Posted on 12/02/2017 1:25:05 PM PST by BurgessKoch
That is not a money quote at all. It is utter nonsense is what it is. Also, he did not pressure Comey in any way shape or form either. He said I hope you go easy on him, he’s a good man.
The president has the Constitutional power to stop any investigation that is being done from within its own branch, for example an FBI investigation of Watergate.
Now if Nixon interfered with a Congressional investigation, that would be obstruction by a president.
•Friday January 20th – Inauguration
•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.
•Wednesday January 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.
Did James Comey Lie Under Oath? - it would seem so ... because he testified that he saw Trump's tweet that Comey might have been himself taped - on 5/12/17 - but the article in which Comey leaked to the NYT was published the day before!
There is now evidence of obstruction of justice, certainly - by Yates + Comey & the rest of the Obama gang, all paid for and orchestrated via these setups & bogus dossier by ... Hillary ;)
Now Mueller has brought forth the long expected, obvious and even granted offense(s) by Flynn ... and with it the premise that Flynn and Trump transition team were wiretapped based on FISA likely obtained via bogus dossier.
BUSTED!
Democrats had huge majorities in both houses...hit a history book..really
Nixon tried to use the CIA to block a FBI investigation....thats what was on the smoking gun tape of June 23, 1972...thats what his “obstruction” charge was.
Trump denies even saying that to Comey...Comey alreday testified that he felt no pressure to stop his investigation...a President will not be impeached over a stupid tweet...these idiots are desparate.
Yes, I know what the charge was. I'm saying that it was an unconstitutional charge.
“I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,”
...
I think Trump is combining two separate events. It’s a Tweet, not testimony.
Jeez, the liberals are the most illogical rabid skunks anyone could run into. Their reaction certifies that this is the end of the line on the Russian BS story. There is nothing left but to call the President “unstable.” It is the end of the line, the last card to play, the one they wound up playing against Reagan.
Come on everyone . . . this is too easy. Everyone is forgetting the past. Flynn was interviewed by FBI in January. So President Trump already knew what was going on.
14 Feb 2017 . . . LA Times
FBI agents interviewed Michael Flynn last month about his contacts with Russian ambassador, official says
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-fbi-agents-interviewed-michael-flynn-1487106830-htmlstory.html
Excellent summary. much needed to keep in perspective.
The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, Nixon resigned before the full trial. The first article was obstruction of justice. So as far as impeachment is concerned, there is precedent for obstruction of justice as a cause.
why on earth are FakeNewsMSM & the rest of the anti-Trump swamp acting like Trump wasn’t supposed to know about the Flynn/FBI interview before Flynn exited?
what a writing lineup at NYT for this one!
14 Feb: NYT: Flynn’s Downfall Sprang From ‘Eroding Level of Trust’
By PETER BAKER, GLENN THRUSH, MAGGIE HABERMAN, ADAM GOLDMAN and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS; Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt contributed reporting.
Just days into his new position as President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn found himself in a meeting that any White House official would dread. Face to face with F.B.I. agents, he was grilled about a phone call he had had with Russia’s ambassador.
What exactly Mr. Flynn said has not been disclosed, but current and former government officials said on Tuesday that investigators had come away believing that he was not entirely forthcoming. Soon after, the acting attorney general decided to notify the White House, setting in motion a chain of events that cost Mr. Flynn his job and thrust Mr. Trump’s fledgling administration into a fresh crisis.
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, revealed that Mr. Trump had known about concerns that Mr. Flynn lied for more than two weeks before demanding his resignation on Monday night...
Around the same time, Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States...
Soon after the Jan. 23 briefing, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, sent agents to interview Mr. Flynn. If he told the agents what he said publicly for more than a week after that interview — that his conversations with the ambassador had been innocuous and did not involve sanctions — then he could face legal trouble. If the authorities concluded that he knowingly lied to the F.B.I., it could expose him to a felony charge.
It was not clear whether Mr. Flynn had a lawyer for his interview or whether anyone at the White House knew the interview was happening. But they knew afterward because Ms. Yates, with the support of Mr. Comey, reached out to Donald F. McGahn II, the new White House counsel, on Jan. 26 to give him what Mr. Spicer called a “heads up” about the discrepancy.Mr. Trump was told “immediately,” Mr. Spicer said, and directed Mr. McGahn to look into the matter. After an “extensive review” that lasted several days, Mr. McGahn concluded that nothing in the conversation had violated federal law, Mr. Spicer said...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/fbi-interviewed-mike-flynn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The "play" or "framing" as you call it apparently begins on January 12
I found it interesting. Not a damn thing to do with Russian Collusion. Everything about destroying Flynn and Trump
Nov. 8: Flynn’s piece criticizing Gulen appears in The Hill. Gulen is described as “a shady Islamic mullah.”
November 10: President-elect Trump meets with President Obama in the Oval Office. During their hour-and-a-half meeting, Obama expresses deep concerns about Flynn, whom he fired as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and cautions Trump against hiring him.
Nov. 17: President-elect Trump names Flynn his intended national security adviser. The position does not require Senate approval.
Nov. 30: Flynn is informed he’s under investigation for his unreported lobbying.
Dec. 1: Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner meet with Kislyak at Trump Tower. In communications intercepted by American intelligence agencies, Kislyak later tells Moscow that Kushner advocated a private communications channel between Trump’s team and the Kremlin.
December 28th: Obama announces he has expelled 35 Russian diplomats and imposed a slate of new sanctions on Russia for interfering in the U.S. election.
December 29th: Flynn calls an unidentified senior official with the Trump transition team who was at Mar-a-Lago to ask what he should say to Kislyak
Flynn and Kislyak speak, after which Flynn again calls the transition official to inform him or her of the discussion. These calls were apparently on unsecured lines, and monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.
December 30th: Russian President Vladimir Putin announces he will not retaliate against the U.S. over the new sanctions. "Great move," Trump tweets of the decision. "I always knew he was very smart!"
January 12th: The Washington Post, citing a senior U.S. government official, reports the conversations between Flynn and Kislyak.
The Post’s David Ignatius reveals the conversations between Flynn and Kislyak. “What did Flynn say,” he wonders, “and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” The Logan Act bars unauthorized citizens from contacting foreign governments “with an intent to influence its measures or conduct in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”
January 15th: Vice President Mike Pence appears on Face the Nation, where he answers questions his about Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador. "I talked to Gen. Flynn about that conversation," Pence tells host John Dickerson. "They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia." The conversations took place, Pence confirms, but he reiterates they "had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions."
•Friday January 20th – Inauguration
Jan. 22: Flynn is sworn in as national security adviser.
•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.
According to the charging document, Flynn in that interview denied asking the Russians to having inappropriate conversations during the calls with Kislyak on Dec. 22 and 29.
Note: Yates revealed on Monday, Flynn does not have a lawyer present during questioning
•Wednesday January 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
Additional to your timeline
•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
Note "I told them again that there were a number of press accounts of statements that had been made by the vice president and other high-ranking White House officials about Gen. Flynn's conduct that we knew to be untrue. And we told them how we knew that this – how we had this information, how we had acquired it and how we knew that it was untrue." Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informs White House counsel Don McGahn that Flynn was lying about the nature of his calls with Kislyak and that this made him vulnerable to blackmail by Russia. The meeting takes place in McGahn’s office at the White House, a secure location.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.
January 30th: Yates calls McGhan to let him know he could review the underlying evidence against Flynn. Later that day, she announces that the Department of Justice will not enforce Trump's travel ban. She is fired that night.
February 9th: Mike Pence learns for the first time, according to media reports, that Flynn misled him about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Feb. 9: Flynn’s spokesman walks that back. Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up,” he tells The Post. According to NBC News, this was also the day that Pence learned about the Jan. 26 message from Yates.
February 10th: Asked about the reports Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak, Trump replies, "I don't know about that. I haven't seen it," and promises he'll "look into" the matter.
February 13th: Michael Flynn resigns.
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.