Posted on 05/19/2017 8:19:56 AM PDT by HarleyLady27
Long time CTH readers will note we extended well over a year of benefit-of-the-doubt to the motives of former FBI Director James Comey with regard to the severity of his politicized nature and disposition. Throughout the entire Clinton investigation we remained ambivalent to Comey’s motives.
Indeed it wasn’t until after the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack when Comey obtusely noted the FBI had been contacted (prior to the attack) about the sketchy behavior of Omar Mateen by a ‘random concerned citizen’ -and our finding that the actual ‘citizen’ was the far more substantive St Lucie county sheriff Ken Mascara– that we recognized how far Comey was willing to go to save his political face.
Yesterday, a friend of James Comey by the name of Benjamin Wittes, editor and writer for lawfare blog, now steps out and admits he was one of the primary sources for the New York Times Comey Memo article (Michael Schmidt); and in so doing outlines the severity of the political nature of the former FBI Director:
[…] I called Schmidt Friday morning after reading his earlier story, which ran the previous evening, about Comey’s dinner with President Trump and the President’s demands at that dinner for a vow of loyalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Exactly what I was thinking. Was scrolling for this info. Why would anyone have FBI material when they don’t work for the FBI? This information may be classified. It is at least the FBI’s property, not Comey’s. DOJ secured everything upon Comey’s firing. Comey either made up the memo recently or had copies. Either way he released this information which is a crime. His friend obtained this info which is a crime. His friend took this info to a newspaper and left everyone open for fraud and liable.
Comey now has several felonies which can be charged. He lied to Congress. He lied to Trump. He lied to the American people. Charge with with Treason.
A standard operating procedure for Comey.
The NYT article is false on its face because the NYT article itself shows that what the NYT claimed happened, did not happen. The NYT article’s headline is “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation”. The first paragraph of the article states: “President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.” See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=0
So far, the NYT is not quoting from the memo (which it did not see, by the way), but only CHARACTERIZING the memo. The first alleged quote from the memo is in the second paragraph of the article: “’I hope you can let this go,’ the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.”
We have to wait for the seventh paragraph in the article to get the full alleged quote: “’I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,’ Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. ‘He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’”
Therefore, based on the article alone, there is no allegation that “Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation” or that “Trump Asked Him [Comey] to End Flynn Investigation”.
There is a difference between expressing a hope that the investigation will end in a particular way, and ordering that the investigation end in a particular way. Assuming that Trump used the words reported, people can argue over whether Trump intended to convey an order to end the investigation with his words. But the NYT was dishonest in taking sides in that argument by reporting its characterization of the conversation as being the actual conversation.
Most of the media has simply reported the NYT’s characterization of the alleged conversation as being the actual conversation.
It is so sad to see American journalism sink even lower than it has before the NYT article was published.
Have you checked the curtains?
Maybe he's insecure? ( OK, Good point Ann)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.