After publishing a diary earlier this evening, I started looking at other stuff on DK and making a comment here & there. And rehashing the last 24 hours I suddenly felt like I’d been proverbially smacked upside the head with a 2X4.
During yesterday’s hearing and since a GOP refrain has been that during that Feb. 14 meeting (after he kicked everyone but Comey out of the Oval Office) Trump never explicitly told Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. One ridiculous bit of questioning concerned whether Comey knew of anyone being prosecuted for Obstruction because someone “hoped” an investigator would drop an inquiry. I’m of the belief that if Trump had said (and played a tape to prove it) “I didn’t have to keep you on as FBI Director but I did and you owe me – so I want you to let Flynn off the hook. Hell, since you don’t seem to have found enough to file charges against him or anyone else on my team I think you should close out the Russia investigation while you’re at it. You’ve been investigating for months and if you haven’t found enough to file charges by now you never will so it’s time for this stuff to end & move on. If you don’t agree then it’s time for a new FBI Director.” IF Trump had said all that, the GOP would STILL stonewall and obfuscate any talk of Obstruction of Justice. They’d say the President didn’t “order” Comey to drop the Flynn investigation and the larger investigation about Russian interference in the election and also didn’t specifically say “if you don’t then I’ll fire you.” That’s how far up Trump’s ass their heads are but I’m getting off point.
Regarding an Obstruction charge based on that Feb. 14 meeting I think (maybe an actual lawyer can weigh in) that in an actual jury trial a critical issue would be the jury instructions from the Judge, and my guess is that the presumption of innocence would require something along the lines of “taken on its own the statement must be considered in a light favorable to the defense.” Of course, a prosecutor would fight like hell (and the defense would fight like hell against it) for additional instructions regarding the totality of the evidence and that if there was an overall related pattern of conduct the jury could weigh that statement in the context of that pattern.
I say all that because if you look at more than just that Feb. 14meeting there are a number of incidents that speak to a pattern of conduct of this President trying to influence and even shut down the Flynn investigation. That’s what hit me about Sally Yates - and wonder why we haven’t heard her name much in recent days although we see her in the background of some pictures of Comey testifying on the Hill prior to being fired. But first I want to note that Comey’s actual firing has been suggested by some in and of itself (because of the President’s own statements) as potentially warranting Obstruction of Justice charges. Trump admitted on TV that he had long since decided to fire Comey and the “Russia thing” was on his mind as he made the decision. Thanks to the Russians we also know he told them the day after firing Comey (again, this took place in the Oval Office!) he’d taken the pressure off the Russia investigation by firing Comey. So perhaps a case for Obstruction could be made solely from Comey’s firing.
How this relates to Sally Yates goes back to the matter of “pattern of conduct” I mentioned earlier. Yes, the GOP can (and has been doing so) spin any one of a number of statements/incidents in a way that muddies the question of whether Trump’s conduct meets the legal standard for Obstruction of Justice. It’s a point being argued back and forth quite a bit in the news. But I have been thinking this evening about the firing of Sally Yates. Yes, her refusal to defend the travel ban provided the excuse, but was it just the excuse and not the REAL reason she was fired?
Bear with me. We have been told in Congressional testimony that a counter-intelligence investigation was opened last July. Just who and what was being looked at during the summer and fall we don’t really know and until relatively recently we didn’t know who was really under the gun. However, we do know at least one person who has been directly being investigated since November, 2016 if not sooner – Mike Flynn. Even Trump, Pence and others knew during the transition this was the case. They, and Flynn himself carried on as though nothing along these lines was happening. However, Flynn’s conduct raised some serious red flags to those doing the investigating. Concerns were serious enough they made their way up to the Acting Attorney General -Sally Yates.
As we learned from her own testimony Yates was alarmed by the information she’d been briefed on – so much so she immediately secured an appointment to see the White House Counsel that very day. Btw, in that meeting White House Counsel Don McGann asked how Flynn had done in his FBI interview a couple of days (Jan. 24)before. Not exactly an appropriate question but that’s par for the course with this White House. As an aside however, if reports are accurate Flynn lied to investigators – itself a federal crime. For those who may not know it’s legal to lie to state and local law enforcement officers but not to federal agents. In the latter case it’s a felony. Anyway, the next day Yates again spoke with the White House Counsel who wanted to know why it what was a big deal if one member of an administration lies to another? She addressed that point quite eloquently as we all saw. But it’s been admitted that McGann spoke to the President about Yate’s concerns. In retrospect, could it be that McGann’s “what’s the big deal if he lied to Pence or others “ statement and attitude came from the President? After all, McCann is a good lawyer and knew damn well there was a big problem but if the President didn’t want the matter pursued perhaps he forgot the fact his role is to serve not just the President but to protect the institution of the Presidency — a dual role that’s been defined for quite a while now. Anyway, doesn’t that offer yet another instance of trying to influence DOJ (and by extension the FBI) to lay off Flynn?
