Show of Hands

What is your barometer for sufficient evidence to constitute an allegation worthy of discussion? This is a detailed, two-page description of a conversation between Comey and Trump as documented by the former FBI Director and communicated by several of his close associates. It's certainly not proven yet, which is why I described this as an allegation, but it could easily be true and so we need to start discussing it now.

That has nothing to do with his breaking the law

Because MSM makes it sound like Trump was allegedly asking Comey to drop the investigation on Flynn to save his job...but Flynn had already been fired. The FBI second in command has said that no one in the Trump administration has tried to stop the investigation.

...except that Flynn was still under investigation after being fired...

And that hasn't changed

So the fact that he was fired before the meeting doesnt mean trump didnt ask the investigation to stop, because it was still there

He didn't specifically tell Comey to stop the investigation....if he even said anything at all.

The evidence suggests otherwise

No proof

Except the memos

Asking Comey to let it go......if he did say it.....is very different from demanding someone stop the investigation.
Link to actual memo(s)?

I had to jump in because I'm quite amused by this. 😀 @Iamamerican Are you saying it's not obstruction because he used the phrase "let it go" and didn't say "stop the investigation" verbatim? Let it go = give him a pass = stop the investigation.

The memo hasn't been released yet. Who knows if they'll go public but I bet the senate investigation subpoenas it.

.

How is that obstruction? Flynn was fired or resigned before Trump talked with Comey and Trump didn't demand that Comey stop investigating. The investigation is continuing and so far...no collusion.

Except trump did tell him to stop the investigation, and then fired him when he didnt. I'd call that obstruction yeah

No he didn't tell him to stop the investigation. He was fired for being incompetent. Obama should have fired him.

Trump himself said he fired comey to stop the Russia investigation

And the facts contradict you

Prove it

Read the articles, plenty of major news outlets are covering it

Then you can't prove it. A suggestion isn't a demand.

When its followed up by firing them becauae they didnt do it it is

Prove it

abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-russia-mind-decided-fire-comey/story?id=47361253
In his own words

Nope, that's not it.
"However, later in the interview, he said that he backs a full investigation into Russian meddling in the election.

“I want that thing to be absolutely done properly,” Trump said, but later adding, “There's no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians. The other thing is the Russians did not affect the vote.”

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" & no respectable *actual* journalist would *ever* publish or reference unsubstantiated, unproven, unsourced material and present it as verified undisputed fact... until the last ten years or so, & particularly the past 18 months to 2 years.

Accusation & gossip are *not* evidence. Just because one *wants* something to be true doesn't make it so.

IF what has been alleged is PROVEN with credible substantiated *evidence* - beyond a *reasonable* doubt - that would be different. To date, to my knowledge nothing asserted or claimed to be true RE Trump or his Admin has achieved the status of illegal or otherwise actionable. Unwise, not recommended, perhaps, not actionable.

As hard as so many are wishing they be true.

And, for context, I viewed *all* the accusations RE BHO the *same* way.

Trump! Interfere with investigations? What an absurd assumption.

Neither Bill Clinton's meeting with THE Attorney General just before Coney's announcement or Trump's numerous meetings could possibly contain any self serving purposes.

Never
Never
Never Ever