This will be pretty simple--James Comey is either a liar or the people speaking to the news media on his behalf are liars. There is no middle ground. The issue? Did Donald Trump or someone else in his Administration try to obstruct the FBI investigation into "Russian" influence in the Trump campaign and Presidency?
Comey was asked that very question under oath during a May 3rd hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Hawaii's Senator Hirono:
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. 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.
In other words, no one at Trump's DOJ tried to halt the FBI investigation. Very simple.
But that's not a story that CNN and the rest of the anti-Trump media want to push. CNN is up today with this screamer:
Comey now believes Trump was trying to influence him, source says
If Trump was trying to get Comey to back down on the investigation of Flynn or any other aspect of the so-called Russian case then Comey had a sworn duty to inform Congress. He was under oath on the 3rd. He did not even give a hint that President Trump was acting in an unusual or even illegal fashion with respect to the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign.
CNN must be on crack or something. I simply cannot fathom a scenario in which Comey will risk perjuring himself. If he now testifies that Trump was trying to influence the investigation then it cannot be passed off as a simple misunderstanding of Senator Hirono's question on May 3rd.
With all due respect to you and Col. Lang, I don't think it will wash.
Stephanie, for me, personally, it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between Pat, and whomever else he puts up for discussion on SST.
I agree with you though, along the lines several others suggested here, the dismissal or more specifically how it happened was a disgrace. What I also think, never mind the Russian interference theme, the way it was done had to trigger what we witness now for exactly this reason. The way it was done: Not least the reference in Trump's discharge letter.
I am tended to add another line of thought, but ...
Posted by: LeaNder | 22 May 2017 at 09:24 AM
Based on the number of new info ops commenters that have shown up on this thread to hand wave away PT's observation, I'd say PT is dead center in the ten ring. They doth protest too much.
Posted by: Eric Newhill | 22 May 2017 at 11:39 AM
Wescoaster,
Sergey Lavrov is the Foreign Minister of Russia.
Posted by: Fred | 22 May 2017 at 12:38 PM
Do I need your pemition to post an opinion you wouldn't agree with? Is there an order of seniority in the comment section?
Posted by: Bacchus | 22 May 2017 at 01:22 PM
Fred
Yes, a few Congressmen and a few unimportant bureaucrats and a few losers like Huma's husband to make it seem that the application of the rule of law is universal.
Have you heard of a CIA Director or FBI chief or NSA Director or someone at that level being prosecuted for anything other than illicit sex? Of course, there are a few cases like Scooter Libby & Tom Delay, although he was acquitted by a Texas Court of Appeals.
Posted by: Sam Peralta | 22 May 2017 at 01:23 PM
Eric,
Can you make a case against the comments? I would like to hear it.
You are only judging them to be "info ops commenters" because you cannot refute their logics.
Posted by: TonyL | 22 May 2017 at 02:24 PM
Sam Peralta
Be careful. This is not our fred. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 May 2017 at 04:30 PM
Bacchus
The hierarach here is ME. I will decide if your comment is worthwhile. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 May 2017 at 04:32 PM
PT and Stephanie,
when I first read PT's argument this morning, I was struck by the same flaw. He was asked about the DOJ, not POTUS. Is the POTUS a part of the Department of Justice? Clearly no. If you're going to make a technical, legal charge of perjury, you'd best make sure the facts line up. In this case, they don't.
Posted by: Freudenschade | 23 May 2017 at 08:35 AM
PT,
who is splitting hairs now? If your claim is that Comey is overly political and should have revealed Trump's attempted interference instead of metering out the truth, then I think we can agree. But you are making the claim that he committed perjury, i.e. lying under oath. You're making a hand waving argument that although the question was about the DOJ, the answer seemed to encompass the whole of the administration. Good luck with that.
I do agree he should have blown the whistle on Trump at this point.
Posted by: Freudenschade | 23 May 2017 at 08:47 AM
Which of the many investigations of HRC and DT now and in past years were self-initiated?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 24 May 2017 at 10:08 AM