Trump's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Whew.

It's not even the "news hour" yet and Trump has already had one of the worst days of his presidency. It's amazing how many times we've said that in 5 months, but here we are. I'm not sure that everyone grasped the totality of the Comey testimony. I know for sure that Trump's lawyer didn't. Ok, he did, but he's doing a halfway decent job pretending like this was somehow vindication for POTUS. Anyway, the testimony was full of Washington speak and nuance, so I'm going to try to break down some of it here. Summary: There is absolutely no lens from which this testimony can be taken in a good way for the President.

Edit: Friday (6/9/2017) now. I meant to finish this yesterday, but didn't get to it. I'm actually thankful after the press conference POTUS just gave. Wow. Anyway, lets start with the testimony.

Warner: What was it about that meeting that lead you to determine that you needed to start putting down a written record?

COMEY: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances, first, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president. The subject matter I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI's core responsibility, and that relate to the president, president-elect personally, and then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.

This was the first, "OMG" moment of the hearing to me, aside from in Comey's opening statement directly telling the American people that the President lied to them. Here, you have a former FBI director and highly, highly respected CAREER government official saying that he didn't think highly enough of the President Elect of the United States' character to have confidence that he would accurately recount the nature of their meeting. That is striking.

BURR (as part of his opening statement): Our experienced staff is interviewing all relevant parties and some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. We will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the American people to make their own judgment.  

This was immediately apparent to me, but I thought that maybe some people not well-versed in Washington speak might not have caught it. He's talking about Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) or intercepts as they're commonly referred to in the press. This is big, because that means they are potentially reviewing any phone call that any person associated with the Trump campaign ever made to Russia.

WYDEN: Let me turn to the attorney general. In your statement, you said that you and the FBI leadership team decided not to discuss the president's actions with Attorney General Sessions, even though he had not recused himself. What was it about the attorney general's interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?
COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic

Comey discussed this in further detail in the classified portion of the hearing, and naturally, it leaked immediately. The thing that he couldn't discuss in open session was Sessions' previously unreported 3rd meeting with Kislyak, as reported by CNN. So that confirms that. And that Sessions lied. Again. Taken in context with his faux-recusal, I would be surprised to see him in the AG role for much longer.

KING: In his press conference May 18th, the president responded, quote, no, no, when asked about asking you to stop the investigation into general Flynn. Is that a true statement?
COMEY: I don't believe it is.
KING: In regard to him being personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way?
COMEY: I obviously can't comment either way. I talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was head of the FBI. It is Bob Mueller's responsibility now. I don't know.

This was big for 2 reasons:

1. This was one of the most direct accusations by Comey that Trump knowingly obstructed justice, and subsequently lied about it. In his written statement and his testimony, Comey laid out a very compelling argument for obstruction of justice.
2. This is Washington-speak for, "he might not have been under investigation then, but he absolutely is now."

I have more hearing quotes that I would like to touch on, but I will save those for another post. There's a point that I really feel is obvious that most people (especially the MSM) aren't making at the moment:

It is now apparent that this White House's credibility crisis is about to be on full display as Trump seems to be prepping for an integrity battle with James Comey. What could ever go wrong? If there is nothing to the whole Russia thing, why has every prominent person that's been investigating it been fired by this President?

1. Preet Bharara
2. Sally Yates
3. James Comey

Why the mob-boss-esque meeting with Comey in the Oval Office after he already knew Comey wanted to stay on? The thing that I find most entertaining about all of this, is once again, this is a disaster all of Trump's own making. Comey was fully prepared to go quietly and accept his termination, until Trump defamed him and the FBI / suggested their were tapes. Turns out, you can't bluff a master.

Speaking of bluffing a master, I feel like Trump is playing directly into Comey's hand if he indeed files a complaint in regards to the "leaks" that aren't actually leaks. Comey knows that he was well within his legal authority to pass out HIS notes on a subject that Trump has spoken, written and tweeted about on several occasions. For the exact reason that Trump was unable to assert executive privilege over Comey's testimony, he has no authority to do it with the memos. It's worth pointing out that if Trump and his attorney DO file that complaint, they are all but validating the content of the memos. If it is all false information, what, exactly did you want to assert privilege over, Mr. President? Finally, if it comes back to a literal back and forth between Comey and POTUS (as seems likely after that wild press conference where Trump said he would be willing to give his side of the story under oath) do you really want the former director of the FBI, who has already pointedly called you a liar to the American people, giving a no-holds barred testimony against you? Your move, rookie.

Side note: Mueller added Michael Dreeben to the Russia probe today. This is HUGE. Dreeben is deputy Solicitor General, a hard hitting criminal law expert. It sounds like Mueller wants some extra advice on complex criminal law matters.. obstruction of justice, anyone?