4 ms·
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 investig
by 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 agoHow 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoHere'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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoWhat 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 agoHow is such a request "obstructing" anything?