Well, this has been a week for bombshells — but the week isn’t over so get ready for another barrage. The first is that just one day after Sally Yates went to the White House about Michael Flynn lying about what he did and didn’t say to Kislyak, Trump demanded a loyalty pledge from James Comey in the context of his wanting to keep his job, and also confirming that Trump himself wasn’t under investigation by the FBI.
The New York Times reported Thursday night that former FBI director James Comey attended a “very nice dinner” with President Donald Trump. During that dinner, Trump demanded that Comey be loyal to him and Comey objected for ethical reasons. It wasn’t long before Comey was being given his pink slip by Trump.
While the two had dinner Trump “made small talk about the election” and the size of his crowd at his rallies. He then turned to has “the” question that would end with the firing of the FBI director.
Comey reportedly “declined to make that pledge.” Comey told the story to others that he pledged that he would always be honest with Trump but that he was not “‘reliable’ in the conventional political sense.”
This factor alone is something that Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe has said was potentially “Extortion” and “Obstruction of Justice.”
Asked about Trump demanding to know if he’s under investigation Tribe said this:
Tribe: It’s much worse than just a conflict of interest. You’re basically saying “if you can assure me I’m not under investigation, then maybe I’ll keep you on”. It’s extortion. You are essentially using the language of the underworld. It’s staggering, it’s like the 13th chime of a clock, it makes the whole thing come apart.
Then Tribe was asked about Comey being asked to pledge his loyalty to Trump.
Tribe: It’s clearly, on it’s face obstruction of justice and it is characteristic of the way Trump talks, he only want “yes” man, and perhaps “yes” women around him.
…
What it really means is “Can I count on you not to make me a target of this investigation” which is clearly an impermissible question. So either Trump’s own account is true, in which case he’s guilty of obstruction of justice in one sense. ... [or Comey’s account is true] in which case he’s guilty of trying to suborn obstruction of justice. Either way as with the first article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon, this is a series of high crimes and misdemeanors all by itself, regardless of whether Trump was or was not part of a collusive plot with Russia to steal an American election.
And frankly it wasn’t just Nixon who was accused of this. One of the Articlea of Impeachment against President Bill Clinton was also obstruction of justice for his having a conversation with his own personal assistant about Monica Lewinsky immediately after his deposition, even though she wasn't on the witness list for the Paula Jones trial.
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
...
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
So if Clinton could be impeached for that, certainly Trump can be impeached for trying to extort loyalty from the FBI Director whose conducting an investigation into his campaign and administration.
Here Rachel Maddow points out that this entire situation is entirely nuts and inappropriate, meanwhile all their claims about why Comey was fired have collapsed into a big pile of smoldering dust as they finally basically admitted he was fired over Russia.
Trump: When I decided to just [Fire Comey] I said to myself that this Russia thing is a made up story.
Maddow: What he said there does not appear to be an accident. And he wasn’t the only one who said that today.
Deputy WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: We want this investigation to come to it’s conclusion and we think be removing Director Comey we have taken steps to make that happen.
Maddow: If [Trump] fired Comey to affect the Russia investigation, that’s Obstruction of Justice and the only remedy for that is Impeachment. Raise your hand if you expect that to happen with this Republican Congress.
That’s why control of Congress absolutely, must be changed in 2018!! There is no other option.
And all of this particular interesting when management, rank and file at FBI are reacting to Comey’s firing like this.
The investigation has gained steam in recent weeks as the probe expanded to include disgraced national security adviser Mike Flynn’s work for the Turkish government, and a Virginia grand jury issued subpoenas for related business and financial records, reported The Daily Beast.
Agents gained a new sense of urgency Tuesday when President Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey, which has sparked fear among investigators that the administration will hamper their efforts.
“It’s complete bananas,” one FBI source told The Daily Beast. “Management in counterintelligence are insanely concerned, worried about the overreaching obstruction and political influence from the White House.”
So that backfired, and what’s worse is that we’re now starting to get leaks from Comey’s camp and their denying Trump’s central claim that he was told he wasn’t under investigation.
The former senior FBI official said Comey never would have told Trump he was not under investigation, as the president claimed.
“He tried to stay away from it [the Russian investigation],” said the former official, who worked closely with Comey and stays in touch with him. “He would say, ‘Look sir, I really can’t get into it, and you don’t want me to.'”
The current FBI official confirmed that Comey did not request the dinner meeting, and that he reluctantly accepted the invitation.
“The president is not correct,” the former official said. “The White House called him out of the blue. Comey didn’t want to do it. He didn’t even want the rank and file at the FBI to know about it.”
But Comey felt he had little choice in the matter.
This reminds me of how the White House keeps saying that James Clapper proved there was “no evidence of collusion” when in fact what he actually said was only that he hadn’t seen any evidence of collusion because he didn’t have access to FBI information about it.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that he was not aware of any evidence demonstrating collusion, but also said he had been unaware of an FBI investigation into the matter until FBI Director James Comey announced it to the public at a House hearing in March.
…
President Donald Trump called Clapper's comments a full dismissal of potential collusion and dismissed the entire issue outright in the series of tweets after the hearing, referring to information from the day's events as "old news," "a total hoax" and "#FakeNews!"
Trump clearly (deliberately) misunderstood what Clapper actually said. Chances are he also misunderstood what Comey was telling him, because answering that question would have been the last thing James Comey would, or should, have ever done.
Again, as Clapper stated, Comey wouldn’t even publicly admit that there WAS an investigation by the FBI into Russian election influence until March. He wouldn’t tell Congress anything even in a classified session and frustrated them so badly they were screaming for his head over it.
WASHINGTON — America’s intelligence chiefs sat down with members of Congress behind closed doors on Friday for what they thought would be a straightforward briefing on Russian cyberattacks. What ensued instead was a confrontation Democrats have long sought with James B. Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Why, the House Democrats demanded to know, did Mr. Comey believe it was O.K. to make repeated disclosures during the campaign about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails but to this day refuse to say if the F.B.I. is investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia?
His answers did not prove very satisfying. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, grew so frustrated that at one point she chastised Mr. Comey for being “condescending to members.”
That was on January 13th, yet were supposed to believe that just two weeks later on January 27th Comey — in direct violation of DOJ protocol — just blurted out to Trump details about an ongoing investigation that he wouldn’t tell Congress?
That is completely, totally, non-credible. And Comey is apparently furious about it all.
Associates said Comey is furious about the lack of respect he was shown during his abrupt firing Tuesday and has been angered by comments by Trump and White House staffers, reported ABC News.
…
The potential threat posed by Comey apparently prompted Trump to reveal a tape recording system at the White House that could potentially be subpoenaed by congressional investigators in their ongoing Russia probe.
And Trump is now threatening to release these tapes, because that’s classy innit?
At this point we don’t need to prove that Trump willfully colluded with Russia to steal the election — he’s self-impeaching right before our very eyes.