Ex-FBI head Comey says Trump pressured him on Russia probe

saying "I hope you can..." is not pressure and is not illegal. good luck on your witch hunt while regular Americans worry about jobs, terrorism and the economy (things that actually matter)

I never thought that one day in my lifetime I'd have a President in office that made me sick. Impeachment proceeding would be a very good idea, hope it comes to that.

Popcorn. Check.

Soda. Check.

Trump's Twitter account open. Check.

This gon' be good.

saying "I hope you can..." is not pressure and is not illegal

Where did you get your law degree? To what bar association are you admitted?

Context is everything, and you have no idea about the context or manner in which those words were uttered.

In these memos, Trump sounds more like a mob boss than a president.

Has Trump also demanded loyalty from his new FBI director, Christopher Wray, as a condition of the appointment? Wray should be questioned about that in his confirmation hearing.

In these memos, Trump sounds more like a mob boss than a president.

Naw, if he were anything close to a Mob boss, there would be a lot of people disappearing without a trace.

Has Trump also demanded loyalty from his new FBI director, Christopher Wray, as a condition of the appointment? Wray should be questioned about that in his confirmation hearing.

Asking loyalty is not an impeachable crime. Another dead mouse for the left.

"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go."

I don't see any difference in this statement than the previous one. Did I miss something? Never thought I see the day where "news" corporations are actively fomenting a coup towards a US president.

Trump didn’t demand, and he didn’t ask either - if he had it should have been officially reported as such at the time. He merely put in a good word for Flynn and expressed his hope for what would be the result of Comey’s investigation.

@bass4funk: I guess you missed all the dead Russians who were tied to this case. Huh?

Asking loyalty is not an impeachable crime.

Yes, but highly unethical and unbecoming of the chief executive, wouldn't you say? Trump is unlikely to be impeached, but he will almost surely lose in 2020. Then he can live out his last days knowing that he will forever be known as the biggest disgrace ever to occupy the White House.

Seems pretty clear that he tried to influence the investigation. Not much more to say than that.

At Fizzbit:

I don't see any difference in this statement than the previous one. Did I miss something? Never thought I see the day where "news" corporations are actively fomenting a coup towards a US president.

There is no difference from what the news has reported, that is the point. There is no media

influence, today, it was all Comey. Very pragmatic.

Trump has accused the fake news that they have lied reporting things like loyalty demands

and protecting Flynn, but those stories were confirmed directly by Comey in his testimony,

as being true, and in fact, the WH lied, as did Trump.

How the heck does the news reporting something that turns out to be completely true a coup?

Of course, that's silly, it doesn't, at all. In fact it is the opposite, because all the media is really doing

is reporting what they believed was the truth, and Comey's testimony says it was reported with

truth. This isn't a coup, it's revealing truths about Trump and the WH lies and mishandling of

situations.

Who was lying here, the media or Trump? Obviously, it was Trump and his staff.

Seems pretty clear that he tried to influence the investigation. Not much more to say than that.

Like the way Brill did with Lynch on that tarmac coincidentally meeting each other during an impending investigation?

You can compare it to whatever you want to, bass. Just don't tell me Trump didn't try to influence the investigation. Talk about anything you want....but that.

Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.

Trump might've well just stated that into a recording device. Demanding personal loyalty from the head of the FBI, firing him after not getting it, and repeatedly making public statements of why you've done this is not a particularly wise way to stay in office. Everyone will eventually have a grave, but don't friggin' dig your own!

Q&A time tomorrow will be interesting.

You can compare it to whatever you want to, bass. Just don't tell me Trump didn't try to influence the investigation. Talk about anything you want....but that.

Ok, I get your point, but where is the crime??

This is gonna get interesting, but TBH I doubt much more than what is already known will come out of the hearing today. However until this is fully resolved, Trump should be considered illegitimate

The former FBI head said he became concerned that Trump was trying to create "some sort of patronage relationship."

That's exactly how Trump comes across. Puts pressure on ppl who work for him/ with him then pushes the boundaries, one stroke at a time, asking for more/bigger 'favors'. That's called being manipulative and DT's a master manipulator.

Imagine if this was Obama? The right would be Losing. Their. Sh*t. Instead, because it's Dear Leader, they say 'it's nothing. MSM coup. Just a friendly talk'.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing. Or at least it would be if it wasn't the right.

Imagine if this was Obama? The right would be Losing. Their. Sh*t. Instead, because it's Dear Leader, they say 'it's nothing. MSM coup. Just a friendly talk'.

As a matter of fact.....the left have other problems to worry about like the new report that Holder and the Obama administration lied about the Fast and furious program. Oh, this is really shaping up to be something huge....

Dango bong Today  06:51 am JST

good luck on your witch hunt while regular Americans worry about jobs, terrorism and the economy (things that actually matter)

Given Trump's failure to produce tangible results for the American people on even a single one of these fronts (all his claimed successes being at best deals someone else worked out without him), it's hard to make the case that this investigation is distracting him from any work beyond golfing and posturing.

Besides, you guys called for approximately 80 billion Benghazi investigations that couldn't turn up even a single crime. Try not to be complete hypocrites.

bass4funk Today  07:12 am JST

Asking loyalty is not an impeachable crime. 

It could be. If you ask for loyalty to you personally from a person who has pledged loyalty to the Laws of the United States, and then you imply someone should break those laws in order to be loyal to you, yeah, that has the potential to be impeachable.

Let's not forget that of all crimes to get a sitting President with, obstruction of justice seems to have a fairly good track record.

It could be.

"Could" doesn't have the same definition as "is"

If you ask for loyalty to you personally from a person who has pledged loyalty to the Laws of the United States, and then you imply someone should break those laws in order to be loyal to you, yeah, that has the potential to be impeachable.

Bu from every expert and lawyers, it properly won't.

Let's not forget that of all crimes to get a sitting President with, obstruction of justice seems to have a fairly good track record.

It worked so well with Clinton. Keep going down them rabbit holes.

And Mueller is up on deck.

Comey said he had told Trump on three occasions he was not being investigated, confirming an earlier account from the president.

Oh the thing that for weeks Comey and his friends and CNN have been saying was not said, was no way Comey would EVER say such a thing. The thing that was still being discussed on TV and tweeted as true 30 minutes after the document was released? The document which Comey said he DID tell Trump he isnt and wasnt under investigation?

Ok, so no FBI investigation related to Trump. No obstruction as the document also says Comey didnt feel he was asked to stop the Russia investigation. He also said he had no intention of doing what Trump asked him and the investigation continued, so it wasnt obstructed. If he testifies now that he did feel obstructed it is not only perjury it is also a crime because the document also says he kept it all closely held with him and his buddies and didnt make the correct reports.

Also, memos every time with Trump but no memos when Obama? I thought his friends and CNN said he ALWAYS takes detailed notes, that is what he is famous for?

the document also says Comey didnt feel he was asked to stop the Russia investigation. He also said he had no intention of doing what Trump asked him and the investigation continued, so it wasnt obstructed.

I wonder if you realize that's not how obstruction works, and are intentionally spreading a falsehood, or if you truly believe what you just wrote, and haven't learned that you should fact check yourself.

So at first Trump demanded him to end the Russia investigation, then he ordered him, then he suggested him, then he asked him, then he just hoped it would end in nothing. Each time the words getting less and less meaningful or provable. Now CNN says Comey was pressed and only the Flynn part specifically. So no FBI investigation, no obstruction on Russia as a whole and only pressed by a statement that says 'I hope....'? Would anyone feel pressured by a statement that starts with I hope...?

The intel heads badgering was ridiculous too. Dems kep saying just because you didnt FEEL pressured doesnt mean you werent and doesnt mean the President wasnt trying to. What......?? Guess the only thing left is this loyalty pledge. Yes, I would ask someone who serves at my pleasure if they can be loyal to the country and to their position as they previously put themself ahead of it. (i.e. Clinton emails)

I wonder if you realize that's not how obstruction works

Fine, let Mr. Comey tell the Congress under oath that his legal opinion is that he was obstructed.

Wont happen, because he had to report it if he was (he didnt). Also he already testified previously and in his written statement yesterday that he didnt feel he was.

He also said he had no intention of doing what Trump asked him and the investigation continued, so it wasnt obstructed.

It doesn't need to be obstructed for it to be a crime. It only needs to be an attempt at obstruction.

Also, memos every time with Trump but no memos when Obama?

Yea, Obama was professional didn't creep him out or ask him to do something illegal like Trump.

Besides, he met Comey twice alone. Once for business of the FBI and the other as a farewell when Obama was leaving the office.

I can't imaging an honest police officer and attorney not being creeped out in the presence of Trump.

So now the crime is feeling creeped out? and its not obstruction of justice just an attempt at it? Same thing here as far as media wording. It was DEFINITELY obstruction of justice, then it might have been, then it was attempted obstruction of justice and now I just saw its abuse of power. Why is it when something is untrue the seriousness of the word is just downgraded until it can be proven?

I am calling it here:

Comey will say that while he doesnt feel that he was obstructed, that doesnt mean that he wasnt. He is there as a factual witness only to discuss what was said. He will have no legal opinion what the conversations he had meant, as his feelings about intent dont matter, only matters the intent from Trump side. He will then say it is up to the investigative committees/Special counsel to decide if his facts meet obstruction of justice or not.

Successful hit job, speculate and insinuate without proof that Trump did something wrong, and advance the narrative. All things that are expected of Comey's testimony.

Fine, let Mr. Comey tell the Congress under oath that his legal opinion is that he was obstructed.

What do Comey's feelings or intentions have to do with it?

I really wonder if you actually believe that what you are saying makes sense.

Trump is incompetent precisely because he believes he can act like an autocrat in a constitutional democracy. This doesn’t work, and it makes him do stupid things.

Why is it when something is untrue the seriousness of the word is just downgraded until it can be proven?

I know it is hard to understand, but it doesn't make it untrue if you can't understand.

It is like someone saying I'll pay you $100 to let my friend go, but the money isn't accepted. It doesn't matter if the friend is guilty or not, or if the $100 is paid or not, or if the case is dropped as a result of the money being offered or paid. That is obstruction of justice.

Extending this to the facts isn't so hard to understand given how stupid Trump is.

Successful hit job, speculate and insinuate without proof that Trump did something wrong, and advance the narrative. All things that are expected of Comey's testimony.

Its not a hit job when its true. How many times will you Trumpsters have to be proven wrong until you get it?

Oh just like it was true that Comey did NOT tell Trump he wasnt under investigation? Why would Comey not share that with the public if it were in fact true that he was not and is not under investigation. He said he wouldnt say it because he might have to correct himself someday if Trump ever did come under investigation. But at the time of testimony and for all these months, Trump was NOT under investigation and we should have been told that.

The Dems/liberals/anonymous sources/CNN are the ones who keep getting proved wrong.

I know it is hard to understand, but it doesn't make it untrue if you can't understand.

Oh but for Hillary it was perfectly ok for her to mishandle classified information because she didnt understand that what she was doing was wrong and there was no intent? Got it.

Same courtesy should be extended to Trump if he didnt understand and had no intent. The precedent has already been set.

So ok if Comey doesnt testify that obstruction of justice happened in his legal opinion, then who would override that and say it did?

Fine, let Mr. Comey tell the Congress under oath that his legal opinion is that he was obstructed.

Witnesses aren't supposed to give legal opinions, they are supposed to testify to facts which they have knowledge of. Comey can testify to what Trump told him and did in his presence, but whether or not that constituted obstruction of justice is not a conclusion he can make.

Blacklabel: "Oh but for Hillary it was perfectly ok for her to mishandle classified information because she didnt understand that what she was doing was wrong and there was no intent? Got it."

Okay, let's say for a moment that Hillary using the wrong email account is even REMOTELY comparable to THE PRESIDENT (and lest you forget, Hilary was not and is not, and we KNOW you haven't forgotten that!) committing obstruction of justice and possibly even treason, you are either saying what Hilary did is perfectly okay, or else what Trump did is incredibly wrong. Which is it?

The Dems/liberals/anonymous sources/CNN are the ones who keep getting proved wrong

Nonsense. Trump lied about why he fired Comey. That's been proven.

Trump ignored warnings that Flynn was compromised and then lied about it. That's been proven.

Trump lied about being illegally wiretapped. That's been proven.

Trump claimed to record conversations with Comey, yet hasn't turned them over. He obviously is lying about that as well.

So no, this doesn't prove Trump is right. Now why do you think Trump asked Comey to lay off Flynn?

Ok, but yesterday the fact that the intel heads said they didnt feel pressured by Trump as a FACT was not accepted. They were badgered over and over about what their conclusions were. So I guess if Comey could conclude that it was obstruction, he is free to say it. But because he didnt, its not his conclusion to make. Same as he knew Trump was not under investigation but wouldnt confirm it in order to have people think he was.

WSJ falling off the MSM narrative by the way:

The Senate Intelligence Committee released James Comey’s prepared testimony a day early on Wednesday, and it looks like a test of whether Washington can apprehend reality except as another Watergate. Perhaps the defrocked FBI director has a bombshell still to drop. But far from documenting an abuse of power by President Trump, his prepared statement reveals Mr. Comey’s misunderstanding of law enforcement in a democracy.

Ok, I guess we are going to beg to differ. The purpose of Comey testimony according to the media was to put the final nail in Trump's coffin and prove once and for all that he is a criminal and that he colluded with Russia and to support his impeachment. But oops, Trump told the truth about what Comey told him and Comey himself confirmed it.

This is why all of you seemed so excited about it, right? Final proof of Trump guilt! So how does it feel to have been waiting almost a year for the results of an FBI investigation to prove Trump guilty, only to find out he wasnt even under investigation to begin with?

When I said no evidence that Trump was involved in Russia collusion I was always told well the investigation isnt over, you cant say that. But now you find that he isnt even being investigated by the FBI at all and he even knew that but the FBI Director hid it from all of us. So your happy ending isnt coming, that must be devastating.

Which is it?

That even if you could prove Trump did 'something wrong', then you still also have to prove that he understood it was wrong and that it was his intention to do it. Same courtesy that Hillary got. But it wont even get far enough to prove Trump even did anything wrong, so understanding and intent wont even have to be considered.

The purpose of Comey testimony according to the media was to put the final nail in Trump's coffin...

Nope. That's not the purpose of Comey's testimony. The purpose is to understand who said what to whom and with what purpose. That is, if there is in fact a final nail in Trump's coffin, it has already been driven.

Hey, man, what are we waiting for? Let's get The Impeachment started! Live, on all channels ... history made right in our living rooms! God, I can't wait -- it's gonna be, like, AWESOME!

Yes, except that to impeach someone a crime needs to have been committed. Seeing as the person we are talking about has now been confirmed as not even under FBI criminal investigation, thats kinda hard.

with what purpose

Oh so then Comey IS going to be asked about his conclusions and feelings based on these conversations. Otherwise he cant testify as to someone else's purpose, only Trump can testify to that.

and its not obstruction of justice just an attempt at it?

I mean....if you don't even get that part of it....

Ok, I guess we are going to beg to differ. The purpose of Comey testimony according to the media was to put the final nail in Trump's coffin and prove once and for all that he is a criminal and that he colluded with Russia and to support his impeachment.

I've been watching the MSM and haven't found any statements saying that the purpose of the Comey testimony was to prove once and for all that Trump was a criminal, or anything that would support this statement. Perhaps I'm not watching the right stuff? Or is this one of those instances of mixing up dream land and reality again?

> When I said no evidence that Trump was involved in Russia collusion I was always told well the investigation isnt over, you cant say that. But now you find that he isnt even being investigated by the FBI at all and he even knew that but the FBI Director hid it from all of us. So your happy ending isnt coming, that must be devastating.

Did you not hear the news about Robert Mueller being appointed special counsel for the Department of Justice and tasked specifically with investigating the Trump campaign and Russia? I guess it was only reported in the MSM which you don't seem to watch so I guess thats why you are unaware of it. Anyway, that investigation, which is completely separate from Comey's appearence before the Senate Intelligence Committee, is only getting started, so don't worry this isn't over by a long shot.

then you still also have to prove that he understood it was wrong and that it was his intention to do it. 

Wow, as if stupidity or lack of knowledge that the act is a crime is a defense.

In nearly all cases, a crime only requires two basic things:

(1) actus reas (an act considered criminal) and

(2) mens rea (an intent to do the act)

There are exception on the intent side, but not for obstruction.

Obstruction of justice has specific criteria to be met.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

it also has to be either done corruptly or by threat or force according to that link.

Wow, as if stupidity or lack of knowledge that the act is a crime is a defense.

The link specifically says intent and knowledge, so yeah, Worked for Hillary too.

Robert Mueller being appointed special counsel for the Department of Justice and tasked specifically with investigating the Trump campaign and Russia?

Yes, I did hear this. He is taking over the active investigations that the FBi was doing so that there is no appearance of impropriety after the FBI Director was fired. He cannot however take over an investigation that does not exist. (i.e. a criminal investigation of Trump personally). I guess if Comey were to say Trump obstructed justice Mueller could OPEN an FBI investigation into that, but Comey wont be saying that.

Or is this one of those instances of mixing up dream land and reality again?

Then why the doomsday countdown clock on CNN? Why bars opening for viewing parties? None of those existed for yesterday or any other testimony. This testimony was sooooooo important, until it was found its not going to say what it was supposed to. So of course now the media is downplaying it.

Google back to last week and you will see tens of stories about how this testimony would be the end of Trump as President and would directly prove all the Russia collusion and lead to his impeachment on obstruction charges.

The defining moment of Trump's presidency! Gunfight at the OK corral. Most important day of his Presidency. Immediate legal risk. headline of the day. Stakes are monumental. could be a disaster for Trump's future. Comey going for the kill. If I were Trump this would scare me a lot.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/07/comeys-testimony-poised-to-be-defining-moment-of-trumps-presidency/

But now its just one testimony of many in the ongoing Russia investigation, Dems and liberals say. Unfortunately for them, that investigation has been confirmed to no longer include Trump himself.

Yes, I did hear this. He is taking over the active investigations that the FBi was doing so that there is no appearance of impropriety after the FBI Director was fired. He cannot however take over an investigation that does not exist. (i.e. a criminal investigation of Trump personally). I guess if Comey were to say Trump obstructed justice Mueller could OPEN an FBI investigation into that, but Comey wont be saying that.

Mueller is running his own investigation separate from the FBI.

Then why the doomsday countdown clock on CNN? Why bars opening for viewing parties? None of those existed for yesterday or any other testimony. This testimony was sooooooo important, until it was found its not going to say what it was supposed to. So of course now the media is downplaying it.

Because it is big news? We already knew what Comey was likely to say thanks to leaks and his written statement confirms it. He is going to say that the President asked him to spike the Flynn investigation and requested personal loyalty from the FBI head. Not sure if that in itself constitutes an impeachable offence but its pretty damning nonetheless.

And is anyone downplaying it? Seems like its still a pretty big story, though perhaps I'm not attuned to subtle nuances as someone desperately looking for them is.

Obstruction of justice has specific criteria to be met.

I'm a bit curious as to which of those criteria Trump's actions fail to meet.

The link specifically says intent and knowledge, so yeah, Worked for Hillary too.

So yeah, I suppose if reading law were easy, we would all be lawyers.

"the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time"

Nowhere does it say that the person had knowledge that the act was a crime. It only talks about knowledge of a proceeding pending, which makes sense.

I am sure we can all agree that Trump "knew" Flynn was a target of a legal proceeding. Therefore, that element of the crime (the easiest element to prove) is satisfied.

Want to argue about the rest of the elements in obstruction? Hint, you have a better chance outside of this so-called knowledge element.

I forgot to mention the repubes favorite retort:

Yeah, but Hillary . . .

Well, Hillary isn't under investigation or connected with an investigation at the moment, so that argument is moot. I understand it may not be fair, but that is how life works. Similar to how it wasn't fair the the repubes stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama.

"Popcorn. Check.

Soda. Check.

Trump's Twitter account open. Check.

This gon' be good."

It sure is, ha ha!   Oh my...

Sekulow: Comey statement a complete vindication of Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op42Jo2VdLI

The relevant Federal statutes (actual law) should be:

18 USC 1503:  whoever corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice....

18 USC 1505: whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

18 USC 1512 also deals with acts of obstruction related to witnesses, evidence, etc. and no state of mind is required.

In all its vague glory, the crime is basically defined as:

(1) A person who

(2) corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication

(3) [or endeavors to] influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice

Sentence is 10 years (in the absence of killing or attempted killing).

"I forgot to mention the repubes favorite retort:

Yeah, but Hillary . . ."

Hee hee!

Comey statement raises questions about Clinton probe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA2GMUECymo

Oh the Hillary that is under investigation again?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4578540/Hillary-investigated-Senate-AGAIN.html

it has come full circle that once again Trump is not directly under investigation but Hillary is.

We already knew what Comey was likely to say thanks to leaks and his written statement confirms it. He is going to say that the President asked him to spike the Flynn investigation and requested personal loyalty from the FBI head. Not sure if that in itself constitutes an impeachable offence but its pretty damning nonetheless.

Interesting that you left out one thing from the what he was likely to say part. Leaks reported for weeks that he was going to say Trump lied when he said Comey told him he wasnt under investigation. Guess he actually wasnt, so he is afraid to say or imply otherwise now that it actually has to be truth and not harmful leaks with no sources.

And more radical left wing heads explode.

Comey's bombshell? He admitted telling Trump before he took office he wasn't under investigation. On 3 occasions!

Interesting that you left out one thing from the what he was likely to say part. Leaks reported for weeks that he was going to say Trump lied when he said Comey told him he wasnt under investigation. Guess he actually wasnt, so he is afraid to say or imply otherwise now that it actually has to be truth and not harmful leaks with no sources.

Where has anyone said specifically that Comey would testify that the FBI had an investigation against Trump personally?

The letter which fired Comey said that he told Trump 3 times he was not under investigation. I have been saying for months there was no evidence to even open an investigation, and seems I was right.

Sources said that Comey did not and would not tell Trump that information (so Trump is a liar). This narrative was going on even 30 mins after Comey's document was released. Nearly every media outlet reported that Comey would testify that he did NOT tell Trump he was not under investigation but he DID.

So naturally Trump would be frustrated that Comey knew and Trump knew that and even select members of Congress were told there was no investigation. But Comey refused to tell the US public the same truth. How ethical is that? Trump wasnt obstructing anything, Comey was obstructing the ability of the public to know the truth.

Everyone in the media has been saying for months that there Trump is under FBI investigation, all the little cute Twitter memes about number of days not under FBI investigation= 0 and such. Trump even suggested to announce that he WAS under investigation so that he could later be cleared by that investigation when nothing was found. Yet Comey did nothing and just let all the rumors run wild and even purposely insinuated that because he wouldnt testify that Trump was not under investigation could mean that he was.

Interesting that you left out one thing from the what he was likely to say part. Leaks reported for weeks that he was going to say Trump lied when he said Comey told him he wasnt under investigation. Guess he actually wasnt, so he is afraid to say or imply otherwise now that it actually has to be truth and not harmful leaks with no sources

Who cares? Let's talk about what Comey did confirm. Trump asked him to drop the investigation of Flynn. Multiple times. Why?

Everyone in the media has been saying for months that there Trump is under FBI investigation

Again, where has anyone, let alone everyone, in the media been saying that Trump was under personal investigation by the FBI? You are just making this up as you go along.

Who cares? Let's talk about what Comey did confirm. Trump asked him to drop the investigation of Flynn. Multiple times. Why?

yes lets talk about what Comey did confirm. That Trump is not under investigation. That he does not feel it was obstruction of justice. That he agree to give Trump honest loyalty and didnt bother to question what that even means.

As far as Flynn, there was an investigation into the content of Flynn's phone calls. Which the FBI found no evidence of him doing anything/saying improper related to those. Yet Flynn was still being treated by the media like he did something wrong. Trump said Flynn is a good guy. Comey agreed. So Trump hoped they could let it go because it was already confirmed by the FBI he did/said nothing wrong. Sounds like a reasonable thing to hope to see happen. Just like Trump hoped Comey would tell the public he was not under investigation. But neither thing happened, Flynn is still being accused and so was Trump until last night.

Its sad he had to fire the man to finally get him to admit in public that Trump isnt under investigation. Why was he hiding the truth about that?

saying that Trump was under personal investigation by the FBI? 

If not, then how have all of you/the media/Dems been claiming since the day after he won the election that he committed impeachable crimes? If no personal investigation then how would Trump be impeached for those? How could he be involved in Russian collusion which he has been accused of for almost a year?

Funny how now that there is no investigation that you would deny that you ever thought, hoped, prayed and wished that he was under investigation. That is all I have heard here since last November, that Trump is an illegitimate criminal who is under FBO investigation and who needs to be impeached for his crimes. How could you say that if you didnt think he was being investigated. How many of you here have gloated that Clinton is not under investigation but that Trump is? that has been reversed now.

Why was Comey firing even important then? Most of you said it wasnt right because he was the man leading the investigation into Trump so Trump cant fire him. But ok lets have selective memory here, thats ok. Trump is not and has not been under investigation, so I will take that as a win.

Trump-Russia collusion is being investigated by FBI, Comey confirms

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/20/fbi-director-comey-confirms-investigation-trump-russia

But I think I get you now. When Trump was presumed guilty, the term Trump administration or the words Trump-Russia collusion meant Trump personally. It was said there cant be a Trump administration investigation that doesnt include Trump, right?

Now that Trump isnt personally under investigation those terms now mean everyone BUT Trump. And if anyone found guilty, Trump himself will also be guilty because they are his administration or his associates and he should have known what they were doing and prevented it. So he still gets impeached anyway even if personally innocent? Got it.

 That he does not feel it was obstruction of justice. That he agree to give Trump honest loyalty and didnt bother to question what that even means.

No, that is not what he said and as others have pointed out, that isn't how this works.

As far as Flynn, there was an investigation into the content of Flynn's phone calls.

The phone calls were cleared. not Flynn. Flynn is still under investigation and that is precisely why he invoked his 5th amendment rights.

Sounds like a reasonable thing to hope to see happen. 

Does it also sound reasonable to ask Session and other guests to clear the room and then ask Comey to lay off Flynn?

 Why was he hiding the truth about that?

Because the investigation is not over and the FBI is still investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. You do understand that the police withhold details, right?

Ok let me confirm. All this is now about the Trump CAMPAIGN and not Trump himself. I got confused because all of the personal insults (traitor, Putin puppet, liar) and desired actions (impeachment, jail) were specific to Trump the person not Trump the campaign.

Because the investigation is not over and the FBI is still investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. You do understand that the police withhold details, right?

That's a different investigation that is not into Trump personally, per Comey. Why not announce Trump personally not being investigated but that ties between his campaign and others is ongoing? Tell the people months ago that so they can stop calling him a traitor and a puppet of Putin and so the calls for impeachment and jail can stop? he cant be impeached or jailed for any actions that others did, right?

So after tonight when Comey says what he is expected to say, is Trump personally cleared of Trump-Russia collusion? Then its just the matter of whether he obstructed justice per Flynn comments or not? If that is also no, then he is 100% cleared and we can move on? Or still no for some reason.....?

That's a different investigation that is not into Trump personally, per Comey. Why not announce Trump personally not being investigated but that ties between his campaign and others is ongoing?

I just explained why. How many different ways do I have to explain? The investigation is not complete. It may very well end up that Trump is implicated as the investigation continues. Who knows? But the FBI is supposed to be impartial and independent, not a president's mouthpiece or an airbag to protect Donny's fragile ego.

So after tonight when Comey says what he is expected to say, is Trump personally cleared of Trump-Russia collusion? 

For godsake, the investigation is ongoing. So no.

All of you harping on the "Trump isn't under investigation" angle would do well to add yet to the end of that sentence.

It is absolutely hilarious to read all the right wing nut jobs comment as if they were lawyers. From reading your posts, it is painfully obvious you have no idea how the law works. This is a perfect example:

Yes, except that to impeach someone a crime needs to have been committed. Seeing as the person we are talking about has now been confirmed as not even under FBI criminal investigation, thats kinda hard.

You do not need to be the subject of the investigation to be guilty of obstruction of justice. One can obstruct justice by interfering with any investigation.

Here is another gem from a repube allegedly with 30 years experience working in the media (I can only guess the response to this will be, "I'm a libertarian, not a repube" instead of responding to the substance.):

If you ask for loyalty to you personally from a person who has pledged loyalty to the Laws of the United States, and then you imply someone should break those laws in order to be loyal to you, yeah, that has the potential to be impeachable.

Bu from every expert and lawyers, it properly won't.

Every expert and lawyers? Did you mean every expert and lawyer? Do you realize that legal experts are lawyers?

It could be.

"Could" doesn't have the same definition as "is"

First, "bu" does not have the same definition as "but." As a mater of fact, "bu" isn't even a word. 

Second, "properly" does not have the same definition of "probably." 

Third, yet again you completely missed the point of the post you were commenting on. The poster said what occurred could be obstruction of justice and never said it is.

You do not need to be the subject of the investigation to be guilty of obstruction of justice. One can obstruct justice by interfering with any investigation.

Yes I aware of that. So a law enforcement official, the FBI Director at that, is unwilling or unable to say obstruction happened. So the only way a person could be found guilty of that crime is that if someone else who was not part of the conversation decides it is a crime, and opens a criminal investigation, right?

My point is you cant go from not being investigated at all to being convicted of obstruction of justice. Someone has to decide to charge you with a crime, then prove it. If the FBI Director says it wasnt by his own statements and there was no one else in the room, who else can say that a crime was committed? Mueller? But if Comey told him it was obstruction and testifies to Congress that it wasnt, thats perjury.

So the next 6 months will be hearings asking Mueller if Trump has an active investigation for obstruction? Because he doesnt have one now. Well 'yet' as you guys prefer.

Oh and because I love Hillary so much..... Based on everything you guys are saying about obstruction how was she not found guilty of it? The permanent deletion of emails which were under subpoena and part of an active investigation. Use of a specialized tool to make those mails unrecoverable even by forensics, plus use of a hammer to destroy hard drives, phones and Blackberrys that also contained subpoenaed material. Not obstruction? But Trump hoping for a result with no related actions to force it to happen is?

I really am having a hard time understanding how words said in a meeting are obstruction when other actions that seem worse and more criminal in nature are not.

My point is you cant go from not being investigated at all to being convicted of obstruction of justice. Someone has to decide to charge you with a crime, then prove it. If the FBI Director says it wasnt by his own statements and there was no one else in the room, who else can say that a crime was committed?

Mueller?

Yes, Mueller. Once he gathers all the evidence, he will determine whether obstruction can be charged. From there, a judge or jury would determine whether obstruction occurred.

But if Comey told him it was obstruction and testifies to Congress that it wasnt, thats perjury.

That is only if Comey was under oath when he spoke Mueller.

I got confused because all of the personal insults (traitor, Putin puppet, liar) and desired actions (impeachment, jail) were specific to Trump the person not Trump the campaign.

I would still call him all of those things. Trump and his team are still in jeopardy while an investigation is ongoing. There have been too many fishy things going on. To include all of the favorable treatment of Russia while disparaging of allies.

It may all be a result of stupidity and that Putin is manipulating him by appealing to his ego. Trump is stupid if nothing else.

All things being equal, the answer is probably stupidity.

Oh and because I love Hillary so much..... Based on everything you guys are saying about obstruction how was she not found guilty of it?

This isn't about Hillary, it's about Trump. Hillary could be stealing food from blind children and punching old ladies in the face with impunity and it would change nothing regarding Trump.

 But Trump hoping for a result with no related actions to force it to happen is?

Firing Comey was an action to force it to happen. This is evidenced by Trump telling the Russians that the firing would take pressure off him. Further evidence is to be found in Trump contradicting the original rationale for Comey being fired.

I really am having a hard time understanding how words said in a meeting are obstruction when other actions that seem worse and more criminal in nature are not.

Because you are seeing what you want instead of understanding the facts:

http://m.govexec.com/oversight/2016/09/former-clinton-it-aide-describes-destruction-old-devices-routine/131501/

So why did Trump fire Comey?

So why did Trump fire Comey?

You know. Trump's like a really smart guy. Really smart. So, he knew Comey was doing a bad job. Very bad. That was after he knew Comey was doing a good job. You know. It was also after Trump said Comey had guts for Comey's handling of the Clinton email non-issues.

Wait, if Comey had guts for how he handled the Clinton email non-issue just before the election, how could Comey then have handled that same non-issue badly after the Russian investigations began putting pressure on Trump? Did I just answer my own question whilst asking it? Sad.

Oh, yeah, that's right. Trump fired Comey because of how he handled the Clinton investigation. Back in 2016. Now I remember.

He wrote a nice letter saying he was following the recommendation of his AG and Deputy AG. Then he gave an interview saying he had made up his mind before he even got the recommendation, and the letter was written after the fact. So there's that.

Seems totally legit to me, given the situation we're dealing with now.

All of you harping on the "Trump isn't under investigation" angle would do well to add yet to the end of that sentence.

It is absolutely hilarious to read all the right wing nut jobs comment as if they were lawyers. From reading your posts, it is painfully obvious you have no idea how the law works. This is a perfect example:

To many of us, it's funny that the left thinks they have a Ph.D. in law and know the outcome of this as if Trump is going to be hauled off in handcuffs.

You do not need to be the subject of the investigation to be guilty of obstruction of justice. One can obstruct justice by interfering with any investigation.

Even so, it doesn't mean that a sitting president would necessarily be impeached.

Yes, Mueller. Once he gathers all the evidence, he will determine whether obstruction can be charged. From there, a judge or jury would determine whether obstruction occurred.

Which based on the optics of it all doesn't look like any obstruction that would amount to impeachment would be highly unlikely.

But this should be really interesting, made some turkey sandwiches just for the occasion.

Trump: I need your loyalty.

Comey: I can give you loyalty to honesty.

Trump: Good, good. Now that that's settled, you're fired for something from 6 months ago.

Blacklabel: But Trump didn't have a second cup of coffee!! Why wouldn't he have a second cup of coffee after dinner with a man if he didn't think he wasn't going to not fire him?

Trump: I need your loyalty.

Comey: I can give you loyalty to honesty.

Trump: Good, good. Now that that's settled, you're fired for something from 6 months ago

Ok, so far, no smoking gun. G

The only good news about this witch hunt of the President is that Hillary is taking a prominent position in it. It is completely ridiculous. Trump could pardon Flynn if he so desires and Comey has admitted the words of the president were not threatening.

Will conservatives defend Trump even if they personally believe he tried to obstruct?

Ok, so far, no smoking gun. G

And, Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.

Will liberals defend Loretta Lunch, because based on his testimony that is who Comey felt tried to obstruct justice in the Clinton email investigation. And the president has authority over both the AG and FBI director.

Will conservatives defend Trump even if they personally believe he tried to obstruct?

He fired Comey for investigating the Russian connection, and said he fired him for that. It's already very clear he tried to obstruct, and the Republicans are defending him. So I think it's safe to answer yes to your question.

Will liberals defend Loretta Lunch, because based on his testimony that is who Comey felt tried to obstruct justice in the Clinton email investigation

Lynch did seem to take a step too far. Trying to encourage the wording of Comey's briefing to be changed is not something the AG should be doing.

But on that note, surely you'd agree what Trump did was much, much more severe than what Lynch did right? Lynch tried to get Comey to change the word 'investigation' to 'matter'. Trump tried to get Comey to drop a matter altogether, and then fired him when we wouldn't. You would agree that is much worse than just trying to get him to change a single word, right?

Will conservatives defend Trump even if they personally believe he tried to obstruct?

"IF" but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. By the way, Lynch....saying Comey should be calling the investigation a "matter?" Hmmm...

And, Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.

Yes, the very people that the Democratic party once worships and now abandoned.

Lynch did seem to take a step too far. Trying to encourage the wording of Comey's briefing to be changed is not something the AG should be doing.

Either way, the already queationable reputation of Lynch has been competelety shattered and now we know that Lynch lied as well as the revelation of the lies that Holder and the previous admin told about fast and the furious, the Dems don't have a leg to stand on, now this is not to say that Trump didn't do anything wrong, but the left can't claim their side is clean under any circumstannce.

But on that note, surely you'd agree what Trump did was much, much more severe than what Lynch did right?

That would depend on how you look at it.

Lynch tried to get Comey to change the word 'investigation' to 'matter'. Trump tried to get Comey to drop a matter altogether, and then fired him when we wouldn't. You would agree that is much worse than just trying to get him to change a single word, right?

It's an arguable debate, but No one can say where this is going to go.

But on that note, surely you'd agree what Trump did was much, much more severe than what Lynch did right? 

Comey suspected that his boss was working with the target of the investigation so he drops the case...and that is worse than what happened to Flynn how exactly ?

Trump, once again shown to be a bumbling boob or worse. What a national embarrassment.

I really love how Trump drives the Left to distraction. I don't see how anyone can prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. First of all, nothing has been obstructed. He didn't order Comey not to prosecute him, he just hoped that he wouldn't, and Comey ignored Trumps advice anyway. What harm has been done? None.

Trump thought Flynn was wrong for not acknowledging his ties with the Turkish government. So Trump fired him for it. He lost his job and so whats the point of pressing the case further? Flynn had a long and distinguished career of service to his country. He has ruined that and he may be criminally charged. But if the Justice Department can let Louis Lerner and Hillary Clinton off the hook, a former military man like Flynn who served in uniform with honor is just as deserving to get a break.

The breaking news from today's testimony is Comey's admission that he leaked info to get a special counsel appointed to go after Trump. So Comey is now a member of the "Resistance". He is angry that he was fired and wants revenge. His motivations are clear.

I'm loving the show. Meanwhile, the Federal government is deadlocked and no more damage can be done to the country - at least I "hope" that's the case.

To me, here is the most real news of the affair:

The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle," he [Comey] said. "They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts and it was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. 

And the are going to do it again.

Comey testified that Trump never once showed any interest in the FBI’s investigation of Russia’s interference with the 2016 election.

Not once. Just as the Republican leadership, and the base of the party show none.

Traitors.

Heh, Lynch tries to get one word changed.

Republicans: She's evil! Her reputation is destroyed! Horrible!

Trump tries to get Comey to drop an investigation into one of his people.

Republicans: What? Nothing wrong here. Carry on.

seriously why do people keep bringing up Hilary, shes history , gone, kaput!. In the unlikely event Trump is impeached he wont be replaced by Hillary! Pence or another Republican POTUS will almost certainly replace him, the chances of a Democrat POTUS in the next 3.5yrs is basically zero! What people on both sides need to be focusing on is whether Trump had help from his minions and the Russians in winning the election. If the investigation uncovers proof of this then Trump shouldnt be POTUS , plain and simple., even if Trump isnt under investigation is irrelevant.

He said lots of other things, classic distorted narrative based headline!

If you want to look to the source, of the hacks... then look no further than the Russian yet very popular WARGAMING.NET online gamin system, which requires access to users email accounts, apart from other things.

the chances of a Democrat POTUS in the next 3.5yrs is basically zero! 

Democrats win the House (odds are good)

Democrats win the Senate (really tough, but small possibility)

House impeaches the popular-vote-losing Donald Trump and Mike Pence

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, third-in-line, becomes president