- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 49,276
- Reaction score
- 2,463
Came across an interesting theory about what is actually going on with this Trump/Comey situation.
For the full breakdown: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...missing-sally-yates-and-james-comey-timeline/
It's kind of lengthy but here is the gist:
•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.
•Wednesday January 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
......
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.
•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.
Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed; wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative? And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?
Think about it.
If you were President under those circumstances, wouldn’t you ask FBI Director James Comey what the deal was with these investigations, and whether or not you were under investigation BEFORE you took action to retain or fire Mike Flynn?
......
UPDATE 7:30pm: As if on cue, THIS is the exact trap we are talking about above.
SEE? In the first paragraph of the first article to draw attention to the timeline, the accusation is made that President Trump was “interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation”.
That is exactly the trap that Director Comey, Acting AG Yates and Asst. Director of DOJ Counter Intel Priestap were laying out. Director Comey went to that dinner HOPING that Trump would ask him about Michael Flynn which would be seen as impeding a federal investigation.
For several months the media have been steadfast in their efforts to turn this into Watergate 2.0. To achieve that objective the political angle-players and media need only to paint Trump into a corner with a credible accusation of the president interfering with an FBI investigation (Flynn). Against the timeline above, as played out this week with Sally Yates testimony to congress, they were only a couple more timely misinformation leaks and twisted reports away from making that happen.
Now look at this tweet again:
So what does the war room think...did Comey and Co attempt to entrap our President only to get out maneuvered at their own game?
For the full breakdown: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...missing-sally-yates-and-james-comey-timeline/
It's kind of lengthy but here is the gist:
•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.
•Wednesday January 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
......
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.
•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.
Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed; wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative? And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?
Think about it.
If you were President under those circumstances, wouldn’t you ask FBI Director James Comey what the deal was with these investigations, and whether or not you were under investigation BEFORE you took action to retain or fire Mike Flynn?
......
UPDATE 7:30pm: As if on cue, THIS is the exact trap we are talking about above.
SEE? In the first paragraph of the first article to draw attention to the timeline, the accusation is made that President Trump was “interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation”.That is exactly the trap that Director Comey, Acting AG Yates and Asst. Director of DOJ Counter Intel Priestap were laying out. Director Comey went to that dinner HOPING that Trump would ask him about Michael Flynn which would be seen as impeding a federal investigation.
For several months the media have been steadfast in their efforts to turn this into Watergate 2.0. To achieve that objective the political angle-players and media need only to paint Trump into a corner with a credible accusation of the president interfering with an FBI investigation (Flynn). Against the timeline above, as played out this week with Sally Yates testimony to congress, they were only a couple more timely misinformation leaks and twisted reports away from making that happen.
Now look at this tweet again:
So what does the war room think...did Comey and Co attempt to entrap our President only to get out maneuvered at their own game?
