When will Trump be impeached?

Comey was so appalled by the request that he wanted to document it, sources said. Comey shared it with FBI senior officials, according to sources.

Yeah right. Tabloid journalism.

Don't you have a job or something kid?

You all have convinced me.

I would not bet against resignation/impeachment.

Upper level people collect all the information they can to make an airtight case before making an accusation.

Tell that to Hillary… He publically jumped right back into that investigation in late October 2016, just days before the election.   Not much I must first collect all the facts……before rekindling that investigation.  Further, Comey has shown that he is not afraid to battle Presidents, as he did with W. Bush over the NSA’s warrantless wiretap program and terrorist interrogation procedures.  He threatened to resign over the NSA program. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Trump-Comey-Timeline/2017/05/16/id/790545/
A person who had seen the memo told The Associated Press what Comey had written. The person was not authorized to discuss the memo by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. The existence of the memo was first reported by The New York Times.
           

Further, on March 20, 2017, Comey testified before Congress regarding the investigation of possible links between Trump associates and Russian officials.  At this time why didn’t Comey mention the Trump “encounter” regarding Flynn?  Flynn was a Trump associate, and it was the U.S. surveillance of Flynn and his conversations with the “Russians,” which were illegally released to the Washington Post (that name keeps coming up), that really put the “Russian” investigation in the public’s eye. 

If Trump was trying to obstruct Comey regarding Flynn, then Trump was actually trying to obstruct the FBI regarding the “Russian” investigation.  Even if Comey did not publically mention the Trump encounter to congress, should not the FBI have still opened an obstruction of justice case against Trump, if that is what Comey really believed had happened?

The anonymous source said that Comey kept it from the FBI team doing the “Russian” investigation.  Why?  If Trump was trying to obstruct this investigation, it should be included as part of the investigation.

Remember, Comey also told Senators Feinstein and Grassley that the FBI was not investigating Trump.

Again, based on Comey’s history, he was not afraid to do battle with Presidents.

If you want to actually read a real life legal viewpoint of the Comey memo I suggest you read the entire piece by Jonathan Turley linked below.  I provided some excerpts, but the entire piece should be read. 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified during the Clinton impeachment and serves as the lead defense counsel in the last impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate for Judge Thomas Porteous.

OPINION: The Comey memo offers zero evidence to impeach Trump
By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor - 05/17/17 06:00 AM EDT

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/333764-opinion-the-comey-memo-offers-zero-proof-to-impeach

A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo……
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another." Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.

Yet, it also raises questions of Comey’s judgment. The account suggests that Comey was so concerned about the conversation that he wrote a memorandum for record. But that would suggest that Comey thought the president was trying to influence the investigation but then said nothing to the Justice Department or to his investigation team. The report says that, while Comey may have told a couple of colleagues at the FBI, he did not tell the investigation team “so the details of the conversation would not affect the investigation.”

Why? If he thought the president was trying to derail the investigation, that would seem relevant to the scope of the investigation. It is like a bank president seeking to close a fraud investigation, but the contact in the FBI decided not to tell bank investigators. One explanation would be that Comey did not view Trump as a potential target of the Flynn investigation, and thus did not view the uncomfortable meeting as relevant to the investigation team (and Trump has maintained that Comey told him three times that he was not a target). However, that would make the case even weaker for allegations that Trump was trying to protect himself or his inner circle by seeking closure for Flynn.

There is a separate question of whether this type of alleged obstruction could be the basis for impeachment. As someone who has been down that long impeachment road before, I would again advocate caution. Last night, respected former presidential advisor David Gergen said that, with the Comey memo, we are now “in impeachable territory.” If so, we have one foot on the shore and one in a raging surf. Before we start an impeachment proceeding, we need to be on terra firma. It requires more than uncomfortable meetings or ill-considered disclosures.


What the Ashcroft “Hospital Showdown” on NSA spying was all about
How the government sought to justify blanket collection of Internet metadata.
Julian Sanchez - 7/29/2013, 6:00 AM

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/what-the-ashcroft-hospital-showdown-on-nsa-spying-was-all-about/

The infamous showdown took place in March 2004, while Ashcroft was recovering from illness in a hospital bed. Acting attorney general James Comey—now President Obama’s nominee to head the FBI—was refusing to reauthorize one component of the secret surveillance program. Comey concluded that it was illegal. This prompted White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to rush to Ashcroft’s hospital room in hopes of getting the ailing AG to countermand Comey, who was tipped off about Gonzales’ plan and sped there as well.......


