Current Events > Was Trump telling Comey to stop investigating Flynn with the "I hope"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic
---

Just this morning my boss told me he "hoped" I had a memo drafted by lunch.

Guess what I got that shit done by lunch
---

Anyone who says no is being deliberately dense or isn't a native English speaker
---

It wasn't just a command, it was a threat.
---

If my boss tells me he/she "hopes" I do something within the context of my job, that for all intents and purposes is a command.
---

/u/funkymunniez posted...

Here are 3 cases in which someone used the phrase "I hope" and were convicted of obstruction.

U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcdonald-29 screen shot of text

US v johnson https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-1289

US v Chujoy http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160915I98/U.S.%20v.%20CHUJOY

from Reddit.
---

Bluster posted...

from Reddit.

McDonald:

I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you...

Johnson:

Mr. Johnson told him to the effect that I hope you aren't doing what I think your doing because that's unhealthy...

(Didn't see "hope" anywhere in Chujoy)
Trump:

I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.

Nobody sees the difference with Trump's quote? Really?

If it was "I hope you will find he's innocent", I'd agree it's fine. Still a bit sketchy but meh.

"I hope you can let this go" however is making his intent very clear.

Anyone with a job knows what he meant
---

If it wasn't obstruction, it was just a completely meaningless statement. What good does "hope" do if it's not a veiled order/threat? His hope won't suddenly make the FBI drop the investigation. He was clearly trying to sway Comey.
---

What Trump supporters sound like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
---

He obviously wanted him to let it go, but I don't get the sense he was "telling" him or ordering him to do it.

It certainly doesn't look like a threat though, like in the cases Bluster posted. They directly imply that doing a certain act will have negative consequences, while Trump does not.

Soviet_Poland posted...

What Trump supporters sound like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

Lmao
---

http://assets.amuniversal.com/539cfd602e7f0135cc59005056a9545d
---

Vertania posted...

He obviously wanted him to let it go, but I don't get the sense he was "telling" him or ordering him to do it.

It certainly doesn't look like a threat though, like in the cases Bluster posted. They directly imply that doing a certain act will have negative consequences, while Trump does not.

not doing it literally had negative consequences (comey's firing)

that comey himself understood it to be an order is enough for me.
---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

It wasn't just a command, it was a threat.

---

everyone knows what he meant, but from a legal standpoint you're not going to convict the president on obstruction of justice with this

the comey testimony only confirmed what everyone already knew- trump is completely ignorant on the role of the president and generally not a pleasant person to be around. His supporters don't care, his opposition doesn't have enough to do anything yet
---

Super Saiyan 3 Goku posted...

If my boss tells me he/she "hopes" I do something within the context of my job, that for all intents and purposes is a command.

One reason to talk to somebody in private is you have a beef with them. The private meeting might have signaled to Comey Trump wants to fight and yep Comey was afraid (he sensed the vibe).
---

Big waste of time.
---

Vertania posted...

Nobody sees the difference with Trump's quote? Really?

There is no fucking difference you fucking deflector
---

Comey didn't do what Trump "hoped" and got fired for it. How is this not obstruction of justice, you tell me.
---

Darkman124 posted...

not doing it literally had negative consequences (comey's firing)

that comey himself understood it to be an order is enough for me.

"Enough for you" doesn't mean it's enough to be held to a legal standard. There's no proof that his firing was a direct result of not dropping the investigation and there's no wording from Trump that implies he'd be fired for not doing so.

You can think it was a threat/order all you want, but don't be surprised when the court doesn't see it that way.

Kim Kusanagi posted...

There is no fucking difference you fucking deflector

The two defendants in the cases said something that directly implied there would be negative consequences for taking a certain action. Trump did not.

Typical Kim. So blinded by Trump hate that he can't look at the evidence objectively. And how is this even remotely "deflecting" when it's literally about the conversation in question?

GigaSPX posted...

Comey didn't do what Trump "hoped" and got fired for it. How is this not obstruction of justice, you tell me.

