BREAKING: Comey To End Trump?

CNN reporting, fired FBI Director James Comey is set to spill the beans on President Donald Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice in attempting to influence/thwart the agency’s investigation of ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government:

Fired FBI director James Comey plans to testify publicly in the Senate as early as next week to confirm bombshell accusations that President Donald Trump pressured him to end his investigation into a top Trump aide’s ties to Russia, a source close to the issue said Wednesday.

Final details are still being worked out and no official date for his testimony has been set. Comey is expected to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia during last year’s presidential election…

Since his firing last month, dramatic accounts have emerged in the New York Times, CNN, and elsewhere about the tense confrontations with Trump that Comey memorialized in memos afterward. A week after he took office in January, Trump allegedly demanded Comey’s “loyalty” if he kept him on as FBI director, and he urged Comey to drop his ongoing investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s fired national security adviser, in a separate, one-on-one meeting.

The source said that Comey is expected to stand by those accounts in his testimony.

Confirmation that President Trump did indeed pressure Comey to end his investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn before firing Comey could be the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. Much additional evidence of Trump’s goal of obstructing the FBI’s investigation exists, including Trump’s own statements to Russian diplomats that he had fired “nutjob” Comey to take the pressure off the Russia investigation.

No matter what Comey tells the U.S. Senate when he testifies, it’s very unlikely that Trump will have a bug-out bag packed. With that said, Comey is in a position to confirm some of the most explosive allegations against Trump possible short of proof of outright collusion with the Russian government: sworn testimony that Trump illegally pressured and then fired Comey for the purpose of quashing the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.

As the old saying goes, “the coverup is worse than the crime.” In this case that might not be accurate, the crime may be much, much worse–but the coverup may be still enough to bring down Trump’s presidency.

51 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ModeratusModeratus says:

    The President has the authority to hire and fire at will. He also has the right to ask for loyalty from his employees. Bill Clinton's lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky had no justification, but Trump's did. If Clinton's lies did not warrant his removal from office then nothing Trump has done should either.

    Hypocrisy: it's a bitch!!

    • FrankUnderwood says:

      Still fixated on a third rate blow job from 20 years, Fluffy? #Sad!

      There was a big difference between getting a hummer from Monica and compromising our national security withe Russians.

    • Republican 36 says:

      Your moral equivalency is silly. Under your theory, Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, should have been loyal to Nixon and squelched the investigation that implicated Nixon in criminal behavior. You believe that anyone who works for the executive branch of government owes their loyalty to whoever happens to be president and therefore must protect the president from legitimate investigations and prosecution, even in a case where the president has committed a crime.

      Do you realize your bottom line is everyone owes a duty to help cover-up criminal behavior? Under your theory, the duty to obstruct justice becomes the obligation of every executive branch employee, including those who have the obligation (like Mr. Mueller) to investigate and prosecute such behavior. 

      • DavieDavie says:

        Moddy seems to forget (if he ever knew) that our elected officials swear allegiance and promise to defend not their bosses, but our Constitution.  This is one of the key differences between a dictatorship and a democracy.

        Too bad Moddy and others seem to prefer the former over the latter.

         

    • Pseudonymous says:

      Um, Moddy.  You do know that Clinton was impeached, right? Maybe the Senate won’t convict the Donald, either.

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        And Newt Gingrich was forever discredited over his futile, and unnecessary, impeachment in the House. He stepped down as House Speaker and did not run for re-election.

        Common sense dictates that getting pleasured in the Oval Office is kindergarten chump change compared to Trump and his alleged Russia ties. 

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          The difference is Clinton did have the intern give him oral sex in the oval office.  There is no evidence that Donald Trump did anything wrong.  All of the alleged Russian ties, whatever that means, do not involve Donald Trump.

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            Then why is the Donald doing everything possible to impede the investigation? (Including probable obstruction of justice?)

            If there is truly nothing to hide, then why hide it?

          • unnamed says:

            Hey Cornholio. If Trump did nothing wrong, then he's got nothing to hide.  If that is the case, why doesn't he put all his cards on the table, prove his innocence and we can move on.  We wouldn't do what your side did with Benghazi et. Al.

             

            Trump has nothing to hide right?  

        • FrankUnderwood says:

          Newt's replace, Bob Livingston, also had to step down (before stepping up) because he too had committed serious sin. I'll never forget that Saturday morning watching the split screen on TV as the House debating impeachment on one side and Republican speakers were falling on the side.

          And then, of course, the GOP thought they had found a man of moral virtue to serve as speaker. Unfortunately their vetting process left something to be desired since he turned out to be a pedophile.

          Yeah, Moddy, let's talk about sexual peccadillos circa 1998. 

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            Since 1998? Don't forget former Senator Vitter from Louisiana with his prostitute thing. Or former Senator Craig from Idaho trolling for gay sex in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport. Good family values guys, both of them.

            • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

              I think I read this past week that more 'boys' have come forward on the Hassert picadillos. These old, white family-values boys sure are pillars, aren't they?

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      What the covfefe?!?!? . . . 

      "Bill Clinton's lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky had no justification, but Trump's did."

      What are you trying to get out of your addled illiterate brain, twit???:

      Ok, you've finally admitted the obvious — that Trump lies, lies, lies, lies …

      … But, he lied about Lewinsky?  Ummm, maybe.  Probably.  I mean if he ever said anything about her it had to be a lie — he can't help it!  

      But WTC is your point???  Trumps lies about Lewinsky we're justified??? So therefore he didn't pressure Comey and didn't make any efforts to obstruct an investigation ???

      . . . You truly are a world champhion fuckhead, Fluffy (and Hypocrisy is your mama)!!!!

       

    • unnamed says:

      To echo others here, do you not remember Clinton was impeached?  Do you not remember the year plus investigation?  The Starr Report?  

      Moldy, are you that dumb and pathetic that you ignore the fact that there was an investigation?

       

      To say nothing of Hilary's email investigation that showed no wrongdoing.  

      You're right about one thing.  Hypocrisy is a bitch.  

       

      Btw, where are my ACA and Russia articles Moldy?

      • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        I never faulted Clinton for the fib about what happened with the intern. I honestly think he was trying to save the young woman and his wife embarrassment. That's what a gentleman does. As to the affair, that was for his wife to kick his ass over when she found out; and if some of the "backstairs at the White House" gossip was true, she did.

        And remember, the affair was discovered during "mission creep" from the Whitewater investigation. A cautionary tale for the Yam if I ever heard one. 

        • unnamed says:

          One that the Yam is sure to ignore.

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          "I honestly think he was trying to save the young woman and his wife embarrassment."

          … hoo boy, (and, this has nothing to do with the current situation, I agree), but I'm not drinking that kool-aid. — ever!  (Bill got caught, and nothing he did showed any concern for anyone except himself.)

          (PS.  No "gentleman," as I know them, would find himself involved in that situation . . . )

    • spaceman65 says:

      Moddy, he does have the right to fire the FBI director.  He does not have the right to obstruct justice.  That is a crime.  So if he fired Comey in order to obstruct justice, he is guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor, which is grounds for his impeachment, and possibly grounds for a criminal indictment.  Brush up on the law, learn something.  Don't be like the covfefe in chief

       

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      Can you imagine Moldy getting the vapors if a President Hillary Clinton tried to use political manipulation to get Comey to drop the FBI investigation of her emails?  He would be hoarse from shouting "Lock Her Up".   I bet he would take a dim view if a direct relative of a President Hillary Clinton like Chelsea tried to setup a secret communications channel.  Gee, I wonder what could be different from his harsh views of Mrs. Clintons alleged criminal "betrayal" of national interests with his staunch defending that nothing is a problem with Trumps interference with a criminal probe.

      Of course being the brown noser defender of immoral behavior that he is, he tries to conflate Trump's criminal obstruction of justice with the powers of the president.   

  2. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Obama announces that Clinton did not commit a crime by storing classified emails on her unsecured, unauthorized server.  The investigation was shut down.

    Trump tells the FBI director it would be nice if the Flynn investigation were to go away.  It does not and a special counsel is appointed.

    Which was obstruction of justice?

    • Pseudonymous says:

      The one someone gets convicted for?

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      This is such a total lie that I'm kind of surprised that there wasn't more push back.  Obama never shut down the email witch hunt.  If anything he didn't require rigorous adherence to procedure and let Comey bull ahead without any restraint.  Lynch wasn't able to have much effect much direction on the investigation so Andrew's lie that "Democrats do it too" is just such absolute horse shit.  What a perfidious person purporting to be a properly moral man.  Not.  Double not.

  3. The realistThe realist says:

    Mod & AC, Comey is not taking orders from the likes of you. Comey will testify, and the truth will come out. And many more will speak over the next weeks and months, and many more truths will be made public. You cannot stop the truth.

     

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      I welcome the truth.

      Comey will not testify that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

      The truth is gradually coming out.

      The Fisa court just roasted Obama et al for violating Americans Constitutional rights by unmasking and identifying Americans improperly.

      Comey told Feinstein a couple weeks ago that there was no evidence implicating Trump.

      When the truth comes out we will be left with one essential truth.  Hillary lost and her followers would rather America not succeed than it be successful on Trump's watch.

      • unnamed says:

        Okay Cornholio. Why did your dear leader say to the Russians that firing "nut job" Comey took great pressure because of Russia off him?

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          First off, we don't know that he said that.

          Second, getting rid of Comey and subsequently hiring Meuler did take pressure off in terms of Congressional investigations.  The investigations will now be handled as a criminal investigation and handled appropriately.  If someone lied or leaked or was not forthcoming, like John Podesta, it will be found out.  They may even go back to Hillary.  That would be rich.

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            We knows, shill boy.  We knows.

          • unnamed says:

            Yeah.  Because Trump made the decision to hire Mueller.  Please. Let's see, CNN,  NYT, NPR, Wapo, and Fox news all say that is what Trump said.  Among other sources.

            If you're going to lie, do a better job than that Goebbles.

             

            • Andrew Carnegie says:

              It must be you that told them.  The sources were all unnamed.

              • unnamed says:

                Wow Cornholio!  You're hilarious!  I've never heard a funnier joke in my life.

              • DavieDavie says:

                Gerbils — read and learn from your master if you plan to continue your incessant BS.  You really need to work on your shilling techniques:

                The Bullshitter-in-Chief

                Donald Trump’s disregard for the truth is something more sinister than ordinary lying.

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  "Comey will not testify that Trump attempted to obstruct justice….."  What I find interesting is that Andrew knows exactly what Comey will say long before any hearing.

                  No reply button under Davie’s comment. But I agree with it. 

                  • Andrew Carnegie says:

                    CHB:

                    I know that because he was obligated to report it if he felt that way and he did not.

                    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. 

                    Given that background, Comey is not going to say Trump attempted to obstruct justice, even if he did.

                    • DavieDavie says:

                      All Comey has to do is testify to what Trump said to him.  It is up to the Special Prosecutor and the Senators in their respective investigations to draw conclusions as to whether it rises to the level of obstruction of justice.

                      That is where they may serve Trump Fricassee.

                    • Old Time Dem says:

                      Obstruction of justice can be established by a pattern. Firing Comey is part of that pattern–perhaps the step that completes the obstruction.

                      So, as a legal scholar (you do cite laws, after all), what was Comey's obligation after he was fired?

          • FrankUnderwood says:

            They may even go back to Hillary.  That would be rich. 

            Why stop there. Maybe they could go back to Bill Clinton getting head, like Moddy would like to see. Or to Ted Kennedy's car accident in 1969, as you're fixed on. Or FDR, Lucy Mercer and Yalta. The possibilities are endless…..

             

      • Republican 36 says:

        Of course you carefully left out one particular fact. Comey may have told Sen. Feinstein that Trump had not been implicated in the Russia investigation as far as his campaign staffers and aides activities but he certainly did not tell her that Trump was not implicated in obstruction of justice by attempting to get Comey to terminate the investigation of Flynn and others.

  4. Early WormEarly Worm says:

    While I am very interested to hear what Comey has to say, but I think that our junior Senator is the canary in the coal mine with respect to Trump's future. As others have pointed out, impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. It is worthwhile to debate whether Trump's conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and whether he has committed "high crimes or misdemeanors" but at the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is the majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate.

    While I would like to believe that there are members of Congress making impartial, nonpartisan judgments on these matters, the reality is that most if not all will evaluate the question of impeachment from the perspective of self-preservation.  And Gardner is the tipping point. He is a loyal foot soldier. He is attained status within his caucus because he will do what leadership tells him to do. If Trump reveals classified info to our enemies, works with the Russians to undermine our democratic process, and generally acts the buffoon – no problem if Republicans can still maintain control. But Gardner wants to be reelected. When Trump becomes too toxic for Cory, it will be a sign that he is too toxic for Republicans and Trump is done.

  5. Diogenesdemar says:

    Nah . . . 

    Trump was Trumpended by Trump long before Comey . . .  

    . . . a Greek tragicomedy of Shakespearean dimensions . . . 

    (. . . history's a bitch, eh, Moderatus???

    “Taken in,” little Moddy.
    “Taken in” by the fake.
    “Taken in,” so very easily (you craven dumbass),
    cackled your tweeting yammish snake.”)

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.