After review by multiple top FBI officials, Trump’s conversation with Comey was declared permissible and not obstruction. That’s a headline you won’t see, but it is, in essence, the thrust of the NYT article. In a potentially shattering revelation, the Times reports that Comey kept memos of his conversations with various government officials and specifically one relating to a conversation with Trump about Michael Flynn. A close inspection of the article shows serious flaws that can’t be ignored in such a potential bombshell. It looks to be a thoroughly rushed, editorialized and self-contradicting article, but that doesn’t mean the story is completely false.

It begins early with editorialized assertions that it contradicts shortly thereafter. The article claims ‘the documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.’ This stands in contrast to the acting FBI director’s testimony from last week when he declared there was no influence in the investigation. Hoping to counter this defense, the writers offer their interpretation of events, claiming, ‘Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.’ Wait… So is the Flynn investigation separate from Russia or not? The Times wants to have it both ways. It tries to play up the possibility of obstruction, but in doing so it contradicts sworn testimony by the current FBI director and possibly the former.

There are other concerns with source of the ‘memo,’ which the Times is surprisingly forthcoming on. The Times reported that they never saw the memo themselves, but that it was read to them over the phone by an associate of Comey. This alone casts doubts because the full context of the memo is not revealed and it is likely a slanted interpretation. However, even accepting the readout as completely accurate, the story told shouldn’t lead to shouts of impropriety. It is revealed that, ‘Mr. Comey shared it with senior F.B.I. officials.’ If there was any indication that something wrong was done, it would mean these senior officials are implicated in covering up a crime committed by the President. Instead, after review, they decided that silence on the memo ‘would not affect the investigation.’ The Times tries to play this off with further editorializing, but the damage is done. Multiple senior FBI officials reviewed the memo and saw the behavior as legal. Otherwise, silence on the memo would dramatically affect the investigation.

This article was not intended to reveal wrongdoing by the President, it was intended to damage him politically. There are reports of multiple memos kept and it now seems they will soon become public record. It is doubtful that Comey recorded evidence of wrongdoing because it risks implicating himself. Instead these will likely be carefully crafted statements that give one sided accounts with the intent of undermining the subjects. President Trump did not handle the firing of the FBI director well and it is coming back to haunt him. The Comey Memos look to be a Wikileaks style release of selectively chosen conversations intended to damage the President.