Because there's no evidence that directly ties his firing to not dropping the investigation and there's no words that imply that Comey would face negative consequences if he didn't.

Vertania posted...

"Enough for you" doesn't mean it's enough to be held to a legal standard.

yep, this is true, esp when the folks in charge of determining whether it is or not are of his party
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

What Trump supporters sound like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td67kYY9mdQ
---

Because there's no evidence that directly ties his firing to not dropping the investigation and there's no words that imply that Comey would face negative consequences if he didn't.

trump admitted this is the reason for his firing...trumo shills are incredible
---

andel posted...

Because there's no evidence that directly ties his firing to not dropping the investigation and there's no words that imply that Comey would face negative consequences if he didn't.

trump admitted this is the reason for his firing...trumo shills are incredible

Did he?
---

ReignFury posted...

andel posted...

Because there's no evidence that directly ties his firing to not dropping the investigation and there's no words that imply that Comey would face negative consequences if he didn't.
trump admitted this is the reason for his firing...trumo shills are incredible

Did he?

This. Where did he admit it, @andel? If he did, I didn't hear about it in Comey's testimony... which really would have been the ideal time for it to be brought up.

Andel refers to his interview with Lester Holt iirc

In that interview he broke with his surrogates' story as to the reason for the firing and said it was about the investigation
---

Obvious to anyone with any modicum of social skills.
---

Other people have said it earlier ITT but I'll just restate

If my boss says strongly that he "hopes" I do something, I'm going to do it.


Making the others leave the room, bringing it up repeatedly, phrasing it as an order, and firing Comey when he didn't follow through

It was a demand, pure and simple.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Andel refers to his interview with Lester Holt iirc

In that interview he broke with his surrogates' story as to the reason for the firing and said it was about the investigation

this. you are doing mental gymnastics to try and shill for pumpkin spice mussolini
---

@andel posted...

@Darkman124 posted...

Andel refers to his interview with Lester Holt iirc

In that interview he broke with his surrogates' story as to the reason for the firing and said it was about the investigation

this. you are doing mental gymnastics to try and shill for pumpkin spice mussolini

So applying the legal standard is "mental gymnastics." *sigh* Fucking CE.

Since neither of you posted evidence of Trump saying that he fired Comey over not dropping the investigation into Flynn, I have to assume you're talking about this:

Trump told NBC's Lester Holt: "And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

Simply mentioning "this Russia thing" is too vague to have him charged for obstruction. Yesterday's hearing made it look like Trump fired him over the "duty to correct" thing; that is, that Comey wouldn't announce that Trump wasn't under investigation in order to shut the media up.

There's literally nothing in that interview that suggests he fired Comey in direct retaliation for not dropping the Flynn investigation. This "I hope" thing has no basis with which to charge him with obstruction of justice.

Doom_Art posted...

Other people have said it earlier ITT but I'll just restate

If my boss says strongly that he "hopes" I do something, I'm going to do it.


Making the others leave the room, bringing it up repeatedly, phrasing it as an order, and firing Comey when he didn't follow through

It was a demand, pure and simple.

I have to agree with this. Even if you don't believe in the whole implications of "hoping" someone would do something, clearing the room of all others so you can speak to him one on one furthers that Trump demanded it be done.
---

Vertania posted...

@andel posted...

@Darkman124 posted...

Andel refers to his interview with Lester Holt iirc

In that interview he broke with his surrogates' story as to the reason for the firing and said it was about the investigation

this. you are doing mental gymnastics to try and shill for pumpkin spice mussolini

So applying the legal standard is "mental gymnastics." *sigh* Fucking CE.

Since neither of you posted evidence of Trump saying that he fired Comey over not dropping the investigation into Flynn, I have to assume you're talking about this:

Trump told NBC's Lester Holt: "And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

Simply mentioning "this Russia thing" is too vague to have him charged for obstruction. Yesterday's hearing made it look like Trump fired him over the "duty to correct" thing; that is, that Comey wouldn't announce that Trump wasn't under investigation in order to shut the media up.

There's literally nothing in that interview that suggests he fired Comey in direct retaliation for not dropping the Flynn investigation. This "I hope" thing has no basis with which to charge him with obstruction of justice.

Comey losing his job after not doing the thing that trump repeatedly and specifically says he hopes that Comey does, and you see zero correlation?

You arguing with a known Trump shill
---

lol, y'all delusional.
A) This happened right after Trump fired Flynn. Fresh on his mind.
B) Trump never brought up the Flynn investigation after that with Comey
C) No one else under Trump's authority brought it up with Comey
D) Comey continued investigation after this conversation for months before termination
E) If Trump wanted the investigation to stop he could squash it and it wouldn't be against any law
F) Comey said there was nothing illegal found relating to Flynn
---

smh conspiracy theorists at it again, when is Trump going to be impeached again guys?

loonies....
---

Ray_Dorset posted...

Comey losing his job after not doing the thing that trump repeatedly and specifically says he hopes that Comey does, and you see zero correlation?

I see how it could be taken that way, but my point is that there is no correlation that would hold up in court. There's no point in clinging to this because nothing is going to come of it.

Vertania posted...

Ray_Dorset posted...

Comey losing his job after not doing the thing that trump repeatedly and specifically says he hopes that Comey does, and you see zero correlation?

I see how it could be taken that way, but my point is that there is no correlation that would hold up in court. There's no point in clinging to this because nothing is going to come of it.

it's fake news, Comey himself said Trump only said it once.
---

Vertania posted...

You can think it was a threat/order all you want, but don't be surprised when the court doesn't see it that way.

That's some nice Karma you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. Hypothetically, I mean.
---

BillyKidd posted...

E) If Trump wanted the investigation to stop he could squash it and it wouldn't be against any law
F) Comey said there was nothing illegal found relating to Flynn

these are false

a president "squashing" a criminal investigation is the definition of obstruction of justice and it is against the law preventing obstruction of justice. what he could do is pardon flynn after a conviction.

comey said the investigation of flynn was not completed at the time of his termination, and any information pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation could not be revealed at an open session of congress

which is quite different from "we found nothing"

Vertania posted...

I see how it could be taken that way, but my point is that there is no correlation that would hold up in court. There's no point in clinging to this because nothing is going to come of it.

that will depend on the result of the flynn investigation when it is completed. any information uncovered when that is completed may rely upon this information to build a future case against trump. i would recommend assuming nothing, not assuming it's nothing.

what i find interesting is the shift you make from "trump did nothing wrong" to "trump did nothing that would hold up in court" without any seeming concern that you're supporting someone who is only technically unable to be convicted of a crime at this time
---

@Darkman124

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-dW59Fu1hg

Sorry, I didn't clarify. Comey said Flynn wasn't under investigation for anything to do with Russia.
---

ASithLord7 posted...

Soviet_Poland posted...

What Trump supporters sound like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

Lmao

Dennis Reynolds and Trump have the same personality
---

Darkman124 posted...

what i find interesting is the shift you make from "trump did nothing wrong"

Where the hell did I claim he did nothing wrong? I said that it didn't look like a threat or order and pointed out the difference between his "I hope" statement and the other cases.

Some of Trump's actions were either suspicious or downright dumb, but that doesn't mean they were illegal.

Vertania posted...

Darkman124 posted...

what i find interesting is the shift you make from "trump did nothing wrong"

Where the hell did I claim he did nothing wrong? I said that it didn't look like a threat or order and pointed out the difference between his "I hope" statement and the other cases.

Some of Trump's actions were either suspicious or downright dumb, but that doesn't mean they were illegal.

It certainly would seem they were illegal - proving it is another matter.
---

BillyKidd posted...

Sorry, I didn't clarify. Comey said Flynn wasn't under investigation for anything to do with Russia.

that video does not establish the claim that flynn was not under investigation for anything to do with russia. you have provided no evidence for this claim.

also, grand jury subpoenas have been issued to associates of flynn

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

so i dont know what the fuck you are talking about but flynn is still being investigated, specifically payments he received from russia
---

Bump
---