The second linked article about the draft letter that is taking up all the MSM space -- a draft that Trump wrote and passed around prior to his firing of Comey that the Special Council is poring over for evidence of Trump attempting to "obstruct justice" by firing Comey.
When there is an R next to your name, the bar for "obstructing justice" is mighty low.
When there is a D next to your name OTOH, you can be caught lying under oath in an investigation like Slick Willie, "wipe your server" like Hildebeast, or just decide to let crimes slide for political purposes as BO, Loretta Lunch, and Comey did with the Hildebeast investigation -- the subject of the first linked article above which has gotten next to no MSM attention, well, you are a D. D's don't "obstruct justice", since they don't believe in justice. They believe in politics, and power -- whatever they do they do to gain power, and putting D's in power is the main mission of the MSM and Administrative State, so that is just fine -- admirable even.
Whatever it is that Hillary or anyone else with a D next to their name did or does, for the D tribe including the MSM and most of the legal stystem, is simply not an issue. We live in a post truth age -- without truth, the day to day will of the tribe is all that matters.
Vast numbers of BOistanis have simply quit caring in one way or another, and I definitely understand the impulse. There is really no reason beyond pure intellectual curiosity to look beyond the bounds of whatever reporting you like for your particular tribe. Nobody is going to have a "discussion" of "facts", since for probably 90% of the country, they look at either no news, or only the news that agrees with the views of their particular tribe.
I give a major hat tip to Power Line blog. They definitely have a conservative bias, however they pick up news from both sides and provide analysis -- naturally, their analysis has a rightish bias, however regular reading of Power Line at least gives exposure to both sides. Their slant on the Mueller / Trump draft memo is interesting.
The real scoop in the Times’ story appears towards the end. Schmidt and Haberman write that on May 8:
"Mr. McGahn [the White Counsel] gave Mr. Miller [a top Trump adviser who worked on the “early draft” letter] a marked-up copy of the letter, highlighting several sections that he believed needed to be removed."
"Mr. McGahn met again that same day with Mr. Trump and told him that if he fired Mr. Comey, the Russia investigation would not go away. Mr. Trump told him, according to senior administration officials, that he understood that firing the F.B.I. director might extend the Russia investigation, but that he wanted to do it anyway."
If Trump said this, then we should conclude that the firing of Comey was not an attempt to halt the Russia investigation. To the contrary, Trump made the move understanding that it might “extend” the investigation.
I’m not saying that it’s beyond the capability of Mueller’s dream team of anti-Trump lawyers to weave an obstruction of justice case against the president. I am suggesting that such a case likely would not pass the straight-face test.
As if Comey writing a "secret declassified memo" indicating how he wanted things handled by the Deep State, including the Special Counsel, would ever let anything about the Mueller Witchhunt pass a "smell", "straight face", or any sort of other test of propriety. As Newt put it:
So, what we have here is a fired FBI director, who leaked private material to the press, so he could get his friend appointed as a special counsel in order to take retribution on the President – with the aid of a department full of federal lawyers who would have rather seen Hillary in the White House. And we are supposed to believe this will be an objective, unbiased investigation?
'via Blog this'