Understanding the Comey-Trump relationship, by Jourdan.
To me the key of understanding this so typical Beltway “scandal” is to look at the readily available primary evidence; in this case, that means the President’s dismissal letter to Comey. Remember the passage in that letter that got the usual suspects riled up?
“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.”
Now we know from Comey’s submitted, written testimony exactly why the President used this odd phrasing.
The President was briefed by the FBI director when he was President-Elect about certain ugly charges circulating around about his time in Russia as a private citizen and was informed directly that the FBI knew there was no truth to them nor that there was any Trump “Russia link” being investigated.
Once President, as the lying press continued to go crazy with this fake story, he asked Comey again — now as his boss — to dispel the cloud that was hanging over his ability to do his job as a result of this typical bullshit Beltway media frenzy, and Comey refused, citing, as has been expertly noted here, a lame excuse. An exasperated Trump then told Comey he expected loyalty, i.e. to actually help his boss rather than blow smoke up his ass. Comey did nothing and allowed the press speculation to rise to an even more unbelievable level of frenzy.
The President then did this a third time, with the same result.
So, Trump fired him, and when he fired him he told Comey, and the American public, why: Because Comey had told him directly three times that there was no such investigation but had failed to tell the American public, Congress or the press this.