Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 17, 2017

How far would you go to take down a corrupt president like Trump? Would you make yourself such a nuisance that he would panic and tip his hand? That might just be what former FBI Director James Comey did.

If this is what happened, Comey has balls of steel or one hell of a guilty conscience.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

There are two very real possibilities here and they're not mutually exclusive of each other. One is that Comey may, in fact, be the stand up guy he's presented as a public persona all these years. Confronted with a blatantly criminal president, Comey realized that he would never be allowed to finish the investigation but that he was in a position to strike a possibly fatal blow against Trump's corruption anyway.

The second is that Comey realized that his torpedoing of Hillary's campaign, deliberate or not, put the country at an unacceptable risk. Going along to get along not being in his nature (he pushed back against Bush's torture memos according to last night's Rachel Maddow report), Comey realized he would never be allowed to finish his investigation etc. etc.

Or it could be a combination of the two. Regardless, depending on how brazen Trump was in trying to put the FBI under his thumb, and whether or not Trump was stupid enough to record the conversations (and even stupider to not have them erased), Comey will have nailed Trump on obstruction of justice, the same offense that forced Nixon out of office.

The next questions are whether or not Comey's memos can be corroborated and if so, will Republicans continue to turn a blind eye? They've ignored all of Trump's corruption so far, what's a few more broken laws when a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich are at stake?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Republicans know what is going on ------ but they have a legislative agenda to implement that is more important to them than anything else.

#1 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-05-17 02:43 PM | Reply

"The guy who predicted Comey's memos thinks the former FBI director may be trying to take down Trump"
www.washingtonpost.com

I keep wondering -- something in the back of my head keeps saying to me -- maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here. You know what I mean? Because Comey could handle this one of two ways: The president makes this request, and the first time Comey might say to him, ‘You know, Mr. President, it's inappropriate for us to have this conversation, and I would appreciate if you would not make a request like this to me again.' That's a way to handle it that says very clearly to the president that this should never be repeated.

But if you're trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case, you might want the president to keep talking, because everything he does is digging a deeper legal hole for himself....

You have to remember, the president in that letter firing Comey said, 'You told me three times I wasn't under investigation.' We have no idea if that's true or not. But I think it's also a little bit of a red herring, because the president's campaign is under investigation. He is obviously the head of his own campaign, and when the Justice Department investigates any organization -- whether it be a Mafia organization, a cartel or just a corporation -- you're always investigating and looking to make a case against the highest person possible. So they would always have in their minds, ‘We have no idea where this is going, but at the end of it, it could reach the very top of the campaign.'

So in that particular circumstance, Comey might have wanted him to keep talking to see what he says.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-17 02:58 PM | Reply

If I were Alex Jones this is when I would speculate that this is an elaborate OBAMA/CLINTON conspiracy where they, with the help of SOROS, Hollywood, the entire state of California and the deep state, set up Trump using the FBI, CIA and will smith from MIB.

Then all the DR dweebs could echo it here

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-05-17 03:27 PM | Reply

I hope you realize you've probably just created a monster.

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-17 05:05 PM | Reply

If I was fired by my boss under false pretenses and who then made threats and false accusations in order to destroy my character and to cover his own incompetence I am pretty sure there would be a lawsuit.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-17 05:09 PM | Reply

"If I was fired by my boss under false pretenses and who then made threats and false accusations in order to destroy my character and to cover his own incompetence I am pretty sure there would be a lawsuit."

Not in a Right-To-Work state.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 05:16 PM | Reply

Is US Gov right-to-work?

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-17 05:19 PM | Reply

6

why not?

are you saying employees in right to work state never have grounds for a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, etc?

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 05:20 PM | Reply

read what I wrote, Danforth....I asked 2 questions. I didn't make a statement asserting anything.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 05:21 PM | Reply

Not in a Right-To-Work state.
#6 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Has nothing to do with RightToWork State, it only matters what if your employment contract requires a cause for termination. This is true in all 50 states.

You might be confusing RightToWork with AtWill employment, which is all states except Montana.

"This is a right-to-work state and I'll fire whoever I want for whatever reason I want." The problem with this statement that employers often make is that "right-to-work" laws involve employee rights during an employment relationship, particularly in the context of labor unions. The "employment at-will" doctrine is what governs employer and employee rights in terminating an employment relationship. Many people wrongfully use the term "right-to-work" interchangeably with the phrase "employment at-will" because they do not understand the difference.
www.mcrazlaw.com

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-05-17 05:45 PM | Reply

"You might be confusing RightToWork with AtWill employment"

I was. My apologies.

My SIL was the victim of someone who fired her, lied about why to state authorities (keying an investigation), and then tried to cover her tracks. It all came out in front of an administrative judge, who sided with my SIL up and down. When we met with a lawyer about options, we were told we had none. AtWill state.

"it only matters what if your employment contract requires a cause for termination."

So...no contract = no requirements for firing. Yet another good reason for Unions.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 08:55 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort