James Comey Lays Out the Case That President Trump Obstructed Justice

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/44015-focus-james-comey-lays-out-the-case-that-president-trump-obstructed-justice

By Matt Zapotosky, The Washington Post
08 June 17


Former FBI director James Comey was asked repeatedly during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday whether Donald Trump was personally under investigation in the Russian election interference matter and whether Comey told Trump that he was not.

In fact Comey testified that he did inform Trump that he was not personally under investigation. That was however a highly technical answer. In reality the FBI investigation and now the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, are looking into the interactions by Russian intelligence functionaries, the Trump Campaign, and later the Trump presidential administration.

The distinction is that while Donald Trump as presidential candidate and later as president may not personally be under investigation, his actions would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other member of his campaign or administration. The two organizations are under investigation and the conduct of Donald Trump as the principal of the organization in each case is as much at issue as any of his underlings. - MA/RSN


..............

"Former FBI director James B. Comey on Thursday essentially laid out an obstruction of justice case against President Trump and suggested senior leaders in the bureau might have actually contemplated the matter before Trump removed him as director.

Comey did not explicitly draw any legal conclusions. Whether justice was obstructed, he said, was a question for recently appointed special counsel Robert Mueller. But he said Trump’s request to terminate the FBI’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn left him “stunned,” and senior FBI officials considered it to be of “investigative interest.”

Of particular concern, Comey said, was that Trump asked other officials to leave him alone with his FBI director in the Oval Office before saying of Flynn: “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

“Why did he kick everybody out of the Oval Office?” Comey said. “That, to me as an investigator, is a very significant fact.”..."

(2 short videos...excerpts from Comey testimony & what is obstruction?)

etc.

****************

It is my opinion that this a routine pedestrian case of obstruction of Justice. He better have tapes which can impeach the FBI director, or by his own admissions he is in trouble. I think it is more probable than not he will be indicted. He can be indicted despite being president, but said bill of indictment from a grand jury will simply be announced and tolled until he leaves office. It will be up to the politicians to impeach him, or wait until he is no longer President to file the indictment and prosecute. If it goes to a Jury, Trump will insist on testifying despite his lawyers telling him not to take the stand. He will be destroyed on cross. I think he would try to pardon himself, and the Supreme Court would address the issue before he leaves office, and there is a high probability that the next President would Pardon him.

Team Trump's current scandal benchmark: Nothing happened today to cause the President's immediate arrest, so we're vindicated and #WINNING!!  @20committee

FBI found evidence that the president's National Security Advisor was compromised.

He cleared the room & asked the FBI to make it go away.

Donald Trump fears no consequences because THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES from the Republican Party. He owns them and he knows it.

Wait, is this like 100% willing to testify or like 100% willing to release your tax returns if you're nominated? Stonekettel

@realDonaldTrump You feel vindicated that the Former FBI director called you a liar and an untrustworthy human under oath?

"The President never told me to alter or stop my investigation" -James Comey

PkrBum wrote:"The President never told me to alter or stop my investigation" -James Comey

And then fired him for not doing what he HOPED he would do and then went on TV and couldn't shut his holster. LOL
Keep talking in tweeting trump!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-history-precedent-and-james-comeys-opening-statement-show-that-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318


 

Friday, June 09, 2017
OPINION
Alan Dershowitz: History, precedent and James Comey's opening statement show that Trump did not obstruct justice
by Alan Dershowitz, contributor | Jun 8, 2017, 9:21 AM  Share on Twitter  Share on Facebook  Email this article  Share on LinkedIn

Five Key Quotes From Comey's Opening Statement
Washington Examiner

00:0000:00
In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself.

This is what Walsh said: "The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up."

Yet Bush was neither charged with obstruction of justice nor impeached. Nor have other presidents who interfered with ongoing investigations or prosecutions been charged with obstruction.

It is true that among the impeachment charges leveled against President Richard Nixon was one for obstructing justice, but Nixon committed the independent crime of instructing his aides to lie to the FBI, which is a violation of section 1001 of the federal criminal code.

It is against the background of this history and precedent that former FBI Director James Comey's opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee must be considered.

Comey himself acknowledged that: "throughout history, some presidents have decided that because ‘problems' come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work." Comey has also acknowledged that the president had the constitutional authority to fire him for any or no cause.

President Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of former national security adviser Mike Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as Bush pardoned Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-Contra investigation. What Trump could not do is what Nixon did: direct his aides to lie to the FBI, or commit other independent crimes. There is no evidence that Trump did that.

With these factors in mind, let's turn to the Comey statement.

Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on Feb. 14 between the president and then-Director Comey. According to Comey's contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that retired Gen. Flynn "is a good guy."

Comey replied, "He is a good guy."

The president said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this thing go."

Comey understood that to be a reference only to the Flynn investigation and not "the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to the campaign." Comey had already told the president that "we were not investigating him personally."

Comey 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."

Comey did not say he would "let this go," and indeed he did not grant the president's request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor. He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that "throughout history, some presidents have decided that because ‘problems' come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close."

That is an understatement.

Throughout United States history — from Presidents Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama — presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge. It would be far better if our constitution provided for prosecutors who were not part of the executive branch, which is under the direction of the president.

In Great Britain, Israel and other democracies that respect the rule of law, the director of public prosecution or the attorney general are law enforcement officials who, by law, are independent of the prime minister.

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the president on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to Comey: "You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time.

Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, his secretary of defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason, Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason Trump fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

If that is true, it is certainly not an obstruction of justice.

Nor is it an obstruction of justice to ask for loyalty from the director of the FBI, who responded "you will get that [‘honest loyalty'] from me."

Comey understood that he and Trump may have understood that vague phrase "honest loyalty" differently. But no reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous words would give rise to a crime. Many Trump opponents were hoping that the Comey statement would provide smoking guns.

It has not.

Instead it has weakened an already weak case for obstruction of justice.

The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch Comey's words and take Trump's out of context, and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguard in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements.

The first casualty of partisan efforts to "get" a political opponent — whether Republicans going after Clinton or Democrats going after Trump — is often civil liberties. Everyone who cares about the Constitution and civil liberties must join together to protest efforts to expand existing criminal law to get political opponents.

Today it's Trump. Yesterday it was Clinton. Tomorrow it could be you.

Sorry, this is not a weak case. Alan has been a shill for Israel for the last twenty years, and his courtroom and appeal work has all but stopped. Trump means to give more to Israel, so of course he would dismiss this because in his old age defending Israel has become his first priority. If he thinks it is so weak, defend trump when they indict. With him defending, it would be a lay down for the prosecution. Sorry comparing this to Hilary Clinton is just silly. This man has admitted his crime. This story is elementary. He will be indicted by a grand jury. Does anybody really think there is a person in America who actually believes anything President Trump says. Come on.....a grand jury is spoon fed to get exactly what the prosecutors want.

Silly wabbit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.amp.html

WASHINGTON — The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime.

The Supreme Court has never answered that question, either. It heard arguments on the issue in 1974 in a case in which it ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over tape recordings, but it did not resolve it.

Reports that President Trump asked James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to shut down an investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, prompted accusations that the president may have obstructed justice. Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director who has been appointed special counsel to look into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, will presumably investigate the matter.

But would the Constitution allow Mr. Mueller to indict Mr. Trump if he finds evidence of criminal conduct?

The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.

“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale.

Note the word “implicitly.” Professor Amar acknowledged that the text of the Constitution did not directly answer the question. “It has to be,” he said, “a structural inference about the uniqueness of the president himself.”

The closest the Constitution comes to addressing the issue is in this passage, from Article I, Section 3: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

This much seems clear: The president and other federal officials may be prosecuted after they leave office, and there is no double jeopardy protection from prosecution if they are removed following impeachment.

However, “whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting president is debatable,” Brett M. Kavanaugh, who served on the staff of Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 1998 law review article. Mr. Kavanaugh, who is now a federal appeals court judge, also concluded that impeachment, not prosecution, was the right way to address a sitting president’s crimes.

The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.

They are neither experts or knowledgeable about how this is going to go down. Mueller has a prima facia case. He will present the same to a grand jury, they will of course vote for indictment, and Mueller will announce the same. He will toll the filing of the grand jury indictment until after the President is impeached, or leaves office. I just chuckle at the so called experts who also said Hillary broke the law. Talking heads who never really understood a legal issue which have specific case citations and statute will give an opinion which is simply wrong, and the next time they are on TV they switch their opinion after they learn what they are clueless about.

No the 5 key quotes are...
He lied
He lies
He lied
He lies
He lies

2seaoat wrote:The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.

They are neither experts or knowledgeable about how this is going to go down.  Mueller has a prima facia case.  He will present the same to a grand jury, they will of course vote for indictment, and Mueller will announce the same.  He will toll the filing of the grand jury indictment until after the President is impeached, or leaves office.  I just chuckle at the so called experts who also said Hillary broke the law.  Talking heads who never really understood a legal issue which have specific case citations and statute will give an opinion which is simply wrong, and the next time they are on TV they switch their opinion after they learn what they are clueless about.

However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seemed to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.

A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”

However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.

Then there is the question of corruptly influencing what? There is no indication of a grand jury proceeding at the time of the Valentine’s Day meeting between Trump and Comey. Obstruction cases generally are built around judicial proceedings — not Oval Office meetings.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/05/19/politics-by-another-means-calls-for-the-indictment-or-impeachment-of-donald-trump-are-transparent-and-premature/

Or is Jonathan Turley a hoary no-nothing shill for Israel as well?

All of this begs the question of Double Jeopardy. The President cannot be both impeached and indicted. If the Republicans see an indictment coming, all they have to do is start impeachment proceedings.

This, of course, would result in the down-the-rabbit-hole situation of the Republicans arguing FOR impeachment and the Democrats AGAINST. For YEARS!

Terrific TV but no indictment.

Trump is going to serve out his term, the media is going to get rich by upping the cost of ads and America will survive.

This is, of course, the best possible outcome for progressives.  A neutered Trump remaining in office with Republicans unable to pass any legislation is the best of ALL worlds.

del.capslock wrote:This is, of course, the best possible outcome for progressives.  A neutered Trump remaining in office with Republicans unable to pass any legislation is the best of ALL worlds.

That was the goal all along... of course. Anything would've triggered the same response.

Let me tell you how this is going to go down. The admission that the removal of the FBI director was to hinder the Russian investigation is prima facia, but to win over a jury they will need Trump's tax returns. They will 100% be part of the discovery and a subpoena will issue. Now, will the public know about the same. Probably not if Trump is smart. His legal team will object on the request, and the judge will rule in favor of Mueller. If those tax returns disclose any business or bank connections with Russians, and if there have been intercepts which tie those together, then President Trump will resign.....only after he has pardoned himself.

The grand jury without any connection to Russia will find obstruction, but the question will not be impeachment, it will be treason if Mueller ties the smoke to the fire.

I'm a little confused by comey's notes. As the fbi director related to his responsibilities wouldn't the notes be govt property? And given that it's a private conversation with the president wouldn't there be some inherent privilege or protection or classification? Is this just going to slide away like the Lerner and Clapper and holder bs? The govt holding itself accountable is a fucking scam.

Nah, I think Flynn holds the key. If they get Flynn he will flip on Trump, if he gets immunity and which will prove the obstruction charge. They are not releasing what other evidence they have on Trumps associates. Comey knows Trump is dirty which is why he wanted the special prosecutor.

Flynn will never get immunity. It is not an incentive. Trump will pardon him and the prosecutors know the same.

The investigators need to see Trump's financial records, which I believe have been subpoenaed. I'm getting tired of waiting for the hammer to fall, although I know it will. It would have been so much simpler if this had been out in the open before the election.

If there was a there there... we'd know.

Everything was leaked except for the fact that trump wasn't under investigation. Odd huh?

PkrBum wrote:Everything was leaked except for the fact that trump wasn't under investigation.  Odd huh?

Nothing odd about it whatsoever, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist.  No one made a big deal about that for the very simple reason, obvious to anyone with half a brain, that the investigation hadn't yet officially arrived at the top tier, having theretofore been concentrating on the lower tier targets of Trump's associates, whose activities were already known but who needed further development as subjects and links before the finger finally pointed to the top.

COMMON SENSE.

2seaoat wrote:Flynn will never get immunity.  It is not an incentive.  Trump will pardon him and the prosecutors know the same.

What a dumb comment. Why, then, hasn't Trump pardoned Flynn already? That would moot any investigation of him.

Because Trump knows that if he pardons Flynn, the political cost would be so great that he would likely be impeached in the House AND convicted in the Senate--and the prosecutors know it as well.

If Trump pardoned Flynn, the Republicans in the House would scurry for safety, like the vermin they are. The polls in Georgia already indicate this, and Handel--as well as every other Republican representative--knows it:

ATLANTA — Vice President Mike Pence landed Air Force Two in the middle of Georgia’s hotly contested House special election Friday, looking to give Republican Karen Handel a boost just 11 days before the vote.

But Handel did not appear at a rally with Pence, as she did last month with House Speaker Paul Ryan, instead opting for a carefully managed fundraiser with select media in attendance for the vice president’s visit. It’s the latest step in a delicate, months-long dance between Handel and President Donald Trump, who is not well-liked in Georgia’s 6th District, a traditional Republican stronghold.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/09/georgia-special-election-trump-239372

Flynn is the hinge upon which the Great Door of Justice swings.

2seaoat wrote:Flynn will never get immunity.  It is not an incentive.  Trump will pardon him and the prosecutors know the same.

If that were the case Flynn would never had to ask for immunity...but he did. Trump tried to stop the investigation before Flynn opened his mouth. If there was nothing to Flynn's Russia contacts he would have went before the intel committee but he won't w/o immunity.

del.capslock wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Flynn will never get immunity.  It is not an incentive.  Trump will pardon him and the prosecutors know the same.

What a dumb comment. Why, then, hasn't Trump pardoned Flynn already? That would moot any investigation of him.

Because Trump knows that if he pardons Flynn, the political cost would be so great that he would likely be impeached in the House AND convicted in the Senate--and the prosecutors know it as well.

If Trump pardoned Flynn, the Republicans in the House would scurry for safety, like the vermin they are. The polls in Georgia already indicate this, and Handel--as well as every other Republican representative--knows it:

ATLANTA — Vice President Mike Pence landed Air Force Two in the middle of Georgia’s hotly contested House special election Friday, looking to give Republican Karen Handel a boost just 11 days before the vote.

But Handel did not appear at a rally with Pence, as she did last month with House Speaker Paul Ryan, instead opting for a carefully managed fundraiser with select media in attendance for the vice president’s visit. It’s the latest step in a delicate, months-long dance between Handel and President Donald Trump, who is not well-liked in Georgia’s 6th District, a traditional Republican stronghold.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/09/georgia-special-election-trump-239372

Flynn is the hinge upon which the Great Door of Justice swings.

Impeached and convicted of what... exactly? Reference the evidence too.

That'd be great... thaaanks.

The Justice department is not going to give immunity when they have a locked down conviction of Flynn for lying. So why would they give immunity for a political hearing in the senate which has NOTHING to do with the criminal charges? Now in regard to the timing of a pardon, it is usually given after a conviction. Nixon was the exception, and not the rule. So the reason President Trump would not waste any capital on a pardon now, is that contrary to the logic which has been used here, once pardoned General Flynn could sing like a canary, and once pardoned President Trump will get political backlash. The Justice department knows and understands the variables. There will never be an offer of immunity for testimony at a political hearing. President Trump will only offer the use of a pardon if he is convicted and threatens to talk, but those advisors understand that once pardoned or convicted he could sing.

Where you might get a deal is post conviction, and only if he cooperates with investigators, and certainly not at a political hearing in the senate. Sentencing guidelines might allow him to avoid prison time, and allow him to write a book and make millions. The AG if they were not puppets would take the deal.

PkrBum wrote:If there was a there there... we'd know.

Everything was leaked except for the fact that trump wasn't under investigation.  Odd huh?

Timeline: What we know about Trump’s campaign, Russia and the investigation of the two

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/30/timeline-what-we-know-about-trumps-campaign-russia-and-the-investigation-of-the-two/?utm_term=.e098103e2038