President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

There's a lot of spinning on both sides tonight. The most unrealistic, to me, are the guys who say that even if Trump said what Comey claims, that wouldn't be trying to convince Comey to stop the investigation. "Nobody ever went to jail for hoping." "Hoping ain't telling."

Imagine you are the Director of Sales for U.S.A. Corp. After the weekly staff meeting, the President of the company tells you to stay behind and sends all the other employees out of the room. After everyone is gone, and there are just the two of you in his office, he looks you in the eye and says "You know, Mr. Wilson is a good customer. I hope one of our salesmen calls on him today."

As an employee of U.S.A. Corp. in the chain of command of the President of the company, would you feel as though you had just been told to be sure a salesman serviced that account pronto? If not, I think your time as Director of Sales would be headed for an abrupt end.

Red, with all due respect, the analogy you use couldn't be further from reality in this situation. The relationship between Trump as President and Comey as FBI director, or the head of one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world, isn't your typical garden variety of employer/employee relationships. In theory both are public servants, neither owns the company. Yes one works at the pleasure of the other, but not in the sense you laid out. Suggesting this is analogous to asking some employee to reach out to a customer isn't even close to what happened. The way the Dems would like to portray this is similar to the Mỹ Lai Massacre. Dems want to spin that Trump gave a very clear "directive" by using the word "I hope this will go away." If you remember, the way that Mỹ Lai story was reported way back when was that a direct order was given to wipe out the villages because anyone left in them was a Guerrilla or enemy cohort. When in fact the reality was that the commander gave a unclear order that his worn out and highly stressed troops didn't fully understand because the command structure between him and his troops had broken down. The well liked Sargent had been blown up by a landmine a day or two before, further intensifying the communication breakdown.

Trump should have had the wisdom to have Sessions and others in the room. Comey was smart enough to walk his way through this improper conduct and if he was unclear what Trump was asking, shouldn't he have asked for clarification? This is a guy, Comey, that was a ethical loyal public servant who clearly knew his role. He is a highly skilled prosecutor and law enforcement official who believes in separation from politics. He had a chance to say "no" to someone he clearly didn't respect, someone who we all know desperately needs to hear someone say "NO", and instead he chose to cower. He'll make much more money in private practice than he'd ever make in the public sector. This can't simply be about not wanting to lose his job. I get that it's a pretty cool job. But stilll. Something smells. Shouldn't he have told Trump then and there, regardless of him potentially losing his job, that a President can't make those types of requests and cannot under Rule of Law obstruct or even appear to obstruct an ongoing investigation.

And what about the bombshell in AG Lynch politicizing the Clinton email investigation? A matter vs an investigation, which is exactly out of the Clinton playbook!

I like Comey but other than confirming that Trump is a liar, I don't think much news broke yesterday that did anymore damage to Trump. He's already really damaged but I'm not sure there is anything that could be found criminal here. I think the Lynch comment and the NYT criticism of incorrect reporting were the real news!

[Redbirds Fan]

Red, with all due respect, the analogy you use couldn't be further from reality in this situation. The relationship between Trump as President and Comey as FBI director, or the head of one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world, isn't your typical garden variety of employer/employee relationships. Suggesting this is analogous to asking some employee to reach out to a customer isn't even close to what happened. The way the Dems would like to portray this is similar to the Mỹ Lai Massacre. Dems want to spin that Trump gave a very clear "directive" by using the word "I hope this will go away." If you remember, the way that Mỹ Lai story was reported way back when was that a direct order was given to wipe out the villages because anyone left in them was a Guerrilla or enemy cohort. When in fact the reality was that the commander gave a unclear order that his worn out and highly stressed troops didn't fully understand because the command structure between him and his troops had broken down. The well liked Sargent had been blown up by a landline. Trump should have had the wisdom to have Sessions and others in the room. Comey was smart enough to walk his way through this improper conduct and if he was unclear what Trump was asking, shouldn't he have asked for clarification? This is a guy, Comey, that was a ethical loyal public servant who clearly knew his role. He is a highly skilled prosecutor and law enforcement official who believes in separation from politics. He had a chance to say "no" to someone he clearly didn't respect, someone who we all know desperately needs to hear someone say "NO", and instead he chose to cower. He'll make much more money in private practice than he'd ever make in the public sector. This can't simply be about not wanting to lose his job. I get that it's a pretty cool job. But stilll. Something smells. Shouldn't he have told Trump then and there, regardless of him potentially losing his job, that a President can't make those types of requests and cannot under Rule of Law obstruct or even appear to obstruct an ongoing investigation.

And what about the bombshell in AG Lynch politicizing the Clinton email investigation? A matter vs an investigation, which is exactly out of the Clinton playbook!

I like Comey but other than confirming that Trump is a liar, I don't think much news broke yesterday that did anymore damage to Trump. He's already really damaged but I'm not sure there is anything that could be found criminal here. I think the Lynch comment and the NYT criticism of incorrect reporting were the real news!

Bernie, I think you have missed all kinds of points here, and the war crime you discuss is an inappropriate comparable for a number of reasons. Primarily it is not an apt comparison because the perpetrators of the massacre defended themselves by saying they were following clear orders, in an attempt to save themselves from punishment. That isn't what Comey was saying. He didn't stop the investigation because Trump wanted it stopped.

Your post is interesting for what it doesn't say. You talk about Comey being head of a powerful law enforcement agency, but don't mention that Trump was supposedly the most powerful man in the free world. You don't have your own realistic theory about what Trump was trying to accomplish...Trump the great communicator and 'deal maker'. And, tellingly, you don't deal with the issue of why he sent everyone, including Comey's boss, out of the room just to tell Comey that Flynn is a good guy.

Let me take it out of the example of a salesman in a private company. I've been a prosecutor for most of the last 36 years. If a local public official, calls me into his office alone and says he 'hopes' a certain controversial case in which he has a vest interested will 'go away', I know exactly what he is trying to do. I've had it happen many times. (And no, I didn't stop and tell them immediately "you have just violated state law".) I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of obstruction of justice, as I don't think it does in Trump's case here. I don't get too excited about it, because I know most politicians are arrogant assholes who think they actually control things. I would get excited about it if they later tried to take revenge against me for not following their wishes, such as by trying to get me fired.

But it is naive and over-the-top partisanship to claim that Trump's actions constituted it was an innocent conversation about an old friend. Worse is to do like Trump's overpaid mouthpiece, and claim it didn't happen at all. Worst of all is to claim like Paul Ryan that Trump should be given a break because he is still too ignorant to be President.

I don't think there are grounds for impeachment, but if I were going to make the case, Comey wouldn't be my first witness. It would be Paul Ryan.

[Redbirds Fan]

Red, with all due respect, the analogy you use couldn't be further from reality in this situation. The relationship between Trump as President and Comey as FBI director, or the head of one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world, isn't your typical garden variety of employer/employee relationships. In theory both are public servants, neither owns the company. Yes one works at the pleasure of the other, but not in the sense you laid out. Suggesting this is analogous to asking some employee to reach out to a customer isn't even close to what happened. The way the Dems would like to portray this is similar to the Mỹ Lai Massacre. Dems want to spin that Trump gave a very clear "directive" by using the word "I hope this will go away." If you remember, the way that Mỹ Lai story was reported way back when was that a direct order was given to wipe out the villages because anyone left in them was a Guerrilla or enemy cohort. When in fact the reality was that the commander gave a unclear order that his worn out and highly stressed troops didn't fully understand because the command structure between him and his troops had broken down. The well liked Sargent had been blown up by a landmine a day or two before, further intensifying the communication breakdown.

Trump should have had the wisdom to have Sessions and others in the room. Comey was smart enough to walk his way through this improper conduct and if he was unclear what Trump was asking, shouldn't he have asked for clarification? This is a guy, Comey, that was a ethical loyal public servant who clearly knew his role. He is a highly skilled prosecutor and law enforcement official who believes in separation from politics. He had a chance to say "no" to someone he clearly didn't respect, someone who we all know desperately needs to hear someone say "NO", and instead he chose to cower. He'll make much more money in private practice than he'd ever make in the public sector. This can't simply be about not wanting to lose his job. I get that it's a pretty cool job. But stilll. Something smells. Shouldn't he have told Trump then and there, regardless of him potentially losing his job, that a President can't make those types of requests and cannot under Rule of Law obstruct or even appear to obstruct an ongoing investigation.

And what about the bombshell in AG Lynch politicizing the Clinton email investigation? A matter vs an investigation, which is exactly out of the Clinton playbook!

I like Comey but other than confirming that Trump is a liar, I don't think much news broke yesterday that did anymore damage to Trump. He's already really damaged but I'm not sure there is anything that could be found criminal here. I think the Lynch comment and the NYT criticism of incorrect reporting were the real news!

You have a pretty low threshhold for 'real news'. So the DOJ is sitting on the Trump Campaign/Russia investigation; nonetheless, Lynch doesn't keep the FBI from talking about Clinton. She does, however, say call it a 'matter' instead of an 'investigation', even though every news outlet in the free world is already calling it an investigation. That looks partisan and silly for Lynch, but how can you say that is the news of the day? What was the impact? Weak sauce.

[Bernie Brewer]

Bernie, I think you have missed all kinds of points here, and the war crime you discuss is an inappropriate comparable for a number of reasons. Primarily it is not an apt comparison because the perpetrators of the massacre defended themselves by saying they were following clear orders, in an attempt to save themselves from punishment. That isn't what Comey was saying. He didn't stop the investigation because Trump wanted it stopped.

Your post is interesting for what it doesn't say. You talk about Comey being head of a powerful law enforcement agency, but don't mention that Trump was supposedly the most powerful man in the free world. You don't have your own realistic theory about what Trump was trying to accomplish...Trump the great communicator and 'deal maker'. And, tellingly, you don't deal with the issue of why he sent everyone, including Comey's boss, out of the room just to tell Comey that Flynn is a good guy.

Let me take it out of the example of a salesman in a private company. I've been a prosecutor for most of the last 36 years. If a local public official, calls me into his office alone and says he 'hopes' a certain controversial case in which he has a vest interested will 'go away', I know exactly what he is trying to do. I've had it happen many times. (And no, I didn't stop and tell them immediately "you have just violated state law".) I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of obstruction of justice, as I don't think it does in Trump's case here. I don't get too excited about it, because I know most politicians are arrogant assholes who think they actually control things. I would get excited about it if they later tried to take revenge against me for not following their wishes, such as by trying to get me fired.

But it is naive and over-the-top partisanship to claim that Trump's actions constituted it was an innocent conversation about an old friend. Worse is to do like Trump's overpaid mouthpiece, and claim it didn't happen at all. Worst of all is to claim like Paul Ryan that Trump should be given a break because he is still too ignorant to be President.

I don't think there are grounds for impeachment, but if I were going to make the case, Comey wouldn't be my first witness. It would be Paul Ryan.

Contrary to my long post, I wasn't attempting to write my doctoral thesis, I was merely attempting to point out that your analogy was flawed. I'll stand by my comment that democrats are portraying this as a My Lai type incident. It wasn't. And I would suggest that you mischaracterized my analogy as I was trying to point out that the only one who is found guilty was a commanding officer, not the troopsWho were purportedly told to do the dirty job. My opinion is that Trump was definitely asking but not demanding. I saw something on Twitter last night in which one of his sons posted a tweet that said something along the lines of "if my father demands something, there is no uncertainty about it." Which I suspect is probably accurate. The example you use in the post above is probably a more appropriate example. I agree with your conclusion that there's probably a not enough here for obstruction of justice charges, unlike what many of the partisan talking heads on mainstream media are suggesting. As for your question about why I was silent on Trump, I think I've been pretty clear where I stand with him. If I've been unclear, I find his behavior deplorable, unbecoming of the office he holds, and generally, he's a dislikable scummy dude, who just happens to have won an election that makes him the most powerful man in the world. That frightens me and it should frighten all of us. Now, I happen to think more like Paul Ryan in that he's new at this, and while should not necessarily an excuse, it's probably more accurate than to say he was making outrages demands. Remember the part about no one tells him "no!"

[GwynnInTheHall]

Trump's only tweets are to praise Fox news (for deflecting the real story), retweeting Dershowitz's opinions on obstruction and to call the testimony lies (except the part which helps him) and Comey a leaker..........I was expecting so much more......

[Bernie Brewer]

You have a pretty low threshhold for 'real news'. So the DOJ is sitting on the Trump Campaign/Russia investigation; nonetheless, Lynch doesn't keep the FBI from talking about Clinton. She does, however, say call it a 'matter' instead of an 'investigation', even though every news outlet in the free world is already calling it an investigation. That looks partisan and silly for Lynch, but how can you say that is the news of the day? What was the impact? Weak sauce.

I was attempting to point out the really wasn't any news at all. Nothing Comey said yesterday was new. Even the Lynch comments were known weeks ago if not longer. For what was labeled the most historic congressional testimony in decades it was kind of a non event. At least that's my take away.

[cardboardbox]

I think the Lynch comment and the NYT criticism of fake reporting were the real news!

agreed. And edited your comment. One more thing, the Russia nonsense took a beating yesterday. Chris Matthews sounds like he's in full retreat on the subject:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ySxJiUp8qd8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TranaGreg]

I was attempting to point out the really wasn't any news at all. Nothing Comey said yesterday was new. Even the Lynch comments were known weeks ago if not longer. For what was labeled the most historic congressional testimony in decades it was kind of a non event. At least that's my take away.

Just an observation ...

A lot of people are analyzing yesterday (and other events) in the context of the bolded text above - since it wasn't the biggest deal in decades, it's a non-event. I've heard variations of this from multiple sources.

But the people that were promoting it as "the most historic congressional testimony in decades" were the media, who of course do this just to increase viewership. (Breaking News: there is no new news at this time!)

So the event all of a sudden isn't judged on its own merits, it's judged against some extreme bar that is of course, ridiculous.

No it wasn't something that will lead to the downfall the government. But to say it was a non-event doesn't seem accurate either - it was significant - a pretty important guy with knowledge of the inner workings of the white house detailed the dysfunction of the current administration and the POTUS. Noone really knows where all of this will lead, but I don't think it's something to be ignored either.

[Bernie Brewer]

Just an observation ...

A lot of people are analyzing yesterday (and other events) in the context of the bolded text above - since it wasn't the biggest deal in decades, it's a non-event. I've heard variations of this from multiple sources.

But the people that were promoting it as "the most historic congressional testimony in decades" were the media, who of course do this just to increase viewership. (Breaking News: there is no new news at this time!)

So the event all of a sudden isn't judged on its own merits, it's judged against some extreme bar that is of course, ridiculous.

No it wasn't something that will lead to the downfall the government. But to say it was a non-event doesn't seem accurate either - it was significant - a pretty important guy with knowledge of the inner workings of the white house detailed the dysfunction of the current administration and the POTUS. Noone really knows where all of this will lead, but I don't think it's something to be ignored either.

Again, I'm not doing a very good job of conveying my thoughts. I wasn't intending to say that the underlying events that led to the point of director Comey testifying were not important. The Russian interference in the election is an extremely important investigation and it needs to continue. Let the cards fall where they may. But you're correct the news media sensationalizes this to draw viewership. And that's why the media is so suspect these days because they are creating the news. I don't want to say reporting false news necessarily, but if there is no news "let's go make some" seems to be their mantra. And Walla large percentage of the population may be gullible, we all are not gullible and we see it for what it is.

[swampdragon]

ad we still dont know what was said in closed door sessions - and is this the iceberg or the tip of the ideberg

[Bernie Brewer]

ad we still dont know what was said in closed door sessions - and is this the iceberg or the tip of the ideberg

This is very true. And we probably shouldn't know until the special prosecutor has fully vetted the case, or maybe never. But Trump will blurt it out when he knows, so there's that!

[Bernie Brewer]

agreed. And edited your comment. One more thing, the Russia nonsense took a beating yesterday. Chris Matthews sounds like he's in full retreat on the subject:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ySxJiUp8qd8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm willing to give investigative reports some rope with the understanding that they'll be wrong occasionally. I am not willing to call it fake news. NYT gets right more times than not, so I'll cut them some slack.

[Redbirds Fan]

Contrary to my long post, I wasn't attempting to write my doctoral thesis, I was merely attempting to point out that your analogy was flawed. I'll stand by my comment that democrats are portraying this as a My Lai type incident. It wasn't. And I would suggest that you mischaracterized my analogy as I was trying to point out that the only one who is found guilty was a commanding officer, not the troopsWho were purportedly told to do the dirty job. My opinion is that Trump was definitely asking but not demanding. I saw something on Twitter last night in which one of his sons posted a tweet that said something along the lines of "if my father demands something, there is no uncertainty about it." Which I suspect is probably accurate. The example you use in the post above is probably a more appropriate example. I agree with your conclusion that there's probably a not enough here for obstruction of justice charges, unlike what many of the partisan talking heads on mainstream media are suggesting. As for your question about why I was silent on Trump, I think I've been pretty clear where I stand with him. If I've been unclear, I find his behavior deplorable, unbecoming of the office he holds, and generally, he's a dislikable scummy dude, who just happens to have won an election that makes him the most powerful man in the world. That frightens me and it should frighten all of us. Now, I happen to think more like Paul Ryan in that he's new at this, and while should not necessarily an excuse, it's probably more accurate than to say he was making outrages demands. Remember the part about no one tells him "no!"

I understand what you are saying . But I've tried enough cases in my day involving coercion to know that there are very seldom overt 'demands'. Nobody says "Hey, uh, if you choose not to cooperate in the manner I have described in detail, I will ensure that you have negative job ramifications or, perhaps, personal injury or property damage."

It would certainly be comforting if our President, since he is not personally under investigation, would come forward and answer some questions, on the record and under oath, about what happened, what he said to Comey, and what Comey said to him. And, by the way, if there are any tapes. And if not, why he tweeted about the possible existence of tapes. This would do much more to clear this matter up once and for all than having his $1500 an hour lawyer come out and say what the President did and didn't do, since we all know that the lawyer wasn't in the room, isn't under oath, and is a private lawyer to the Predisent.

[TranaGreg]

... and is a private lawyer to the Predisent.

that was culpable deniability right there ... oh, you meant the President? well, I don't know about that ...

[Bernie Brewer]

I understand what you are saying . But I've tried enough cases in my day involving coercion to know that there are very seldom overt 'demands'. Nobody says "Hey, uh, if you choose not to cooperate in the manner I have described in detail, I will ensure that you have negative job ramifications or, perhaps, personal injury or property damage."

It would certainly be comforting if our President, since he is not personally under investigation, would come forward and answer some questions, on the record and under oath, about what happened, what he said to Comey, and what Comey said to him. And, by the way, if there are any tapes. And if not, why he tweeted about the possible existence of tapes. This would do much more to clear this matter up once and for all than having his $1500 an hour lawyer come out and say what the President did and didn't do, since we all know that the lawyer wasn't in the room, isn't under oath, and is a private lawyer to the Predisent.

It might be comforting, but if your his attorney, and you are an attorney so I'll defer to you in this, would you advise or even allow your client to testify when he wasn't legally compelled to do so? It sounds good in theory, but is that good legal advice? And, while Comey said Trump wasn't subject of any investigation then, he may be now. And, how would we know that since a special prosecutor was appointed. And, he ain't leaking!