6 ms·

I'm having a hard time finding a response. But I don't see any malicious intentions or acts of obstruction. Though, I can understand how those situations are un

by feocco 9y ago

I'm having a hard time finding a response. But I don't see any malicious intentions or acts of obstruction. Though, I can understand how those situations are unnerving for a goal of remaining independent.

jerrylives 9y ago
>But I don't see any malicious intentions or acts of obstruction You don't see anything malicious about a sitting President making repeated asks to an FBI director to end various investigations concerning possibly illegal activities that he or his associates may have committed? ?
- feocco 9y ago
  Only said "I hope you can let this go" twice. Seems plausible it's an honest plea for a guy he thinks did nothing wrong. I don't see it obstructing the investigation. Which would be my main concern.
  - jerrylives 9y ago
    How is asking to shut down an ongoing investigation not obstructing justice? If he was really so sure this "good guy" did nothing wrong, why not let the evidence validate him?
    - feocco 9y ago
      I don't equate "i hope you can let this go" to "shut down the investigation." I get the concern. It's valid. But I feel it's more of an issue if there's an _action_ to suppress the investigation.
      - jerrylives 9y ago
        >But I feel it's more of an issue if there's an _action_ to suppress the investigation Such as firing the FBI official who refused to comply...
        feocco 9y ago
        I don't think that stopped or harmed the investigation. I also don't see evidence linking the Flynn conversation to the firing. The firing is a valid concern. But directors have been fired before. Could be many reasons.
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        > I also don't see evidence linking the Flynn conversation to the firing Trump stated it was due to the Russia investigation in the CNN interview the next day. And whether or not it harmed the investigation is irrelevant, the question is whether the intent was to harm the investigation. So given that 1. Trump asks comey to stop the investigation 2. Comey doesn't 3. Trump fires Comey 4. Trump claims that Comey was fired because of the russia/flynn investigation I don't see how you can read this any other way.
        tom-_- 9y ago
        Here's how I read it: 1. Trump asks Comey to stop the investigation because it's creating bad press and is undermining the goals of his administration 2. Comey doesn't 3. Trump fires Comey for disloyalty and for allowing what Trump sees as a distraction to worsen, not because he believes the firing will somehow end the investigation. 4. What you said, though specifically because Comey's actions showed disloyalty and created problems for administration vs an effort to deliberately "obstruct justice"
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        The point is, firing someone because they wouldn't end an investigation is obstruction. Sure, his intent wasn't to "obstruct justice", but his intent was to obstruct justice.
        tom-_- 9y ago
        The distinction I make is this: If Trump fired Comey in a clear attempt to end the investigation, then that's an action to obstruct but this does not seem to be the case, since Trump was likely informed the investigation would continue with or without Comey. Though I do find the talk of loyalty to be "unnerving" as some other commenter described it.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        What do you think "letting this go" means? If Comey had said yes, what do you think Trump would have expected Comey to do?
    - happyrock 9y ago
      How is such a request "obstructing" anything?
Meegul 9y ago
This doesn't sound damning enough to you? 'He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country' 'He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.”' Additionally, his insistence on "loyalty" is terrifying to me. As soon as the FBI isn't independent, parties will be involved in the judicial process.
- ethanhunt_ 9y ago
  He mentions several times that what's he looking for is PR on the fact (acknowledged by Comey) that Trump personally was not under investigation. Certainly could be inappropriate, but this isn't the smoking gun the dems wanted.
  - Meegul 9y ago
    Agreed that it's not as powerful as some had hoped. That said, his repeated requests for loyalty, followed by asking him to halt or hinder an investigation, and then the subsequent 'firing' can be fairly easily related. It's not acceptable to ask the FBI director to stop an investigation and then fire him when he doesn't.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      It's not a great look, but it's nothing actually illegal. And likely a thing every politician also would have done in his place, albeit with more tact. In short, Trump lacks tact and isn't a skilled politician. I think we knew these things. Where this is going to bite him is adding more "acting suspiciously" wood on the woodpile, should Democrats win a majority and move to impeach on the basis of some other spark. Nixon probably wouldn't have been impeached over Watergate if there hadn't been a pattern of behavior.
    - Sacho 9y ago
      His requests for loyalty have a pretty innocuous explanation, that is hinted by Comey himself - this was in the midst of an anonymous revolt from intelligence agencies against the President, with constant leaks hitting the press every day. Alongside the leaks the President also had to contend with insubordination, e.g. Ms. Yates refusing to follow his executive orders. Regardless of the merit you see in his orders, it is logically consistent that a President who faces obstruction when trying to enact his vision would be specifically looking for loyalty among his subordinates.
gech 9y ago
I hope you're at the least "unnerved"
mcphage 9y ago
I'm not sure what you would consider acts of obstruction, then. The President said “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Do you believe that because he was coy with his language, that his meaning was unclear?
- ethbro 9y ago
  "Let this go, or I'll fire you"?
  - pound 9y ago
    "The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. "
  - mcphage 9y ago
    So you're saying, the President can get away with making whatever threats he wants, so long as he makes them obliquely? Like it's only an illegal threat if he says the magic words?
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I feel like history and law bears out my answer: yes. Isn't that the definition of plausible deniability?
      - mcphage 9y ago
        Denial becomes a lot less plausible when you consider that Comey did not end the investigation, and was fired for it. But no, being vague in your implications is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Laws are evaluated by humans who are adept at seeing through bullshit, not computers.
        9y ago

by feocco 9y ago

jerrylives 9y ago

>But I don't see any malicious intentions or acts of obstruction You don't see anything malicious about a sitting President making repeated asks to an FBI director to end various investigations concerning possibly illegal activities that he or his associates may have committed? ?

