COMEY May Have An Even BIGGER PROBLEM Than “That Letter”…

VIA| President Donald Trump is under fire after a New York Times report alleged he asked former FBI director James Comey to shut down the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. A memo that Comey wrote following a meeting he had with Trump in February noted that the president told him  “I hope you can let this go,” in regards to the Flynn investigation.

John McCain is joining the chorus of liberals comparing this to Watergate, while Speaker Paul Ryan is maintaining that we “need the facts” before drawing any conclusions. Ryan says he still has confidence in Trump, while McCain never had any confidence in the first place to lose.


Meanwhile, a top Republican in Congress is calling for a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of the Comey memo – but that’s not all.

According to the Daily Caller,Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions wants to see the entire memo from former FBI Director James Comey on President Trump asking him to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, as well as any memo Comey might have composed on the infamous meeting Bill Clinton had with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Whoa Nellie!

“If the New York Times has [Comey’s memo] that means we’re going to be able to see it and I would assume that would be fair. I assume that Mr. Comey also kept, if he’s disturbed by the same memos, that he gave to or about when Mrs. Clinton’s husband appeared in the jet with the attorney general,” Texas Republican Rep. Pete  Sessions told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

“So I assume that memo would be available to us also. And I would assume that we will see a number of disturbing trends that took place at the Department of Justice [during the Obama administration] for whatever he’s claiming and I’ll look forward to seeing all those,” Sessions said. “But I cannot comment, because I have not seen them but I would assume that Mr. Comey, that if he kept one on this visit, evidently, he has others. Now I look forward to seeing those.”

As you all remember, the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton ended not long after Bill’s lengthy “coincidental” meeting with Lynch at an airport. We only know about the meeting because a freelance journalist was tipped off to it.

What exactly was discussed in that meeting? We may finally find out the truth…

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. 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. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” 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. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’