Comey's Memo Is the Smoking Gun of Donald Trumps Watergate

[workinclasszero]

Comey’s Memo Is the Smoking Gun of Donald Trump’s Watergate
By Jonathan Chait May 16, 2017 7:18 pm

On the morning of June 23, 1972, Richard Nixon instructed his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, to contact L. Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI, and ask him not to investigate the Watergate break-in. “That the way to handle this now is for us to have [CIA Deputy Director Vernon] Walters call Pat Gray and just say, ‘Stay the hell out of this … this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it,’” said the president. [Correction: Haldeman said this, Nixon concurred.]

The conversation remained secret until Nixon was forced to release a recording on the conversation on July 24, 1974. The recording, which became known as the “smoking gun tape,” had a seismic effect: Eleven Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee announced their support for impeachment.

The New York Times bombshell report that James Comey has a contemporaneous memo describing a conversation in which President Trump asked him to halt the bureau’s investigation of Michael Flynn, the national security adviser who had resigned the day before, follows a similar pattern.

Both episodes involve the president attempting to quash an FBI investigation into their associates. Both investigations pertain to crimes of which there is no proof the president had any involvement. Just as no conclusive proof ever found that Nixon ordered the break-in of Democratic headquarters during the 1972 election, there is not yet any clear proof that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia’s electronic break-in to Democratic electronic records during the 2016 election. The attempted manipulation of justice is, in both cases, the more serious crime.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/comeys-memo-is-the-smoking-gun-of-donald-trumps-watergate.html

[jberryhill]

1. One minor distinction

Is that the Comey memo reportedly has Trump expressing his "hope" instead of giving an instruction.

Now, yes, this is very much like a mafia figure saying "I wish something would happen to that guy", and there are other factual circumstances such as Trump's ability to fire Comey as he eventually did.

But I would bet they'd try to draw a distinction between Trump saying "Stop the Flynn investigation" and "I hope you can clear Flynn".

[JenniferJuniper]

2. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[L. Coyote]

6. Yes, not one single act in isolation, rather the full pattern of actions reveal intent. Intent is

a key factor which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict in obstruction cases.

Trump's New Impeachable Offenses: Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy, Abuse of Power

[shraby]

3. They'll try, but the admission trump made to Lester Holt on why he fired Comey tells

it all. He fired him because of the trump/Russia thing.

[workinclasszero]

4. I'm sure a good lawyer would be splitting hairs on the exact words used

But the intent is clear is it not?

Stop investigating Flynn's Russian connection.

[jberryhill]

7. The intent is clear to me, if that's what you are asking

Is it clear to the skinny end of a majority of the Senate? Who knows.

[workinclasszero]

9. Well right

That's another story.

Fuck the republicans, Twitler could copulate with a goat in the Oval office on live TV and they would see nothing wrong with it.

People of good will who want to know the truth will see that Trump tried to obstruct justice.

[Jarqui]

8. The whole string of activity ...

- Firing Sally Yates instead of Flynn
- Firing the 50 US attorneys including Preet Bharara who Trump had personally approved but was subsequently found to be investigating Trump
- Asking Comey to lay off Flynn
- then firing Comey and bringing up the Russia "hoax" investigation during his interview as a reason why

and all the other evidence of Trump and his team being involved with Russia, who everyone is now convinced messed with the US election to help Trump.

The context of Trump's actions is very damning

[jberryhill]

10. Right

The conversation has to be understood in the larger context.

[workinclasszero]

12. Bingo

That about covers intent eh?

[BumRushDaShow]

5. We don't have any Howard Bakers in Congress.

The GOP has completely abdicated their duty to country and the Constitution.

[John1956PA]

14. I liked Howard Baker, too. But, he tried to help Nixon as much as reasonably possible.

Howard Baker is known for his 1973 Senate Watergate hearing question, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" On the surface, the question seemed like a pointed inquiry designed to uncover Nixon's wrongdoing. However, it could also be interpreted as a means to counter the Democrats' charge against Nixon by showing that they had no smoking gun at that point.

Regardless, I respected Howard Baker. I agree with you that the current Rethugs lack his integrity.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. There is no Baker in the current GOP

He was an "annoying Republican" (as I used to dub them) but nowadays, that party has gone so far to the right (especially after 2010) that even the few oldsters like Hatch (who is the longest-serving GOP Senator) have turned to "teh crazy".

[John1956PA]

11. Last evening, I posted here about Nixon plotting to call off the investigation.

My post is at https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029075370 .

Nixon's conversation with Haldeman has always intrigued me ever since August 1974 when the newspapers reported excerpts of the transcribed version of it. It was immediately termed the "smoking gun," and Nixon resigned soon thereafter. Years later, I read a theory that the "Bay of Pigs" term which Nixon employed was a code term for the JFK assassination. I do have an opinion on whether that theory is true.

I have also read that CIA director Richard Helms, when confronted with the Nixon smokescreen that the Watergate investigation would "bring up the whole Bay of Pigs thing," exclaimed to whomever was telling him that, "This has nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs!"

My impression of Richard Helms has always been favorable. I recall watching him in the 1973 Senate Watergate hearings as Senator Howard Baker tried to get him to retreat on a particular testimony point which I can not recall. Richard Helms stood his ground, and Howard Baker was the one who backed off.

[wiggs]

13. If this goes to impeachment or even if just the public debate ramps up, the typical GOP

approach to discourse is to narrow the conversation down to something small they can easily confuse people about. That's why the conversation should always include the whole range of giant Trump issues, including emoluments, collusion, Logan Act, laundering, obstruction of justice, threatening an FBI agent, disclosure of classified material, corruption of House Intel investigation, etc.

Comey's memo is just one of many, many aspects of an overall case...and while it might be the most provable at the moment, it shouldn't be the only egg in the basket.

If Fox and cohorts in congress can spend weeks on lapel pin size and teleprompters and college transcripts, and years on birth certificates and apology tours and outspoken church pastors...then certainly real journalists can juggle several balls in the air at the same time. I hope the FBI and State AGs can too.