« Quelle Surprise! By Richard Sale | Main | "Hezbollah, Iraqi forces poised to help Syrian Army capture Baghdad-Damascus Highway" AMN »

20 May 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I gather, assuming what was reported about Comey's contemporaneous memo was accurate, that Trump inquired as to whether Comey could drop the investigation. Trump did not order or even strongly suggest Comey drop the investigation at that time. And they both agreed Flynn was a "good guy." I don't see that, in itself, as requiring Comey to have disclosed it in Congress. However, Trump's statements about firing the "nut case" and that that would take the pressure off his relations with the Russians is pretty over the top.

Even there, Dersh doesn't think that is obstruction. He doesn't even believe that a direct order to drop the investigation would be though obviously Comey would have had to disclose such an order.

Robert C

This post seems a little desperate. I see no e/o perjury. I doubt DOJ/AG tried to shut down investigation. I can completely believe Trump, after asking Sessions/Pence to leave Oval Office, asked Comey to back off on investigation of Flynn. Nudge nudge, wink, wink. That's Trumps m.o. Works in business, but not always in government.

Off topic, but I'm curious to know how Trump supporters feel seeing the Grifter in Chief genuflect as he glad-hands the Saudis. Makes you wanna vomit.

Robert C


The issue of "obstruction of justice" is not a fact; therefore one cannot perjure oneself by making a statement on this subject (which is a matter of opinion, and/or eventually for a jury of one's peers). It is not unreasonable for one to change one's mind about an issue that is ultimately a judgment call.

The Librarian in Purgatory

Really? Does anyone actually pay attention to words anymore? Comey was asked, directly, if anyone in the DOJ had tried to influence his investigation and that was the question he answered. No one made any reference to the POTUS doing as such.

As for whether or not he failed in his duty to inform Congress of POTUS meddling- which probably needs to be viewed in the context of his pre-election HRC announcements- I don't know; but what is presented here, as it is, is not perjury.


"Zucker said CNN’s overall viewership for the first seven weeks of the year (2017) was up 51% compared to the same period in 2016."


For CNN this is two birds with one stone: a political enemy to be taken out, and windfall profit in the take down.

Publius Tacitus

And the source for that is?? Seriously, who is putting this stuff out? Makes no sense.

Publius Tacitus

You are clearly a lawyer. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." A true statement? Well, if sex means intercourse then absolutely true. You appear to be exploring the outer regions of the obtuse.



The high muckety mucks in our governmental, political and corporate establishment act with impunity as the rule of law does not apply to them. When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for perjury relating to sworn testimony to Congress? Clapper as an example was given the pass when he blatantly lied under oath.

While I doubt Trump will be impeached, we can be certain that the campaign of innuendo will run throughout his term. Every story will note that senior current and former officials said under anonymity that Trump committed treason. No evidence will be presented, but the WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, et al will run that story with complete hysterics 24x7, until the next story.

What those running this info ops don't get is that this will become par for the course. Every president who runs afoul of the Borg will face a campaign to undermine them and the office.


I don't think any legal training is called for(?) It looks to me as if Comey answered a straightforward question straightforwardly. Had he replied with, "Well, the President has been making me increasingly uncomfortable with actions and conversations that are highly irregular, to say the least," he would have been going well beyond the bounds of the question asked, which I imagine he was not ready to do and would have been pretty irresponsible to do. This isn't perjury. With all due respect to you and Col. Lang, I don't think it will wash.

iowa steve

Whatever extra-legal definition of perjury you choose to employ might make for an interesting discussion, but it will have little to do with the meaning of the word in a legal proceeding where any allegation of "perjury" will only be considered in its legal sense by attorneys, obtuse or not.


Tidewater inquires of Robert C.,

I thought the trip was going, OK. Shook hands, did the sword dance, and got $300 billion in 'jobs, jobs, jobs'? What's wrong with that?


LiP and TP: "Does anyone actually pay attention to words anymore?"

Comey was asked whether DOJ had ever "halted" or "told to stop" an investigation. This is stronger and more specific than "tried to influence". And I don't see any reading of what Comey or Trump have said that qualifies as Trump's having told Comey to halt or stop.

There are lots of things to worry about, but this bit of testimony isn't one of them.


given whats at stake sacrificing a knight is just par for the course.trump is now where his team want him to be.they will soon find out if it was worth it.
an offer.....a penny for your thought,a shekel for what you bought.


I have to agree with TLiP. Words do matter and they matter a lot in this case. From the article

"In other words, no one at Trump's DOJ tried to halt the FBI investigation. Very simple."

