orphious wrote:
Who impeded anything? Trump? By telling Comey to proceed with the investigation? Asking him to lay off of FLynn did not impede anything.
I'm confused by this. Didn't Trump pressure Comey to end the investigatoin rather than telling him proceed with it? According to Comey, and with some corroboration from Trump himself? And I can't see how ending the investigation does not fit the definition of "impede." Termination, to me, is the ultimate impediment.
Trump's corroboration:
Quote:
“I faced great pressure because of
Russia. That’s taken off.”
And the context of "taken off" is, very clearly, the firing of Comey, which Trump believed would allow people under his direction to change the nature of the investigation, or possibly end it. That's an interpretation of that statement, not a fact, but it's an extremely plausible explanation. You'd have to do some mental gymnastics to come up with some other motivation that produces those words.
Quote:
Nor did firing Comey.
Well when you fire someone because they didn't do something you asked them to, you can then hire someone who does what you ask. That's the beauty of being a boss. And I'd think this is a fairly clear concept.
Only in this case Comey outmaneuvered Trump by leaking his notes, which then forced the Justice Department to appoint a Special Prosecutor. At least that's my understanding: that Comey's action are a possible direct cause of the appointment of the Special Prosecutor. In Comey's words that was his specific intent in leaking. And since it was the actual result, it sounds plausible to me.
Deep state, man, deep state.