“I didn’t do it, you can’t prove I did it, and anyway he deserved it when I did it to him.”
Remember when Trump said Comey told him “on three separate occasions” that he was not under investigation?
Remember how both CNN and ABC jumped on it and reported that “anonymous sources” confirm that Comey never told Trump anything like that?
Today, from Comey’s testimony we find out that Comey, on three separate occasions (Jan 1, Jan 27 and March 30), told Trump that he was not under investigation.
So much for CNN and ABC’s “anonymous sources”.
Comey’s testimony kind of proves Trump right. It also damns him entirely.
“Trump’s lawyer says he’s “vindicated.” Hahaha, no.”
We need to look at a few things in Comey’s prepared statement that are worrysome. Taken in totality, they really do lead to a single conclusion: That Trump was pressuring Comey to drop the investigation into his buddy Flynn:
January 27 Dinner
-
“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. He said that lots of people wanted my job ….”
-
“A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.”
-
(In a subsequent Feb 14 meeting) "The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then 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.”
These three comments by Trump establish that he was pressuring Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. This was a violation of the law, in my opinion. And also in the opinion of law-talking people in decent positions. So I don’t think I’m completely off base here.
-
CNN and ABC had a field day trumpeting that Trump lied about the three times Comey told him he was not under investigation. We find out CNN and ABC were the ones lying.
-
Do tell - what exactly is illegal about Trump wanting Comey to make it public that Trump is not under investigation after Comey told that fact to Trump three times? What law exactly was broken?
-
If Trump fired Comey for not making that public after Trump’s insistence - again, what law was broken? Is it “obstructing justice” to want the fact that you’re not under investigation made public?
You are cute as a bugs ear!
From EP’s link.
It confirms my point 1. Now - to my point 2 and 3 - Trump didn’t want Comey to say publicly that Trump was innocent of wrongdoing. He wanted him to confirm, publicly, the simple truth that Trump was not under investigation.
Can you point out what law Trump broke by asking that of Comey?
I loved the buildup to Comey’s testimony. What a nice yanked-away-football it turned out to be 
No, I don’t remember that.
"Comey is reportedly set to testify he never told Trump that he was not under investigation in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to CNN and ABC News.
Such a statement by Comey, who is set to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, would directly contradict Trump, who wrote in a public letter to Comey when he fired him that he had been assured he was not under investigation. Informing the president of his status in an investigation, Comey will reportedly testify, would be improper for an FBI director."
And then of course the “Update” after Comey’s testimony turns that around 180.
Guess CNN and ABC’s “anonymous sources” lied to them. Or CNN and ABC just made it up.
Way to find the silver lining in the bad news tsunami.
We also find out that the rest of the early reporting about Comey’s statements, from early May, were absolutely spot on.
And we find out (if Comey is being honest) that Trump was blatantly lying about not asking Comey for loyalty, and about not asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
You seem to be looking away from the central problem:
Comey was pretty clear that he did not want to make a public statement that Trump was not under investigation… because he wanted to leave a lane clear, in case the evidence led to TRUMP BEING UNDER INVESTIGATION. He tried to explain this to Trump. But Trump did not understand. He wanted a public statement of HIS INNOCENCE. Something that Comey was not prepared to do.
Because he’s not an idiot.
No, Trump wanted a public statement that he was not under investigation. Which was the truth. Comey was not prepared to do so. So he got fired.
What a disappointment for all of you this Comey thing is turning out to be
No, not really. You keep missing this part:
You seem to be implying it’s absolutely no big deal for the President to fire the head of the FBI because he won’t say something the President wants him to say and happens to be untrue.
Yes, early reports may have been somewhat off. But you seem to be caught in the fallacy fallacy: just because one argument someone makes is invalid doesn’t mean everything else they say is invalid as well. If someone makes multiple independent assertions, countering one of those assertions does not counter all of them.
From Comey’s written words :
Pretty understandable for anyone who is not a partisan water-carrier.
No, not a disappointment. So far, so good in fact, and we haven’t even gotten to the main event.
If the President sticks with his plan to live tweet during testimony, tomorrow should be one for the history books.
You meant “happens to be true”, right?