re: Conservative Think Tank: Trump ‘Obstructed Justice’ When He Fired Comey

This is one of those straws y'all keep grasping for. If you read the first few paragraphs, then it says that it would only be obstruction if the motive for firing Comey were to hinder the Russia investigation.

1. It's not
2. Good luck proving it even if it was
3. Desperate is not a good color on you.

quote:

---

You mean other than any investigation doesn't stop just bc Comey is no longer there? Hmmmmmmm, well?

---

From the report:

Efforts to stop an investigation fall squarely within the plain meaning of Sections 1503, 1505, and 1512(c)(2). To endeavor to “stop” something certainly fits within efforts to “influence,” “obstruct,” or “impede” it. In U.S. v. Mitchell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Section 1505 conviction of two brothers who accepted a payment of $50,000 to convince their uncle – a congressman – to stop a congressional investigation into a company’s eligibility for a government program designed to help “small minority businesses” by promising the company’s CEO that they would “get rid of the problem.”191 Similarly, in U.S. v. Lustyik, a defendant was found guilty of obstructing justice under Sections 1503 and 1505 where he “used his status as an FBI agent” to try to stop a government investigation into his friend and business partner, Michael Taylor, by, among other things, “attempting to establish Taylor as a confidential source [and] contact[ing] multiple individuals connected with the [] investigation to dissuade them from indicting Taylor.”1

quote:

---

After reading this, I'm convinced that Trump would be indicted if he weren't currently POTUS.

---

He is POTUS and a POTUS cannot obstruct justice since he has absolute pardon power.

I would consider Brookings mainstream left-leaning, but there are a number of sources one can peruse to research possible violations that could have arisen from the Trump campaign coordinating activities with foreign actors and/or attempting to obscure that relationship. I posted some things I'd read to BBonds based upon some work done by legal experts that went something like this. Firs, we can generally dispense with the accusations of "illegal collusion" since that's not really covered in federal law except insofar as it applies to anti-trust laws. But the list of potential violations is long. Starting with obstruction from the singular incident of firing Comey, you can add the fact that receiving things of value from a foreign power in furtherance of one's candidacy is a crime. Coordinating the use or misuse of illegally obtained information (be it derived from hacking or other means of theft) may constitute computer crimes. Knowingly making false statements to investigators, on security forms, and to congressional committees are crimes. Mail and wire fraud are crimes. Conspiracy to effect a coverup of crimes is a crime. We don't know what exactly Mueller's looking most closely at (aside from the financials of a couple of advisors) but he probably has a lot to work with.

quote:

---

He is POTUS and a POTUS cannot obstruct justice since he has absolute pardon power.

---

quote:

---

The white paper’s conclusions hinge upon President Trump’s motivation for Comey’s dismissal.

---

1. The hinge is pretty creaky considering it's primary subject already gave the entire nation a dissertation about the precarious nature of 'intent' (nee, "motivation").
2. 'White' paper is racist.

Whole thing is horse shite...

Looks like you didn't read my post slowly and clearly.

quote:

---

It's been disputed for 5 months by every legal/constitutional organization. You find one article so it's overwhelming truth and undeniable fact?

---

My logic is incredible. Why didn't you post all of the articles saying he didn't obstruct justice in any way?

quote:

---

He says they do. I say they don't.

Guess what we both have in common? Our opinions don't mean shite.

---

Hear hear. We're spectators. May as well see how it plays out.

quote:

---

He says they do. I say they don't.

Guess what we both have in common? Our opinions don't mean shite.

---

Guess what, their opinion is laid out with 118 pgs of relevant facts and precedent case law, so until I see your facts, I'm leaning towards brookings.