Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.

In a statement, he said that Mr. Comey had put unnecessary pressure on the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy with Russia on matters such as Syria, Ukraine and the Islamic State.

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

The day after firing Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump hosted Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in the Oval Office, along with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak. The meeting ignited controversy this week when it was revealed that Mr. Trump had disclosed intelligence from an Israeli counterterrorism operation.

A third government official briefed on the meeting defended the president, saying Mr. Trump was using a negotiating tactic when he told Mr. Lavrov about the “pressure” he was under. The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov — on Syria, Ukraine and other issues — by saying that Russian meddling in last year’s election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.

The president has been adamant that the meddling did not alter the outcome of the race, but it has become a political cudgel for his opponents.

Many Democrats and some Republicans have raised alarms that the president may have tried to obstruct justice by firing Mr. Comey. The Justice Department’s newly appointed special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was given the authority to investigate not only potential collusion, but also related allegations, which would include obstruction of justice.

The F.B.I.’s investigation has bedeviled the Trump administration, and the president personally. Mr. Comey publicly confirmed the existence of the investigation in March, telling Congress that his agents were investigating Russian efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election and whether anyone in the Trump campaign had been involved. Mr. Trump has denied any collusion and called the case a waste of money and time.

At first, the White House said Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey based on the recommendation of the Justice Department, and because of Mr. Comey’s handling of the F.B.I. investigation into Hillary Clinton last year. Officials said it had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

But the president undercut that argument a day later, telling NBC News, “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”
___________________________________________________________

Clearly just as bad as lying about a blowjob.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Yes, obstruction of justice is a crime just like perjury.

I mean, you can feel free to think what Trump did was worse in the scale of human morality, but in terms of crimes they are both criminal carrying jail time offense's and carry removal from office upon conviction.

So yeah... still hypocritical.
 

Angrymesscan

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,796
Yes, obstruction of justice is a crime just like perjury.

I mean, you can feel free to think what Trump did was worse in the scale of human morality, but in terms of crimes they are both criminal carrying jail time offense's and carry removal from office upon conviction.

So yeah... still hypocritical.
So are rape, murder, child molestation, fraud, possesion, littering, jaywalking, etc.
But they are not the same, are they?
I don't know about you, but if my President was committing a crime, I'd much rather he lie about getting his pipes cleaned by a fat intern than cover up his aides working with a foreign "hostile" government...
 
Last edited:

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
Yes, obstruction of justice is a crime just like perjury.

I mean, you can feel free to think what Trump did was worse in the scale of human morality, but in terms of crimes they are both criminal carrying jail time offense's and carry removal from office upon conviction.

So yeah... still hypocritical.
Yeah, stealing is a crime, so is murder. So what's the difference? Good point. It's actually funny that you consider yourself such an intellectual heavyweight when you say things that are so stupid.
 

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
So are rape, murder, child molestation, fraud, possesion, littering, jaywalking, etc.
But they are not the same, are they?
I don't know about you, but if my President was committing a crime, I'd much rather he lie about getting his pipes cleaned by a fat intern than cover up his aides working with a foreign "hostile" government...
Crap you timestamped the shit out of me.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
So are rape, murder, child molestation, fraud, possesion, littering, jaywalking, etc.
But they are not the same, are they?
I don't know about you, but if my President was committing a crime, I'd much rather he lie about getting his pipes cleaned by a fat intern than cover up his aides working with a foreign "hostile" government...
But obstruction of justice and perjury are pretty similar crimes. Under many cases someone guilty of perjury would also be guilty of obstruction of justice. It's more similar to stealing vs. recieving stolen property.

Not agreeing with anyone but your comparison in the legal world is a joke.
 

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
But obstruction of justice and perjury are pretty similar crimes. Under many cases someone guilty of perjury would also be guilty of obstruction of justice. It's more similar to stealing vs. recieving stolen property.

Not agreeing with anyone but your comparison in the legal world is a joke.
I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal discussion.

Also, we don't know that obstruction is all that's involved here. I was positing that the collusion was true. I'm not even sure that's a crime. But it is something that is impeachable. Also, in my opinion that is much worse than Clinton's crime. I think the great majority of people would agree.
 
Last edited:

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
In other news, CNN needs a synonym for "bombshell." It's getting old.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal discussion.

Also, we don't know that obstruction is all that's involved here. I was positing that the collusion was true. I'm not even sure that's a crime. But it is something that is impeachable. Also, in my opinion that is much worse than Clinton's crime. I think the great majority of people would agree.
And I'm no political expert. I don't honestly know if collusion is impeachable or not. Foreign governments get involved in politics all of the time. I don't honestly know if simply having a foreign country supporting your campaign is an impeachable no no or not. I mean America has gotten involved in many foreign countries politics. Hell Bill Clinton basically did so with regards to Russia. Obviously there is a double standard when it comes to those things. It's ok when America does it to others but we get upset about someone else doing it to us. Where it crosses a line is when you collude with Russia to commit a crime on your behalf. Like colluding with Russia to hack servers.

Which is why obstructing an investigation is probably a far bigger deal than colluding. Or at least that's my opinion without knowing the exact political rules with regards to foreign entities in elections.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say

Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say

Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.

The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump's national security adviser, current and former governments officials said.

"This was a five-alarm fire from early on," one former Obama administration official said, "the way the Russians were talking about him." Another former administration official said Flynn was viewed as a potential national security problem.

The conversations picked up by US intelligence officials indicated the Russians regarded Flynn as an ally, sources said. That relationship developed throughout 2016, months before Flynn was caught on an intercepted call in December speaking with Russia's ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak. That call, and Flynn's changing story about it, ultimately led to his firing as Trump's first national security adviser.

Officials cautioned, however, that the Russians might have exaggerated their sway with Trump's team during those conversations.

Flynn's lawyer declined to comment.

"We are confident that when these inquiries are complete there will be no evidence to support any collusion between the campaign and Russia," a White House official said in a statement. "...This matter is not going to distract the President or this administration from its work to bring back jobs and keep America safe."

Flynn has emerged as a central figure -- and President Trump's biggest liability -- in the intensifying investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. His financial ties to Turkish government interests, which paid him $530,000 in a lobbying deal that he failed to disclose during the campaign, are also under scrutiny by federal investigators.

One major concern for Obama administration officials was the subject of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak that took place shortly after Obama slapped new sanctions on Russia for meddling in the election. Sources tell CNN that Flynn told Kislyak that the Trump administration would look favorably on a decision by Russia to hold off on retaliating with its own sanctions. The next day, Putin said he wouldn't retaliate.

Sources say Flynn also told Kislyak that the incoming Trump administration would revisit US sanctions on Russia once in office. The US has applied sanctions on Russia since 2014 for its actions in Ukraine.

Flynn's calls with Kislyak in December have received the most attention, but his relationship with the Russian ambassador goes back four years.

He first met Kislyak in June 2013 during an official trip to Russia, according to the Washington Post. He led the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time and met his counterparts at the Russian military intelligence agency known as the GRU.

In December 2015, Flynn attended a gala honoring the Kremlin-run TV network RT. Documents released last month revealed that Flynn was paid $45,000 to attend the event, where he sat at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Officials noticed an uptick in communication between Flynn and Kislyak shortly after Flynn's trip to Moscow in December 2015.

Trump angrily denied any collusion with Russia this week and denounced the newest investigation -- now in the hands of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III -- as "a witch hunt."

And he has remained steadfast in his loyalty to Flynn, even as the scrutiny surrounding his fired aide continues to weigh down his presidency. Trump urged then-FBI Director James Comey Jr. in February to drop the bureau's investigation into Flynn and "let this go," according to a memo Comey wrote at the time. The conversation, first reported by the New York Times earlier this week, has opened the president up to charges from critics of obstruction of justice.

Trump's obvious bond with Flynn, like his relationship with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other top advisors, appears rooted in the fact that they supported his then-longshot presidential campaign last year at a time when most Republicans were ostracizing him.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Another nothing article. What does it reveal? The Russians believed they might be able to use Flynn to influence..

You know what? Last season the Cowboy fans believed they might be able to win the Super Bowl. Do you read these articles before you post them?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
But obstruction of justice and perjury are pretty similar crimes. Under many cases someone guilty of perjury would also be guilty of obstruction of justice. It's more similar to stealing vs. recieving stolen property.

Not agreeing with anyone but your comparison in the legal world is a joke.
Would have thought that was obvious. Comparing obstruction of justice to perjury is a false equivalency but comparing it to murder and rape are fine!

/liberal hypocrisy
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal discussion.

Also, we don't know that obstruction is all that's involved here. I was positing that the collusion was true. I'm not even sure that's a crime. But it is something that is impeachable. Also, in my opinion that is much worse than Clinton's crime. I think the great majority of people would agree.
Uh, actually it is a legal discussion; that's my whole point. You are saying Republicans are at fault for decrying this Russia/Comey thing as "fake news" when you yourself and pretty much all Democrats do the exact same thing for, legally speaking, a very similarly serious crime in perjury. That's hypocrisy.

Which is why I said, you are free to believe what Trump did or is alleged to have done is worse on the moral spectrum, but that is ultimately irrelevant cause laws govern impeachment. And you sweep your trash under the rug the same way.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
But obstruction of justice and perjury are pretty similar crimes. Under many cases someone guilty of perjury would also be guilty of obstruction of justice. It's more similar to stealing vs. recieving stolen property.

Not agreeing with anyone but your comparison in the legal world is a joke.
Didn't Clinton manage to evade perjury conviction with all the "bjs don't count" "that depends on what the word "is" is" legal hijinks?

I think the bigger issue with the perjury vs obstruction is that if Clinton had had a friendly congress he would never have had to testify under oath. Trump has had a friendly congress covering for him, and he still managed to commit an impeachable offense. God knows how bad it would get for him if he ever had to take the stand.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
To me there was never fake news associated with the Lewinsky scandal. But it was a politically motivated vendetta that was the result of years of effort to find something, anything on Clinton. Which makes some sense because he apparently was nearly as good at making enemies as DJT.

But even though 45 is being a little bitch boy and crying "witch hunt" he could have made all of this go away by just letting his allies that control every branch of gov't sit on it like they were planning. Instead he had to inject himself into the house and FBI investigation. This was a scandal that wanted to go away and Trump kept feeding it.

Also with Clinton, the perjury was the only thing he did wrong. Trump was trying to shit down a Flynn investigation, but also Flynn's appointment as National Security Advisor is its own damn problem. Clinton didn't threaten national security by getting a beej.

This is a dumb question but does the severity of the crime whose investigations is being obstructed affect the sentencing?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Didn't Clinton manage to evade perjury conviction with all the "bjs don't count" "that depends on what the word "is" is" legal hijinks?

I think the bigger issue with the perjury vs obstruction is that if Clinton had had a friendly congress he would never have had to testify under oath. Trump has had a friendly congress covering for him, and he still managed to commit an impeachable offense. God knows how bad it would get for him if he ever had to take the stand.
Are we jumping to conclussions? What impeachable offense is he guilty of?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
To me there was never fake news associated with the Lewinsky scandal. But it was a politically motivated vendetta that was the result of years of effort to find something, anything on Clinton. Which makes some sense because he apparently was nearly as good at making enemies as DJT.

But even though 45 is being a little bitch boy and crying "witch hunt" he could have made all of this go away by just letting his allies that control every branch of gov't sit on it like they were planning. Instead he had to inject himself into the house and FBI investigation. This was a scandal that wanted to go away and Trump kept feeding it.

Also with Clinton, the perjury was the only thing he did wrong. Trump was trying to shit down a Flynn investigation, but also Flynn's appointment as National Security Advisor is its own damn problem. Clinton didn't threaten national security by getting a beej.

This is a dumb question but does the severity of the crime whose investigations is being obstructed affect the sentencing?
Accepting fake news much? There are absolutely no formal charges for anything currently. Only unproven allegations. Stay between the lines.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Are we jumping to conclussions? What impeachable offense is he guilty of?
Obstruction of justice. He fired Comey to stifle the Russia investigation by his own admission.

Comey memos (and Comey's impending testimony), and what Trump told the Russians about pressure, should prove to a reasonable person that he did willfully interfere with the Russia investigation.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,454
Trump has had a friendly congress covering for him, and he still managed to commit an impeachable offense. God knows how bad it would get for him if he ever had to take the stand.
Trump doesn't really though. The Republicans hate him just like the Democrats. Trump is an outsider in a room full of insiders. They all hate him. The Republicans just do it with a smile on their face.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
To me there was never fake news associated with the Lewinsky scandal. But it was a politically motivated vendetta that was the result of years of effort to find something, anything on Clinton. Which makes some sense because he apparently was nearly as good at making enemies as DJT.

But even though 45 is being a little bitch boy and crying "witch hunt" he could have made all of this go away by just letting his allies that control every branch of gov't sit on it like they were planning. Instead he had to inject himself into the house and FBI investigation. This was a scandal that wanted to go away and Trump kept feeding it.

Also with Clinton, the perjury was the only thing he did wrong. Trump was trying to shit down a Flynn investigation, but also Flynn's appointment as National Security Advisor is its own damn problem. Clinton didn't threaten national security by getting a beej.

This is a dumb question but does the severity of the crime whose investigations is being obstructed affect the sentencing?
There are always aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing but the sentencing on Clinton and Trump would be the same - removal from office and not much else. Well, Clinton was actually disbarred as well but it's not like he needed his license anymore. But that's how you know there was something actually wrong.
 
Top Bottom