Obstruction of an Investigation?

Ok, folks. Maybe I’m just dumb, which is why I don’t understand. Riddle me this: Why are the Democrats screaming that President Trump potentially obstructed justice and interfered in a counter-intelligence investigation because he had dinner soon after his inauguration with now-fired FBI director James Comey to discuss Comey staying on as FBI director? Potentially “a federal offense,” they gasp.

Their argument seems to be that President Trump had no business asking if he himself were under investigation during that dinner interview. The President says that Comey assured him thrice (once at the dinner and twice over the phone) that no, he’s not under investigation, probably because, as some convincingly argue, that would be grounds to dismiss Comey, given that the FBI isn’t authorized to investigate a sitting president. That’s the job of the House of Representatives.

In addition, the Democrats seem to believe that it’s improper for the president to be informed about the progress of a counterintelligence investigation or to ask about it. Remember that.

Now that President Trump has fired Comey for cause, the Democrats continue to scream obstruction of the investigation because, they “reason,” Comey being gone will somehow stymie the investigation. This, despite the fact that Comey’s temporary acting successor Andrew McCabe testified under oath that the investigation is fully resourced, going forward, and, most important, that the President in no way has tried to interfere with the investigation.

What I’d like to know–what really astounds me–how is it that Sally Yates is not being accused of obstructing the investigation? According to an excellent article at The Conservative Treehouse, Yates, acting attorney general, went to the White House to inform White House counsel Don McGahn about conversations that she had apparently been given access to–conversations intercepted by the NSA that involved Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Flynn’s name, as we all know by now, was somehow “unmasked.” As a result, Yates knew who it was who was talking to the ambassador. From the story:

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.”

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.” …

The way I see this, Yates was discussing this “sensitive” topic of a counterintelligence investigation not only with Priestap but also with others in the DOJ as well as in the intelligence community. All of these people were apprised of the investigation. Aware of it.  Discussing it.

However, somehow it’s supposed to be forbidden to tell the President or for him to ask about the status of the investigation, even though he himself is not under investigation.

Yates went to the White House specifically to tell McGahn, in essence, of the existence of the investigation (something that the ever-ethical Comey wouldn’t testify about before Congress, because he claimed it’s policy to never admit or deny the existence of an investigation).

Yates told McGahn basically what Flynn said in his ‘taped’ conversations and how they differed from what Vice President Pence understood Flynn to have discussed. Yates telegraphed to McGahn that they KNOW what Flynn really said. How? Obviously, she read transcripts or heard recordings of Flynn’s calls.

Had McGahn told President Trump about Flynn and at that point in time President Trump had fired Flynn, would the Democrats now be claiming that by firing him the President obstructed the investigation? Well, you can bet your boots that they would have.

But how is it that Yates was not interfering in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation by telling the White House counsel about the investigation itself and detailing what had been found with regard to Flynn?

Keep in mind that all of these people work for President Trump. They are part of the executive branch. They all report, ultimately, to the President of the United States. They all know about this counterintelligence investigation, but the President can’t be trusted and must be kept in the dark, apparently.

The New York Times reported that Yates told McGahn about Flynn because the alleged misrepresentations he made to Vice President Pence might subject Flynn  to blackmail by the Russians. Yates et al. expected President Trump to fire Flynn, but he didn’t. Why should he have? The threat of blackmail would disappear once the President was apprised of the “truth.” About what would the Russians blackmail Flynn, once his boss already knew the truth–that Flynn misremembered vaguely referencing the sanctions in his discussions with the Russian ambassador?

In any case, turnabout would seem to be fair play. If Sally Yates did not obstruct the investigation by revealing it to the White House counsel who, in turn, of course, revealed it to the President, then how could the President have obstructed the investigation simply by asking if he himself were a target, with the answer being no?





154 responses to “Obstruction of an Investigation?

  1. Tucker!!

  2. Anybody else think it’s fishy that Weiner gets a plea deal and faces only 21-27 months in jail, IF ANY? Oh, yeah. And he has to register as a sex offender, which we already knew he is. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/trump-predicted-anthony-weiners-collapse-2012-2013/

    In any case, what effect will this sudden closing of the case have on the potential re-investigation of the Clinton emails? Will he get his laptop back, so he can wipe it or has Comey already done that for him, like he deleted Mills’s and Abedin’s evidence? Why does this Rosenstein claim that he stands by the memo he wrote about Comey’s offense, including that his handling of the email investigation was “wrong and unfair?” http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/deputy-ag-rosenstein-doubles-comey-memo-wrote-believe-stand/

    UNFAIR to WHOM? Hillary? Or the American People who have been duped by the Clintons so many times as they commit crime after crime after crime and get away with it?

    Did Trump allow some guy who has sympathy for the devil known as Clinton become deputy attorney general–the guy who just unilaterally appointed Mueller?

    As for Weiner, compare his potential punishment to this guy:

    20 YEARS, not months. So another slap on the wrist for a connected guy like Weiner. Another point: In Weiner’s case, there really was an underaged girl. With this Secret Service guy, the “girl” was an adult cop.

    This is just like Hillary and Huma getting out of jail free while that military guy spends a year in jail for taking a photo of his ship.

  3. I suppose Mueller has no freaking CONFLICT OF INTEREST here, does he? He’s the guy who delivered the uranium to Russia while FBI Director under Obama?

  4. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller-idUSKCN18F2KK

    This one is interesting. It seems that unless the DOJ issues a “waiver,” then Mueller CANNOT legally investigate Kushner or Manafort (and maybe others) because there’s a rule against government lawyers investigating clients of their former law firm.

  5. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-how-did-russiagate-start-w482262

    It takes ROLLING STONE to ask questions about this bizarre thing (is it a thing?) called Russiagate. Good luck, RS, trying to make sense of James Clapper. What you need to remember is that he’s a known perjurer who somehow (as do most DemoncRATs) got away with it (and who knows what else)?

  6. facebkwallflower

    OK. Gonna be caddy for a moment.
    I am so disappointed in Melania’s fashion of more and more wearing Michelle’s “boob belt” style. Granted, anything the current First Lady wears ends up looking elegant as she is so stunningly beautiful but I really thought we were done with those hideous belts and they are so last year anyways.

    I really hope the next election someone campaigns on “NMBB” – No More Boob Belts.

  7. Dershowitz is on a mission to sound the alarms far and wide: “Yo Dems, let it go!” “Close the lid on Pandora’s Box!”. He’s applying a tourniquet … the proverbial finger/dyke… He’s merely warning his good friends…

    • Think it’s going to work or that they’ll heed him? He can’t make up his mind, though. Not long ago, he was out there whining that Trump’s actions are akin to nuclear war. What a clown..

      Four days ago: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/alan-dershowitz-charge-sitting-president-cnntv/

      “Defense attorney and constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz said Monday that President Donald Trump is now facing “the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president” after reports that he shared highly classified information with Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador during a White House visit last week. …”

      And what a joke! The President is totally within his Constitutional power to share whatever he wants with anyone he wants. In fact, iirc, he’s the ONLY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY authorized to disseminate classified information at his own pleasure. As an elite lawyer, Dershowitz ought to know that. I knew it, and I’m not a lawyer!

      Now: http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-is-the-crime-dershowitz-goes-on-wild-rant-says-muellers-powers-limited/

      “[D]uring a pretty wild little segment on CNN, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz let it be known that he doesn’t think Mueller has any jurisdiction when it comes to investigating potential collusion between Trump and the Russians over election interference. Why? Because Dershowitz doesn’t think that is a criminal act.

      ‘Let’s assume that’s true,’ he exclaimed. ‘Show me the criminal statute. I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was saying, show me the man I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?!’ …”

      (Too late, Alan. Obama set the standard and set us on the road to a quasi Stalinist Russia-like country, already. It’s Barry’s peeps doing this to the President. Where were you the last 8 years?)

      Now: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/19/alan-dershowitz-questions-russia-special-counsel-says-theres-no-crime

      “Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller could actually vindicate President Donald Trump, rather than bring about his downfall.

      On “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn’t see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

      He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected. [Methinks he may be saying this because he knows some of his own choice candidates colluded to get foreign help to get elected. Ya think?]

      “That’s political wrongdoing, but it’s just not a crime,” Dershowitz said. “Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime.””

      The thing is, can they impeach on “political wrongdoing?” What’s the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors? I think it’s anything that Congress decides it is.

      Now: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/20/alan-dershowitz-pulverizes-liberal-anti-trump-russia-theories-and-nearly-leaves-carlson-speechless/

      “Dershowitz explained that even if Democratic theories about Trump and Russia are true — that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia last year to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign and bolster Trump’s chances at winning the White House — it amounts only to “political wrongdoing.”

      “Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated [by the Trump-Russia collusion],” Dershowitz said. “And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime.” … Later in the interview, Dershowitz also destroyed the Democratic claim that Trump committed obstruction of justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey earlier this month. Dershowitz said that Trump isn’t committing obstruction if he’s performing his constitutional duties, which he said involves directing the Department of Justice as head of the executive branch.

      “I don’t see any crime here at all,” Dershowitz said, referring to Comey’s dismissal.”

      Of course, NOW the media has taken that to heart and so they claim that it IS a criminal case that Mueller’s investigating and that the “person of interest” is in the WH and close to Trump. They’re naming Kushner as the target. Financial crimes being investigated.

      I said before that they’re going to go after everyone close to Trump. Punish them. Excoriate them. Destroy their reputations. Make Trump cut ties with them, so he ends up sitting alone and bereft in the WH.

      We can only hope that Kushner is clean. Who knows if he is? He’s NOT Trump, though, so what does it mean if he’s accused? Didn’t the Clintons have plenty of associates that committed criminal acts? Never hurt them, that I can see.

  8. GREAT AGAIN: Unlike …..”Obama”, Trump doesn’t bow…
    Receives highest civilian honor…
    Greeted With Deal$…
    $350B Arms Accord…
    Jets, Princes, Prancing Horses…
    President, Cabinet members in sword dance…
    Riyadh to open militant-monitoring center…


    • Yeah. Right. Who believes it? Not I! Did he turn the calls over to the FBI for investigation? Or, like the DNC server, is it all hidden and covered up? If they tracked those calls back, would they find friends of Al? I wonder if it was hard to put on a “white supremacist” accent.

    • What’d he say?

      “During a segment on AC360, Cooper verbally sparred with Lord, a CNN political commentator, over revelations that Trump reportedly told Russian officials that former FBI Director James Comey is a “nut job” who was adding pressure to the ongoing investigation of possible interference in the 2016 election. Clearly frustrated with Lord’s response to the matter, Cooper interrupted the conservative pundit and interjected with a not-so-subtle jab.

      “If he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it,” Cooper told Lord. “I don’t know what he would do that you would not defend.” …”

      In the same vein, I’d like to ask an opinion of THIS op-ed that ran today:

      “When it comes to men and daughters, it seemed questionable that anyone could out-creep President Donald Trump and Ivanka. But then along comes Michael Cohen, who makes the president’s creepiness seem almost tolerable.

      Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, recently posted to his 218,000 Twitter followers a black-and-white photograph of his 21-year-old daughter posed provocatively, wearing only black hosiery and a lacy bra. …”

      I don’t care about Cohen. What appalled me was a lamestream newspaper making that crack about President Trump and his daughter. There are numerous photos out there of Obama being what some, including me, would consider “creepy,” holding hands with his older daughter. They would NEVER, EVER, EVER make such a crack or a characterization about Obama and his girls.

    • Because they didn’t want to know. Their job as “investigators” was to shut down any investigation. It’s like a bookend to the “firemen” in Fahrenheit 451, who started fires instead of putting them out. All to SUPPRESS TRUTH.

  9. I ponder’ will her FRIGGIN’ HEAD fit THRU IT??? OUT MAXIE” out


    • Opposite world and Barry rule: whatever he says, the opposite is the truth.

      • Add this: If it’s true that neither could figure out how to make coffee, then one must wonder why we allowed such dolts to run the country (or school lunch programs). And they call Trump stupid.

    • Ridiculous. If some student makes jewelry as a hobby, would submitting a necklace qualify as a senior thesis? Doesn’t Harvard have standards for the legitimate FORMAT of a senior thesis?

  10. try & stop …a >>>>B A B Y !!!! ha …BUTT’ WTP …WILL!!!! SOON!


  11. the C U L T of O’ ……. ha …sicko’s R still alive…

  12. Thousands flee after loud bangs at concert…
    Frantic parents hunt for missing kids…
    ‘Appalling Suicide Attack’…
    59+ INJURED…


    • Stunning? I’d sure be stunned if I saw THAT out in public. Really. She (?) doesn’t have much to hold it up to begin with. Gee, are those the pre-torn, raggedy designer (white) jeans I read so much about, the ones that cost hundreds of dollars? Lately there are far more photo pieces about THEM than about the current first family. I really wanted to see the evening gown that Melania wore recently, but I can’t find a pic anywhere. It was just flashed on the screen of the nightly news last night. It looked beautiful but I couldn’t get a good look because it was almost subliminal–they got rid of it in a snap. Now about that first pair of pants Moo is wearing–the taupe (gray? olive?) ones. Notice the bizarre tailoring of the crotch? I saw other pics yesterday on a UK site and there was the mysterious bulge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s