Within the context of the conversation Harris is referring to his job never came up, as I said.
Parker O'Brien
1

Within the context of the conversation Harris is referring to his job never came up, as I said. There is no pressure, no gun to his head. You draw on a past conversation to invent a context to this one.

It didn’t have to come up as Trump had already made his intentions clear by attempting to promote a “relationship of patronage” in the previous meeting. Here is more from his testimony to show that he took Trump’s words as a directive; the inference made by his quoting of Shakespeare’s Henry II speaks volumes also:

“When a president of the United States in the Oval Office says something like, ‘I hope or I suggest or would you,’ do you take that as a directive?” Angus King asked Comey.

“Yes. It rings in my ear as, well, ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’”

Don’t get mad at me that you’re uninformed, but your formulation is quite humorous. I claimed Comey contradicted a large number reports claiming Trump was being investigated. You claim he only rebutted one. I explained how his comment shows a host are false, thus undermining her claim. You say I’m conflating… Harris’s line of question was an absolute joke, it had no basis in reality.

I’m not mad nor am I uninformed, but I think you are having a McCain moment. You didn’t read the NYT article I posted to, did you? But that’s not surprising, seeing as how you didn’t read the articles in the links you posted to me, either, because they do not say what you think they say. Most of these links aren’t to mainstream sources, and yes, perhaps the headlines are a bit misleading as, sadly, clickbait is the way of the world now, but the meat of the articles explain further:

Salon: “ The bureau will be joined by the CIA, National Security Agency, and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit, according to The New York Times on Thursday. They will reportedly be looking into intercepted communications and financial transactions involving Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman; Carter Page, a former Trump foreign policy adviser; and Roger Stone, a Republican political operative and Trump confidante. One official told the Times that intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications were provided to the White House.

The report did not say whether Trump himself or his presidential campaign have been directly implicated in these investigations or whether they involve the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee. All that is known for sure is that they at least partially encompass Trump’s past business dealings with Russia, as well as Manafort’s previous work in both Russia and Ukraine (when the latter state was controlled by a Putin puppet). Sources also told the Times that some of Manafort’s contacts were under surveillance by the National Security Agency because of possible links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, the successor to the infamous KGB.”

The Atlantic: “ With just two sentences on Monday, FBI Director James Comey cast a long, dark shadow over the presidency of Donald Trump and the campaign that resulted in his election.

“I’ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey said in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. “That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Comey’s declaration was not a surprise; reports about a federal probe involving Trump have been swirling for months. But his decision to publicly confirm that the sitting president’s campaign is under investigation for possibly colluding with a foreign power to undermine an election was a stunning revelation, and one whose significance both Democrats and Republicans immediately recognized.”

The Guardian: “Comey pointedly did not reveal anything beyond confirming that the bureau has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation into Trump associates and Russia since “late July”.

HuffPo: “And so it came to pass on Monday, during the House intelligence committee’s hearings, that FBI director James Comey confirmed the veracity of the most-speculated-upon rumor in Washington: The agency is ― as numerous anonymous insiders have insisted to the press over the past few months ― investigating Russian-led efforts to “interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” And what’s more, this probe “includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Yes Sessions signed off on a report explaining why Comey should be fired for not following proper protocol. That’s my point exactly, nothing shows Sessions acted due to Russian probe.

Sessions signed off on a recommendation that he didn’t agree with for some reason which has yet to be explained to the public, but it sure wasn’t because he felt that Clinton’s reputation had been besmirched as was the gist of Rosenstein’s recommendation. And that’s my point; there is more to the story here yet to be revealed to us. We may not know for certain that his actions were due to the Russian probe but we do know his stated reason is bogus. You may wish to consider that, perhaps, Ms. Harris is privy to more information than we are, in this regard?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.