• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Former FBI Director Mueller appointed special counsel for Trump-Russia investigation

Wow. That's way different from the media spin. Definitely helps Trump quite a bit.

Not really.

Trump tried to use this to say Rosenstein was recommending Comey be fired. Rather Rosenstein wrote a memo about the justifiable issues with Comey after Trump had already decided to fire him.
 

Mattenth

Member
Trump tried to use this to say Rosenstein was recommending Comey be fired. Rather Rosenstein wrote a memo about the justifiable issues with Comey after Trump had already decided to fire him.

I don't see how this memo goes to "Rosenstein threatened to quit" or "Rosenstein is compromised."

It sounds like he wrote the memo on his own volition and agreed with the decision to fire Comey.

Given...
- a) Comey and McCabe both testified that White House didn't interfere with the investigation
- b) Roenstein effectively signed off on the decision to fire Comey
... it's going to be very hard to get to "obstruction of justice."
 
Wow. That's way different from the media spin. Definitely helps Trump quite a bit.

Not really when he also included this:

WN4FeII.jpg
 

TS-08

Member
I don't see how this memo goes to "Rosenstein threatened to quit" or "Rosenstein is compromised."

It sounds like he wrote the memo on his own volition and agreed with the decision to fire Comey.

Given...
- a) Comey and McCabe both testified that White House didn't interfere with the investigation
- b) Roenstein effectively signed off on the decision to fire Comey
... it's going to be very hard to get to "obstruction of justice."

When did Comey say the White House didn't interfere with the investigation?
 
I don't see how this memo goes to "Rosenstein threatened to quit" or "Rosenstein is compromised."

It sounds like he wrote the memo on his own volition and agreed with the decision to fire Comey.

Given...
- a) Comey and McCabe both testified that White House didn't interfere with the investigation
- b) Roenstein effectively signed off on the decision to fire Comey
... it's going to be very hard to get to "obstruction of justice."

Comey never said the White House didn't interfere. That's spin from r/the_donald.

He said he's never been ordered by the DOJ or the AG to end an investigation without reason.
 
That's not what the term Witch Hunt even kinda means.

It all hinges on the victims being the "witches", which of course, don't exist and is merely an excuse to hunt down people with opinions they don't like.

Actually making their opposition the witches in this metaphor, they're implicitly doing a witch hunt of their own. They didn't get the idea of a Witch Hunt so hard they created their own Witch Hunt.

The point of the cartoon is that the media and Shadobama are on a witch hunt since Trump is innocent (lol). But the author believes Obama and the media are guilty of everything they accuse Trump of, which is why they're depicted as the true witches here.
 

Mattenth

Member
When did Comey say the White House didn't interfere with the investigation?

Had to go look up the exact quote:

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

Now, I'll admit that the question is specifically about the DOJ and not Trump or the White House... but still...
 

Mattenth

Member
But still what?

You still have:
- McCabe saying under oath that the White House hasn't interfered. He would have known about these conversations/memos.
- Rosenstiein apparently signing off on firing Comey.

"There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date," McCabe said. “It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.” (source)

I'm just saying that it's going to be really hard to make an obstruction of justice case when two key individuals have effectively stated that they didn't think it was obstruction.
 

KingV

Member
I don't see how this memo goes to "Rosenstein threatened to quit" or "Rosenstein is compromised."

It sounds like he wrote the memo on his own volition and agreed with the decision to fire Comey.

Given...
- a) Comey and McCabe both testified that White House didn't interfere with the investigation
- b) Roenstein effectively signed off on the decision to fire Comey
... it's going to be very hard to get to "obstruction of justice."

The obstruction happened when he asked Comey to give up the investigation. The firing was just the icing on the cake.
 

Surfinn

Member
You still have:
- McCabe saying under oath that the White House hasn't interfered. He would have known about these conversations/memos.
- Rosenstiein apparently signing off on firing Comey.



I'm just saying that it's going to be really hard to make an obstruction of justice case when two key individuals have effectively stated that they didn't think it was obstruction.

Wasn't it stated somewhere that Comey kept these memos/notes very guarded? Is it confirmed that McCabe/Rosenstein knew about them during the time these statements were made?

Seems like the President of the U.S. asking people to leave the room so he can ask the director of the FBI to call off the Flynn investigation is pretty clear obstruction, if the memos end up to be real/true (we have no reason to believe they won't be).
 

Mattenth

Member
The obstruction happened when he asked Comey to give up the investigation. The firing was just the icing on the cake.

Then why did McCabe testify that the White House hasn't attempted to impede the investigation? He would have been aware of Comey's conversations with Trump.

Wasn't it stated somewhere that Comey kept these memos/notes very guarded? Is it confirmed that McCabe/Rosenstein knew about them during the time these statements were made?

It's not confirmed. But come on - he's #2 at the FBI. You're saying Comey would have told close allies, but not his second-in-command?

I'm not happy with this outcome... I'm still wondering WTF is happening with Page/Manafort/Flynn. But this doesn't feel like a "smoking gun" to me anymore.
 

TS-08

Member
You still have:
- McCabe saying under oath that the White House hasn't interfered. He would have known about these conversations/memos.
- Rosenstiein apparently signing off on firing Comey.



I'm just saying that it's going to be really hard to make an obstruction of justice case when two key individuals have effectively stated that they didn't think it was obstruction.

Rosenstein didn't "sign off" on the firing. Not in the way you're trying to make it sound. Read his statement on what his memo was thoroughly.
 

Surfinn

Member
It's not confirmed. But come on - he's #2 at the FBI. You're saying Comey would have told close allies, but not his second-in-command?

I'm not sure. I'm just going off of what has been reported. But doesn't the conversation between Trump/Comey sound like pretty clear obstruction to you?
 

TS-08

Member
Then why did McCabe testify that the White House hasn't attempted to impede the investigation? He would have been aware of Comey's conversations with Trump.



It's not confirmed. But come on - he's #2 at the FBI. You're saying Comey would have told close allies, but not his second-in-command?

I'm not happy with this outcome... I'm still wondering WTF is happening with Page/Manafort/Flynn. But this doesn't feel like a "smoking gun" to me anymore.

It's possible that McCabe was aware of at least some of the memos, but doesn't consider Trump's attempts to persuade Comey to drop the investigation as "impeding the investigation," if it was able to proceed uninterrupted. The obstruction, if there was any, will probably come from Comey's firing itself, not just from the memos. The memos would serve as evidence of what motivated Trump to fire Comey.
 

KingV

Member
Then why did McCabe testify that the White House hasn't attempted to impede the investigation? He would have been aware of Comey's conversations with Trump.

Would he? Because he specifically said that he can't comment on comeys conversations with the President.

Are you saying the memo isn't real? Are you saying it's a lie?

When the President asks the FBI director to end an investigation into him, it doesn't really matter how nicely worded it is, its an attempt at obstruction. Especially when he then fires that person and goes on National TV and says "yeah that's why I fired him".

It's pretty cut and dry.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
t's not confirmed. But come on - he's #2 at the FBI. You're saying Comey would have told close allies, but not his second-in-command?

It's very possible he would not have told his second in command as he would have known he would become acting director were Comey to be gone. And from Whitte's comments it seems Comey did not fully trust Rosenstein.

Until we see the memos and hear testimony of who knew about them, we can't infer that Rosenstein knew everything or anything for that matter.

It's similar to the Clapper testimony last week. He said no investigations that he knew about. While also saying there may not have been a reason for the CIA to know about it even if it did exist, plus he left a while ago. Then the Donald twitter spin is "no investigations exist". The subtleties of the language make all the difference.
 

Mattenth

Member
The obstruction, if there was any, will probably come from Comey's firing itself, not just from the memos.

The obstruction happened when he asked Comey to give up the investigation. The firing was just the icing on the cake.

Made me chuckle

Would he? Because he specifically said that he can't comment on comeys conversations with the President.

Are you saying the memo isn't real? Are you saying it's a lie?

No, I'm saying that the memo was apparently insufficient in convincing McCabe that the White House was obstructing justice.

McCabe also swore that he would tell the Senate committee if there was any attempt to obstruct justice. As far as we know, he hasn't done so despite having the memos in his possession.
 

TS-08

Member
Made me chuckle



No, I'm saying that the memo was apparently insufficient in convincing McCabe that the White House was obstructing justice.

McCabe also swore that he would tell the Senate committee if there was any attempt to obstruct justice. As far as we know, he hasn't done so.

You're clueless.
 
I love random percentages pulled out of one's ass on the internet. There's a greater than 0% and less than 100% chance the above post is accurate.

In other words, we have no idea what the probability is and ought to embrace the uncertainty as we get to the bottom of what happened and how much of an impact did it have. And given the French elections, should it have had that impact?
 

cackhyena

Member
Made me chuckle



No, I'm saying that the memo was apparently insufficient in convincing McCabe that the White House was obstructing justice.

McCabe also swore that he would tell the Senate committee if there was any attempt to obstruct justice. As far as we know, he hasn't done so despite having the memos in his possession.

Does it matter if he believes it was an attempt? It was, plain and simple unless you think Comey is lying. Asking to make it go away for Flynn is an attempt at obstruction. It's as Ann as the nose on plain's face.
 
In other words, we have no idea what the probability is and ought to embrace the uncertainty as we get to the bottom of what happened and how much of an impact did it have. And given the French elections, should it have had that impact?

Except the reasons it didn't have an impact on the French election were:

- Regulations against political stories during the 72 hours leading up through election day
- Macron's team literally had prepared for the inevitable cyber-attack by the Russians because they were expecting it to happen
 
Except the reasons it didn't have an impact on the French election were:

- Regulations against political stories during the 72 hours leading up through election day
- Macron's team literally had prepared for the inevitable cyber-attack by the Russians because they were expecting it to happen

The hacking did have an impact. Macron won handily for a number of reasons including some of what you outlined. But in my view your post is a bit misleading and needs to be built out: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/world/europe/macron-hacking-attack-france.html
 

Surfinn

Member
Something I'm not really understanding: what's the difference between a special counsel and a select committee? Why do some see this special counsel as not being good enough?
 
Top Bottom