But that isn't what is claimed in the Comey documents. The Comey documents claim that the White House tried to bypass the DOJ and put pressure on the FBI directly which is a violation of the proper procedure. This post is a classic strawman.



Not calling myself a supporter, here, but moderating the weapons sales to the Saudis was one reason for voting for Trump over Clinton. In that sense, definitely feeling a bit nauseated, even if the deals were already in the pipeline. Nice chunk of jewelry for Melania, though, very similar to the one HRC got from them as SOS.

The State Department revealed on Thursday that Hillary Clinton received $500,000 in jewelry from Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and received $58,000 worth of jewelry from Brunei.

Other gifts to Clinton include a $560 bottle of cognac from Russia's Vladimir Putin.

The New York Daily News reports, "The Constitution prohibits U.S. government employees from keeping presents worth more than $350. But officials at the U.S. General Services Administration said the gifts were accepted to avoid awkward moments."

Other gifts of note include "an autographed basketball from Chinese President Xi Jiping and a 41-inch saber from Mongolia" given to President Obama.

Vice President Joe Biden received a "bare-breasted female bust" from Liberia.

The GSA says that some of the gifts were donated and some of the gifts were sold to the public.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/state-dept-hillary-received-500k-jewelry-saudi-king 5 FEB 2016

I guess Hillary's not a cognac drinker.

Green Zone Café

"Influence" and order to stop obviously different. Click-bait to even mention "perjury."


With all due respect, the librarian has it right, and you don't have to be a lawyer to see that. Go back to the quote you provided from Senator Hirono, substitute "Jeff Sessions or any of his employees" for "The Attorney General or any senior officials at the Department of Justice", and the limits of the question and of comey's answer will become clearer. The argument attempted in the original post should be strengthened if it is to be persuasive.


Perjury is something that the deplorable class has to worry about. Deep state folks don't have to worry about such inconveniences. They are clearly above the law and can do as they wish.

Carl Olsen

The issue seems simple enough to me. Comey was asked if the DoJ had interfered. He answered that they had not. If it transpires that Trump interfered, as he is not the DoJ, this is not perjury. If it transpires that Trump had indeed tried to stop the investigation,one could argue that Comey wasn't as forthcoming as he could have been, but that is all. The question I have is why on Earth didn't Somebody ask Comey whether anybody had tried to interfere with the investigation.That is the obvious question that any determined investigator would ask.


Lots of people Ive never seen before here to assure us that Comey perjuring himself is a big nothingburger.

Like how the Seth Rich story started getting legs and suddenly the Russians hacked Comey into stealing the votes.


Not a DT voter but profoundly disturbed to see captains of industry line up to genuflect before the sponsors of 9-11, taliban, osama bin laden, and Isis, for the "privilege" of making more bombs and guns for these beacons of the most perverse notion of prosperity.

These companies are international companies w usa incorporations run by international boards. They are the so called "American interests" American blood is so gleefully spilt abroad to protect.

Ron Paul was among the first public figure to condemn it:

Mercenary economy is the last economy of a failed state. The only upside i can fathom is that the travesty is a public event rather than quietly laundered back room deal of Clinton Foundation variety. The blood stained money is there for all to see openly.


I would prefer to hear the testimony of James Comey and see the memos he wrote about his meeting with Donald Trump. At this point, there are merely speculations about this matter.

What we can speculate about is how to right the ship of state that now appears to not only have lost a propeller, but the rudder also. There are winds and waves and shoals out there. All that could do some serious damage to our common good.

How do we clean out this mess? Asking those who created it will probably not work.


He was asked a specific question, which he answered. He was not asked about POTUS. IMO he answered the question appropriately. You don't volunteer stuff you are not asked about. Plus, as related so far ,it doesn't should like Trump ordered Comey to halt the investigation, just asked if he could lay off it. Asking for a favor kind of a thing, not an order.



The "nut case" bit should be pretty easy to google.

Beyond that I am not sure what doug suggests. But strictly as anyone of us I may have a self-referential core. Meaning: I am not sure I ever trusted Trump when push comes to shove, so to speak, never mind his election statements, that he really intended to somehow reset US-Russia relations.

Publius Tacitus

Keep your eyes tightly closed and ignore this Comey sentence:
"But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience."
He's not limiting that to just DOJ, which is under Trump control. You really think that Comey, who made his bones by resisting the Bush Administration effort to strong arm John Ashcroft, would remain silent when asked about pressure to stop an investigation? That is delusional.
Your assertion that Comey would only comment on Trump pressure if asked specifically is just silly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad