Thread: Trump 'asked FBI to halt Flynn inquiry'

Trump 'asked FBI to halt Flynn inquiry'

5/16/17 32 minutes ago

President Donald Trump asked FBI chief James Comey to end an inquiry into links between his ex-national security adviser and Russia, US media report.

"I hope you can let this go," Mr Trump reportedly told Mr Comey after a White House meeting in February, according to a memo written by the ex-FBI director.

The memo was written immediately after the meeting, a day after Michael Flynn resigned, according to US media.

The White House has denied the report in a statement.

"The president has never asked Mr Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn," it said.

Mr Flynn was forced out in February after he misled the vice-president about his conversations with Russia's ambassador before Mr Trump took office.

The latest Russia twist, first reported by the New York Times, comes a week after Mr Trump fired Mr Comey over his handling of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while at the State Department.

Mr Comey's dismissal sent shockwaves through Washington, with critics accusing the president of trying to thwart the FBI investigation into Russia's alleged interference in the US election and any Moscow ties to Trump associates.

What's the latest allegation?

Mr Comey reportedly wrote a memo following a meeting with the president on 14 February that revealed Mr Trump asked him to close an investigation into Mr Flynn's actions.

He reportedly shared the memo with top FBI associates.

"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," the president told Mr Comey, according to the memo. "He is a good guy.

Mr Comey did not respond to his request, according to the memo, but responded: "I agree he is a good guy."

In response to the report, a White House official pointed out that acting FBI director Andrew McCabe testified last week that there "has been no effort to impede our investigation to date".

A storm is brewing - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

A person doesn't rise as high as James Comey did in the federal government without learning how to cover his, er, posterior.

With this latest bombshell from the New York Times it's clear that the former FBI director, who was unceremoniously sacked by the president, is poised to enjoy the last laugh.

At the moment the White House is denying Mr Comey's reported characterisation of the conversation the two men had shortly after the president fired Michael Flynn.

In a he-said, he-said situation, however, the man who wrote contemporaneous memos - and that is memos, plural - will have the upper hand.

Add in that Mr Comey has a reputation for independence, and the face-off looks even more ominous for the president.

As deputy attorney general Mr Comey stood up to the Bush administration during a showdown over the legality of government surveillance programme. He also withstood withering criticism from Democrats over his handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation last year.

If he swears to a congressional committee that the president put undue pressure on him to end an ongoing Flynn investigation, his word will pack a punch.

The White House better batten down the hatches. A storm is brewing.

Mr Trump's early presidency has been overshadowed by a string of controversies regarding possible links to Russian interests.

Mr Flynn's departure in February came months after suspicions were raised among intelligence officials.

He resigned as White House national security adviser after just 23 days on the job over revelations that he discussed lifting sanctions on Moscow with Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, before Mr Trump was sworn in.

Who is Michael Flynn?

It is illegal for private citizens to conduct US diplomacy.

Since Mr Flynn stepped down, the Pentagon has launched an investigation into whether he failed to disclose payments from Russian and Turkish lobbyists for speeches and consulting work.

Mr Flynn's Russian ties are under investigation by the FBI and and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as part of wider inquiries into claims Moscow sought to tip the election in favour of Mr Trump.

Contacts between Russia and members of the president's campaign team are also under scrutiny.

Mr Comey's sacking on 9 May fuelled claims that Mr Trump may have been trying to cover up his associates' Moscow ties.

Did President Trump fire James Comey as part of a cover-up?
What is the reaction?

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers were swift to question Mr Comey's memo following the report.

Republican Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, tweeted the panel would "get the Comey memo, if it exists. I need to see it sooner rather than later. I have my subpoena pen ready".

This demand by Mr Chaffetz for the memo was backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, although Mr Ryan's deputy Kevin McCarthy said there were a "a lot of allegations and... small truth".

Top Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said he was "shaken" by the New York Times report.

"The country is being tested in unprecedented ways. I say to all of my colleagues in the Senate, history is watching," he said.

And Adam Schiff, the highest ranked Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said this amounted to "interference or obstruction of the investigation".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39944520

"The country is being tested in unprecedented ways. I say to all of my colleagues in the Senate, history is watching," he said.

Yeah, you're right. Wanting to take political prisoners because you lost an election would be quite a new one for our history books.

How dangerous is 'Comey memo' for Trump?

Anthony Zurcher North America reporter

• 32 minutes ago 5/16/17

Republicans still call the shots in Congress, however, and it's a significant leap to get them to abandon the Trump presidency and any hope of advancing their agenda for the foreseeable future. But some, like Senator John McCain - who said this has become a scandal of "Watergate size and scale" - are clearly wavering.

The former Republican presidential nominee is a bit of a wild card, of course. For the rank-and-file to turn on the president will require them to admit their complicity in a failed presidency.

They rallied behind Trump at the Republican National Convention. They looked past his feud with a Gold Star family and his disparaging attacks on Alicia Machado, the former beauty queen. They bit their tongues after the Access Hollywood video. They may have supported other candidates during the Republican primary, but they carried Mr Trump's water through the general election. Now the well is running dry.

Donald Trump may yet survive these revelations. Mr Comey's memos could turn out to be paper tigers, with teeth not nearly as sharp as Tuesday's sneak preview indicated. He could, under oath, soft-pedal his conclusions. Republicans might decide it's better to stick with the president than run for the exits.

At the very least, however, it's becoming clear that Teflon Don is no longer untouchable. His future is no longer clear. A storm is brewing, and it's going to get worse for their party before it gets better.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39941124

Oops! If Comey Memo Is Real and He Held It and Did Not Turn It Over – He May Be Prosecuted

Jim Hoft May 17th, 2017 8:03 am 338 Comments
Well this wasn’t supposed to happen.

FOX News legal expert Gregg Jarrett argued Tuesday that if James Comey obstructed justice and held onto a memo of the president asking him to end an investigation then Comey could be prosecuted.
Oops.
FOX News reported:

Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
Here is what we do know.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...ay-prosecuted/

Look, this memo is already toast as evidence. It's been leaked to the public in part, by a partial "reading". There is no chain of custody. It's not even a hard copy signed or initialed document. It came out last night that it's an "electronic" memo to file, which probably 5,000 people in the FBI have the knowledge and skills to fabricate and create any time any way they want.

Also, something came out today on CNN about the new Special Counsel, Robert Mueller and Jim Comey. Apparently, they are "very close friends". That would to me seem to disqualify Mueller from being Special Counsel. So Rosenstein while making a good decision has made a mistake. You can't be impartial if the fired "lead" investigator and potential witness is your best boy friend.

It just never ends. This SWAMP in DC is so filthy, it's just unbelievable.

Limbaugh: Obama had the FBI back off of an investigation into Hillary Clinton

May 18, 2017 By Kirsty Jane

Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh argued former President Barack Obama “actually did” what New York Times report has accused President Donald Trump of doing regarding an FBI investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

According to Limbaugh, Obama had the FBI back off of an investigation into Hillary Clinton.
From Breitbart

Partial transcript as follows (courtesy RushLimbaugh.com):
All right, here’s (among many things) what’s going on. Here’s what Trump is alleged to have done here vis-a-vis the Comey memo. Comey memo says that Trump asked him to let it go. Let the Flynn investigation go. I can hope you see your way to let this go. He didn’t do anything. The guy… I love the guy, honest guy. Comey said, “Yeah, I can tell you honest guy, good guy.” And what Trump is alleged to have done is actually no different than what Barack Obama did in April last year when he made it known that he didn’t want Hillary prosecuted.

In fact, the Obama situation is actually worse. While Trump indicated he didn’t want Flynn charged, he did not order the case dropped, because it’s still going on. Trump indicated that he wanted Flynn not to be charged, but he did not order the case to be dropped. And the case continues. Grand juries have been impaneled now. In contrast, the FBI and the Department of Justice dropped the Hillary investigation just as Obama wanted them to, and they used exactly the rationales Obama used when he made his public statements.

Well, Obama, was saying there was no intent to harm the U.S., the degree of classified emails that Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in is very exaggerated. Obama went public with all this! He went public with his own exoneration and thought that the investigation should be brought to a screeching halt. And it was! Comey got together and they stopped the investigation, and that allowed them and Hillary — for the rest of the campaign — to say she had been cleared.

That’s why they got so mad at Comey when he did the July 5th press conference, because back in April, Obama thought he’d taken care of this.

The July 5th press conference was essentially to announce that there wasn’t going to be a prosecution of Hillary because there wasn’t any intent. This is what Obama had set up with public statements the previous April, and I know you don’t remember the media being jacked up about this. I know you don’t remember any anonymous sources leaking information to the media that looked bad for Hillary and Obama. You just greeted this with, “It’s the usual Democrat-media corruption.” And they’re saying that this is what Trump was trying to sneak through here. He was trying to get Flynn to be cleared so that he could run around and say, “Flynn didn’t do anything. See? I’m clear!”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s what the allegation is gonna be, if it hasn’t already appeared the Drive-By Media. The allegation is gonna be that what Trump wanted to do was to have the FBI clear Michael Flynn, and then use the FBI’s clearing him to argue that a thorough investigation had proved nothing bad happened here. All right? Now, why did they think that’s what Trump would do? They’re gonna say that Trump’s plan was to rig the investigation and then exploit the fact that there had been one. By exploiting it, I mean, “Hey, look, man! Look at this detailed investigation! It happened, and my buddy Flynn’s clear.”

The Democrats would know exactly how to do it because that’s exactly what Obama did with Hillary. If you’re scratching your heads about this, maybe you remember in April of 2016, when everybody was wondering, “Is Hillary gonna be indicted?” Remember there was a drip, drip, drip? Every day there seemed to be more news about Hillary’s illegal server and classified documents flying around, and every day people speculated who was behind this, and everybody concluded that Obama was. And remember the debates, the questions?

“Is Obama trying to take her out? Is Obama trying to destroy her? Is it Obama does not want her to be president, doesn’t trust her with this?” Remember all of this stuff? And on the other side of it people were saying, “Maybe Obama’s trying to inoculate her. Maybe Obama’s trying to just dribble this stuff out so that it doesn’t end up hurting her — a little bit here, a little bit there.” But the conventional wisdom was that if he was doing anything, he was trying to hurt her, because it just prolonged everything.

I offer those simply as reference points. You might remember those things being discussed at the time. This is April of 2016. And that’s why the Democrats would know how to accuse Trump. There’s no evidence this is what Trump was trying to do. There’s no evidence for anything here. We have allegations. We have a memo that may or may not exist. We have a memo that may exist without any context. We don’t have anybody that can tell you what crime Donald Trump has committed yet to this day.

But Obama actually did, with Hillary Clinton, exactly what they are accusing Trump of trying to do through Comey at that dinner (where Comey only got one scoop of ice cream) to protect Flynn. If you think back to April 2016, there was no way they were ever gonna have Hillary Clinton indicted. Obama ran the DOJ, and he was running Loretta Lynch, and Obama was running Comey, and there was no way Hillary was ever gonna be indicted. You know it and I know it. But they used the fact that the FBI had ostensibly done a thorough investigation in order to clear her.

That was the purpose of the drip, drip, drip. The purpose — in retrospect — of the drip, drip, drip was to get all the evidence out there and then claim that it had been investigated, and then Comey magically appears on July 5th to list all this stuff that everybody knew. There was some of it that we didn’t know, but he gets it all out there; then says, “No reasonable prosecutor would proceed,” and, bam! She’s cleared! The difference between Obama and Trump is very simple. Obama’s pressure on the FBI to wipe the Hillary investigation off the map appears to have worked.

Regardless of what Trump may have said to Comey, the investigation of Flynn continues. The investigation of the collusion of the Trump campaign in Russia continues. So where is the obstruction? They’re whispering impeachment, obstruction of justice, violation of this and that. Where is it? The investigations are ongoing elsewhere. The House Democrats announced a new one today! Pencil Neck went out there, Adam Schiff, and said, “You know, we’re not gonna wait for a special counsel. We’re gonna do a special commission here in the House!”

So they’ve launched another investigation. Investigations aren’t being shut down. Some people, as I was saying, don’t want to sit around and wait for impeachment. They want whatever is gonna happen here to happen before the 2018 midterms. So there are people suggesting — and one of them is Ross Douthat of the New York Times, quote-unquote, “conservative columnist” there. His suggestion — and many have now echoed it — is (paraphrased), “Well, use the 25th Amendment! That’s how we get rid of Trump. “We don’t have to worry about whether Republicans will join us now.

“Just use the 25th Amendment.” What’s the 25th Amendment say? The 25th Amendment says that the cabinet, the president’s cabinet can certify the president’s insane — mentally deranged, deluded, mentally unsound — and get rid of him on the basis that he’s not all there. On the golf course over this weekend and the whole subject of impeachment came up. I said, “I don’t necessarily think that although I wouldn’t be surprised. I wouldn’t be surprised with the way they’re all setting this up. They’re trying to claim, ‘Trump is unbalanced anyway! He never has been all there.’”

So there are many areas here at which they’re aiming at Trump. Now, Andy McCarthy has written a column about this Obama precedent that I just talked about, and I want to give you a couple of paragraphs of this piece here just to batten this down because this is important. What they’re accusing Trump of doing has already happened, and it was Obama protecting Hillary and clearing her in the campaign year 2016.

“April 10, 2016 — President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed ‘carelessness’ by using a private email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not endanger national security…” Again, intent is not an element of the criminal statute. It’s been totally made up by Comey. The statute does not require intent in order for it to be violated. Comey just made it up and attached it, and Obama used it before Comey did. On April 10, 2016, Obama said publicly Hillary had not intended to endanger national security.
Of course not!

She’s a great Democrat. She’s a secretary of state. She’s from the Clinton dynasty. There is no way Hillary Clinton would intend to endanger national security. “Come on, people,” Obama said (paraphrased), “Who are we talking about here? Are we serious? Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin would want to purposely damage national security?” That’s the route they took. Obama suggested that in the greater scheme of things the importance of what Hillary had done here had been way, way overestimated; way, way too amplified.

She wasn’t trying to traffic in national security! She wasn’t trying to endanger the United States of America. She wasn’t doing half the stuff she’s been alleged to do. He said all this publicly — and next thing we knew, July 5th, Comey publicly stated (in almost exact words that Obama had used back in April) that Clinton had been “extremely careless.” Obama said she had “shown carelessness.” Comey said Hillary had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information.

http://eheadlines.com/limbaugh-obama...llary-clinton/

I thought the Special Counsel was a good idea until I found out that Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein are all best boy friends. Now I'm not so sure, in fact, it seems like Mueller should have to recuse himself from it.