report is the latest in a steady stream of bad headlines for the White House related to the fallout of Comey's firing.

They White House initially said Comey was only fired after Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote recommendations.

But Trump himself told NBC News last week that he would have fired Comey regardless of the recommendations, saying he did it because "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."

Days later, the Times reported that Trump had asked Comey in February to end his investigation into disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and that the Trump transition team knew that Flynn was under investigation by the Justice Department when it chose to name him to that post.

Moments after the Times’s report, the Washington Post reported that a current senior White House aide is considered a person of interest by the Justice Department in its investigation.

Rosenstein appointed former FBI chief Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian election interference and links between Trump’s team and the Kremlin.

In addition, the FBI and the Senate and House Intelligence committees are also conducting Russia probes.

— Updated at 3:19 p.m.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... him-report
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests