Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
I believe Comey is going to disappoint you. He gave some testimony that the FBI has never had to deal with someone trying to stop an investigation. His farewell letter included words stating that the president has every right to fire him even though he didn't have to write that, and would actually be a bit odd to write if he thought he was being fired for not stopping the investigation. Most importantly he has to downplay the significance of Trump's dinner comments to avoid getting in trouble himself.
This has already been addressed, but I want to make it clear to David that his post is straight up Fox News/RWNJ stuff that is completely false. Almost everyone itt has already seen it refuted, but for David, here it is again.
Straight from the 5/3 Comey transcript, Hirono asks if the AG or DOJ officials can halt an FBI investigation, and if it's happened. Comey answers "in theory yes," but that "it's not happened in my experience."
That's it. Neither the question nor the answer reference the President.
RW liars are spinning it to mean that Comey is either perjuring himself if he really thinks Trump asked him to drop/halt the investigation, or if Comey doesn't think that Trump's comments amount to obstruction, then his memo is a nothing burger. But all that is false, Comey's testimony had nothing to do with Trump asking him to let it go.
Next, he does not have to downplay the dinner comments to avoid getting in trouble. There is no trouble for Comey to get into due to this, there is no perjury case or dereliction of duty re: obstruction of justice case.
https://lawfareblog.com/no-jim-comey-not-legal-jeopardy
This link shows that the dereliction of duty claim is false. The relevant code they cite is 18 USC 4, which says "conceals", i.e. affirmative steps to conceal are required, not just failure to report a crime.
Furthermore, it is reported that Comey did discuss the Trump dinner request with others at the FBI, thereby fulfilling the reporting requirement of 18 USC 4 even if it applied, which it doesn't.
So your conclusion that Comey will downplay the dinner request as not being obstruction of justice is unfounded, regardless of whatever ends up happening.