https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/opinion/donald-trumps-fir...
I'm starting to think there is something to what all those trumpsters have been saying... I simply cannot keep up with the 180 narrative flips going on in the media right now.
It feels like the media is just thrashing right now. One week we are told Trump fired Comey to stop the investigation on his ties to Russia. To be honest, I had a hard time swallowing that a thing like that hinged on 1 person at the FBI. But now if you read all these papers they are saying Trump is in for it because Robert Mueller is named special council in the Trump/Russia investigation. So the investigation goes on, even though last week it wasn't supposed to according to the same sources.
That leads me to the other recent thing regarding the Comey memo. The FBI (Comey) cleared Flynn January 24th but this "memo" says Trump asked Comey in mid-February to let Flynn go. Why would anybody regardless of their intelligence ask for something they've already gotten?
Long story short: I'm having a hard time making any sense of what seems like obvious problems with the reporting. Yet I see no clarifications, redactions, or anybody even trying to clear up the mess that quite frankly feels like targeting. I get why they are targeting Trump after the things Trump said about them. But once everybody stoops to the same level... I don't feel like there is anybody worth listening to.
That doesn't mean that firing him was actually sufficient to stop the investigation. To stop the FBI's investigation, Trump would have to nominate a strong ally as the next FBI director, and Congress would have to confirm them. Getting Congress to confirm a partisan nominee would be tricky to start with, and much harder with the media furor.
Separately from (but complementary to) the FBI investigation, there's the question of a special prosecutor, which can be appointed either by Congress (making them part of the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch), or by the Justice Department (which is nominally under the president's authority, but only in the sense that Trump could fire Rosenstein and cause an even bigger shitstorm). The latter is what just happened.
January 24th is when the FBI interviewed Flynn. On the same day, anonymous sources told the press that they had found "no evidence of impropriety" in the phone calls - but that's different from the FBI formally closing the investigation. Among other things, it leaked much later (around February 16) that Flynn had falsely told his interviewers that he hadn't discussed sanctions in those calls, whereas the recordings showed that he had. This potentially opened the door to charges of lying to law enforcement. The second round of leaks said that the FBI believed he was trying to be "truthful" and wasn't intentionally lying, so was unlikely to be charged, but again, that's different from formally closing an investigation. Even now, the broader investigation into Trump-Russia ties continues, and Flynn remains a part of that investigation.
>I simply cannot keep up with the 180 narrative flips going on in the media right now.
It's almost like the real world is a complicated place where there are many different versions of a story
Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone that partisan to investigate Republicans. Honestly, I fully expect him to come back with a handful of middlemen + Flynn and nothing touches any elected Republicans. Not because its true, but because its his marching orders.