Now consider the fact that that second conversation about Flynn that Yates had with McCann (again at the White House) where he questioned whether she was overly concerned took place on January 27. If that date sounds familiar it should. It’s the same day James Comey took a call from the President inviting him to dinner at the White House. Prior to yesterday we’d heard about that dinner and Comey’s testimony about it was devastating for the President. It was the famous “I expect/need loyalty” dinner. Just a few days later on January 30 Comey’s direct boss Sally Yates announced DOJ would not been forcing the travel ban Executive Order. And the next day she was fired. As I asked earlier, was the firing over her refusal to support the travel ban or due to her (not Comey) pushing the White House to address the Mike Flynn problem? It’s widely believed that had the Flynn story not broken a couple of weeks after Yate’s last meeting with McCann he’d still be National Security Advisor. Worse, some of the people he’d installed as key members of his staff would still be there. Worse than that, Steve Bannon would still be in the Principal’s Committee and a couple of folks who should have been (they always were in the past) like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the DCI would not!
From where I sit, Sally Yates directly and insistently telling the White House that Flynn was a MAJOR problem meant Trump wanted her gone. And he had a plausible (more so that what they tried with Comey) excuse to do so on Jan. 30 when she balked at defending the travel ban.
If I’m right, that means James Comey isn’t the only one who got fired for letting Mike Flynn slide. Sally Yates was as well, and THAT makes for one helluva “pattern of conduct” of firing people who wouldn’t lay off Trump’s buddy Mike Flynn. To me at least I think Yate’s firing should be added to the timeline of events that build the “pattern of conduct” that show abroad and sustained attempt to protect Mike Flynn and therefore meets the standard of intent. Off the top of my head, it includes:
· Yates warns the White House not once but twice that Mike Flynn is seriously compromised.
· The day of that second warning Trump maneuvers James Comey into a private dinner at the White House and repeatedly seeks a promise of loyalty while implying Comey’s job is on the line.
· After the Flynn story leaks and Trump is forced to accept his resignation he maneuvers Comey into a private chat in the Oval Office and asks Comey to let Flynn off the hook.
*** Although not directly related to the Flynn matter, Trump fires the U.S. Attorney up in NYC even though he (Trump) had initially asked him to stay on.
· Trump subsequently attempts to engage NSA Director Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates to intervene with Comey to close he Flynn investigation.
· In addition to all this, both before and after Trump repeatedly asks Comey to publicly announce that he (Trump) is not personally the target of an investigation.
· Trump fires James Comey and admits it was due to Russia related stuff
*** Authors’s note: Many thanks for all the comments and recs. Some of the comments suggested that the firing of Preet Bahara should be in the above timeline. I didn’t necessarily disagree, but since Bahara was up in NYC and not part (as far as we know) to the Flynn matter I left it at that. However, a diary today by VeganMilitia referencing ABC News reporting on a Washington Post story talks about how Bahara (who’d initially been asked by Trump to stay on) was getting phone calls directly from Trump. He is on the record as being uncomfortable about those calls, and didn’t take/return the last one — and less than 24 hours later he was fired.
As I said all that’s off the top of my head. But it includes (at least IMHO) not one but two firings of people who had key roles in both the Russia investigation and more specifically the investigation of Mike Flynn AND knew they had the goods on him for criminal wrongdoing. And in response to comments on this diary and today’s by Vegan Militia I’ve included a THIRD firing of someone investigating Trump related stuff. One is bad enough, and two seems way more than a coincidence but three is definitely a pattern.
I don’t know how Yates would feel about this becoming an issue for public debate, but I’d like to think she’d put up with all the negatives that would come from being put back under the spotlight to ratchet up the pressure on Trump & more importantly his minions in Congress to take the Obstruction of Justice matter seriously to pursue it – vigorously. But it’s clear that absent relentless pressure most of the GOP in Congress will bury this as quickly as they can. Maybe, just maybe making the case that TWO senior Officials had been fired to protect Mike Flynn. After all, who knows what “goods” he has on others in the campaign and Trump himself r.e. Russia? Some time back I wrote a diary exploring the question of whether Jeff Sessions was the linchpin that could bring down the Trump administration. Perhaps he is. But we also know that Mike Flynn has attempted to obtain immunity for his testimony. To their credit (shockingly) the relevant committees in Congress turned him down flat, as have the prosecutors running the federal grand jury investigating him. Perhaps Flynn is the linchpin and not Sessions. But both have been with Trump from the beginning of his campaign and either “flipping” to minimize prison time would do the trick.
But in the meantime, perhaps pushing the concept that two people have been fired to protect Mike Flynn might make the public wonder why the hell Trump is so hell bent on protecting him. And the feeling Trump is protecting himself as much or more than Flynn will take hold & ignite enough of a firestorm with the public that the GOP will have no choice but to finally stand up to Trump.