               

I’m still looking for a link so that I can read the memo.

Some excerpts.

  http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-james-comey-memo-fbi/2017/05/16/id/790555/

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that former FBI Director James Comey's memo on his February conversation with President Donald Trump "has to be seen" because "tone is everything."

"For a president – and tone is everything – that's why the memo has to be seen and that's why, if there are tapes, we should hear them," Dershowitz told Anderson Cooper on CNN.

"If the president politely suggests to the director of the FBI: 'He's a good guy, [Michael] Flynn. I would appreciate if you let him off the hook. I fired him.'
"That doesn't become" a case of obstruction of justice," he said.

               

lol you read Birthermax. We should all take you so seriously.

I’m still looking for a link so that I can read the memo.

Some excerpts.

  http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-james-comey-memo-fbi/2017/05/16/id/790555/

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that former FBI Director James Comey's memo on his February conversation with President Donald Trump "has to be seen" because "tone is everything."

"For a president – and tone is everything – that's why the memo has to be seen and that's why, if there are tapes, we should hear them," Dershowitz told Anderson Cooper on CNN.

"If the president politely suggests to the director of the FBI: 'He's a good guy, [Michael] Flynn. I would appreciate if you let him off the hook. I fired him.'
"That doesn't become" a case of obstruction of justice," he said.

               

lol you read Birthermax. We should all take you so seriously.

And we should take you seriously?  Or anyone with "proof" Trump should be impeached?
If there is proof that justifies impeachment, this information should NOT be readily available.  Lol wait a little before making a judgment, lol you made that judgment before he was even President... Good on you.  Keep up the good fight. 



 

Nice job answering eastreef's questions guys.

My first question is if Comey was so appalled by what happened on February 14, why did he wait until May 16 to apparently release part of the memo?

Another question is why didn’t Comey mention this “incident” when he testified before congress?  It’s not exactly like Comey has not had the attention of congress during these last few months.

If he had publically read his memo into the congressional record while testifying, that would most likely have given congress no choice but to investigate.    Further, I would think it would have also made it virtually politically impossible for him to be fired.

My final question, at this time, is that Comey did make it clear to Senators Feinstein and Grassley that Trump was not under FBI investigation; therefore, if Comey really believed that Trump was trying to obstruct justice, why didn’t Comey start an obstruction of justice investigation against Trump?

What? Answer his questions based on conjecture and false equivalencies?

Hopefully, all questions will be asked and answered in the forthcoming congressional open hearings.

Those questions are not based on conjecture and false equivalence. How are his questions conjecture and false equivalence?

As the Director of the FBI, if his investigation was being obstructed he had a duty to report it to Congress when he testified in between the time he wrote the memo and when he was fired. Asking why he didn't is a direct question as to why he didn't perform his duty as required by law

.

lol you read Birthermax. We should all take you so seriously.

Do you have any critical thinking skills? Whether or not newsmax is a great news source or not is irrelevant A)To the content of the article as it details an interview by Dershowitz on CNN. Are you saying CNN is fake news?

Someone reading a questionable publication does not mean in and of itself that you should dismiss every single one of his points.

The correct thing to do is look through his sources and his claims using critical thinking, taking each one as it comes, not seeing his screenname or the source and isntantly dismissing it. That's not thinking, that's lazy reacting.

Yes, the fact that someone spent enough time on Newsmax to copy and paste a URL is pretty damning.



I'm sure ANY DAY NOW Newsmax will finally reveal their smoking gun video of Obama being born in Nairobi and get him impeached!

Yes, the fact that someone spent enough time on Newsmax to copy and paste a URL is pretty damning.

I'm sure ANY DAY NOW Newsmax will finally reveal their smoking gun video of Obama being born in Nairobi and get him impeached!

I intentionally use a variety of sources for the links that I use in my posts.  Although this is more time consuming it allows me to comfortably reply to criticisms such as yours.  For example, you cite Newsmax, but you fail to mention that in my other posts yesterday not only did I link Newsmax, but I also linked the Hill, BBC and Politico.com (many say Politico.com leans to the left and is anti-Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/333764-opinion-the-comey-memo-offers-zero-proof-to-impeach
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39931012     
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/trump-classified-russia-pushback-238415

Was it also inappropriate for me to use these three other sources? 

BTW, as others have mentioned, the Alan Dershowitz quote which I linked to Newsmax is from an Anderson Cooper interview on CNN.  I only used his quote in my post/link.  Apparently, because I used the Newsmax link you consider this quote not to be credible.  I intentionally used the Newsmax link to see what kind of reaction I would get.  Again, this link was not to a Newsmax Op-Ed, but to a quote.  My question to you is as follows.  If I had used a CNN link for the Dershowitz quote, would you have then considered it to be a credible quote?  In another words, would we now be having this discussion?  FYI, I think you could have made some comments about Dershowitz, but that is another story.

Attached is a list of some of the links that I have used in my posts.

Before I post a link I try to read the same story on at least two-three different “source” websites, and I look for common information. Again, this is more time consuming, but it makes for more accurate posting.

I have linked across the political spectrum and actually believe that my links would be weighted more towards what are considered to be anti-Trump news organizations than pro-Trump, if you were to add the different sources up. I would classify such links as Wikipedia as being a neutral link. 
 
But again, when posting a link it means that I have probably read the same information on other websites - not always possible - and then sometimes intentionally, and sometimes because of laziness, I choose one site to post.  Also remember, that many times many different news websites are only running/quoting a story from the original source. 

If you don't already know, FYI, a good website that shows/links news stories from many different sources is:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

This website links to news stories across the political spectrum.  It’s a really quick way to do research.  And, for you “defense’ aficionados, check out:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/

I have two challenges for you.  First, please look at the list of some of the links that I have used and then post whether I am only using sources that are considered to be Trump friendly.  Second, please post a listing of the links that you have used so that we can compare the variety of sources.   If you think that I may have “cooked” the list, just go back and look at my posts over the last 7-10 days, and then comment. Or, look at all of my posts/links since the Trump discussion has started.

https://twitter.com/InternetHippo/status/865010009259814912. This is amusing for those of us who seem to have too much time on our hands.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-path-to-impeachment

Yes, the fact that someone spent enough time on Newsmax to copy and paste a URL is pretty damning.

I'm sure ANY DAY NOW Newsmax will finally reveal their smoking gun video of Obama being born in Nairobi and get him impeached!

I intentionally use a variety of sources for the links that I use in my posts.  Although this is more time consuming it allows me to comfortably reply to criticisms such as yours.  For example, you cite Newsmax, but you fail to mention that in my other posts yesterday not only did I link Newsmax, but I also linked the Hill, BBC and Politico.com (many say Politico.com leans to the left and is anti-Trump.

Why do you link to elitist globalist fake news like CNN and BBC?

https://www.rt.com/usa/388744-democrats-russia-investigation-impeachment/

Lone congressman calls to impeach Trump on House Floor: Does it matter?
Published time: 17 May, 2017 19:09
Edited time: 18 May, 2017 13:25
Get short URL
 
© Carlos Barria / Reuters
1.8K
Representative Al Green (D-Texas) has called for impeachment proceedings to begin against President Donald Trump. His speech on the House Floor came as a group of Democrats distanced themselves from calls for impeachment.
“I rise today with a heavy heart,” Green began. “I rise today with a sense of responsibility and duty to the people who have elected me, a sense of duty to this country, a sense of duty to the Constitution of the United States of America. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America for obstruction of justice.”


His call for impeachment was “not for political purposes,” Green said. “I do this because, Mr. Speaker, there is a belief in this country that no one is above the law, and that includes the president.”

Impeachment is a three-part process outlined in the Constitution. It begins in the House of Representatives, where a simple majority can vote to impeach a federal official for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The definition is vague and has long been debated. In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Once the House has voted to impeach, the issue heads to the Senate, which holds a trial. If the official in question is the president, then the chief justice of the US Supreme Court is the presiding judge, otherwise it is the vice president in his role as president of the Senate. The Senate needs a two-thirds majority, or 67 out of 100 votes, to find an official guilty and remove that person from office.

Read more
U.S. President Donald Trump attends the United States Coast Guard Academy Commencement Ceremony in New London, Connecticut May 17 2017. © Kevin LamarqueDefiant Trump fires back at ‘unfair’ media in speech to Coast Guard graduates
Green’s speech on Wednesday morning came as Democratic leadership in the House held a press conference calling for an open-ended, independent investigation into any potential criminal wrongdoings by Trump and his associates.

“It seems like we are learning disturbing new allegations about President Trump not just every day, but every hour,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. “Our committee should already be conducting robust and transparent investigations.”

He faulted House Republicans, specifically Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), for doing “as little as humanly possible just to claim that they’re doing something.”

Under a bill proposed by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California), Congress would create an independent, bipartisan commission of 12 people to investigate alleged Russian meddling into the 2016 presidential election, any collusion with the Trump campaign and accusations by former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired last Tuesday, that the president urged Comey to drop a probe into Michael Flynn, Trump’s disgraced former national security adviser.

“Our democracy is a mess,” Swalwell said. “Today is a courage call for our Republican colleagues. Can they put party aside and unite with Democrats?”

READ MORE: House Oversight Chairman ‘ready to subpoena’ Trump over reporting of Comey communications

The Democratic minority in the House stopped short, however, of calling for articles of impeachment, although House Democratic Caucus Chair Joseph Crowley (D-New York) noted that “members can come to their own conclusions” about whether the president should be impeached.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, warned that any steps must be bipartisan, and that hasty talk of impeachment would become a distraction.

“It cannot be perceived as an effort to nullify the election by other means,” he said.


Only two presidents ‒ Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 ‒ have ever been impeached by the House, both of which history has judged to be highly partisan proceedings. Neither was convicted in the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, rather than go through an impeachment vote in the House.

“We are at a very significant moment in this country’s history,” Cummings said. “We need to get this right,” no matter how long it takes because “this is bigger than us, this is bigger than President Trump. This is about the soul of our democracy.”

As Trump’s approval ratings have dropped, Republicans are hearing from their constituents that they need to do more when it comes to investigating the president, CNN reported. Only 42 percent of Americans approve of Trump, according to a new Politico/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday. It was conducted after the Comey firing but before news broke of his memo or that Trump may have disclosed classified information from an ally to Russia.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
 Follow
 Nate Silver ✔ @NateSilver538
This is the highest disapproval rating we've measured for Trump so far, and close to his lowest approval rating. http://53eig.ht/2lYTN9X
6:07 AM - 17 May 2017
  991 991 Retweets   1,718 1,718 likes
Twitter Ads info & Privacy
So far, only one GOP representative has publicly said that impeachment may be an option. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and a frequent Trump critic, said that, if it turns out that Trump pressured Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, it would be grounds for impeachment, The Hill reported.

"But everybody gets a fair trial in this country," Amash told reporters as he left a House GOP conference meeting. When asked if he trusted Comey’s word over Trump’s, he replied: "I think it's pretty clear I have more confidence in Director Comey."

I'd say it matters, coupled with his approval rating and the GOP abandoning ship. Whether it actually happens is another story.

I think the more likely scenario is Trump will resign from his presidency to save face.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4669980/democratic-lawmaker-calls-presidents-impeachement

Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

Well that one played out well for him.

Does anyone dispute the possibility of an obstruction of justice charge?

Is a lack of popularity an appropriate reason for firing the head of the FBI?

Does anyone dispute the possibility of an obstruction of justice charge?

Nothing done so far would stand up in court as a real obstruction of justice charge.

The only people who think Trump obstructed justice are people who are ignorant.

You do realize that Comey had zero impact on the investigation. All he does is report on it and present it to the public. The actual investigators are at levels at least one or two steps removed from him.

Trump's other statements would be incredibly flimsy in court given that they often come from anonymous sources.

Does anyone dispute the possibility of an obstruction of justice charge?

Nothing done so far would stand up in court as a real obstruction of justice charge.

The only people who think Trump obstructed justice are people who are ignorant.

So why did he fire Comey?

I take it that Comey's testimony, documented memo and the testimony of others he discussed it with at the time are all flimsy.

You do realize that Comey had zero impact on the investigation. All he does is report on it and present it to the public. The actual investigators are at levels at least one or two steps removed from him.

So why did he fire Comey?

Trump's other statements would be incredibly flimsy in court given that they often come from anonymous sources.

You mean the public press conference where he explained his reasoning, ie. a lack of popularity!

Donald Trump claims he invented 'priming the pump' phrase
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/donald-trump-claims-invented-priming-pump-phrase/
"I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good," Mr Trump told "The Economist" magazine in an interview published on Thursday.

Please stop twisting his words, Life Support. Getting tired of your endless spin to make Trump look like a moron. Everyone knows he *meant* that he was the first to use the phrase as a sexual metaphor.

heh

SNL thought it was funny...

2:46
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBPt335vcAQ

So why did he fire Comey?

A combination of factors
1) Shortly before he was fired, Comey had completely botched testimony he gave regarding the Weiner/Abedin matter and this hurt his already damaged credibility with Democrats.
2) HRC blaming Comey for her defeat and this lack of credibility Comey had meant that if Trump was cleared by Comey, that the Democrats/Left wouldn't accept the outcome.
3) Trump was probably displeased with how long the investigation was taking and what an albatross it had become. When people are testifying and even Dem. congressional leaders are saying "No evidence of collusion" yet the narrative and belief of half the country is that Trump is in league with the Russians, something is wrong.
4) Comey had basically become a sideshow and the FBI needed someone with a lower profile in charge. It's not always a good thing when everyone knows who the head of law enforcement agencies are. I think it's a good thing that I don't know who the head of the DEA or the U.S. Marshals is. That means they're doing the boring, nitty-gritty work.


Has it ever occurred to you that there might be nothing there and that this is all political theater ala Monica Lewinsky? Do you think this is good for our country to whip up exaggerated theories about foreign interference, simply because you don't like Trump? If this Trump collusion is true, doesn't it mean that the FBI, CIA, and NSA are incredibly incompetent in allowing this to happen? Ever notice how all this Russia stuff started getting cooked up shortly after the DNC wikileaks thing? If it turns out that Seth Rich (Who may just as well be a nobody, I'm hesitant to believe any conspiracy theory) was in fact the wikileaks source as claimed by Assange and Kim Dotcom, doesn't this cause a serious credibility crisis for the Democratic Party and our intelligence agencies- essentially fabricating a conspiracy theory regarding a sitting president with our media complicit.

More importantly, do you think that out of all the people in 2015, Putin and Russia concluded that Donald Trump, Donald fricking Trump of all people was going to become President? You'd have been better off picking 'Mine That Bird' to win the Kentucky Derby. To say nothing of the fact that if you actually believe unemployed auto workers in Michigan and Ohio voted for Trump because of wikileaks and Russian trolls, you're an idiot.

You mean the public press conference where he explained his reasoning, ie. a lack of popularity

Actually, Trump is fairly safe there too. Given his penchant for exaggeration and outright falsehood, as well as his use of it as a negotiating tactic, he could plausibly claim that he wasn't telling the truth and that'd probably be enough for a jury to buy it.

Not to mention his public comments are often taken out of context or are open to interpretation. I'd have to see the precise quote again (News happens with Trump so fast that stuff like this mushes together).

So why did he fire Comey?

A combination of factors
1) Shortly before he was fired, Comey had completely botched testimony he gave regarding the Weiner/Abedin matter and this hurt his already damaged credibility with Democrats.

Why does that matter to Trump?

2) HRC blaming Comey for her defeat and this lack of credibility Comey had meant that if Trump was cleared by Comey, that the Democrats/Left wouldn't accept the outcome.

Why does that matter to Trump?

3) Trump was probably displeased with how long the investigation was taking and what an albatross it had become. When people are testifying and even Dem. congressional leaders are saying "No evidence of collusion" yet the narrative and belief of half the country is that Trump is in league with the Russians, something is wrong.

I don't believe that the investigation has gone fully into the dealings of Trump and his associates and their links to the Russians. "No evidence of collusion" yet, which is why you have investigations if the links warrant them.

4) Comey had basically become a sideshow and the FBI needed someone with a lower profile in charge. It's not always a good thing when everyone knows who the head of law enforcement agencies are. I think it's a good thing that I don't know who the head of the DEA or the U.S. Marshals is. That means they're doing the boring, nitty-gritty work.

Why does that matter to Trump?

You gave a lot of non-answers there with only option 3 having some merit.

I really don't want to talk about Russia or anything, but just want to ask if anyone is following this stuff in Saudi Arabia like the sword dance and the glowing orb

It's incredibly funny, even though probably 95% of people in the room deserve to get strafed with their own fighter planes

I really don't want to talk about Russia or anything, but just want to ask if anyone is following this stuff in Saudi Arabia like the sword dance and the glowing orb

It's incredibly funny, even though probably 95% of people in the room deserve to get strafed with their own fighter planes

Let's not forget that President Trump linked the Saudi's to 9/11 during his campaign but now he's happy to sell them billions of dollars of arms and call it a victory.