Twice, actually...
To quantify the impact of it, I think 75% of Comey's Testimonial Letter is good for President Trump, and 25% is bad. There are NO bombshells, or smoking guns that will give rise to impeachment charges... Such is the wish of junkie lunatic liberals feeding off of the fake news heroin which the liberal bitch whore mainstream feeds it... But for the rest of us living in reality, the Comey Letter to the Senate merely encapsulates what is to be expected tomorrow during his testimony- mostly good, some bad, but no bombshell.
The Good:
I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.
Aside from lunatic liberals, people understood that it was highly unlikely that the FBI was investigating Trump on a personal level.
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.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”
I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.
"Request"- Comey understood Trump to be "requesting" that the FBI drop its investigation into Flynn. Request means to "ask". There were no THREATS, ULTIMATUMS, or DEMANDS re: investigation into Flynn. Trump can ask, wish, request, hope, etc... whatever he wants regarding certain issues, and just because he does, that is NOT proof of obstruction, no matter how hysterically lunatic liberals want to bitch about it.
In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.
He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.
Again, NOTHING to see here. Trump merely expressing his frustrations and disappointments about the on-going Russian Investigation does not rise to the level of specific intent, as a matter of law, with respect to Obstruction of Justice, no matter how hard the liberal BITCH WHORE mainstream media wants to spew its diarrhea filled anti-Trump Agenda fake news. Lunatic Liberals acting out of their minds and running around in typical hysterical snowflake fashion does not mean SHIT when it comes to actually proving what is required to be proved.
The Bad:
I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.
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.
At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.
Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.”
It was improper for President Trump to ask Comey for "loyalty", because as Comey correctly stated, the FBI (along with the DOJ, CIA, and other Agencies) needs to be non-political and committed to independence in fulfilling its obligations. Trump is a BUSINESS MAN, and as such, he is accustomed to asking employees, partners, etc. for loyalty. Such is not the case as President of the United States, and it was error for Trump to ask Comey for "loyalty". However, such error does NOT in and of itself either rise to the level of obstruction of justice, or constitute some other crime. Comey's Letter makes no reference to threats, "do this or else" ultimatums, demands, etc. Comey appropriately handled the "loyality" issue by explaining the importance of the FBI maintaining its political independence.
To quantify the impact of it, I think 75% of Comey's Testimonial Letter is good for President Trump, and 25% is bad. There are NO bombshells, or smoking guns that will give rise to impeachment charges... Such is the wish of junkie lunatic liberals feeding off of the fake news heroin which the liberal bitch whore mainstream feeds it... But for the rest of us living in reality, the Comey Letter to the Senate merely encapsulates what is to be expected tomorrow during his testimony- mostly good, some bad, but no bombshell.
The Good:
I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.
Aside from lunatic liberals, people understood that it was highly unlikely that the FBI was investigating Trump on a personal level.
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.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”
I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.
"Request"- Comey understood Trump to be "requesting" that the FBI drop its investigation into Flynn. Request means to "ask". There were no THREATS, ULTIMATUMS, or DEMANDS re: investigation into Flynn. Trump can ask, wish, request, hope, etc... whatever he wants regarding certain issues, and just because he does, that is NOT proof of obstruction, no matter how hysterically lunatic liberals want to bitch about it.
In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.
He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.
Again, NOTHING to see here. Trump merely expressing his frustrations and disappointments about the on-going Russian Investigation does not rise to the level of specific intent, as a matter of law, with respect to Obstruction of Justice, no matter how hard the liberal BITCH WHORE mainstream media wants to spew its diarrhea filled anti-Trump Agenda fake news. Lunatic Liberals acting out of their minds and running around in typical hysterical snowflake fashion does not mean SHIT when it comes to actually proving what is required to be proved.
The Bad:
I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.
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.
At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.
Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.”
It was improper for President Trump to ask Comey for "loyalty", because as Comey correctly stated, the FBI (along with the DOJ, CIA, and other Agencies) needs to be non-political and committed to independence in fulfilling its obligations. Trump is a BUSINESS MAN, and as such, he is accustomed to asking employees, partners, etc. for loyalty. Such is not the case as President of the United States, and it was error for Trump to ask Comey for "loyalty". However, such error does NOT in and of itself either rise to the level of obstruction of justice, or constitute some other crime. Comey's Letter makes no reference to threats, "do this or else" ultimatums, demands, etc. Comey appropriately handled the "loyality" issue by explaining the importance of the FBI maintaining its political independence.