feocco 9y ago
Only said "I hope you can let this go" twice. Seems plausible it's an honest plea for a guy he thinks did nothing wrong. I don't see it obstructing the investigation. Which would be my main concern.
- jerrylives 9y ago
  How is asking to shut down an ongoing investigation not obstructing justice? If he was really so sure this "good guy" did nothing wrong, why not let the evidence validate him?
  - feocco 9y ago
    I don't equate "i hope you can let this go" to "shut down the investigation." I get the concern. It's valid. But I feel it's more of an issue if there's an _action_ to suppress the investigation.
    - jerrylives 9y ago
      >But I feel it's more of an issue if there's an _action_ to suppress the investigation Such as firing the FBI official who refused to comply...
      - feocco 9y ago
        I don't think that stopped or harmed the investigation. I also don't see evidence linking the Flynn conversation to the firing. The firing is a valid concern. But directors have been fired before. Could be many reasons.
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        > I also don't see evidence linking the Flynn conversation to the firing Trump stated it was due to the Russia investigation in the CNN interview the next day. And whether or not it harmed the investigation is irrelevant, the question is whether the intent was to harm the investigation. So given that 1. Trump asks comey to stop the investigation 2. Comey doesn't 3. Trump fires Comey 4. Trump claims that Comey was fired because of the russia/flynn investigation I don't see how you can read this any other way.
        tom-_- 9y ago
        Here's how I read it: 1. Trump asks Comey to stop the investigation because it's creating bad press and is undermining the goals of his administration 2. Comey doesn't 3. Trump fires Comey for disloyalty and for allowing what Trump sees as a distraction to worsen, not because he believes the firing will somehow end the investigation. 4. What you said, though specifically because Comey's actions showed disloyalty and created problems for administration vs an effort to deliberately "obstruct justice"
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        The point is, firing someone because they wouldn't end an investigation is obstruction. Sure, his intent wasn't to "obstruct justice", but his intent was to obstruct justice.
        tom-_- 9y ago
        The distinction I make is this: If Trump fired Comey in a clear attempt to end the investigation, then that's an action to obstruct but this does not seem to be the case, since Trump was likely informed the investigation would continue with or without Comey. Though I do find the talk of loyalty to be "unnerving" as some other commenter described it.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      What do you think "letting this go" means? If Comey had said yes, what do you think Trump would have expected Comey to do?
  - happyrock 9y ago
    How is such a request "obstructing" anything?

Meegul 9y ago

This doesn't sound damning enough to you? 'He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country' 'He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.”' Additionally, his insistence on "loyalty" is terrifying to me. As soon as the FBI isn't independent, parties will be involved in the judicial process.

ethanhunt_ 9y ago
He mentions several times that what's he looking for is PR on the fact (acknowledged by Comey) that Trump personally was not under investigation. Certainly could be inappropriate, but this isn't the smoking gun the dems wanted.
- Meegul 9y ago
  Agreed that it's not as powerful as some had hoped. That said, his repeated requests for loyalty, followed by asking him to halt or hinder an investigation, and then the subsequent 'firing' can be fairly easily related. It's not acceptable to ask the FBI director to stop an investigation and then fire him when he doesn't.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    It's not a great look, but it's nothing actually illegal. And likely a thing every politician also would have done in his place, albeit with more tact. In short, Trump lacks tact and isn't a skilled politician. I think we knew these things. Where this is going to bite him is adding more "acting suspiciously" wood on the woodpile, should Democrats win a majority and move to impeach on the basis of some other spark. Nixon probably wouldn't have been impeached over Watergate if there hadn't been a pattern of behavior.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    His requests for loyalty have a pretty innocuous explanation, that is hinted by Comey himself - this was in the midst of an anonymous revolt from intelligence agencies against the President, with constant leaks hitting the press every day. Alongside the leaks the President also had to contend with insubordination, e.g. Ms. Yates refusing to follow his executive orders. Regardless of the merit you see in his orders, it is logically consistent that a President who faces obstruction when trying to enact his vision would be specifically looking for loyalty among his subordinates.

gech 9y ago

I hope you're at the least "unnerved"

mcphage 9y ago

I'm not sure what you would consider acts of obstruction, then. The President said “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Do you believe that because he was coy with his language, that his meaning was unclear?

ethbro 9y ago
"Let this go, or I'll fire you"?
- pound 9y ago
  "The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. "
- mcphage 9y ago
  So you're saying, the President can get away with making whatever threats he wants, so long as he makes them obliquely? Like it's only an illegal threat if he says the magic words?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I feel like history and law bears out my answer: yes. Isn't that the definition of plausible deniability?
    - mcphage 9y ago
      Denial becomes a lot less plausible when you consider that Comey did not end the investigation, and was fired for it. But no, being vague in your implications is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Laws are evaluated by humans who are adept at seeing through bullshit, not computers.
      - 9y ago