Not ‘within the context of the conversation.’ So is there one, or do you have to reach to other interactions to imagine one? Such a stance requires the belief that all interactions were forever tainted. It amounts to the argument that Trump is holding a gun to the head of anyone he can fire.
No, it doesn’t. Did you watch Comey’s testimony at all? He stated that he felt Trump was creating a “patronage relationship” by attempting to have Comey ask for his job so that Trump could hold that over his head. With that said, anyone who can be fired by *this* president is sure to be walking on eggshells after the Comey firing because this does send a message to them: “Give me loyalty or lose your job”.
Again, you are incorrect. Comey declared that Trump was never under investigation which was reported by a very large number of outlets. Every major one outside of the Wall Street Journal from what I can tell.
I think you are conflating two different things entirely. You made mention of a specific quote in the testimony which related to a specific article in the NYT. Read the link I left for you above and it will explain. And I’d also like to ask you for a cite for what you’ve claimed here that a large number of outlets wrote stories which claimed Trump himself was under investigation because I haven’t read one from any mainstream media source.
You missed my point obviously. He could of course believe the Comey let Clinton off and breached protocol to do so. That’s perfectly consistent.
That’s not what Rosenstein’s memo stated which Sessions signed his name to. Here is a link to it: