@Battle of Blair Mountain

…in the January 27th memo is more to the point:

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative.

Here and throughout Comey's memo of the conversation, Comey states that the FBI is not investigating the President.

When a critical thinker combines that with the Comey's statement I quoted in my comment, above:

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls.

…a critical thinker concludes that the President is referring only to continuing an arduous personal investigation into Flynn — in light of the fact that Flynn is no longer affiliated with the White House. I am indifferent to Flynn being pointlessly pecked to death by the robotic ducks at the FBI, but the President might feel otherwise. An experienced analyst knows there is nothing important to national security that will come from pursuing Flynn. Flynn knew that all his activities and conversation would be recorded after he left the highest levels of US intelligence. A critical thinker knows that the slow process of FBI's legal torture of Flynn will yield only the destruction of Flynn's life and his pursuit of happiness — while providing prurient pleasure to the Deep State.

A critical thinker can also recall that the Donald Trump is not under investigation by the FBI, so the President can only have been referring to Flynn. Both of these facts were confirmed by Comey today — repeatedly.

So, why do fifty percent of Americans think the President is being investigated by the FBI?

Can they really be that ignorant? Or are the ones who aren't ignorant just ugly inside?

Unless the US regains its intellectual honesty, it is doomed to topple over the precipice it is now standing on.

first met then- President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

@snoopydawg
a massive distraction, a dog and pony show intended to keep the hoi polloi entertained while more substantial matters get attended to. There are lots of msm flashing lights and sirens, but nothing of great import will result from any of it.

The basic fact of the matter is that Russia does not and cannot pose any substantial threat to the USA, or to its already questionable electoral dynamics. Russia has very little influence on America's political system, regardless of whatever hacking attempts may or may not have been made, or condoned. It wouldn't surprise me at all, if some Russian hacking might have occurred, but in a larger frame of reference, the effects of this could only have been minimal. Russian culpability for Trump's election is obviously being blown way up out of proportion, and the various motives for doing this have very little to do with Russia itself.

On the other hand, where Russia has had a substantial impact on American political thinking, is via its RT news network. This State-sponsored channel has consistently provided a high-quality counter-narrative to that of the US media giants -- one that is often better-researched, more objective, and more thorough in its news coverage than that of its American counterparts.

In addition to RT, there is also Sputnik news, PRESSTV from Iran, AlJazeera from Qatar, and several other news aggregators that have achieved visibility in an increasingly competitive International News marketplace. I think this trend will continue to pose a challenge to America's unipolar, US-centric version of global affairs.

This looks like a "he said, he said" case.
Comey told Trump that he wasn't under investigation for ties to Russia and I believe that is true. As others have mentioned, this activity happened with other incoming administrations. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Trump does have a cloud hanging over his presidency and since no one has shown us any proof, I believe him. That could change if there is definite proof of Russian interference.

The other thing I have noticed myself thinking, is how do I know what anyone says is the truth anymore? We have been being hit with all kinds of information-disinformation during the entire election. Look at the mess with the DNC, Hillary's shenanigans, the murders of prominent people and the biggest distraction coming from Trump's TwitterTweets.
And meanwhile while we are distracted, the republicans are trying to pass their heinous legislation, the number of civilians being killed by our military has gone up, ect. And no one in the mainstream media is covering it. The only thing the democrats are working on is the Russian thing. No policy changes to get people to come back to the party.
That goes for the attacks in Iran this morning. They were too convenient to happen this fast after the Saudi/Qatar mashup. That type of attack would have to have been planned months in advance, right? Wouldn't the Iranian government buildings been more secure so that gunmen wouldn't be able to waltz in and start shooting people? Our government's buildings are.
My first thought when I read the headline was gjohnsit's essay from last night.
Wowzer, that happened fast.

@dkmich somewhat complicit in the whole torture thing too, helping Bush and Cheney hide their crimes. Disgusting, all of them.

The blatant disregard they have for truth and justice drowns out every word they say. Obama protecting the bankers. Bush/Cheney lying us into war. Comey refusing to indict Hillary because she had 'no intent" to break the law when intent was not required.

It is my opinion they will say whatever they want and do whatever they please. Who is going to stop them?