How far down the ‘obstruction’ rabbit hole will these idiots go?

Those aflutter over the weekend Trump tweet that he fired Flynn “because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI” are trying to make the obstruction case that, if Trump asked Comey to not prosecute Flynn (knowing he’d lied to the FBI) that’s the smoking gun.

Seriously?

According to a report, the President spoke about this with Comey on January 24th27th, the same day Flynn was testifying to the FBI. But Andy McCarthy notes acting attorney general Yates declined to tell White House counsel how that interview with Flynn went.

(Correction: one report said the 24th, but other reports show the 27th. We had linked to the properly dated reports, but based the incorrect segments of this blog on an incorrect report. We apologize for the confusion.)

And she’s on record – she testified to that during a Senate subcommittee meeting.

So, if President Trump spoke to Comey the same day Flynn was testifying to the FBI, he couldn’t have known Flynn lied to the FBI during that interview. (Correction: the Flynn-FBI interview was held Jan 24th – we apologize for the error)

Now, top that off with Comey admitting during congressional testimony that 1) he didn’t feel pressured, and 2) the Wall St Journal and CNN reports “FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers” during the interview.” 

Not exactly ‘obstruction’ stuff, people.

What’s most amazing here is how far Democrats and their Left-wing media masters will go down a rabbit hole, trying to make something out of nothing against Republicans…

…yet fail to get even a tad worked up over a proven liar to the FBI and Congress when it comes to Hillary. Impeachment’s in order – but the only provable obstruction to date…

…is none other than a Democrat crime.

(Updated, with corrections)

Leave a Reply