Does what Trump said in Firing Comey amount to a Confession?

What Trump said in letting James Comey go strikes me. If you are to confess not only that you discussed whether you are under investigation, but if what you say lends credence to the thought you tried to persuade Comey not to investigate you . . .
  You just don't use your power to get out from underneath an investigation. It is not only highly inappropriate and unethical, but a crime, obstruction of justice.
   So, when I opened Time magazine and read the words of Trump's message to Comey, in letting him go . . .
   I wondered how close they come to being  a confession. Read them, and decide if you agree or if you do not feel they are a veiled acknowledgement that he tried to persuade Comey not to investigate him.
   "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."
   If Comey investigating him has nothing to do with Trump firing him, the words have no business in the message notifying Comey that he is fired.

Don't Center Just on things that Lead to Impeachment

Sometimes, the problem with investigations is that they look only for crimes. It would be nice if the investigations into Russia's meddling in our election went beyond that. I would like to know what the Russians did, regardless whether a crime was committed. It was said that they used propaganda and disinformation to influence our election. That doesn't sound like a crime, but I would still like to know what stories they planted.
   Same with the Donald Trump collusion angle. I hope the investigation doesn't just seek to find criminal offenses. I don't know that any crime was committed if Trump did get the Russians' help in being elected, but I would still like to know what happened.
   I am not saying don't pursue criminal matters. If Trump tried to influence whether he was being investigated, that sounds criminal (to me), but it is something that arose as a sidebar to the original investigation of Russia influencing our election. I just don't want what was originally being pursued to be swept aside in favor of these later developments.
   Nor do I want these later developments to focus solely on criminal matters. What has transpired, has transpired. I want to know. I think we, as a nation, deserve to know.
   Impeach Trump? If he has committed a crime worthy of impeachment. But, I hope that isn't the drive behind the investigation. Instead of just focusing on those things that could push for impeachment, speak to all that has gone on.

Cyber Crime is becoming One of Our Biggest Problems

    Two of the biggest stories of the past week involved harms committed in cyber space. There was the WannaCry story, of course. But, don't forget that the investigation of Russia's meddling in our election involved acts committed online. So, perhaps reflecting on the fact that two of our biggest news stories involved cyber harms will prompt us to realize harmful cyber activity has blossomed into one of our nation's biggest problems. Cyber crime has earned a spot right next to the national debt, pollution, terrorism, etc.
  Do we even have an investigative agency for cyber crime? It is tucked into the FBI, I realize, but I wonder how many agents there are and how advanced they are in the art of tracking down cyber criminals. And, shouldn't we have a whole new string of laws? We should identify each harm being committed by cyber players and make a law against it. Phishing, for example, should be against the law. Is it? I doubt it. And, is it against the law to send an email that spreads a virus? I wonder. It seems surely we have at least created a law against that, or have we? I do not hear any news of what charges the WannaCry criminals will face if they are caught, so I wonder.

Who is Chasing Down the WannaCry Criminals?

   I've not followed the WannaCry ransomware story as close as I should. But, from what I have heard, I am left wondering what charges the cybercriminals are guilty of in the various countries, and whether we expect to be able to apprehend them.

   Although the damage is largely overseas, I believe some has been done in the U.S. and they remain a threat to the U.S. Who is chasing them down? The FBI? What investigative agency is after them? Because I tend to think we need an agency in place, or a branch of an existing agency, that specializes in cybercrime.

   And, what laws are they guilty of breaking? For I wonder if we need new laws, specific to cybercrimes.

Is Mueller taking over the Existing Investigation?

   My initial reaction to news that the Justice Department has named Robert Mueller as special counsel to an investigation of the Russia-Trump thing? Well I was a little lost as to the need for a special counsel. Isn't the Intel Community already on this? Aren't these our nation's highest professionals, when it comes to investigators, already digging into what has happened?
   Do we not trust the investigation already underway? Do we not think it adequate? Do we suppose it is not going to get to the bottom of things, and therefore we need to bring in someone else?
   But, on first hearing of Mueller's appointment, I think I misunderstood what he will do. After reading a news story, I don't believe he will be opening a new investigation, one independent of the one the FBI is already conducting. Instead, I believe, he will be set over the current investigation as its head. That is a good thing, for it will steer the investigation a little out of the reach of Trump's new FBI director. Having Trump name who he chooses to head the investigation of himself is not a good idea.

Now is not the Time to be Appointing a Friend as FBI Director

  If Donald Trump wants to steer clear of charges of obstructing an investigation -- and actually it is too late to do that, but he might want to steer clear of additional charges -- he should appoint Andrew McCabe as the new director of the FBI.
   Andrew McCabe, or someone else already serving in the U.S. Intelligence Community who is working on the election meddling thing.
   Here is the thing: You (meaning Trump, of course) are already in hot water for firing James Comey, with some of us wondering if it was an attempt to influence the investigation. Now, if you do want to influence the investigation, you should choose someone who will be friendly to you.
   I said, if you want to influence the investigation. Hopefully, you don't. If, on the other hand, you want to follow the laws warning against influencing an investigation -- we call it obstruction of justice -- then you better not so much as appoint a friend. Not at this point. At this point, that, too, could be seen as an attempt to influence whether the investigation investigates you.
   Indeed, that might truthfully be what Trump is trying to do. He might be looking for someone who will be less inclined to dig into whether he was complicit with Russia.
   I will tell you this: investigators should have -- and perhaps have -- obtained court warrants to eavesdrop on the president and anyone in the White House who might interview potential FBI directors. If the conversations suggest the White House is looking for someone who will be friendly to Trump in the investigation of Russian meddling . . .
   Then that is a definite violation of our laws against impeding an investigation.  

Obstruction of Justice?

   There's a world of you who believe Trump clean on the Russian thing, and clean on the firing of James Comey. Bless, you. Each of us has our own opinion. Yours is fine.
   Mine does differ. As what has transpired has sunk in on me, I have come to believe he might be guilty of obstruction of justice. He says Comey told him three times he was not under investigation.
    And, he now denies he did, but reports say he asked for Comey's loyalty. Asking for loyalty when you are wondering if you are under investigation is asking for the investigation to steer away from you or to find nothing amiss with you and the Russians.
   Why is that not obstruction of justice? To me, it clearly and plainly is. You, as the boss, approach the person conducting the investigation, asking if you are under investigation, and saying, "Come on, now, be loyal to me," and that is not to be taken as an effort to turn the investigation away from you?
 I suppose many will say it is not, and I suppose each of us has an opinion. My opinion is that it is a definite attempt to turn the investigation away from him.
  If there are tapes of the conversations between Comey and Trump, they should be subpoenaed. If he asked for loyalty, it is obstruction of justice.
   Firing Comey, in and of itself, might be an effort to influence the investigation. If you can fire the person who might be investigating you, and replace him with someone else, you might be able to influence the direction of the investigation. Only two FBI directors in history have been fired. When it is one of only two firings, and there exists the possibility you were under investigation, of course we are going to wonder if you fired the director because you are under investigation.
    Once you have confessed that you wonder if you are under investigation, you better not fire the director of the investigation, because it clearly does point to you trying to steer the investigation.